Exponential Equations: Solving 2(5^{x+1})=1+\frac{3}{5^{x}}

  • Thread starter matadorqk
  • Start date
In summary, Genneth provided a summary of the content. She attempted to solve the homework equation 2(5^{x+1})=1+\frac{3}{5^{x}} but got stuck. She suggests using the log-base-change formula to solve the equation.
  • #36
rocophysics said:
lol, i haven't done this type of problem in nearly 5 months ... i would definitely butcher this problem!

Lol..im missing this sum problem, another sum problem, the inverse problem, and one that hopefully you have done recently haha.

Let [tex]y=log_{3} z[/tex] where z is a function of x. The diagram shows the straight line L, which represents the graph of y against x.
(a) Using the graph or otherwise, estimate the value of x when z=9
(b) The line L passes through point (1,[tex]\log_{3}\frac{5}{9}.[/tex] Its gradient is 2. Find an expression for z in terms of x.

? Yeah, I have no idea. The graph you are provided goes from about (0.7, -2) to about 5.3, 6.7.. I think you won't need the graph hopefully, but any idea on how to even remotely solve this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
matadorqk said:
Well, I'll ask about the teacher how to make the inverse, I am going to move on to this:

Find [tex]\sum{ln(2^{r})}[/tex] <-- (where i=1 goes on the bottom of the sum, and 50 on the top.), giving the answer in the form of [tex]a \ln (2)[/tex] where a has to be a set of rational numbers.

First off, let's solve for [tex]a_{1}[/tex]

[tex]\ln(2^{1})=a_{1}[/tex]

Wait, its not given wether its geometric or arithmetic... umm, am I supposed to obtain that?
Why would you have to be GIVEN whether a series is geometric or arithmetic (most are neither)? Can't you check whether the definitions are satisfied? One obvious simplification here is to use the fact that
ln(2r)= r ln(2). You series is
[tex]\sum_{i=1}^{50}r ln(2)= ln(2)\sum_{i=1}^{50} r[/itex]
That last, the sum of consectutive integers, is well known.
 
  • #38
HallsofIvy said:
Why would you have to be GIVEN whether a series is geometric or arithmetic (most are neither)? Can't you check whether the definitions are satisfied? One obvious simplification here is to use the fact that
ln(2r)= r ln(2). You series is
[tex]\sum_{i=1}^{50}r ln(2)= ln(2)\sum_{i=1}^{50} r[/itex]
That last, the sum of consectutive integers, is well known.

Right.. thanks
 
  • #39
remember arithmetic increases by a constant difference while geometric does not
 

Similar threads

Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
25
Views
3K
Back
Top