Recently I posted a calculus problem Is there a closed form?.
In this problem, there is this dispute which interested me:
Here are the main points of the dispute which I want to talk about:
"For any value of , there is a solution set
And due to symmetry, is also a solution..."
This dispute impressed me as I did not manage to find the solutions for which
However,
It happens that this does not include all the solutions and that for some values of , the solution for can be negative.
So, here is a challenge (which I can't solve):
Find the values of which has solutions for
Find a way to find the solutions of that are negative. (You can also try to find the complex solutions too, if there are)
Good luck!
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
We get 3 solutions for x=2. The first 2 can be found by observation, namely y=2 and y=4. The last one ends up being negative, and since x is both a base and exponent there isn't an algebraic means of finding this third solution. Probably the most straightforward way is to use Newton's Method on the function f(x)=2x−x2 and start with a first guess of x0=0. The iterative formula for the (n+1)st approximation would be
xn+1=xn−2xn∗ln(2)−2xn2xn−(xn)2.
We would then get x1=−1.4427,x2=−0.89707,x3=−0.77347,x4=−0.766685,x5=−0.7666647.
We could keep going with a few more iterations depending on how many significant figures of accuracy we need.
Log in to reply
Wow. I feel like I just unlocked a new power.
Log in to reply
Hahaha. It might not be as powerful as telekinesis or anything but Newton's Method is very useful and efficient. It doesn't always work, however, especially if you make an errant first guess, (you'll know that this is the case when the successive approximations start to fluctuate wildly). Also, if there are multiple real roots then you need to make appropriate first guesses and go through the iterative process for each one individually. For this problem if you were to start with x0=1 the approximations would converge to 2, and if you were to start with x0=3 the approximations would converge to 4, giving us all three roots.
Newton's Method can be adapted for the complex plane, but I'd rather leave that mess alone for now. :)
Log in to reply
f(x)=3x.
However, sometimes Newton's Method does not work, right? For example,Log in to reply
f(x)=3x the problem is that f′(x) is not defined at the root x=0, which results in the increasing oscillation of the successive approximations. The reasons for failure are numerous, but my rule of thumb for the method is that "it works when it works and doesn't when it doesn't", i.e., it doesn't hurt to give it a try, since more often than not it will work. :)
That's right. It often won't work near asymptotes and local extrema. In the case ofYou will always get 3 values of y when x is even & 2 values when x is odd.
Log in to reply
Mind if you define what you mean by E and O? Im not very good at set notation.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
Expression of the form cx will always lie in first and second quadrant, where c is constant
Now Expression of the form xc
When c is even, graph will be in 1st & 2nd quadrant, there will surely be an intersection in 2nd quadrant & 2 intersections in 1st quad.
When c is odd, graph will be in 1st & 3rd quadrant so there won't be any negative value satisfying the equation.
Note:- for x=e intersection points in 1st quadrant will coincide resulting in only 1 solution.
Log in to reply
y has 3 solutions if
x=2n+k or x=(2n−1)+g
Where n is a positive integer n>0 and
g,k<1 and if you make k or g into an integer by taking g×10p=g′ or k×10p=k′,
g′=a2p−1 and k′=a2p
where p is an integer p>0 and
an+2=2an+1−an
At least it works until g′ or h′ reaches 100. Beyond that, it works only sometimes. (sometimes as to when k′ or g′ is equal to an×10p where an<100 which is actually expected since it can be bashed to show that it works for all an lesser than 100)
I don't think this is complete
Good point. And in the limit as integer n→∞ for x=2n the roots, besides y=2n, go to −1 and 1, both from the right.
Good to know that an invalid dispute raised by me started a valid and interesting discussion.
You may want to investigate Lambert's W function (a multiply-valued complex function, akin to the the complex version of lnx), defined as the inverse of yey=x. In practice, it is computed using Haley's method (a second order version of Newton's), but it yields closed form solutions for this equation and several similar ones. In the case of xy=yx, the solutions are of the form y=lnx−xWb(−xlnx), where b denotes the branch to compute of Lambert's W function. It also can simplify infinite tetration (when it converges): y=xxx⋅⋅⋅, to y=lnxW(−lnx).