You are Here: Home >< Maths

# logs questions watch

Announcements
1. Use logarithms to solve the equation , giving your value of x to four decimal places.

I have done:

However, for the next step I do:

On the markscheme it is:

Where did the half come from?

And also....

Express x in terms of a, giving your answer in a form not involving logarithms.

I expand the bracket out first (right?), do I start with -1 or 2?
2. You somehow managed to get that . That's like saying ... simple algebraic error. If you fix this then you get the half.
3. (Original post by Kash:))
Use logarithms to solve the equation , giving your value of x to four decimal places.

I have done:

However, for the next step I do:

On the markscheme it is:

Where did the half come from?
Second lines wrong, it should be (2x-1)log3.
4. (Original post by Kash:))

What did u do to the '1' ?
5. I saw this thread and got COMPLETELY the wrong idea...
6. (Original post by Kash:))
Use logarithms to solve the equation , giving your value of x to four decimal places.

I have done:

However, for the next step I do:

On the markscheme it is:

Where did the half come from?
If you did your second line correctly you should get something like:

to solve.
7. (Original post by ColonelMoore)
I saw this thread and got COMPLETELY the wrong idea...
I guess your not a maths a level student then.

Thanks for the quick reply guys
8. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
If you did your second line correctly you should get something like:

to solve.
you mean over log3, right?
9. (Original post by Kash:))
you mean over log3, right?
Sorry typo.
10. (Original post by Kash:))
And also....

Express x in terms of a, giving your answer in a form not involving logarithms.

I expand the bracket out first (right?), do I start with -1 or 2?
the 2 first so it becomes

11. I still don't understand this.

I have

I am missing the , why's that.

Sorry if i'm being thick.
12. (Original post by Kash:))
I still don't understand this.

I have

I am missing the , why's that.

Sorry if i'm being thick.
add 1 to both sides then divide by 2 on both parts of other side not just the one
13. (Original post by Kash:))
I still don't understand this.

I have

I am missing the , why's that.

Sorry if i'm being thick.
Because your dividing everything by 2 - this means the denominator is going to be multiplied by 2
14. (Original post by Kash:))
I still don't understand this.

I have

I am missing the , why's that.

Sorry if i'm being thick.
It would be something like this:
15. (Original post by Kash:))
And also....

Express x in terms of a, giving your answer in a form not involving logarithms.

I expand the bracket out first (right?), do I start with -1 or 2?
I would start off by using the law on the brackets then rewrite the -1 as
Then rearrange to get rid of the logs.
i.e. if done correctly you'll have then get rid of the logs.
16. Could someone confirm that "-0.8634" is the correct answer when "giving your value of x to four decimal places"...?

x
17. (Original post by Farhan.Hanif93)
I would start off by using the law on the brackets then rewrite the -1 as
Then rearrange to get rid of the logs.
i.e. if done correctly you'll have then get rid of the logs.
To be honest, with the knowledge (with all due repsect) to the OP I would leave the -1 and

As you say, combine logs in bracket
subtract that from both sides
apply quotient property of logs
then anti log both sides
cross multiply

I like what you have said but it may be a jump too far based on the OPs knowledge displayed

To the OP:

If you have lg(something +/- something)
Leave that something alone
I think you are confusing it with the product and quotient property of logs

Its the 'quantity' logged rather than a combination of logs
18. (Original post by LJbrowning)
To be honest, with the knowledge (with all due repsect) to the OP I would leave the -1 and

As you say, combine logs in bracket
subtract that from both sides
apply quotient property of logs
then anti log both sides
cross multiply

I like what you have said but it may be a jump too far based on the OPs knowledge displayed

To the OP:

If you have lg(something +/- something)
Leave that something alone
I think you are confusing it with the product and quotient property of logs

Its the 'quantity' logged rather than a combination of logs
Well I mentioned that to avoid the OP making a mistake with the -1 when getting everything back in exponential form. Also your method will require the OP to recall the laws of indices from C1 so all in all will be more complicated if he leaves the -1.
19. (Original post by FoOtYdUdE)
Could someone confirm that "-0.8634" is the correct answer when "giving your value of x to four decimal places"...?

x
the markscheme says yes

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: May 22, 2010
Today on TSR

### Lied on my UCAS

And my school told me not to change it

### University open days

• University of the West of England, Bristol
Wed, 23 Jan '19
• University of East London
Wed, 23 Jan '19
• University of Gloucestershire
School of Education Open Day Postgraduate
Wed, 23 Jan '19
Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams