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

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?

- katieb

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

- experimentX

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

- experimentX

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

- anonymous

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.

Looking for something else?

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

## More answers

- experimentX

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

- experimentX

also stretching or compressing exponential function gives e at some point

- anonymous

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?

- experimentX

LOL ... not really sure!!

- anonymous

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

- beginnersmind

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 :)

- experimentX

e's the best ... LOL

- beginnersmind

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?

- anonymous

@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

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

- anonymous

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.

- beginnersmind

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 .

- anonymous

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

- experimentX

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

- anonymous

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

- beginnersmind

@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

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

- beginnersmind

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

- beginnersmind

2^(-Ct/ln2) that is

- anonymous

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.

- experimentX

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

- beginnersmind

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.

- anonymous

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

- experimentX

not really sure if i am understanding ..:(

- anonymous

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

- experimentX

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

- anonymous

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

- experimentX

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.

- experimentX

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

- anonymous

:) 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

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

- beginnersmind

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)

Looking for something else?

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