18

This seems to have stumped even my TA, so I'm asking it here.

Given $e^x + x = 1$, solve for $x$.

I already know that the answer is zero, but have no idea how to get there.

YellPika
  • 291
  • 3
    Under most reasonable meanings of algebraic, no. Exponentials $+$ polynomials $=$ mess. – André Nicolas Sep 28 '12 at 18:40
  • 3
    You might want take a look at Lambert's W. – EuYu Sep 28 '12 at 18:52
  • if $x<0$ then $x+e^x<0+1$ and if $x>0$ we have $x+e^x>0+1$. This is an equation with unique solution, but it is hard to argue "algebraically" that $x+e^x$ is increasing thus 1 to 1... – N. S. Sep 28 '12 at 19:55
  • 3
    I'm teaching from Stewart this term and assigned this problem as homework. The point is that if you have an invertible function $f$ such that $f(0) = 1$ (such as the function $f(x) = e^x + x$), then you know that $f^{-1}(1) = 0$, even if you can't solve the equation $f(x) = a$ for $x$ algebraically in terms of $a$. – Michael Joyce Sep 28 '12 at 19:56
  • 1
    @MichaelJoyce And, we know it's invertible because it is increasing an increasing function. – GeoffDS Sep 28 '12 at 21:52
  • The fact that you can see that zero is a solution is a perfectly legitimate method of obtaining it. :) – asmeurer Sep 29 '12 at 02:00
  • @asmeurer Not really. To tell you the truth, I peeked at the answer :) – YellPika Sep 29 '12 at 04:35
  • @YellPika: For your sake, you will learn more if you resist peeking at the answer as long as possible. In this case, you could have "peeked" at the graph of the function and went looking for the $x$-coordinate of the point where the graph crosses the line $y = 1$. – Michael Joyce Sep 29 '12 at 20:32
  • @Michael Joyce Trust me, I tried. I spent about half an hour rearranging the equation back and forth. In fact, I don't check the answers enough. If I can solve a question, I habitually move on to the next and rarely bother to check if it's right. To say that answer-peeking is my last resort would be an understatement :D – YellPika Sep 30 '12 at 02:35
  • @N.S. I disagree that it's hard to argue algebraically. The function $f(x)=x$ is clearly increasing; the function $f(x)=e^x$ is well-known to be an increasing function; and the sum of increasing functions is increasing. (One-line proof: suppose $h(x)=f(x)+g(x)$ and $b\gt a$. Then $h(b) = f(b)+g(b)\gt f(a)+g(b)\gt f(a)+g(a) = h(a)$.) – Steven Stadnicki Aug 18 '14 at 18:36
  • 1
    @StevenStadnicki $f(x)e^x$ is well known to be increasing is not an "algebraic" argument ;) My point is that technically the exponential function is hard to define, let alone study, purely algebraically, you need to use some analysis some way or another.... – N. S. Aug 18 '14 at 18:47

10 Answers10

21

Using the series expansion we have:

$$1+x+\frac{x^2}{2!}+ \dots + \frac{x^n}{n!}+\dots = 1-x$$

If $x$ is positive it is immediately obvious that there can be no equality.

If $x<0$ then the RHS is greater than 1 and $e^{x}<1$.

This is not strictly an "algebraic" solution, but with the term in $e^x$ we do not expect anything purely algebraic.

Mark Bennet
  • 100,194
17

"Lambert W" is a hint for "algebraic solution".
The solution for $\mathrm{e}^x + x = 1$ is $1-\mathrm W(\mathrm{e})$,
to find ALL complex solutions, use all branches of the Lambert W ...

$$ \begin{align*} &\dots \\ 1 - \mathrm{W}_{-4}(\mathrm{e}) &= 3.159947300 + 23.47017395 i \\ 1 - \mathrm{W}_{-3}(\mathrm{e}) &= 2.849014724 + 17.17149358 i \\ 1 - \mathrm{W}_{-2}(\mathrm{e}) &= 2.393982241 + 10.86800606 i \\ 1 - \mathrm{W}_{-1}(\mathrm{e}) &= 1.532092122 + 4.597158013 i \\ 1 - \mathrm{W}_{0}(\mathrm{e}) &= 0.000000000 \\ 1 - \mathrm{W}_{1}(\mathrm{e}) &= 1.532092122 - 4.597158013 i \\ 1 - \mathrm{W}_{2}(\mathrm{e}) &= 2.393982241 - 10.86800606 i \\ 1 - \mathrm{W}_{3}(\mathrm{e}) &= 2.849014724 - 17.17149358 i \\ 1 - \mathrm{W}_{4}(\mathrm{e}) &= 3.159947300 - 23.47017395 i \\ 1 - \mathrm{W}_{5}(\mathrm{e}) &= 3.396557044 - 29.76478701 i \\ &\dots \end{align*} $$

explanation

$\mathrm{e}^x+x=1$
$\mathrm{e}^x=1-x$
$\mathrm{e} = (1-x)\mathrm{e}^{1-x}$
$\mathrm{W}(\mathrm{e}) = 1-x$
$x = 1-\mathrm W(\mathrm{e})$

GEdgar
  • 111,679
13

You can see this very easily graphically. The equation is $$e^x=1-x$$ and the two sides of the equation are plotted here (from Wolfram Alpha):enter image description here

The intuition for a formal proof also follows directly from the picture (the functions are both monotonic but in opposite directions), if that's your aim.

