Results 1 to 13 of 13

Math Help - For how many real numbers x does e^x=ln|x|?

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    45

    For how many real numbers x does e^x=ln|x|?

    For how many real numbers x does  e^x=\ln|x|?

    0,1,2,3 or infinitely many?

    Hmmm....

    Oh yea, no graphing calculator for this question.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by JOhkonut View Post
    For how many real numbers x does  e^x=\ln|x|?

    0,1,2,3 or infinitely many?

    Hmmm....

    Oh yea, no graphing calculator for this question.
    hmmm, the easiest way to see the answer is through graphs. of course, i didn't use a graphing calculator either knowing what these graphs look like in your head makes the answer obvious. the other alternative i can think of is too complicated (using Newton's method and a whole lot of speculation)

    the answer is 1 by the way ....note that \ln |x| = \left \{ \begin{array}{lr} \ln x & \mbox{ if } x > 0 \\ & \\ \ln (-x) & \mbox{ if } x < 0 \\ & \\ \text{Does not exist} & \mbox{ if } x = 0 \end{array} \right.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    45
    Well, I am supposed to know what the \ln x and e^x graphs look like, and I get how they intersect once, but I have no clue how to show that...
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by JOhkonut View Post
    Well, I am supposed to know what the \ln x and e^x graphs look like, and I get how they intersect once, but I have no clue how to show that...
    well, for positive x-values, e^x is always bigger than ln(x), so there is no intersection there. but for negative x values, e^x keeps decreasing tending to zero, while ln(-x) keeps increasing, tending to infinity. the shapes of the graphs make it obvious they will cross each other only once, as one is strictly increasing and the other is strictly decreasing

    see below. of course, you should know how this looks in your head, no graphing tool necessary
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails For how many real numbers x does e^x=ln|x|?-graph.jpg  
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    Junior Member
    Joined
    Jan 2008
    Posts
    45
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhevon View Post
    well, for positive x-values, e^x is always bigger than ln(x), so there is no intersection there. but for negative x values, e^x keeps decreasing tending to zero, while ln(-x) keeps increasing, tending to infinity. the shapes of the graphs make it obvious they will cross each other only once, as one is strictly increasing and the other is strictly decreasing

    see below. of course, you should know how this looks in your head, no graphing tool necessary
    Thanks a bunch, I saw that when I used my graphing calculator, and just included a sketch of it.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Super Member

    Joined
    May 2006
    From
    Lexington, MA (USA)
    Posts
    11,547
    Thanks
    539
    Hello, JOhkonut!

    For how many real numbers x does  e^x\:=\:\ln|x|?
    You know that y \:=\:e^x looks like, right?
    Code:
                    |      *
                    |
                    |     *
                    |    *
                    |  *
                    *
                *   |
          *         |
      - - - - - - - + - - - - - - -
                    |

    And you know what y \:=\:\ln x looks like.
    . . (It's the inverse of the exponential function.)

    Then  y \:=\:\ln|x| is the same graph
    . . but with a reflection over the y-axis.
    Code:
                    |
        *           |           *
            *       |       *
      - - - - -*- - + - -*- - - - -
                 *  |  *
                  * | *
                    |
                   *|*
                    |

    Now place them on the same graph and count the intersections.


    Darn . . . too slow again!
    .
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Soroban View Post
    Darn . . . too slow again!
    That's because you take the time to do those amazing graphs. i don't know how you do it, it seems really hard to me, i'd get too frustrated trying to line everything up
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  8. #8
    Rhymes with Orange Chris L T521's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2008
    From
    Santa Cruz, CA
    Posts
    2,844
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by Jhevon View Post
    That's because you take the time to do those amazing graphs. i don't know how you do it, it seems really hard to me, i'd get too frustrated trying to line everything up
    Ditto

    --Chris
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  9. #9
    Flow Master
    mr fantastic's Avatar
    Joined
    Dec 2007
    From
    Zeitgeist
    Posts
    16,948
    Thanks
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by Moo View Post
    Hello !



    One way to do it, without graph, is to study the function f(x)=e^x-\ln|x|. Now, be patient and read carefully



    IF X<0



    f~'(x)=e^x-\frac 1x



    f~'(x)<0 \Leftrightarrow e^x<\frac 1x \implies xe^x>1



    Which is not possible, because e^x>0 and x<0



    Therefore, f~'(x)>0 and f is strictly increasing when x<0.



    \lim_{x \to -\infty} f(x)=- \infty



    \lim_{x \to 0^-} f(x)=+ \infty (x=0 is a vertical asymptote)



    \boxed{\text{There is one and only one value of x}<\text{0 such that f(x)=0}}





    -----------------------------------------------

    IF X>0



    f~'(x)=e^x-\frac 1x



    f~'(x)<0 \Leftrightarrow e^x<\frac 1x \Leftrightarrow xe^x<1



    Let g(x)=xe^x



    g'(x)=e^x+xe^x > 0 \quad \forall x



    Therefore, g is strictly increasing.

