6

I was having math class (10th grade) and we were learning about exponential equations, pretty easy, but then i wondered about some mixed equations, like $3^x+x^3=0$.

I couldn't solve it, so I looked up the answer in wolfram alpha, and it turned out to be $-\frac{3W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}$ (where W(x) is the lambert W function, defined as $W(x)=y\space\space\Rightarrow\space\space ye^y=x$). Since the answer looked pretty weird I just wanted to prove that it was correct myself (for curiosity), and the "proof" was like this: (jump to the last paragraph if you're not interested lol)

$3^{-\frac{3W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}}+\left(-\frac{3W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}\right)^3=0$

$\frac{1}{3^{\frac{3W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}}}=-\left(-\frac{3W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}\right)^3$

$\sqrt[3]{\frac{1}{3^{\frac{3W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}}}}=\frac{3W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}$

$\frac{1}{3^{\frac{W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}}}=\frac{3W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}$

$3^{\frac{W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}}=\frac{ln(3)}{3W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}$

$3^{\frac{W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}}=\frac{\frac{ln(3)}{3}}{W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}$

and from the very definition of the lambert W function, we can conclude that, $\frac{x}{W(x)}$ can be simplified down to $e^{W(x)}$, leading to:

$3^{\frac{W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}{ln(3)}}=e^{W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}$

which can be, finally, simplified down to $e^{W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}=e^{W\left(\frac{ln(3)}{3}\right)}$ (even though the lambert W function can have some inconsistencies at negative values, we can ignore that since $\frac{ln(3)}{3}$ is positive)

this proof can also be quite easily extended to any equation in the form $a^x+x^b=0$, where $a$ is real and $b$ is an even integer


But my question really is, how could one find the exact solution of this equation from scratch? Can this method be extended for other non-trivial equations like this? (e.g. $2^x-x^x+x^5=0$, to which not even wolfram alpha can determine the exact solution)

gdor11
  • 173
  • 2
    +1 for being so adventurous. I don't think that the method will work for many more equations of this kind, but won't post that as an answer. Do be careful when writing a "proof" like yours. As written, it starts from what you want to prove and deduces an identity. What you really want reads those equations from bottom to top. You have to check that each equation follows from the next equation, not the previous one. – Ethan Bolker Aug 31 '22 at 00:31
  • 3
    In general, there are formulas that don't have "closed form solutions." See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_number#Related_fields for a start. – ShawSa Aug 31 '22 at 00:36
  • 1
    And for those that don't, we can approximate the solutions numerically. – Dan Aug 31 '22 at 00:41
  • 1
    $2^x-x^x+x^5=0$ has the exact solution $x=0$, by inspection (provided we accept $0^0=1$, which is a reasonable thing to do in this case, since $\lim_{x\to0}x^x=1$). – Gerry Myerson Aug 31 '22 at 01:15
  • 1
    Ah I remember going down this rabbit hole. It's quite fun. Although the Lambert-W is the holy grail for solving equations like this, it cannot do everything. Even the Lambert-W itself is kind of a symbolic hack. However, there are generalizations of it which can solve more complicated expressions like these, but the calculations are quite tedious. – Graviton Aug 31 '22 at 07:50
  • 1
    Strictly speaking is the Lambert-W function already a numerical method. We could of course invent a new function whenever we arrive at an equation we cannot solve exactly anymore, but that would barely make sense. The Lambert-W function was established because it can be applied in quite many types of equations. But to find out whether this is possible is usually much more difficult than just applying numerical methods. – Peter Aug 31 '22 at 10:23
  • And as already mentioned , there cannot be a complete list of functions (no matter how exotic they are) that could deal with all possible equations. We could always find even more complicated equations that still would require numerical methods. – Peter Aug 31 '22 at 10:26
  • @Peter: sqrt, exp, log, sin, cos, etc. are also numerical methods. – Dan Aug 31 '22 at 19:12
  • 1
    @Dan, true, but we still generally put those functions into one bucket, and Lambert-W, Bessel functions, theta functions, elliptic functions, Gamma, the Exponential Integral, and so on, in a different bucket, even if it's only for historical reasons. – Gerry Myerson Sep 01 '22 at 11:51

1 Answers1

2

What one does is try to produce a term $ze^z$ somehow. To that end, write $$a^x+x^b=0\tag1$$ as $a^x=-x^b$, take $b$-th root to get $a^{x/b} = -x$ and then divide both side by $a^{x/b}$:

$$1=-x a^{-x/b}= -x\exp \big(-\frac xb \ln a\big)$$ In a last step, multiply with $\ln(a) / b$ so that the exponent appears also as a factor of exp:

$$\frac1b \ln a= -\frac xb \ln a\cdot\exp \big(-\frac xb \ln a\big)$$ so now we can apply Lambert-$W$:

$$W\left(\frac1b \ln a\right)= -\frac xb \ln a$$ and finally solve for $x$:

$$x = -\frac b{\ln a}W\left(\frac1b \ln a\right) \tag2$$

When does this solution make sense?

  1. In the first step we took $b$-th root under the assumption that $b$ is odd, i.e. $b$ can be represented as $b=n/m$ where $n$ and $m$ are odd integers. As $a^x > 0$, we must have $x^b<0$ for (1) to have a solution. This means $x<0$ and $b$ is odd.

  2. Taking log requires $a>0$ and also $a\neq 1$ as we divide by $\ln a$.

  3. The function $z\mapsto ze^z$ is not injective, and when $ze^z=w\in(-1/e,0)$ then there are two (real) solutions $z$ for each $w$. This is accounted for by different branches of $W$:

    • If $\ln(a)/b\in[-1/e,\infty)$, then $W_0$ contributes a solution.

    • If $\ln(a)/b\in[-1/e,0)$, then $W_{-1}$ contributes a solution.

For example, with $a=0.3$ and $b=11/3$ there are 2 real solutions of (1).

emacs drives me nuts
  • 10,390
  • 2
  • 12
  • 31