Solve Simple Logarithms: log91/27

  • Thread starter matadorqk
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Logarithms
M = xlog(a)M/xlog(a)b... but x = log(b)M ... log(b)Mlog(b)M = log(b)Mlog(a)M/log(a)b... log(b)M = log(b)Mlog(a)M/log(a)b... log(b)M = log(a)M/log(a)b... log(b)M = log(a)M/log(a)b... x = log(a)M/log(a)b... x = log(a)M/log(a)b... x = log(a)M/log(a)b = log(b)M... log(b)M
  • #36
rocophysics said:
nooo!

... I won't just copy it and not learn no worries.
A couple questions:

Is 2lnx=lnx^2 a formula or 'standard'?
Ohh wait, do you get that from the log formulas? That explains alot!
So you are using [tex]\log_{a}x^y=y\log_{a}x[/tex]

And then you use [tex]\log_{a}(\frac{x}{y})=\log_{a}x-\log_{a}y[/tex]..

So that's how you do your first two steps. Then you insert [tex]lnx^2[/tex] into the ln (x-1) in a reverse distribution. I think I got that correctly, but is that as much as I can simplify?

Would [tex]\frac{\ln(x^3-x^2)}{x-2}[/tex] be the final answer? I stared at it for a while haha, can't find a way to simplify more.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #37
matadorqk said:
... I won't just copy it and not learn no worries.
A couple questions:

Is 2lnx=lnx^2 a formula or 'standard'?
Ohh wait, do you get that from the log formulas? That explains alot!
So you are using [tex]\log_{a}x^y=y\log_{a}x[/tex]

And then you use [tex]\log_{a}(\frac{x}{y})=\log_{a}x-\log_{a}y[/tex]..

So that's how you do your first two steps. Then you insert [tex]lnx^2[/tex] into the ln (x-1) in a reverse distribution. I think I got that correctly, but is that as much as I can simplify?

Would [tex]\frac{\ln(x^3-x^2)}{x-2}[/tex] be the final answer? I stared at it for a while haha, can't find a way to simplify more.

Careful. the entire fraction should be inside the ln...
 
  • #38
learningphysics said:
Careful. the entire fraction should be inside the ln...

Right!

[tex]ln(\frac{x^3-x^2}{x-2})[/tex]
 
  • #39
matadorqk said:
Right!

[tex]ln(\frac{x^3-x^2}{x-2})[/tex]

That's the answer. I don't think you can simplify any more.
 
  • #40
Well, not to take the risk, there's one more problem I did without consulting, so I rather check with you to see if I did it correct. This one I feel a bit more confident about, let's see how that goes:
1. Homework Statement

Solve for x: [tex]\log_{3}x + \log_{3}(x-2)=1[/tex]

2. Homework Equations

#1[tex]\log_{a}x+\log_{a}y=\log_{a}xy[/tex]
#2[tex]y=\log_{b}(x)[/tex]
#3[tex]x=b^y[/tex]
3. The Attempt at a Solution

Ok so let's solve using the formula #1:

So:
[tex]\log_{3}(x)(x-2)=1[/tex]
[tex]\log_{3}(x^2-2x)=1[/tex]
To make this simpler, let's make [tex]x^2-2x=w[/tex]
[tex]log_{3}(w)=1[/tex]
So use formula #2/#3 to get:
[tex]w=3^1[/tex]

[tex]x^2-2x=3[/tex]

Now I kind of got confused on what to do. I seriously don't know why I can't algebraically solve it, by trial and error I got x=3.. but perhaps its the excessive coke or sometihng that's blocking me from algebraically solving this. Help?
 
  • #41
have you taken Chemistry II? it's heavily used for Acids/Bases and Reaction Rates, easier than this tho.
 
  • #42
rocophysics said:
have you taken Chemistry II? it's heavily used for Acids/Bases and Reaction Rates, easier than this tho.

Nope.. I only took General Chemistry a year ago (10th)..
 
  • #43
Have you learned how to solve quadratic equations?
 
  • #44
you're already at the 2nd to the last step

x^2 - 2x - 3 = 0

now solve for x
 
  • #45
learningphysics said:
Have you learned how to solve quadratic equations?

OHH OK, I think I can solve that!

X=3 or x=-1

as (x-3)(x+1)=0
 
  • #46
matadorqk said:
OHH OK, I think I can solve that!

X=3 or x=-1

as (x-3)(x+1)=0

Yes, but x=-1 is an extraneous root... so your answer is just x = 3.
 
  • #47
To clarify it's extraneous because
[tex]\log_{3}(-1) + \log_{3}((-1)-2)=1[/tex]

However we encounter a problem here since

[tex]log_{a}b = c[/tex], "b" must be >0

Clearly in this problem it's not and doesn't work.
 
  • #48
Feldoh said:
To clarify it's extraneous because
[tex]\log_{3}(-1) + \log_{3}((-1)-2)=1[/tex]
Well, no, it's not. log3(-1) and log3(-3) are undefined and have no value- their sum is NOT equal to 1, it doesn't equal anything.

However we encounter a problem here since

[tex]log_{a}b = c[/tex], "b" must be >0

Clearly in this problem it's not and doesn't work.
Yes, that's the reason -1 is "extraneous". It satisfies the equation x2- 2x= 3 but not log3(x)+ log3(x-1)= 1.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #49
HallsofIvy said:
Well, no, it's not. log3(-1) and log3(-3) are undefined and have no value- their sum is NOT equal to 1, it doesn't equal anything.


Yes, that's the reason -1 is "extraneous". It satisfies the equation x2- 2x= 3 but not log3(x)+ log3(x-1)= 1.

[tex]\log_{3}(-1) + \log_{3}((-1)-2)=1[/tex] was just to show an easy way to check -- plug the numbers into the equation. Doesn't match the domain of a log so it doesn't exist...
 
Back
Top