Solving Exponential and Logarithmic Equations
Learning goals
- Use one-to-oneness to equate exponents on a common base
- Take a logarithm to bring an unknown exponent down
- Turn into
- Check every candidate when combining logs enlarges the domain
- Reject a substitution value , which yields no
- State a rounded answer as rounded, keeping the exact form
One-to-one is the licence
A function is one-to-one when different inputs always give different outputs, or equivalently, when forces . On a graph this says that no horizontal line meets the curve twice. That is precisely the condition you met in Inverse Functions: a function has an inverse exactly when it is one-to-one. The reason is that the inverse has to send each output back to a single input.
Fix a base with and . The logarithm was defined as the inverse of , so the two of them cancel:
Read them in words. The first says: the exponent you must put on to get is . The second says: if you put the exponent on , you get . Everything below is squeezed out of these two identities.
Equating exponents and equating arguments#
Take a base with and .
Suppose first that . Apply to both sides. A function gives one output per input, so feeding it the same number twice gives the same answer twice, and . The first cancellation identity turns the left side into and the right side into , so . The converse is immediate: if , then and are the very same number. So holds exactly when , with no side conditions at all, since is defined for every real .
Notice where the requirement earns its keep. Since for every , we have while . A base of repeats a value, so it is not one-to-one and it has no undo button. The same goes for , since for every . A negative base is barred for a different reason, and it is worth being precise about which. The powers of do not repeat, since , , and are all different. The trouble is that is not a real number at all, so is not even defined for every real . There is then no unbroken curve to invert in the first place. That is why logarithms are built only on bases that are positive and different from .
Now suppose and are positive and . Raise to each side: . The second cancellation identity turns the left side into and the right side into , so . Here the converse needs that positivity. If and both are positive, then and are the same number and the log equation holds. Drop the positivity and the converse collapses, because is not a number at all, so does not produce a true statement about logarithms.
That asymmetry is worth staring at. Equating exponents is a two-way street. Equating arguments is a two-way street only on positive arguments, and every extraneous solution in this lesson comes from stepping off the street.
Solving exponential equations
An exponential equation has the unknown in an exponent. There are two techniques, and which one you reach for depends on whether the two sides can be written with a common base.
Technique 1: match the bases. If both sides are powers of the same base, the theorem lets you throw the base away and set the exponents equal. For , write everything in base :
Worked example 1 Solve
Neither side is a power of the other, but and are both powers of , so rewrite them:
Both sides now sit on the same base, so the exponents must be equal:
Check it in the original equation. With , the left side is and the right side is , so both sides really are the same number.
Technique 2: take a logarithm of both sides. A common base is a luxury. In there is none, because is not a power of . Both sides are positive, though ( for every , and ), so both sides have a logarithm. Applying the one-to-one function to both sides therefore produces an equation with exactly the same solutions. Use the common logarithm , which is :
The middle step is the power rule from Properties of Logarithms. That power rule is the whole point of taking a log: it drags the unknown down out of the exponent, where ordinary algebra can reach it.
That quotient is the change-of-base formula in action. Setting means , and taking of both sides gives , which is the computation we just did. So
and change of base is not a separate trick but the same move applied to the definition. Numerically, and , so
The exact answer is . Rounded to three decimal places, . Keep those two statements apart: one is a number, the other is a picture of that number.
Worked example 2 Solve
The power is buried under a coefficient, so isolate it first by dividing both sides by :
Now is not a power of , so match-the-bases is out. Take the common logarithm of both sides (legal, since both sides are positive) and use the power rule:
So the exact solution is . For a decimal, use and :
Rounded to three decimal places, . As a sanity check, , and multiplying by returns roughly .
Nothing here can create a false solution: every step (dividing by , taking a log of two positive quantities, dividing by ) is reversible.
Check your understanding
Solve .
Write the right side as a power of , since . Now both sides share the base , so the exponents must match.
Checking, .
Solving logarithmic equations
A logarithmic equation has the unknown inside a logarithm. Again there are two shapes.
Shape A: one logarithm equal to a constant. Rewrite in exponential form, . This step is completely safe, and the reason is worth spelling out: is positive no matter what is. So any satisfying automatically satisfies , which is exactly what the original equation needed. The candidate cannot fail the domain test. For example,
and indeed , as guaranteed. You are welcome to check anyway, and checking costs nothing, but this particular check cannot fail.
