Trying to solve $x^2=frac 1{ln x}$












1












$begingroup$


Can anyone help me solve $x^2=dfrac 1{ln x}$ ? I don't have any idea.



Is there any way to solve it with exponentials?



I already proved the existence of the solution by IVT. Indeed the function $f(x)=1/xln x$ is strictly decreasing in $]1;+infty[$ with $lim_{xto 1^+} f(x)= +infty$ and $lim_{xto infty} f(x)= 0$, so it has to cross the $y=x$ line once.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $x=sqrt{frac{2}{W(2)}}$
    $endgroup$
    – Kemono Chen
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:53










  • $begingroup$
    No - there are no elementary-function solutions.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:54










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for answering ! what is W(2) ?
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:54










  • $begingroup$
    Firsly you should show that a solution exists.
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gimusi $1/log x$ is decreasing from $infty$ to $0$ and $x^2$ is increasing from $0$ to $infty$. They cross once.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean-Claude Arbaut
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:36
















1












$begingroup$


Can anyone help me solve $x^2=dfrac 1{ln x}$ ? I don't have any idea.



Is there any way to solve it with exponentials?



I already proved the existence of the solution by IVT. Indeed the function $f(x)=1/xln x$ is strictly decreasing in $]1;+infty[$ with $lim_{xto 1^+} f(x)= +infty$ and $lim_{xto infty} f(x)= 0$, so it has to cross the $y=x$ line once.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $x=sqrt{frac{2}{W(2)}}$
    $endgroup$
    – Kemono Chen
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:53










  • $begingroup$
    No - there are no elementary-function solutions.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:54










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for answering ! what is W(2) ?
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:54










  • $begingroup$
    Firsly you should show that a solution exists.
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gimusi $1/log x$ is decreasing from $infty$ to $0$ and $x^2$ is increasing from $0$ to $infty$. They cross once.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean-Claude Arbaut
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:36














1












1








1





$begingroup$


Can anyone help me solve $x^2=dfrac 1{ln x}$ ? I don't have any idea.



Is there any way to solve it with exponentials?



I already proved the existence of the solution by IVT. Indeed the function $f(x)=1/xln x$ is strictly decreasing in $]1;+infty[$ with $lim_{xto 1^+} f(x)= +infty$ and $lim_{xto infty} f(x)= 0$, so it has to cross the $y=x$ line once.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




Can anyone help me solve $x^2=dfrac 1{ln x}$ ? I don't have any idea.



Is there any way to solve it with exponentials?



I already proved the existence of the solution by IVT. Indeed the function $f(x)=1/xln x$ is strictly decreasing in $]1;+infty[$ with $lim_{xto 1^+} f(x)= +infty$ and $lim_{xto infty} f(x)= 0$, so it has to cross the $y=x$ line once.







algebra-precalculus






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 9 '18 at 10:27









gimusi

92.8k84494




92.8k84494










asked Dec 9 '18 at 9:51









JeanJean

134




134








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $x=sqrt{frac{2}{W(2)}}$
    $endgroup$
    – Kemono Chen
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:53










  • $begingroup$
    No - there are no elementary-function solutions.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:54










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for answering ! what is W(2) ?
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:54










  • $begingroup$
    Firsly you should show that a solution exists.
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gimusi $1/log x$ is decreasing from $infty$ to $0$ and $x^2$ is increasing from $0$ to $infty$. They cross once.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean-Claude Arbaut
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:36














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    $x=sqrt{frac{2}{W(2)}}$
    $endgroup$
    – Kemono Chen
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:53










  • $begingroup$
    No - there are no elementary-function solutions.
    $endgroup$
    – Martin
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:54










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks for answering ! what is W(2) ?
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:54










  • $begingroup$
    Firsly you should show that a solution exists.
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 9:56






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @gimusi $1/log x$ is decreasing from $infty$ to $0$ and $x^2$ is increasing from $0$ to $infty$. They cross once.
    $endgroup$
    – Jean-Claude Arbaut
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:36








