A beautiful math question for advanced students

Sdílet
Vložit
  • čas přidán 2. 07. 2024
  • What do you think about this problem? If you're reading this ❤️.
    Hello My Friend ! Welcome to my channel. I really appreciate it!
    ‪@higher_mathematics‬
    #maths #math

Komentáře • 12

  • @rorydaulton6858
    @rorydaulton6858 Před 3 dny +3

    One thing that I did not hear you explain is that the Lambert W function has countably infinite many branches in the complex numbers, so there are many complex solutions. You gave only one of them. Another is approximately 0.06396 - 1.0908i, yet another is 1.2484 - 5.5045i, and so on.

  • @padraiggluck2980
    @padraiggluck2980 Před dnem

    The graphs of the functions y=x and y=4^x do not intersect.

  • @bigscrounger
    @bigscrounger Před 3 dny +11

    Is there a reason why you keep saying 'natural log natural log 4'. It's just supposed to be said once, unless you're applying the function twice...

  • @olmynuwen
    @olmynuwen Před 2 dny +3

    Somehow I do not feel enlightened

  • @davidchilds9590
    @davidchilds9590 Před 3 dny +4

    You have explained an answer that does not exist. You have not explained how you found the complex solution.

  • @Kanal263
    @Kanal263 Před dnem

    Es gibt keine reelle Lösung. Das wird durch eine Kurvendiskussion von f(x) = 4^x - x deutlich.

  • @QuojoK
    @QuojoK Před 3 dny +4

    Stop the over explanation. This should not take 10 mins

  • @thenationalist8845
    @thenationalist8845 Před 3 dny

    Please can anyone explain me Lambert W function
    It is not in my course but still i want to know about it 😸

    • @justabunga1
      @justabunga1 Před 3 dny +4

      Lambert W function is the inverse function of y=xe^x and is a nonelementary function since it cannot be expressed in terms of x. Here, we denote the function notation as y=W(x). This means W(xe^x)=x.

    • @thenationalist8845
      @thenationalist8845 Před 3 dny

      @@justabunga1 thank you
      Is it defined for all Real numbers?

    • @rorydaulton6858
      @rorydaulton6858 Před 2 dny +2

      @@thenationalist8845 If you are talking about the real-valued W function over the real numbers, no. W(x) is defined uniquely for all non-negative values of x, as well as at x=-1/e (where W(x) is -1). There are two branches of W for -1/e < x < 0. W(x) is undefined for x < -1/e. If you are talking about W(x) allowed to have complex values then W(x) is defined for all complex values of x.