again, its jst a suggestion, but the way i would do it is: try with x = 3, and see if ln(3) > 3 ^0.1, if not try 5, if not try 10, etc,etc. if you show all that, youve shown that theres a number, greater then 3, that fits the equation ln(x) > x ^0.1
Well, the way I'm taught, thats perfectly fine, and i know some of my exams occasionally ask you to prove something, and there is no, or few other ways of proving it apart from trial and error (at least with the knowledge taught by the syllabus!)
I'm guessing you didnt read much of what i said, such as that above bit, or the bit saying that some of my exams force you to use that method, also giving trial and error tables.
however, gl with the problem, maybe things are taught differently where you are.
dont worry, im not denying theres better, more mathematically correct ways of doing it, completly agree with you there. but im not clever enough for that, and its a simple problem, so why not give a simple answer! :p
ok, the answer is not simple, to prove it u have to define a function and show which properties it have and then u will see that this number should exist
Iteration? Ever heard of numerics? You can't solve every equation the way you were taught in school. E.g. curve fitting or the root of a nonlinear equation.
you were the one making a general statement:
"its not a mathematical way just to guess"
that's what you wrote and it is obviously wrong (an iteration starts with a good guess). i merely pointed that out.
in numeric in the iteration u guess the first number as solution, but this is not correct or not exactly, after u do an iteration which was proven and is right, and: if u use an iteration its the way to find the solution but NOT TO PROVE something.
And like i sad already here, find me not just a number but the whole real Intervall. Dont think u wanna test every real number for this, but u should with this "guess" methodic
"some guys cant see the difference between guess and prove"
and some guys can't see the difference between show and prove, as seen below.
but yes, nvm.
ofc it is, but that was the only thing i could come up that could find a solution...
maybe try a "scheme" ( babelfished it the dutch word "stelsel" ) , should work
ln(x) is de natuurlijke logaritme, hetzelfde als elog(x)
in de natuur komt er een bepaald getal ( ik gok 1.61 en nog iets ) veel voor waardoor ze er ne speciale logaritme voor hebben gemaakt namelijk die ln :P
no its not right what u say ask u teacher,
to show something always means not to guess and not to use numbers as solution u should do it a way without taking this number which exist;
just try it another way without taking and guessing this number
change windowsettings and scale settings so u can see very high value's but i'm trying to get it on another way...just thinking what way :P pff, it's been so long :( fucking vectors are messing with my mind :<
just go this way:
ok, the answer is not simple, to prove it u have to define a function and show which properties it have and then u will see that this number should exist
and i could have solved this last year, but i cba to go true my books and notes of last year just to find this answer for some question on crossfire :P
afaik thats far from being jackass, its not learning if you just quess some fucking numbers, i think you are really bad teacher if you teach your students that way, the mathematical way to solve it is the only right way imo
Im doing my first year at highschool so pls, im not even supposed to know this yet or solve it, i just gave my opinnion, if you really teach students like "just quess a number and see if its right"-style is WRONG IMO
edit: my teacher would give 0/6 from this task if i did it your way and would put questionmark on the your so called "solution"
ur way is not correct thats all
u will get 0 point for ur calculator or fucking graphshit way solution
and u dont fucking need this number like i sad before u just have to prove that there is an intervall (not a fucking number AT NOW) where this works what u have to PROVE
we dont have teachers, we have professors,
dont try to find a number, try to find an intervall, show me that this works for a very big Intervall, how do u wanna show this? to test all real numbers for which u will need more as ur whole life? try another way. (dont task only a point, task an intervall like i sad)
and what u sad, u shouldnt say that, u should see from beginning that if there exist this point, there can exist more as only one point and from beginning change my way, and yes im interesting whole time, how the fuck can u find this only number without calculator and guessing, i really guess :)
I'm guessing you didnt read much of what i said, such as that above bit, or the bit saying that some of my exams force you to use that method, also giving trial and error tables.
however, gl with the problem, maybe things are taught differently where you are.
bb
ps: yes i know whats numeric
"its not a mathematical way just to guess"
that's what you wrote and it is obviously wrong (an iteration starts with a good guess). i merely pointed that out.
And like i sad already here, find me not just a number but the whole real Intervall. Dont think u wanna test every real number for this, but u should with this "guess" methodic
bb
"some guys cant see the difference between guess and prove"
and some guys can't see the difference between show and prove, as seen below.
but yes, nvm.
been to long that i've had that ln, log stuff...can't hell ya :(
maybe try a "scheme" ( babelfished it the dutch word "stelsel" ) , should work
ln(x) is de natuurlijke logaritme, hetzelfde als elog(x)
in de natuur komt er een bepaald getal ( ik gok 1.61 en nog iets ) veel voor waardoor ze er ne speciale logaritme voor hebben gemaakt namelijk die ln :P
ps :this will be edited since i am still working on it and i am not sure of what i have just said
"inverse operation of radicalization"--> dunno if its this what i want to say in english
to show something always means not to guess and not to use numbers as solution u should do it a way without taking this number which exist;
just try it another way without taking and guessing this number
ok, the answer is not simple, to prove it u have to define a function and show which properties it have and then u will see that this number should exist
and i could have solved this last year, but i cba to go true my books and notes of last year just to find this answer for some question on crossfire :P
(ask ur teacher)
LOL
for example in the point x=3.04 is ln(x)=1.11185blabla and 3.04^0.1=1.11760blabla
edit: my teacher would give 0/6 from this task if i did it your way and would put questionmark on the your so called "solution"
u will get 0 point for ur calculator or fucking graphshit way solution
and u dont fucking need this number like i sad before u just have to prove that there is an intervall (not a fucking number AT NOW) where this works what u have to PROVE
but nvm, ur a teacher so i'll guess ur right
dont try to find a number, try to find an intervall, show me that this works for a very big Intervall, how do u wanna show this? to test all real numbers for which u will need more as ur whole life? try another way. (dont task only a point, task an intervall like i sad)
didn't notice my typo :XD
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residuensatz
ITS A BIG DIFFERENCE!"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
ask ur teacher what does it mean to prove something
bb im off
go uli!