1




1




$begingroup$
$x=sqrt{frac{2}{W(2)}}$
$endgroup$
– Kemono Chen
Dec 9 '18 at 9:53




$begingroup$
$x=sqrt{frac{2}{W(2)}}$
$endgroup$
– Kemono Chen
Dec 9 '18 at 9:53












$begingroup$
No - there are no elementary-function solutions.
$endgroup$
– Martin
Dec 9 '18 at 9:54




$begingroup$
No - there are no elementary-function solutions.
$endgroup$
– Martin
Dec 9 '18 at 9:54












$begingroup$
Thanks for answering ! what is W(2) ?
$endgroup$
– Jean
Dec 9 '18 at 9:54




$begingroup$
Thanks for answering ! what is W(2) ?
$endgroup$
– Jean
Dec 9 '18 at 9:54












$begingroup$
Firsly you should show that a solution exists.
$endgroup$
– gimusi
Dec 9 '18 at 9:56




$begingroup$
Firsly you should show that a solution exists.
$endgroup$
– gimusi
Dec 9 '18 at 9:56




1




1




$begingroup$
@gimusi $1/log x$ is decreasing from $infty$ to $0$ and $x^2$ is increasing from $0$ to $infty$. They cross once.
$endgroup$
– Jean-Claude Arbaut
Dec 9 '18 at 10:36




$begingroup$
@gimusi $1/log x$ is decreasing from $infty$ to $0$ and $x^2$ is increasing from $0$ to $infty$. They cross once.
$endgroup$
– Jean-Claude Arbaut
Dec 9 '18 at 10:36










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

As already said, solve it numerically for
$$xsimeq 1.531584$$
The analytical solution cannot be expressed with a finite number of elementary functions. It requires a special function, the Lambert W function.



http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LambertW-Function.html



$$x^2=frac{1}{ln(x)}=frac{2}{ln(x^2)}$$
$$ln(x^2)=frac{2}{x^2}$$
$$x^2=e^{2/x^2}$$
$$frac{2}{x^2}e^{2/x^2}=2$$
Let $X=frac{2}{x^2}$
$$Xe^X=2$$
From the definition of the Lambert W function :
$$X=W(2)$$
Thus $frac{2}{x^2}=W(2)$



$$x=sqrt{frac{2}{W(2)}}$$
$W(2)simeq 0.8526055$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Brilliant ! thank you very much ! :)))
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 13:46



















1












$begingroup$

The first thing, as you have made, is to show/check that there is exactly a solution for $x>1$ by IVT.



To determine that value by numerical methods (Newton's, bisection, etc.) we can use bisection method by a calculator starting for example from




  • $x_a=1 implies f(1)<0$

  • $x_b=2 implies f(2)>0$


and then we can iteretively get closer and closer to the solution by




  • $x_i=frac{x_a+x_b}2$

  • if $f(x_i)<0 implies x_a=f(x_i)$

  • if $f(x_i)>0 implies x_b=f(x_i)$


Here is the numerical solution by WolframAlpha that is $x approx 1.5316$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks ! I already proved that it existed by IVT, by i'm stuck with the numerical methods...
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:04










  • $begingroup$
    @Jean That's fine, you need to add all those informations directly in your question in order to clarify what are you asking exactly.
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:05










  • $begingroup$
    Alright, done ! Can you tell me what you mean by numerical methods ? @gimusi
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:16










  • $begingroup$
    @Jean You need first to improve your answer adding more detail and context about your work on that. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    So it is like dichotomy program ?
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:27



















1












$begingroup$

If you do not want to use Lambert function, consider that you look for the zero of function
$$f(x)=log(x)-frac 1{x^2}$$ for which
$$f'(x)=frac{2}{x^3}+frac{1}{x}> 0 ,,,, forall xqquad text{and} qquad f''(x)=-frac{6}{x^4}-frac{1}{x^2} < 0 ,,,, forall x$$
The first derivative does not show real roots. By inspection $f(1)=-1$ and $f(2)=log (2)-frac{1}{4}$
Build a Taylor series at $x=1$ to get
$$f(x)=-1+3 (x-1)+Oleft((x-1)^2right)$$ giving the approximate solution $frac 4 3$.
Using instead the simplest Padé approximant, you would have
$$f(x)sim frac{17-11 x}{1-7 x}$$ giving the approximate solution $frac {17}{11}approx 1.54545 $ which is not too bad compared to the exact value.



Edit



You could have better approximations if you notice that $fleft(sqrt{e}right)=frac{1}{2}-frac{1}{e}$. So, using Taylor again
$$f(x)=left(frac{1}{2}-frac{1}{e}right)+frac{(2+e)
left(x-sqrt{e}right)}{e^{3/2}}+Oleft(left(x-sqrt{e}right)^2right)$$
which gives as an estimate
$$x=frac{sqrt{e} (6+e)}{2 (2+e)}approx 1.52323$$



Doing the same with the simplest Padé approximant, we should get
$$f(x)simfrac{(4+5 e (4+e)) x-sqrt{e} (6+e) (2+3 e)}{2 e (6+e) x+2 (e-2) e^{3/2}}$$ giving as an estimate
$$x=frac{sqrt{e} (6+e) (2+3 e)}{4+5 e (4+e)}approx 1.53147$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I think that on this you can teach us a lot!
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:49










  • $begingroup$
    Really I think that, also for this, your contribution here is so important and special for that! There is not price to see how you work on that. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:58











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032209%2ftrying-to-solve-x2-frac-1-ln-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes








3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

As already said, solve it numerically for
$$xsimeq 1.531584$$
The analytical solution cannot be expressed with a finite number of elementary functions. It requires a special function, the Lambert W function.



http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LambertW-Function.html



$$x^2=frac{1}{ln(x)}=frac{2}{ln(x^2)}$$
$$ln(x^2)=frac{2}{x^2}$$
$$x^2=e^{2/x^2}$$
$$frac{2}{x^2}e^{2/x^2}=2$$
Let $X=frac{2}{x^2}$
$$Xe^X=2$$
From the definition of the Lambert W function :
$$X=W(2)$$
Thus $frac{2}{x^2}=W(2)$



$$x=sqrt{frac{2}{W(2)}}$$
$W(2)simeq 0.8526055$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Brilliant ! thank you very much ! :)))
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 13:46
















2












$begingroup$

As already said, solve it numerically for
$$xsimeq 1.531584$$
The analytical solution cannot be expressed with a finite number of elementary functions. It requires a special function, the Lambert W function.



http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LambertW-Function.html



$$x^2=frac{1}{ln(x)}=frac{2}{ln(x^2)}$$
$$ln(x^2)=frac{2}{x^2}$$
$$x^2=e^{2/x^2}$$
$$frac{2}{x^2}e^{2/x^2}=2$$
Let $X=frac{2}{x^2}$
$$Xe^X=2$$
From the definition of the Lambert W function :
$$X=W(2)$$
Thus $frac{2}{x^2}=W(2)$



$$x=sqrt{frac{2}{W(2)}}$$
$W(2)simeq 0.8526055$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Brilliant ! thank you very much ! :)))
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 13:46














2












2








2





$begingroup$

As already said, solve it numerically for
$$xsimeq 1.531584$$
The analytical solution cannot be expressed with a finite number of elementary functions. It requires a special function, the Lambert W function.



http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LambertW-Function.html



$$x^2=frac{1}{ln(x)}=frac{2}{ln(x^2)}$$
$$ln(x^2)=frac{2}{x^2}$$
$$x^2=e^{2/x^2}$$
$$frac{2}{x^2}e^{2/x^2}=2$$
Let $X=frac{2}{x^2}$
$$Xe^X=2$$
From the definition of the Lambert W function :
$$X=W(2)$$
Thus $frac{2}{x^2}=W(2)$



$$x=sqrt{frac{2}{W(2)}}$$
$W(2)simeq 0.8526055$






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



As already said, solve it numerically for
$$xsimeq 1.531584$$
The analytical solution cannot be expressed with a finite number of elementary functions. It requires a special function, the Lambert W function.



http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LambertW-Function.html



$$x^2=frac{1}{ln(x)}=frac{2}{ln(x^2)}$$
$$ln(x^2)=frac{2}{x^2}$$
$$x^2=e^{2/x^2}$$
$$frac{2}{x^2}e^{2/x^2}=2$$
Let $X=frac{2}{x^2}$
$$Xe^X=2$$
From the definition of the Lambert W function :
$$X=W(2)$$
Thus $frac{2}{x^2}=W(2)$



$$x=sqrt{frac{2}{W(2)}}$$
$W(2)simeq 0.8526055$







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Dec 9 '18 at 11:01









JJacquelinJJacquelin

44k21853




44k21853












  • $begingroup$
    Brilliant ! thank you very much ! :)))
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 13:46


















  • $begingroup$
    Brilliant ! thank you very much ! :)))
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 13:46
















$begingroup$
Brilliant ! thank you very much ! :)))
$endgroup$
– Jean
Dec 9 '18 at 13:46




$begingroup$
Brilliant ! thank you very much ! :)))
$endgroup$
– Jean
Dec 9 '18 at 13:46











1












$begingroup$

The first thing, as you have made, is to show/check that there is exactly a solution for $x>1$ by IVT.



To determine that value by numerical methods (Newton's, bisection, etc.) we can use bisection method by a calculator starting for example from




  • $x_a=1 implies f(1)<0$

  • $x_b=2 implies f(2)>0$


and then we can iteretively get closer and closer to the solution by




  • $x_i=frac{x_a+x_b}2$

  • if $f(x_i)<0 implies x_a=f(x_i)$

  • if $f(x_i)>0 implies x_b=f(x_i)$


Here is the numerical solution by WolframAlpha that is $x approx 1.5316$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks ! I already proved that it existed by IVT, by i'm stuck with the numerical methods...
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:04










  • $begingroup$
    @Jean That's fine, you need to add all those informations directly in your question in order to clarify what are you asking exactly.
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:05










  • $begingroup$
    Alright, done ! Can you tell me what you mean by numerical methods ? @gimusi
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:16










  • $begingroup$
    @Jean You need first to improve your answer adding more detail and context about your work on that. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    So it is like dichotomy program ?
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:27
















1












$begingroup$

The first thing, as you have made, is to show/check that there is exactly a solution for $x>1$ by IVT.



To determine that value by numerical methods (Newton's, bisection, etc.) we can use bisection method by a calculator starting for example from




  • $x_a=1 implies f(1)<0$

  • $x_b=2 implies f(2)>0$


and then we can iteretively get closer and closer to the solution by




  • $x_i=frac{x_a+x_b}2$

  • if $f(x_i)<0 implies x_a=f(x_i)$

  • if $f(x_i)>0 implies x_b=f(x_i)$


Here is the numerical solution by WolframAlpha that is $x approx 1.5316$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Thanks ! I already proved that it existed by IVT, by i'm stuck with the numerical methods...
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:04










  • $begingroup$
    @Jean That's fine, you need to add all those informations directly in your question in order to clarify what are you asking exactly.
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:05










  • $begingroup$
    Alright, done ! Can you tell me what you mean by numerical methods ? @gimusi
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:16










  • $begingroup$
    @Jean You need first to improve your answer adding more detail and context about your work on that. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    So it is like dichotomy program ?
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:27














1












1








1





$begingroup$

The first thing, as you have made, is to show/check that there is exactly a solution for $x>1$ by IVT.



To determine that value by numerical methods (Newton's, bisection, etc.) we can use bisection method by a calculator starting for example from




  • $x_a=1 implies f(1)<0$

  • $x_b=2 implies f(2)>0$


and then we can iteretively get closer and closer to the solution by




  • $x_i=frac{x_a+x_b}2$

  • if $f(x_i)<0 implies x_a=f(x_i)$

  • if $f(x_i)>0 implies x_b=f(x_i)$


Here is the numerical solution by WolframAlpha that is $x approx 1.5316$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



The first thing, as you have made, is to show/check that there is exactly a solution for $x>1$ by IVT.