Jonathan
  • 8,358
11

Let $f(x) = e^x + x - 1$. Then, for any given $x$, $f(x) = 0$ if and only if $e^x + x = 1$.

You have already noticed that $f(0) = 1 + 0 - 1 = 0$, so it is a solution.

Now, we turn to calculus, not algebra. We have $f'(x) = e^x + 1$. Since $e^x > 0$ for all $x$, we know that $e^x + 1 > 0$ as well. In other words, $f'(x)$ is positive for all $x$ which tells us that $f(x)$ is an increasing function on the entire real line. Therefore, it could only possibly be 0 at one point, and you already found that point.

Now, if you haven't had calculus, you could still get the same basic idea. For example, you know $y = x$ is increasing. That is something you should know. Perhaps you have learned that $y = e^x$ is always increasing as well, because even in an algebra class, they would probably give you a bunch of properties of $y = e^x$ when they introduce it. Add these two functions together, and it's still increasing. Subtract 1, and the function is simply translated downward 1 unit, so it's still increasing everywhere. Again, the conclusion is the same.

GeoffDS
  • 11,270
5

Just to add weight to @Jonathan’s response: If $f$ and $g$ are an increasing and a decreasing function on $\mathbb{R}$ respectively, their graphs can cross at only one point. Inspection finds that point to be $(0,1)$, and you’re done.

Lubin
  • 62,818
2

This problem can be solved using domain arguments:

$e^{x} + x = 1$
$e^{x} = 1 - x$
$ln(e^{x}) = ln(1 - x)$
$x\cdot ln(e) = ln(1 - x)$

Which leads us to:
$x = ln(1-x)$

  • $x$ cannot be larger than one, because then the expression $1-x$ will be negative violating the domain of a logarithmic function.
  • $x$ cannot be a positive number between 0 and 1, because $ln(1-x)$ will be a negative value
  • For the same reason, $x$ cannot be a number less than zero because $ln(1-x)$ will be a positive value

The only possible value for $x$ is 0.

1

Trial By Error is the only real solution.

Working with the graphical solution above, we can see that we can start with any random value for x, then recursively calling:-

for(x=i=0; i<5; x=1-((1-x+pow(M_E,x))/2.0), i++);

This takes the average value for both functions at the value of x, then re-inserting the new value for f(x) back into one of the original functions, to get a new value for x. Repeated 5 or so times to get a close estimate for the true value of x.

  • 1
    This question is an old question which has a well accepted answer. You have contributed nothing new – Shailesh Jan 09 '16 at 02:04
  • Hello Shailesh, I guessing you do not understand the question or answer. Which previous answer is exploiting the average value between the function as an estimate for the result? – Dallas Clarke Jan 09 '16 at 02:09
  • Since $x = 0$ is the only real solution, you are trying to arrive at it through numerical methods. That does not constitute as a good answer to the question. – Shailesh Jan 09 '16 at 02:32
  • The solution can be used for all situations, not just the one in the question above. There is no mathematical solution to this problem, but this exploits some mathematical properties to produce an efficient enough solution. In my situation, looping 10 times produced more reliable results. – Dallas Clarke Mar 13 '16 at 00:45
1

You can easily answer:

f(x)=e^x+x-1 The obvious solution is 0 and you can prove its the only one. By differentiating you get f'(x)=e^x+1 which is always positive.That means the f(x) function can only have one solution for zero because its monotonic.

TasosGR
  • 11
0

Let's keep this one simple...

$$e^x+x=1$$

What here can give you $1+0$? Well, we know anything raised to 0 equals 1, and anything plus 0 equals it's self (at least in the reals) so... $e^0 + 0 = 1 + 0 = 1$... Just simple math intuition makes it easy to see that $e^x+x=1$ when $x=0$.

Barry
  • 11
  • Hi, welcome to Math stack exchange. To begin, maybe help us to understand your post by editing the equation? Please use LaTeX as this is the language we use here in the community. – bryan.blackbee Apr 12 '15 at 17:21
  • @Barry, I have improved the math formatting in your answer but you should try to improve the content of your answer. – Prasun Biswas Apr 20 '15 at 01:47
0

A semi-intuitive way to think about it: the right-hand side has no $e$, so whatever you plug into the $e^x$ has to kill the $e$. So it has to be $\ln a$ for some $a$. On the other hand, the right hand side has no $\ln$, so what you plug into the $x$ term must reduce to a non-$\ln$. If you try $\ln e^b$, you'll end up in a circle. If you think maybe things will cancel, you'll see that it wont work because you will always have a different number of "levels" of exponentials and logarithms. The only possibility is $\ln 1 = 0$, which quick inspection reveals that it works.

This is by no means a formal proof (at least as I've written it), but it provides the intuition to find the solution $x=0$ if you failed to notice it off the bat.

This also shows why the solution to something like $e^x + x = 2$ is not going to expressible in terms of functions like exponentials and natural logs.

And by the way, if you are also interested in complex solutions, all bets are off with this method, since $e^{x+2\pi i}=e^x$.

asmeurer
  • 9,774