Re: Solving for X ?? Stumpes
- From: Rick Decker <rdecker@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2007 13:00:30 -0400
joe wrote:
On Jul 31, 11:52 am, "Greg Neill" <gneill...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:"joe" <joeyc...@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1185895412.241283.57570@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Been a while since I took Algebra, and this simple problem has meYou would have to resort to numerical methods
(embarissingly) stumped.
Solving for X in the equation A^X =Y is easy: X = ln(Y)/ln(A);
How can I solve for X in this equation:
A^X + B^X = Y ??
unless A and/or B took on special values like
A or B = 0 or +/1, or A = B.
You mean like Newton's method?
I can't seem to reduce that either. If I was trying to solve the
obvious
13 = 2^T + 3^T,
then F(X)/F'(X) would end up being:
(2^T + 3^T -13) / (2T^(T-1) + 3T^(T-1))
which doesn't seem to be reducible either for me.
It doesn't matter, since it's wrong. The derivative
of 2^T + 3^T is (ln 2)2^T + (ln 3)3^T. In any case,
why does the expression have to reduce to a nice
form to use Newton?
Regards,
Rick
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Solving for X ?? Stumpes
- From: joe
- Re: Solving for X ?? Stumpes
- References:
- Solving for X ?? Stumpes
- From: joe
- Re: Solving for X ?? Stumpes
- From: Greg Neill
- Re: Solving for X ?? Stumpes
- From: joe
- Solving for X ?? Stumpes
- Prev by Date: Re: Question regarding natural logs
- Next by Date: Re: Solving for X ?? Stumpes
- Previous by thread: Re: Solving for X ?? Stumpes
- Next by thread: Re: Solving for X ?? Stumpes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
|