[nazgul60]

Is this right?

e^2x+1 = 2
2x +1 = ln 2
x = 0.5 ln( 2- 1)

I though for the last step:

x = 0.5 (ln(2) -1)

with the one outside the ln brakets?

[CharlieBoardman]

You are correct. The last step is x = 0.5 (ln(2)-1)

[nazgul60]

(Original post by CharlieBoardman)
You are correct. The last step is x = 0.5 (ln(2)-1)

Thats what is thought but the mark sheme says this

0.5 ln( 2- 1)

[tommm]

(Original post by nazgul60)
Thats what is thought but the mark sheme says this

0.5 ln( 2- 1)

That's wrong.

[Micky76]

(Original post by nazgul60)
Thats what is thought but the mark sheme says this

0.5 ln( 2- 1)

It is wrong because that gives 0.5ln(1) = 0 and this can be easily disproved by substituting x=0 into the initial equation.

[nazgul60]

(Original post by Micky76)
It is wrong because that gives 0.5ln(1) = 0 and this can be easily disproved by substituting x=0 into the initial equation.

Thats what i thought but just needed to be confident. Thanks!

[james22]

Am I just being stupid or isn't x=0 the answer?

[BabyMaths]

or

[Micky76]

(Original post by BabyMaths)


or

Is it not multiplied by e instead of the +1?

[nazgul60]

(Original post by BabyMaths)

that one

[Micky76]

(Original post by BabyMaths)


or

Sorry, my bad in the interpretation of your post.

[BabyMaths]

(Original post by nazgul60)
that one

In that case as you thought.

[CharlieBoardman]

(Original post by nazgul60)
Thats what is thought but the mark sheme says this

0.5 ln( 2- 1)

Sometimes mark schemes have mistakes in them. Don't worry - you are correct!

[The Mr Z]

(Original post by nazgul60)
that one

Then you are right/mark scheme is wrong.

probably just a typing error by a clerk who doesn't know to be careful with these things.