I'm tryna solve for x in this equation:

pi*x/log(4) = e^(x/e^(1/2))

any hints as to what the fuck I should do? Yeah, it's for homework, so no cheating!

8/23/2010 9:35:34 PM

k

8/23/2010 9:35:55 PM

your answer is found here


http://wolfwall.com

8/23/2010 9:36:21 PM

x=0.21884492264
x=5.5492513867

8/23/2010 9:39:38 PM

lol, is there any way to solve this without just graphin the bitch?

8/23/2010 9:40:24 PM

ti-89 son

8/23/2010 9:41:04 PM

left my TI-89 at work >.<

8/23/2010 9:41:34 PM

also, WARNING: more solutions may exist

and if it helps, this is the same thing but in a different way:

x * ((pi*log(5))/(2*log(2)) + (pi/2)) = e^(x/sqrt(e))

8/23/2010 9:41:54 PM

well, fuck

8/23/2010 9:42:48 PM

Quote :

"pi*x/log(4) = e^(x/e^(1/2))"

ok, lets start on the left side...we know x is is roman numeral for 10, so 3.14... x 10 = 31.4... so you just divide the log of 4 into that

for the right side, einstein told us that e=mc^2...since mc is 1100 in roman numerals. 1100 squared is 1210000, which is our e

so the right side of the equation is 1210000 ^ to the (10/1210000^(1/2))

and thats my proof of why 52.154 = 1210000 ^0.00028

[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 9:49 PM. Reason : take that to the bank]

8/23/2010 9:43:48 PM

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pi*x%2Flog%284%29+%3D+e^%28x%2Fe^%281%2F2%29%29

[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 9:44 PM. Reason : edit]

8/23/2010 9:44:33 PM

^not quite
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=pi*x%2Flog%284%29+%3D+e^%28x%2Fe^%281%2F2%29%29&a=*FunClash.log-_*Log10.Log-

i always forget about wolfram alpha

also, lol @ the fact it gave the same expansion and two exact solutions my ti-89 did

8/23/2010 9:45:35 PM

[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 9:46 PM. Reason : typo]

8/23/2010 9:45:55 PM

http://gizmodo.com/5618502/futurama-writer-invented-a-new-math-theorem-just-to-use-in-the-show

8/23/2010 9:48:55 PM

.

[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 9:54 PM. Reason : .]

8/23/2010 9:53:07 PM

if i had a piece of paper i THINK i can solve it without a calculator.

8/23/2010 9:53:51 PM

youll probably have to natural log some shit to get rid of all those es!!!

what a shitty looking math problem.

8/23/2010 9:54:59 PM

^NO REALLY?!

8/23/2010 9:55:38 PM

just in case you didnt know!

8/23/2010 9:59:28 PM

infact, i'm like 94% sure i learned how to do that in highschool

8/23/2010 10:05:21 PM

no one is impressed

8/23/2010 10:06:34 PM

just came in here to say that

8/23/2010 10:07:28 PM

unless you learned about the damned log-product, then, no, you didn't learn it in high school

8/23/2010 10:54:45 PM

I learned how to do your mom in high school

8/23/2010 11:05:31 PM

Quote :

"lol, is there any way to solve this without just graphin the bitch?"

I think this is a transcendental equation...i.e. no amount of algebraic manipulation will ever solve it

MAYBE you could expend the exponential term into a Taylor series and pull some slick trick...but I don't think so

8/23/2010 11:21:19 PM

Quote :

"no one is impressed"

They shouldn't be.

Quote :

"unless you learned about the damned log-product, then, no, you didn't learn it in high school"

I, like many people here, took multiple college calculuses in high school. and even then being the math nerd i was i learned plenty of shit i didn't have to.

[Edited on August 23, 2010 at 11:24 PM. Reason : asdfg]

8/23/2010 11:23:00 PM

Study hall?

8/23/2010 11:24:57 PM

Quote :

"I think this is a transcendental equation...i.e. no amount of algebraic manipulation will ever solve it MAYBE you could expend the exponential term into a Taylor series and pull some slick trick...but I don't think so"

It is a transcendental equation, with a solution expressed in terms of the Lambert W function.

Quote :

"unless you learned about the damned log-product, then, no, you didn't learn it in high school"

Product-log, not log-product, if I remember right. But yeah, not usually covered in the public school curriculum.

8/24/2010 12:51:23 AM

look, man, he took

Quote :

"MULTIPLE COLLEGE CALCULUSES"

8/24/2010 1:05:04 AM

i got no lol love for my intended lol post

8/24/2010 1:06:16 AM

THERE'S NO WAY YOU ACTUALLY LEARNED HIGH LEVEL MATH IN HIGH SCHOOL!!!!!! NEVER MIND THE HIGH SCHOOL YOU GRADUATED FROM HAS THE WORD MATH IN IT!!!

8/24/2010 1:09:55 AM

I too did not go to public school

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message.

8/24/2010 1:21:53 AM

I opted to take Computer Science instead of Pre Calculus in high school because both counted as math classes, and I was more interested in computers at the time. I guess I still am, except every now and then when I watch the movie Pi.

In hindsight, I wish I had taken pre-calc in high school, because I failed MA141 the first time I took it (might've helped if I had gone to the final) and didn't get any further than Calc 3 at State.

8/24/2010 1:23:44 AM

i, too, went to public school

8/24/2010 1:24:33 AM

calc classes at nc state are pretty awful

I'm AstralAdvent and i approved this message.

8/24/2010 1:28:44 AM

i haven't taken any kind of math since sophomore year so........ this is probably wrong

but i figured I'd try anyway

http://i33.tinypic.com/21aephh.jpg

I always sucked at the e's, but I think you need to take the derivative so that there is only 1 x you have to solve for

sorry if this is considered cheating i'm almost 100% sure my answer is not right though

8/24/2010 11:47:02 AM