To determine that value by numerical methods (Newton's, bisection, etc.) we can use bisection method by a calculator starting for example from




  • $x_a=1 implies f(1)<0$

  • $x_b=2 implies f(2)>0$


and then we can iteretively get closer and closer to the solution by




  • $x_i=frac{x_a+x_b}2$

  • if $f(x_i)<0 implies x_a=f(x_i)$

  • if $f(x_i)>0 implies x_b=f(x_i)$


Here is the numerical solution by WolframAlpha that is $x approx 1.5316$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 9 '18 at 10:40

























answered Dec 9 '18 at 10:03









gimusigimusi

92.8k84494




92.8k84494












  • $begingroup$
    Thanks ! I already proved that it existed by IVT, by i'm stuck with the numerical methods...
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:04










  • $begingroup$
    @Jean That's fine, you need to add all those informations directly in your question in order to clarify what are you asking exactly.
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:05










  • $begingroup$
    Alright, done ! Can you tell me what you mean by numerical methods ? @gimusi
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:16










  • $begingroup$
    @Jean You need first to improve your answer adding more detail and context about your work on that. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    So it is like dichotomy program ?
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:27


















  • $begingroup$
    Thanks ! I already proved that it existed by IVT, by i'm stuck with the numerical methods...
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:04










  • $begingroup$
    @Jean That's fine, you need to add all those informations directly in your question in order to clarify what are you asking exactly.
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:05










  • $begingroup$
    Alright, done ! Can you tell me what you mean by numerical methods ? @gimusi
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:16










  • $begingroup$
    @Jean You need first to improve your answer adding more detail and context about your work on that. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:17










  • $begingroup$
    So it is like dichotomy program ?
    $endgroup$
    – Jean
    Dec 9 '18 at 10:27
















$begingroup$
Thanks ! I already proved that it existed by IVT, by i'm stuck with the numerical methods...
$endgroup$
– Jean
Dec 9 '18 at 10:04




$begingroup$
Thanks ! I already proved that it existed by IVT, by i'm stuck with the numerical methods...
$endgroup$
– Jean
Dec 9 '18 at 10:04












$begingroup$
@Jean That's fine, you need to add all those informations directly in your question in order to clarify what are you asking exactly.
$endgroup$
– gimusi
Dec 9 '18 at 10:05




$begingroup$
@Jean That's fine, you need to add all those informations directly in your question in order to clarify what are you asking exactly.
$endgroup$
– gimusi
Dec 9 '18 at 10:05












$begingroup$
Alright, done ! Can you tell me what you mean by numerical methods ? @gimusi
$endgroup$
– Jean
Dec 9 '18 at 10:16




$begingroup$
Alright, done ! Can you tell me what you mean by numerical methods ? @gimusi
$endgroup$
– Jean
Dec 9 '18 at 10:16












$begingroup$
@Jean You need first to improve your answer adding more detail and context about your work on that. Thanks
$endgroup$
– gimusi
Dec 9 '18 at 10:17




$begingroup$
@Jean You need first to improve your answer adding more detail and context about your work on that. Thanks
$endgroup$
– gimusi
Dec 9 '18 at 10:17












$begingroup$
So it is like dichotomy program ?
$endgroup$
– Jean
Dec 9 '18 at 10:27




$begingroup$
So it is like dichotomy program ?
$endgroup$
– Jean
Dec 9 '18 at 10:27











1












$begingroup$

If you do not want to use Lambert function, consider that you look for the zero of function
$$f(x)=log(x)-frac 1{x^2}$$ for which
$$f'(x)=frac{2}{x^3}+frac{1}{x}> 0 ,,,, forall xqquad text{and} qquad f''(x)=-frac{6}{x^4}-frac{1}{x^2} < 0 ,,,, forall x$$
The first derivative does not show real roots. By inspection $f(1)=-1$ and $f(2)=log (2)-frac{1}{4}$
Build a Taylor series at $x=1$ to get
$$f(x)=-1+3 (x-1)+Oleft((x-1)^2right)$$ giving the approximate solution $frac 4 3$.
Using instead the simplest Padé approximant, you would have
$$f(x)sim frac{17-11 x}{1-7 x}$$ giving the approximate solution $frac {17}{11}approx 1.54545 $ which is not too bad compared to the exact value.



