Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tiny hobbit)
    The end bit should be dx + e

    You can then equate coefficients of the x terms to find d.

    The 24 is e
    (Original post by NotNotBatman)
    on the first line you just have +d, you should have +dx+e
    I should have noticed that earlier! I've got the answer now, thank you!
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Have i done something wrong ....

    e^2x - e^x = 0
    e^2x = e^x
    lne^x = lne^2x
    x=2x

    ??

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiiten)
    Have i done something wrong ....

    e^2x - e^x = 0
    e^2x = e^x
    lne^x = lne^2x
    x=2x

    ??

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    looks fine;

    now just find the value of x for which  \displaystyle x = 2x
    Online

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiiten)
    Have i done something wrong ....

    e^2x - e^x = 0
    e^2x = e^x
    lne^x = lne^2x
    x=2x

    ??

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I think you should probably form a quadratic equation in e^x and go from there.
    Doing it this way you may struggle to solve  e^{2x}-e^x-1=0 .
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by B_9710)
    I think you should probably form a quadratic equation in e^x and go from there.
    Doing it this way you may struggle to solve  e^{2x}-e^x-1=0 .
    But there is no 1 in the original equation?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DylanJ42)
    looks fine;

    now just find the value of x for which  \displaystyle x = 2x

    So zero? :dontknow:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiiten)
    So zero? :dontknow:
    perfect

    as a matter of fact, going on what B_9710 said, how would you solve  \displaystyle e^{2x}-e^x-1=0

 (just to make sure you know the method as you could be tested on it)
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiiten)
    So zero? :dontknow :




    :dots::dontknow::dontknow::dontknow::dontknow::dontknow::dontknow:
    Yes, it is 0

    What B_9710 was trying to say was you'd struggle to solve a similar equation involving a number, such as the one in his example, with the method you used. So if you knew how to solve it as a quadratic equation in ex it would be to your benefit.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DylanJ42)
    perfect
    Thanks - i got confused because i did

    x=2x
    0 = 2x /x
    0 = 2 ????

    Is that wrong??

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiiten)
    Thanks - i got confused because i did

    x=2x
    0 = 2x /x
    0 = 2 ????

    Is that wrong??

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    yea because x = 0 and so dividing by x creates a whole world of problems

    from x = 2x just bring everything to the right of the equals sign(or the left, it doesnt matter) and get 0 = x
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DylanJ42)
    yea because x = 0 and so dividing by x creates a whole world of problems

    from x = 2x just bring everything to the right of the equals sign(or the left, it doesnt matter) and get 0 = x
    2x / x isnt x though? (Bringing everything to the right of the equation)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Different ques

    ???? I got y = 2 / ln

    Where did i go wrong?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Attached Images
      
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiiten)
    2x / x isnt x though? (Bringing everything to the right of the equation)

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    sorry I worded that awfully, i mean "-x" from both sides of the equation to get 0 = x
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiiten)
    Different ques

    ???? I got y = 2 / ln

    Where did i go wrong?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    log(a+b+c) \neq loga + logb + logc

    For your other question, your equation is right - just solve it. If you had gone on to solve it and then put it back into the original question you would have been right - and you could have validated that for yourself rather than asking. Do not be afraid to try
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiiten)
    Different ques

    ???? I got y = 2 / ln

    Where did i go wrong?

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    first off,  \displaystyle \ln(a + b + c) \neq \ln(a)  + \ln(b) + \ln(c)

    also you cant say  \displaystyle ln(y) = 2 \implies y = \frac{2}{ln}

    that is similar to saying  \displaystyle  f(x) = 4 \implies x = \frac{4}{f} , it just doesnt make any sense.

    I think the easiest way to do this question is to realise x and y must take the form  \displaystyle e^n (where n is just a number). So write  \displaystyle x = e^a ,  \displaystyle  y = e^b and go from there.

    If not take equation 2 and "e" both sides (ive no idea what this step is actually called) to get  \displaystyle e^{(\text{Left hand side})} = e^{(\text{Right hand side})} then get in terms in x and sub into equation 1, then work out the quadratic which will follow

    Edit: whoops you had the answer already, i didnt even notice :getmecoat:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SeanFM)
    log(a+b+c) \neq loga + logb + logc

    For your other question, your equation is right - just solve it. If you had gone on to solve it and then put it back into the original question you would have been right - and you could have validated that for yourself rather than asking. Do not be afraid to try
    (Original post by DylanJ42)
    first off,  \displaystyle \ln(a + b + c) \neq \ln(a)  + \ln(b) + \ln(c)

    also you cant say  \displaystyle ln(y) = 2 \implies y = \frac{2}{ln}

    that is similar to saying  \displaystyle  f(x) = 4 \implies x = \frac{4}{f} , it just doesnt make any sense.

    I think the easiest way to do this question is to realise x and y must take the form  \displaystyle e^n (where n is just a number). So write  \displaystyle x = e^a ,  \displaystyle  y = e^b and go from there.

    If not take equation 2 and "e" both sides (ive no idea what this step is actually called) to get  \displaystyle e^{(\text{Left hand side})} = e^{(\text{Right hand side})} then get in terms in x and sub into equation 1, then work out the quadratic which will follow

    Edit: whoops you had the answer already, i didnt even notice :getmecoat:
    I dont already have the answer? unless you mean some of my working is correct.

    Im confused - i rearranged equation 1 to get x. Then i subbed that into the 2nd equation to get

    ln (e^5 - e^2 + y) + lny = 7
    Now ? - do you bring lny to the other side then divide by ln?
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiiten)
    I dont already have the answer? unless you mean some of my working is correct.

    Im confused - i rearranged equation 1 to get x. Then i subbed that into the 2nd equation to get

    ln (e^5 - e^2 + y) + lny = 7
    Now ? - do you bring lny to the other side then divide by ln?
    You can't can't can't divide by ln on its own - as Dylan has already said in his post. lne^3 = 3 does not imply that e^3 = 3 / ln(....) because ln(...) without an argument is meaningless. Just like how you wouldn't divide sinx + cosx by sin(nothing) - it would be meaningless.

    As Dylan has taken time to give you hints I will not proceed any further as it may be confusing to have input from multiple people. Good luck!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SeanFM)
    As Dylan has taken time to give you hints I will not proceed any further as it may be confusing to have input from multiple people. Good luck!
    I was on the reply screen as you replied but you were first, it was my bad. :sorry:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kiiten)
    I dont already have the answer? unless you mean some of my working is correct.

    Im confused - i rearranged equation 1 to get x. Then i subbed that into the 2nd equation to get

    ln (e^5 - e^2 + y) + lny = 7
    Now ? - do you bring lny to the other side then divide by ln?
    look on the right hand side of your page, you have  \displaystyle \ln y = 2 . How do you get y on its own here?

    Edit: wait i think you fluked getting this right :laugh:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DylanJ42)
    look on the right hand side of your page, you have  \displaystyle \ln y = 2 . How do you get y on its own here?
    Ohhh so ....
    e^lny = e^2
    y = e^2
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Make your revision easier

    Maths

    Maths Forum posting guidelines

    Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

    Equations

    How to use LaTex

    Writing equations the easy way

    Student revising

    Study habits of A* students

    Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

    Study Planner

    Create your own Study Planner

    Never miss a deadline again

    Polling station sign

    Thinking about a maths degree?

    Chat with other maths applicants

    Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.