A problem
Solve for x,
7.3^(x-1)+5-3^(x+1)=0

- .Sam.

A problem
Solve for x,
7.3^(x-1)+5-3^(x+1)=0

- schrodinger

See more answers at brainly.com

At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga.
Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus.
Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your **free** account and access **expert** answers to this

and **thousands** of other questions

- .Sam.

\[\huge 7.3^{x-1}+5-3^{x+1}=0\]

- perl

is that 7*3^(x-1) or (7.3)^(x-1)

- .Sam.

decimal

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

## More answers

- perl

hmmm, doesnt look easy

- lgbasallote

do tell me..does this involve canceling 3^x-1 the solution i thought had that..

- anonymous

\[3^x = \frac{15}{2}\]
\[x = \log_3 \frac{15}2\]

- .Sam.

@Ishaan94 that's true if the decimal was "dot" *

- anonymous

Oh, my bad... so it's
\[(7.3)^{x-1} + 5-3^{x+1}=0\]Hmm Now I feel stupid :/

- perl

ok I have an idea

- perl

|dw:1333364793236:dw|

- perl

|dw:1333364860619:dw|

- anonymous

campbell decimal point, 7.3 = 73/10

- anonymous

:/

- perl

its an annoying problem. whats the bloody solution?

- anonymous

ln(a+b) is not the same as lna +lnb

- anonymous

You can't take log like that

- anonymous

I think 7.3 has something to do with 5, we should try to use 5

- perl

did sam leave,

- experimentX

wolf's answer
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7.3%5E%28x-1%29%2B5-3%5E%28x%2B1%29%3D0

- perl

why did he say this is easy problem

- karatechopper

hhe says its easy and im still stuck on first step, can i switch signs?

- anonymous

Who is hhe?

- karatechopper

i meant he, meaning sam

- perl

i think this could somehow become a quadratic, with the right substitution

- perl

|dw:1333366072740:dw|

- experimentX

i don't think general method we use would work

- experimentX

how do you solve this 2^x - x = 2

- anonymous

I think we could only use newtons method......

- anonymous

first we approximate an answer....

- perl

i want an EXACT solution

- anonymous

then use the newton's method to get a better aproximation

- anonymous

we continue this until we're satisfied

- anonymous

but we can't still get the exact though :(

- perl

summon sam

- experimentX

currently the best way to solve is graphical method ... lol

- anonymous

yeah

- anonymous

the number 5 is irritating

- perl

i sent sam a message, he better respond .

- perl

what is classic about this problem anyway?

- anonymous

- anonymous

i assume that is \(7.3^{x-1}\) and not \(7\cdot 3^{x-1}\) so i have no ideas yet

- anonymous

must be something special about 7.3 that i do not see

- perl

can you guys tell me later, i gotta sleep

- perl

ok try this , let u = 3^(x+1)

- perl

i assume there is an exact solution, otherwise youve wasted my time

- .Sam.

I can see that you guys think so hard, lol

- perl

please give us hint

- .Sam.

Sad thing for you @perl
There's no exact solution but approximation
\[7.3^{x-1}=3^{x+1}-5\]

- Mimi_x3

i knew that newtoms method of approximation yesterday..

- anonymous

I TOLD YOU SO

- Mimi_x3

from yesterday*

- perl

it would be more interesting if there was exact solution , :(

- perl

i was confused since you said it was easy problem , rats

- anonymous

newton's method :D

- anonymous

newton's method :D

- perl

ok then how is it easy to approximate?

- .Sam.

Its easy you don't even need to think, lol

- perl

what?

- perl

it didnt look easy on wolfram

- perl

sam , so are you going to post the solution or not. cuz im getting really tired

- perl

you can use a calculator for this. is that your 'easy' solution ?

- .Sam.

you have to graph it for 7.3^(x-1) and 3^(x+1)-5 pick some points

##### 1 Attachment

- perl

what program do you use to graph that?

- .Sam.

its a tedious job though, but if you have a graphing calc, it will be fine

- perl

then why do you say its easy?

- perl

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=7.3^%28x-1%29%2B5-3^%28x%2B1%29%3D0

- perl

what do you mean , pick some points? estimate

- .Sam.

yes , estimate

- Mimi_x3

Newtons Method i think..

- perl

i dont think so, its just approximation problem

- Mimi_x3

then what else?

- perl

anyways, the question seemed pretty ambiguous. i didnt know what they meant by 'easy'

- Mimi_x3

lol, thats all? guessing?

- .Sam.

you can use this program to graph
https://www.desmos.com/calculator/c

- perl

then you do screen capture?

- Mimi_x3

sigh..you can state your question as finding the approximation than 'solve for x'

- .Sam.

@Mimi_x3 yes its a bit of disappointing, but I'll come up with a new question later :)

- .Sam.

@perl no i dont screen cap on that software

- Mimi_x3

lol, i wanted to see a solution..but there is no solution *sigh*

- .Sam.

the solution is approximation ,lol

- Mimi_x3

like the working out..

- .Sam.

Nevermind I'll come up a new one :)

- Mimi_x3

Alright, please state your question correctly next time.

- perl

so you copy as a file

- perl

I think there is a confusion, he copied the problem originally with multiplication
7*3^(x-1)

- apoorvk

c'mon i got the approximate thing using 'jugaad' :/

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.