Quantcast

Got Homework?

Connect with other students for help. It's a free community.

  • across
    MIT Grad Student
    Online now
  • laura*
    Helped 1,000 students
    Online now
  • Hero
    College Math Guru
    Online now

Here's the question you clicked on:

55 members online
  • 0 replying
  • 0 viewing

TomLikesPhysics Group Title

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?

  • 2 years ago
  • 2 years ago

  • This Question is Closed
  1. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    let, A^i = e i = 1/lnA

    • 2 years ago
  2. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    it will be the same nevertheless, however I am not sure about K and C

    • 2 years ago
  3. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    I´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.

    • 2 years ago
  4. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    i 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

    • 2 years ago
  5. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    also stretching or compressing exponential function gives e at some point

    • 2 years ago
  6. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Hmmm 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?

    • 2 years ago
  7. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    LOL ... not really sure!!

    • 2 years ago
  8. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    xD I thought there might be some additional stuff I might not know about.^^

    • 2 years ago
  9. beginnersmind Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Medals 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 :)

    • 2 years ago
  10. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    e's the best ... LOL

    • 2 years ago
  11. beginnersmind Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    From 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?

    • 2 years ago
  12. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    @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. :)

    • 2 years ago
  13. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    comes naturally from \( \int 1/x dx \)

    • 2 years ago
  14. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    f 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.

    • 2 years ago
  15. beginnersmind Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    well, 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 .

    • 2 years ago
  16. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    So I could easily rewrite y=K*e^(Cx) with some other base?

    • 2 years ago
  17. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    i've usually encountered in decay equation and distribution function. decay equation <--- dN/dt = N <-- depends on initial value distribution function --> didn't understand

    • 2 years ago
  18. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    I started wondering while looking at the decay equation like 10 Minutes ago.^^

    • 2 years ago
  19. beginnersmind Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 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.

    • 2 years ago
  20. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    why ... we choose it as natural base for log while integrating <--- must be some reason.

    • 2 years ago
  21. beginnersmind Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    I'm saying e^(-Ct) and 2^(Ct/ln2) are the same function. They take the same values.

    • 2 years ago
  22. beginnersmind Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    2^(-Ct/ln2) that is

    • 2 years ago
  23. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    But 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.

    • 2 years ago
  24. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    we could use the same logic everywhere, the point is why e so that there is no logs on the power?? 1/ ln 2 ??

    • 2 years ago
  25. beginnersmind Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Well, 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 half-life you're measuring K, so ln2 isn't really "hidden" there.

    • 2 years ago
  26. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Ops right. ln2 is just some number - there is not an e hidden. So we could really rewrite equations that fit that pattern.

    • 2 years ago
  27. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    not really sure if i am understanding ..:(

    • 2 years ago
  28. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    @experimentX Which part? You wrote the same thing as beginnersmind with the rewriting 1/lnA or now 1/ln2.

    • 2 years ago
  29. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    e^x/nothing <--- why nothing in this case?? must be some special property of e A^x/lnA

    • 2 years ago
  30. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    Why e^x/nothing? Who wrote that where?

    • 2 years ago
  31. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    usually 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.

    • 2 years ago
  32. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    LOL ... seems like only e is nice to deal with,

    • 2 years ago
  33. TomLikesPhysics Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    :) 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.

    • 2 years ago
  34. experimentX Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    yeah ... that i agree!! makes nice, easy and clean.

    • 2 years ago
  35. beginnersmind Group Title
    Best Response
    You've already chosen the best response.
    Medals 1

    To 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)

    • 2 years ago
    • Attachments:

See more questions >>>

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
  • 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.

This is the testimonial you wrote.
You haven't written a testimonial for Owlfred.