Edit



You could have better approximations if you notice that $fleft(sqrt{e}right)=frac{1}{2}-frac{1}{e}$. So, using Taylor again
$$f(x)=left(frac{1}{2}-frac{1}{e}right)+frac{(2+e)
left(x-sqrt{e}right)}{e^{3/2}}+Oleft(left(x-sqrt{e}right)^2right)$$
which gives as an estimate
$$x=frac{sqrt{e} (6+e)}{2 (2+e)}approx 1.52323$$



Doing the same with the simplest Padé approximant, we should get
$$f(x)simfrac{(4+5 e (4+e)) x-sqrt{e} (6+e) (2+3 e)}{2 e (6+e) x+2 (e-2) e^{3/2}}$$ giving as an estimate
$$x=frac{sqrt{e} (6+e) (2+3 e)}{4+5 e (4+e)}approx 1.53147$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I think that on this you can teach us a lot!
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:49










  • $begingroup$
    Really I think that, also for this, your contribution here is so important and special for that! There is not price to see how you work on that. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:58
















1












$begingroup$

If you do not want to use Lambert function, consider that you look for the zero of function
$$f(x)=log(x)-frac 1{x^2}$$ for which
$$f'(x)=frac{2}{x^3}+frac{1}{x}> 0 ,,,, forall xqquad text{and} qquad f''(x)=-frac{6}{x^4}-frac{1}{x^2} < 0 ,,,, forall x$$
The first derivative does not show real roots. By inspection $f(1)=-1$ and $f(2)=log (2)-frac{1}{4}$
Build a Taylor series at $x=1$ to get
$$f(x)=-1+3 (x-1)+Oleft((x-1)^2right)$$ giving the approximate solution $frac 4 3$.
Using instead the simplest Padé approximant, you would have
$$f(x)sim frac{17-11 x}{1-7 x}$$ giving the approximate solution $frac {17}{11}approx 1.54545 $ which is not too bad compared to the exact value.



Edit



You could have better approximations if you notice that $fleft(sqrt{e}right)=frac{1}{2}-frac{1}{e}$. So, using Taylor again
$$f(x)=left(frac{1}{2}-frac{1}{e}right)+frac{(2+e)
left(x-sqrt{e}right)}{e^{3/2}}+Oleft(left(x-sqrt{e}right)^2right)$$
which gives as an estimate
$$x=frac{sqrt{e} (6+e)}{2 (2+e)}approx 1.52323$$



Doing the same with the simplest Padé approximant, we should get
$$f(x)simfrac{(4+5 e (4+e)) x-sqrt{e} (6+e) (2+3 e)}{2 e (6+e) x+2 (e-2) e^{3/2}}$$ giving as an estimate
$$x=frac{sqrt{e} (6+e) (2+3 e)}{4+5 e (4+e)}approx 1.53147$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    I think that on this you can teach us a lot!
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:49










  • $begingroup$
    Really I think that, also for this, your contribution here is so important and special for that! There is not price to see how you work on that. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:58














1












1








1





$begingroup$

If you do not want to use Lambert function, consider that you look for the zero of function
$$f(x)=log(x)-frac 1{x^2}$$ for which
$$f'(x)=frac{2}{x^3}+frac{1}{x}> 0 ,,,, forall xqquad text{and} qquad f''(x)=-frac{6}{x^4}-frac{1}{x^2} < 0 ,,,, forall x$$
The first derivative does not show real roots. By inspection $f(1)=-1$ and $f(2)=log (2)-frac{1}{4}$
Build a Taylor series at $x=1$ to get
$$f(x)=-1+3 (x-1)+Oleft((x-1)^2right)$$ giving the approximate solution $frac 4 3$.
Using instead the simplest Padé approximant, you would have
$$f(x)sim frac{17-11 x}{1-7 x}$$ giving the approximate solution $frac {17}{11}approx 1.54545 $ which is not too bad compared to the exact value.