Shape B: one logarithm equal to another. By the theorem, gives . But the converse only holds when is positive, so the equation can carry solutions the original never had. Here the check is not optional. Take
Equating the arguments gives , so , so , and the candidates are and . Test them in the original equation. At the arguments are and , both positive, and both sides equal . At the right side is , which does not exist, so is not a solution at all. The only solution is .
Check your understanding
Solve .
Rewrite the equation in exponential form. The logarithm says that is what you get by putting the exponent on the base .
The argument at is , so the value is legal. It had to be, because is positive.
Extraneous solutions, and where they come from
You met this mechanism in Solving Radical Equations. Squaring both sides is a one-way step: from you may conclude , but only gives back . Squaring destroys sign information, so the squared equation can hold at points where the original fails. The extra roots are not mistakes in your algebra; the step itself manufactured them.
Logarithms do the same thing, with the domain playing the role that the sign played. The product rule was proved for and . If both are negative, the left side is meaningless while the right side is perfectly happy, since a product of two negatives is positive. Rewriting the left side as the right side therefore enlarges the set of where the equation makes sense.
Combining logarithms can add roots, but never lose them#
Let and be expressions in , and compare the equation you are given,
with the equation you get after combining,
The first equation makes sense only where and . The second makes sense wherever , which happens when both factors are positive and also when both factors are negative. So the second equation’s domain contains the first equation’s domain, and it is strictly larger as soon as some makes both factors negative.
Take any solution of the first equation. There and , so the product rule applies and the left sides of the two equations are equal at that ; hence that solves the second equation too. Combining cannot lose a root.
The reverse implication can only fail on the region where the domains differ. If solves the second equation with and , then the first equation is not even defined there, so is not one of its solutions. Such an is an extraneous root, produced by the step rather than by the problem. (Most of the added region causes no trouble at all, because nothing there solves the second equation either. The damage is done only by an added point that happens to be a root.)
That gives you a rule you can trust. Combine and solve, because the combined equation is the easy one. Then test every candidate in the original equation, where the test is simply whether each logarithm’s argument is positive. Keep the survivors and discard the rest.
Equating arguments has the same one-way character, for the same reason: gives , but hands back the log equation only when . Candidates from that step need the same test, as discovered a moment ago.
Exponential equations are the honest contrast. Taking a log of both sides of is reversible, because both sides are automatically positive and is one-to-one, so nothing is gained or lost. An exponential equation solved that way never produces an extraneous root. It is the logarithmic side of this lesson that needs the domain police.
Worked example 3 Solve
Write down the domain before doing any algebra. The equation asks for and , so it needs and . Both conditions together say
Now combine the two logarithms with the product rule and convert to exponential form:
That is a quadratic. Expand and factor:
so the candidates are and .
Test each one in the original equation. For the arguments are and , and
so is genuine. For the first argument is , and does not exist, so is rejected. It also fails the domain condition that we wrote down at the start.
It is worth seeing exactly why showed up. At the two arguments are and , both negative, and their product is , which is precisely the value the combined equation wanted. The combined equation is satisfied there; the original one is not even defined there. The solution is .
Check your understanding
What is the complete solution set of ?
The arguments force and , so the domain is . Combine and convert to exponential form.
That gives , so and the candidates are and .
Only satisfies . Checking it, . The candidate is extraneous, because there both arguments are negative and only their product is positive.
Equations that hide a quadratic
Some exponential equations look unsolvable until you notice that one power is the square of another. Since , an equation containing both and is a quadratic wearing a disguise. Substitute , solve the quadratic, then undo the substitution.
Worked example 4 Solve
Rewrite the first term so that both powers are built from :
Let . The equation becomes an ordinary quadratic in , which factors:
Undo the substitution one root at a time. From we get , and equating exponents gives .
From we get , which has no solution: an exponential is positive for every real input, so never reaches . Notice this is a different situation from an extraneous root. A candidate was never produced at all, because is outside the range of ; nothing needs to be rejected after the fact.
Check the survivor in the original equation:
The equation holds, so the solution is .