A community for students.
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing
anonymous
 4 years ago
If I have a function: y=K*e^x is there a way to rewrite it as y=C*A^x where A does not equal e?
anonymous
 4 years ago
If I have a function: y=K*e^x is there a way to rewrite it as y=C*A^x where A does not equal e?

This Question is Closed

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1let, A^i = e i = 1/lnA

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1it will be the same nevertheless, however I am not sure about K and C

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I´m just wondering if e is such a magical number to appear here and there or if its artificial and we could use a different set of numbers to express the same thing/physical law.

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1i think e is quite an special number < especially when rate of change depends on initial value. also it has some special property (base of natural log), i think it is best to leave things with e's

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1also stretching or compressing exponential function gives e at some point

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Hmmm what is so special about e? I only know that the derivative of e^x is again e^x which is quite nice and that I can rewrite e^(ix) in terms of sine and cosine but is there even more to e?

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1LOL ... not really sure!!

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0xD I thought there might be some additional stuff I might not know about.^^

beginnersmind
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Medals 0 You can do it by writing e as a^(1/ln(a)) and apply exponential identities but why would you want to? e is such a nice number :)

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1e's the best ... LOL

beginnersmind
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1From a practical point of view, if you need to differentiate or integrate your function down the road, would you rather deal with e^x or A^x?

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0@beginnersmind I was wondering if the appearance of e in some laws of physics was because somewhat had the hearts for e or because there is no other way to state that law. Might have been just some physicist who loved e and we could rewrite some laws. Ok than I guess e really is that great. :)

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1comes naturally from \( \int 1/x dx \)

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0f I integrate or differentiate I am always happy to encounter e ;) But if I just add and multiply I could live without e ;) So it depends on the field.

beginnersmind
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1well, a lot of laws are actually of the form e^Cx, so I'm not sure e is especially preferred by nature in those cases. It seems to be notational .

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0So I could easily rewrite y=K*e^(Cx) with some other base?

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1i've usually encountered in decay equation and distribution function. decay equation < dN/dt = N < depends on initial value distribution function > didn't understand

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I started wondering while looking at the decay equation like 10 Minutes ago.^^

beginnersmind
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1@experimentX in the decay function the choice of the base is somewhat arbitrary. Say you have f(t)=e^(Ct). You could just as easily write f(t)2^(Kt), with a different constant.

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1why ... we choose it as natural base for log while integrating < must be some reason.

beginnersmind
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1I'm saying e^(Ct) and 2^(Ct/ln2) are the same function. They take the same values.

beginnersmind
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.12^(Ct/ln2) that is

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0But If you rewrite it using the ln than e is still in there (in that function). So you can rewrite in a way that you can not see e but it is hidden in the ln.

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1we could use the same logic everywhere, the point is why e so that there is no logs on the power?? 1/ ln 2 ??

beginnersmind
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1Well, there's a constant, which is an experimentally determined number. When you use e as the base the constant is C. When you use 2 it's K=C/ln2. If you actually measure halflife you're measuring K, so ln2 isn't really "hidden" there.

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Ops right. ln2 is just some number  there is not an e hidden. So we could really rewrite equations that fit that pattern.

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1not really sure if i am understanding ..:(

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0@experimentX Which part? You wrote the same thing as beginnersmind with the rewriting 1/lnA or now 1/ln2.

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1e^x/nothing < why nothing in this case?? must be some special property of e A^x/lnA

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Why e^x/nothing? Who wrote that where?

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1usually equation comes that way when we integrate 1/x dx Oo, i think i need to review decay equation, since i ignored \( \lamda \) factor completely.

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1LOL ... seems like only e is nice to deal with,

anonymous
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0:) I guess than everything is alright. What a nice and interesting discussion. If you follow mathematics and physics in class it seems that e is mysteriously everywhere but apparently it is that way because some people are secretly working for e and we could write it in a different way. :) Nevertheless e is a great number for calculus.

experimentX
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1yeah ... that i agree!! makes nice, easy and clean.

beginnersmind
 4 years ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.1To be fair, there are situations where e appears in its own right. E.g. you can't rewrite e^i*pi=1 with any number. (I think)
Ask your own question
Sign UpFind more explanations on OpenStudy
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.