    \lim_{x \to 0^+} g(x)=0



    \lim_{x \to + \infty} g(x)=+\infty



    We can conclude that there exists a>0 such that g(x)<1 \Leftrightarrow x<a \text{ where } g(a)=1



    So f~'(x)<0 \Leftrightarrow g(x)<1 \Leftrightarrow x<a



    The function f is decreasing if x<a and then increasing if x>a. Thus f(a) is a minimum of f(x), for x>0.



    Since g(a)=1, we have ae^a=1 \implies \frac 1a=e^a

    f(a)=e^a-\ln(a)=\frac 1a-\ln(e^{-a})=\frac 1a+a, which is >0 since a>0



    \boxed{\implies \forall x>0 ~,~ f(x)\ge f(a)>0 \implies f(x) \neq 0 \quad \forall x>0}


    Sorry for the confusion For some reason, I took at least twice the wrong function, and hence the *woops* mistakes
    Life's too short. I think I'll wait for it to come out on DVD ......
    Last edited by mr fantastic; August 29th 2008 at 02:25 PM. Reason: I never refuse a request from a cow lol!!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  10. #10
    is up to his old tricks again! Jhevon's Avatar
    Joined
    Feb 2007
    From
    New York, USA
    Posts
    11,663
    Thanks
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by mr fantastic View Post
    Life's too short. I think I'll wait for it to come out on DVD ......
    you are too funny!
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  11. #11
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,295
    Thanks
    7
    Quote Originally Posted by Moo View Post
    Hello !

    One way to do it, without graph, is to study the function f(x)=e^x-\ln|x|. Now, be patient and read carefully

    f~'(x)=e^x-\frac 1{|x|}
    just to remind you that the derivative of \ln|x| is \frac{1}{x} not \frac{1}{|x|}.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  12. #12
    Moo
    Moo is offline
    A Cute Angle Moo's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    P(I'm here)=1/3, P(I'm there)=t+1/3
    Posts
    5,618
    Thanks
    6
    Quote Originally Posted by NonCommAlg View Post
    just to remind you that the derivative of \ln|x| is \frac{1}{x} not \frac{1}{|x|}.
    True, there's also a problem with g'(x), I'm fixing it lol
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  13. #13
    Moo
    Moo is offline
    A Cute Angle Moo's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2008
    From
    P(I'm here)=1/3, P(I'm there)=t+1/3
    Posts
    5,618
    Thanks
    6
    Hello !
    Quote Originally Posted by JOhkonut View Post
    For how many real numbers x does  e^x=\ln|x|?

    0,1,2,3 or infinitely many?

    Hmmm....

    Oh yea, no graphing calculator for this question.
    One way to do it, without graph, is to study the function f(x)=e^x-\ln|x|. Now, be patient and read carefully

    IF X<0

    f~'(x)=e^x-\frac 1x

    f~'(x)<0 \Leftrightarrow e^x<\frac 1x \implies xe^x>1

    Which is not possible, because e^x>0 and x<0

    Therefore, f~'(x)>0 and f is strictly increasing when x<0.

    \lim_{x \to -\infty} f(x)=- \infty

    \lim_{x \to 0^-} f(x)=+ \infty (x=0 is a vertical asymptote)

    \boxed{\text{There is one and only one value of x}<\text{0 such that f(x)=0}}


    -----------------------------------------------
    IF X>0

    f~'(x)=e^x-\frac 1x

    f~'(x)<0 \Leftrightarrow e^x<\frac 1x \Leftrightarrow xe^x<1

    Let g(x)=xe^x

    g'(x)=e^x+xe^x > 0 \quad \forall x

    Therefore, g is strictly increasing.
    \lim_{x \to 0^+} g(x)=0

    \lim_{x \to + \infty} g(x)=+\infty

    We can conclude that there exists a>0 such that g(x)<1 \Leftrightarrow x<a \text{ where } g(a)=1

    So f~'(x)<0 \Leftrightarrow g(x)<1 \Leftrightarrow x<a

    The function f is decreasing if x<a and then increasing if x>a. Thus f(a) is a minimum of f(x), for x>0.

    Since g(a)=1, we have ae^a=1 \implies \frac 1a=e^a
    f(a)=e^a-\ln(a)=\frac 1a-\ln(e^{-a})=\frac 1a+a, which is >0 since a>0

    \boxed{\implies \forall x>0 ~,~ f(x)\ge f(a)>0 \implies f(x) \neq 0 \quad \forall x>0}




    Sorry for the confusion For some reason, I took at least twice the wrong function, and hence the *woops* mistakes
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Set of 13 real numbers
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: July 5th 2011, 08:37 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 27th 2010, 03:14 PM
  3. Real Numbers
    Posted in the Discrete Math Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: January 20th 2009, 02:12 PM
  4. For which real numbers
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: September 14th 2008, 03:25 PM
  5. Real Numbers - Real Anaylsis
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: September 3rd 2008, 10:54 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum