This site is a work in progress. New lessons are added regularly. Contact us

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 logbu=k\log_b u = k into u=bku = b^k
  • Check every candidate when combining logs enlarges the domain
  • Reject a substitution value u0u \le 0, which yields no xx
  • State a rounded answer as rounded, keeping the exact form

One-to-one is the licence

A function ff is one-to-one when different inputs always give different outputs, or equivalently, when f(u)=f(v)f(u) = f(v) forces u=vu = v. 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 bb with b>0b > 0 and b1b \neq 1. The logarithm logb\log_b was defined as the inverse of f(x)=bxf(x) = b^x, so the two of them cancel:

logb ⁣(bt)=tfor every real t,blogbM=Mfor every M>0.\log_b\!\left(b^t\right) = t \quad \text{for every real } t, \qquad\qquad b^{\log_b M} = M \quad \text{for every } M > 0.

Read them in words. The first says: the exponent you must put on bb to get btb^t is tt. The second says: if you put the exponent logbM\log_b M on bb, you get MM. Everything below is squeezed out of these two identities.

Equating exponents and equating arguments#

Take a base bb with b>0b > 0 and b1b \neq 1.

Suppose first that bu=bvb^u = b^v. Apply logb\log_b to both sides. A function gives one output per input, so feeding it the same number twice gives the same answer twice, and logb(bu)=logb(bv)\log_b(b^u) = \log_b(b^v). The first cancellation identity turns the left side into uu and the right side into vv, so u=vu = v. The converse is immediate: if u=vu = v, then bub^u and bvb^v are the very same number. So bu=bvb^u = b^v holds exactly when u=vu = v, with no side conditions at all, since btb^t is defined for every real tt.

Notice where the requirement b1b \neq 1 earns its keep. Since 1u=11^u = 1 for every uu, we have 12=151^2 = 1^5 while 252 \neq 5. A base of 11 repeats a value, so it is not one-to-one and it has no undo button. The same goes for b=0b = 0, since 0t=00^t = 0 for every t>0t > 0. A negative base is barred for a different reason, and it is worth being precise about which. The powers of 2-2 do not repeat, since (2)1=2(-2)^1 = -2, (2)2=4(-2)^2 = 4, and (2)3=8(-2)^3 = -8 are all different. The trouble is that (2)1/2(-2)^{1/2} is not a real number at all, so btb^t is not even defined for every real tt. 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 11.

Now suppose MM and NN are positive and logbM=logbN\log_b M = \log_b N. Raise bb to each side: blogbM=blogbNb^{\log_b M} = b^{\log_b N}. The second cancellation identity turns the left side into MM and the right side into NN, so M=NM = N. Here the converse needs that positivity. If M=NM = N and both are positive, then logbM\log_b M and logbN\log_b N are the same number and the log equation holds. Drop the positivity and the converse collapses, because logb(4)\log_b(-4) is not a number at all, so M=N=4M = N = -4 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.

An exponential curve meets each horizontal line at most onceThe curve y = 2^x rises from left to right. The horizontal line y = 5 crosses it exactly once, at about x = 2.32.y = 5one crossing onlyy = 2x-2-1012351
The graph of y = 2 to the x climbs steadily and never repeats a value, so a horizontal line meets it at most once. That is the whole reason 2 to the u equals 2 to the v forces u to equal v.

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 8x=4x+18^x = 4^{x+1}, write everything in base 22:

23x=22x+2    3x=2x+2    x=2.2^{3x} = 2^{2x + 2} \;\Longrightarrow\; 3x = 2x + 2 \;\Longrightarrow\; x = 2.

Worked example 1 Solve 9x+1=27x19^{x+1} = 27^{x-1}

Neither side is a power of the other, but 99 and 2727 are both powers of 33, so rewrite them:

9x+1=(32)x+1=32x+2,27x1=(33)x1=33x3.9^{x+1} = \left(3^2\right)^{x+1} = 3^{2x+2}, \qquad 27^{x-1} = \left(3^3\right)^{x-1} = 3^{3x-3}.

Both sides now sit on the same base, so the exponents must be equal:

2x+2=3x3    x=5.2x + 2 = 3x - 3 \;\Longrightarrow\; x = 5.

Check it in the original equation. With x=5x = 5, the left side is 96=(32)6=3129^6 = (3^2)^6 = 3^{12} and the right side is 274=(33)4=31227^4 = (3^3)^4 = 3^{12}, so both sides really are the same number.

Technique 2: take a logarithm of both sides. A common base is a luxury. In 5x=405^x = 40 there is none, because 4040 is not a power of 55. Both sides are positive, though (5x>05^x > 0 for every xx, and 40>040 > 0), so both sides have a logarithm. Applying the one-to-one function log\log to both sides therefore produces an equation with exactly the same solutions. Use the common logarithm log\log, which is log10\log_{10}:

log ⁣(5x)=log40    xlog5=log40    x=log40log5.\log\!\left(5^x\right) = \log 40 \;\Longrightarrow\; x \log 5 = \log 40 \;\Longrightarrow\; x = \frac{\log 40}{\log 5}.

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 y=log540y = \log_5 40 means 5y=405^y = 40, and taking log\log of both sides gives ylog5=log40y \log 5 = \log 40, which is the computation we just did. So

logbM=logMlogb,\log_b M = \frac{\log M}{\log b},

and change of base is not a separate trick but the same move applied to the definition. Numerically, log401.60206\log 40 \approx 1.60206 and log50.69897\log 5 \approx 0.69897, so

x=log40log52.29203.x = \frac{\log 40}{\log 5} \approx 2.29203.

The exact answer is x=log540x = \log_5 40. Rounded to three decimal places, x2.292x \approx 2.292. Keep those two statements apart: one is a number, the other is a picture of that number.

Worked example 2 Solve 47x1=3004 \cdot 7^{x-1} = 300

The power is buried under a coefficient, so isolate it first by dividing both sides by 44:

7x1=75.7^{x-1} = 75.

Now 7575 is not a power of 77, so match-the-bases is out. Take the common logarithm of both sides (legal, since both sides are positive) and use the power rule:

(x1)log7=log75    x1=log75log7=log775.(x - 1)\log 7 = \log 75 \;\Longrightarrow\; x - 1 = \frac{\log 75}{\log 7} = \log_7 75.

So the exact solution is x=1+log775x = 1 + \log_7 75. For a decimal, use log751.87506\log 75 \approx 1.87506 and log70.84510\log 7 \approx 0.84510:

x1+1.875060.845101+2.21875=3.21875.x \approx 1 + \frac{1.87506}{0.84510} \approx 1 + 2.21875 = 3.21875.

Rounded to three decimal places, x3.219x \approx 3.219. As a sanity check, 72.219757^{2.219} \approx 75, and multiplying by 44 returns roughly 300300.

Nothing here can create a false solution: every step (dividing by 44, taking a log of two positive quantities, dividing by log7\log 7) is reversible.

Check your understanding

Solve 23x=322^{3x} = 32.

Answer choices

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 logbu=k\log_b u = k in exponential form, u=bku = b^k. This step is completely safe, and the reason is worth spelling out: bkb^k is positive no matter what kk is. So any xx satisfying u(x)=bku(x) = b^k automatically satisfies u(x)>0u(x) > 0, which is exactly what the original equation needed. The candidate cannot fail the domain test. For example,

log2(3x1)=4    3x1=24=16    x=173,\log_2(3x - 1) = 4 \;\Longrightarrow\; 3x - 1 = 2^4 = 16 \;\Longrightarrow\; x = \frac{17}{3},

and indeed 3x1=16>03x - 1 = 16 > 0, 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, logbM=logbN\log_b M = \log_b N gives M=NM = N. But the converse only holds when MM is positive, so the equation M=NM = N can carry solutions the original never had. Here the check is not optional. Take

log3 ⁣(x26)=log3x.\log_3\!\left(x^2 - 6\right) = \log_3 x.

Equating the arguments gives x26=xx^2 - 6 = x, so x2x6=0x^2 - x - 6 = 0, so (x3)(x+2)=0(x - 3)(x + 2) = 0, and the candidates are x=3x = 3 and x=2x = -2. Test them in the original equation. At x=3x = 3 the arguments are 326=33^2 - 6 = 3 and 33, both positive, and both sides equal log33=1\log_3 3 = 1. At x=2x = -2 the right side is log3(2)\log_3(-2), which does not exist, so x=2x = -2 is not a solution at all. The only solution is x=3x = 3.

Check your understanding

Solve log5(2x+3)=2\log_5(2x + 3) = 2.

Answer choices

Extraneous solutions, and where they come from

You met this mechanism in Solving Radical Equations. Squaring both sides is a one-way step: from u=vu = v you may conclude u2=v2u^2 = v^2, but u2=v2u^2 = v^2 only gives back u=±vu = \pm v. 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 logbM+logbN=logb(MN)\log_b M + \log_b N = \log_b(MN) was proved for M>0M > 0 and N>0N > 0. 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 xx where the equation makes sense.

Combining logarithms can add roots, but never lose them#

Let M(x)M(x) and N(x)N(x) be expressions in xx, and compare the equation you are given,

logbM(x)+logbN(x)=k,\log_b M(x) + \log_b N(x) = k,

with the equation you get after combining,

logb ⁣(M(x)N(x))=k.\log_b\!\big(M(x)\,N(x)\big) = k.

The first equation makes sense only where M(x)>0M(x) > 0 and N(x)>0N(x) > 0. The second makes sense wherever M(x)N(x)>0M(x)N(x) > 0, 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 xx makes both factors negative.

Take any solution of the first equation. There M>0M > 0 and N>0N > 0, so the product rule applies and the left sides of the two equations are equal at that xx; hence that xx solves the second equation too. Combining cannot lose a root.

The reverse implication can only fail on the region where the domains differ. If xx solves the second equation with M(x)<0M(x) < 0 and N(x)<0N(x) < 0, then the first equation is not even defined there, so xx is not one of its solutions. Such an xx 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: logbM=logbN\log_b M = \log_b N gives M=NM = N, but M=NM = N hands back the log equation only when M>0M > 0. Candidates from that step need the same test, as x=2x = -2 discovered a moment ago.

Exponential equations are the honest contrast. Taking a log of both sides of 5x=405^x = 40 is reversible, because both sides are automatically positive and log\log 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.

Combining logarithms enlarges the domainTwo shaded bands over a number line, each ending in an arrowhead to show it continues without bound. The upper band covers x greater than 2 only. The lower band covers x less than 0 as well as x greater than 2. The candidate at x = -2 appears only on the lower band, so it is extraneous; the candidate at x = 4 appears on both bands.where the original equation is definedwhere the combined equation is defined-4-202468x = -2 rejectedx = 4 kept
For the equation log base 2 of x plus log base 2 of (x minus 2) equals 3, combining the two logarithms widens the set of x values where the equation makes sense. The arrows show that the shaded regions run on without end. The candidate x = -2 lives only in the region that the combining step added, so it is extraneous, while x = 4 lies in both regions and is a genuine solution.

Worked example 3 Solve log2x+log2(x2)=3\log_2 x + \log_2(x - 2) = 3

Write down the domain before doing any algebra. The equation asks for log2x\log_2 x and log2(x2)\log_2(x-2), so it needs x>0x > 0 and x2>0x - 2 > 0. Both conditions together say

x>2.x > 2.

Now combine the two logarithms with the product rule and convert to exponential form:

log2 ⁣(x(x2))=3    x(x2)=23=8.\log_2\!\big(x(x - 2)\big) = 3 \;\Longrightarrow\; x(x - 2) = 2^3 = 8.

That is a quadratic. Expand and factor:

x22x8=0    (x4)(x+2)=0,x^2 - 2x - 8 = 0 \;\Longrightarrow\; (x - 4)(x + 2) = 0,

so the candidates are x=4x = 4 and x=2x = -2.