Edit



You could have better approximations if you notice that $fleft(sqrt{e}right)=frac{1}{2}-frac{1}{e}$. So, using Taylor again
$$f(x)=left(frac{1}{2}-frac{1}{e}right)+frac{(2+e)
left(x-sqrt{e}right)}{e^{3/2}}+Oleft(left(x-sqrt{e}right)^2right)$$
which gives as an estimate
$$x=frac{sqrt{e} (6+e)}{2 (2+e)}approx 1.52323$$



Doing the same with the simplest Padé approximant, we should get
$$f(x)simfrac{(4+5 e (4+e)) x-sqrt{e} (6+e) (2+3 e)}{2 e (6+e) x+2 (e-2) e^{3/2}}$$ giving as an estimate
$$x=frac{sqrt{e} (6+e) (2+3 e)}{4+5 e (4+e)}approx 1.53147$$






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



If you do not want to use Lambert function, consider that you look for the zero of function
$$f(x)=log(x)-frac 1{x^2}$$ for which
$$f'(x)=frac{2}{x^3}+frac{1}{x}> 0 ,,,, forall xqquad text{and} qquad f''(x)=-frac{6}{x^4}-frac{1}{x^2} < 0 ,,,, forall x$$
The first derivative does not show real roots. By inspection $f(1)=-1$ and $f(2)=log (2)-frac{1}{4}$
Build a Taylor series at $x=1$ to get
$$f(x)=-1+3 (x-1)+Oleft((x-1)^2right)$$ giving the approximate solution $frac 4 3$.
Using instead the simplest Padé approximant, you would have
$$f(x)sim frac{17-11 x}{1-7 x}$$ giving the approximate solution $frac {17}{11}approx 1.54545 $ which is not too bad compared to the exact value.



Edit



You could have better approximations if you notice that $fleft(sqrt{e}right)=frac{1}{2}-frac{1}{e}$. So, using Taylor again
$$f(x)=left(frac{1}{2}-frac{1}{e}right)+frac{(2+e)
left(x-sqrt{e}right)}{e^{3/2}}+Oleft(left(x-sqrt{e}right)^2right)$$
which gives as an estimate
$$x=frac{sqrt{e} (6+e)}{2 (2+e)}approx 1.52323$$



Doing the same with the simplest Padé approximant, we should get
$$f(x)simfrac{(4+5 e (4+e)) x-sqrt{e} (6+e) (2+3 e)}{2 e (6+e) x+2 (e-2) e^{3/2}}$$ giving as an estimate
$$x=frac{sqrt{e} (6+e) (2+3 e)}{4+5 e (4+e)}approx 1.53147$$







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Dec 13 '18 at 7:42

























answered Dec 9 '18 at 15:43









Claude LeiboviciClaude Leibovici

121k1157134




121k1157134












  • $begingroup$
    I think that on this you can teach us a lot!
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:49










  • $begingroup$
    Really I think that, also for this, your contribution here is so important and special for that! There is not price to see how you work on that. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:58


















  • $begingroup$
    I think that on this you can teach us a lot!
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:49










  • $begingroup$
    Really I think that, also for this, your contribution here is so important and special for that! There is not price to see how you work on that. Thanks
    $endgroup$
    – gimusi
    Dec 11 '18 at 7:58
















$begingroup$
I think that on this you can teach us a lot!
$endgroup$
– gimusi
Dec 11 '18 at 7:49




$begingroup$
I think that on this you can teach us a lot!
$endgroup$
– gimusi
Dec 11 '18 at 7:49












$begingroup$
Really I think that, also for this, your contribution here is so important and special for that! There is not price to see how you work on that. Thanks
$endgroup$
– gimusi
Dec 11 '18 at 7:58




$begingroup$
Really I think that, also for this, your contribution here is so important and special for that! There is not price to see how you work on that. Thanks
$endgroup$
– gimusi
Dec 11 '18 at 7:58


















draft saved

draft discarded




















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid



  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3032209%2ftrying-to-solve-x2-frac-1-ln-x%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Plaza Victoria

In PowerPoint, is there a keyboard shortcut for bulleted / numbered list?

How to put 3 figures in Latex with 2 figures side by side and 1 below these side by side images but in...