Test each one in the original equation. For x=4x = 4 the arguments are 4>04 > 0 and 42=2>04 - 2 = 2 > 0, and

log24+log22=2+1=3,\log_2 4 + \log_2 2 = 2 + 1 = 3,

so x=4x = 4 is genuine. For x=2x = -2 the first argument is 2-2, and log2(2)\log_2(-2) does not exist, so x=2x = -2 is rejected. It also fails the domain condition x>2x > 2 that we wrote down at the start.

It is worth seeing exactly why 2-2 showed up. At x=2x = -2 the two arguments are x=2x = -2 and x2=4x - 2 = -4, both negative, and their product is (2)(4)=8(-2)(-4) = 8, 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 x=4x = 4.

Check your understanding

What is the complete solution set of log4x+log4(x6)=2\log_4 x + \log_4(x - 6) = 2?

Answer choices

Equations that hide a quadratic

Some exponential equations look unsolvable until you notice that one power is the square of another. Since 4x=(22)x=(2x)24^x = (2^2)^x = (2^x)^2, an equation containing both 4x4^x and 2x2^x is a quadratic wearing a disguise. Substitute u=2xu = 2^x, solve the quadratic, then undo the substitution.

Worked example 4 Solve 4x32x4=04^x - 3 \cdot 2^x - 4 = 0

Rewrite the first term so that both powers are built from 2x2^x:

4x=(22)x=22x=(2x)2.4^x = \left(2^2\right)^x = 2^{2x} = \left(2^x\right)^2.

Let u=2xu = 2^x. The equation becomes an ordinary quadratic in uu, which factors:

u23u4=0    (u4)(u+1)=0    u=4  or  u=1.u^2 - 3u - 4 = 0 \;\Longrightarrow\; (u - 4)(u + 1) = 0 \;\Longrightarrow\; u = 4 \ \text{ or } \ u = -1.

Undo the substitution one root at a time. From u=4u = 4 we get 2x=4=222^x = 4 = 2^2, and equating exponents gives x=2x = 2.

From u=1u = -1 we get 2x=12^x = -1, which has no solution: an exponential is positive for every real input, so 2x2^x never reaches 1-1. Notice this is a different situation from an extraneous root. A candidate xx was never produced at all, because 1-1 is outside the range of 2x2^x; nothing needs to be rejected after the fact.

Check the survivor in the original equation:

423224=16124=0.4^2 - 3 \cdot 2^2 - 4 = 16 - 12 - 4 = 0.

The equation holds, so the solution is x=2x = 2.

Common mistakes

Practice

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQ)

Progressively harder sets of questions. Each opens on its own page.

Free Response Questions (FRQ)

Longer questions in parts, to be worked out on paper. Progressive hints, the answer on its own so you can check yourself and try again, then the full worked solution, plus a rubric to mark your own work against.

Free response Work it out on paper 5 questions Start →
More practice (optional)

Extra sets, as hard as the Challenge set. Each one opens on its own page.

More resources (optional)

Other explanations of this lesson, if you want a second take.

A bit of history (Optional)

This lesson keeps telling you to throw an answer away, and the reason is always the same. A logarithm has been handed a negative number, and there is no such thing. Two of the best minds of their generation once spent a year arguing about that.

The quarrel ran by letter, through 1712 and 1713, between Gottfried Leibniz and Johann Bernoulli. Bernoulli had a proof that looked airtight, and it used the power rule you already know. Since (1)2=12(-1)^{2} = 1^{2}, taking logarithms of both sides gives 2log(1)=2log12\log(-1) = 2\log 1. So log(1)\log(-1) has to be log1\log 1, which is 00.

Leibniz refused it: a logarithm is an exponent, he wrote back. No exponent on a positive base ever gives a negative number, so there is nothing there to be 00. Neither man gave way, and the quarrel outlived them both.

It was settled a generation later, and Leibniz was right about the real numbers. Bernoulli’s step was the illegal one, because the power rule requires a positive argument. Applied to a negative one, it manufactures a value out of nothing.

That is the mechanism behind an extraneous root, in miniature. Folding two logarithms into one quietly widens the set of numbers your equation will accept. A candidate that survives the algebra may be standing on ground the original equation never covered. So put it back in and check what each logarithm is holding. Bernoulli did not.