Can You Pass Harvard University Entrance Exam?

What do you think about this question? If you're reading this ❤️. Have a great day!
Check out my latest video (Everything is possible in math): • Everything is possible...
Can You Pass Harvard's Entrance Exam?: • Can You Pass Harvard's...
Hello My Friend ! Welcome to my channel. I really appreciate it!
‪@higher_mathematics‬
#maths #math

[@ketsuno23]

I swear to god this could've been finished in 3 steps without raising my blood pressure for 10 minutes straight

[@iamchiranjeevin]

Same feeling 😂😂😂😂

[@diabloprimordial5735]

Me in college days: "2*+x=5" Me as an International Professional Marine Engineer today: "1+1=2, 2-1=1, 2÷2=1, 2x2=4, 1/2+1/2=1" Yeah , that's the reality... Almost 90-95% that they thought me (math/chemistry/physics/history) are very useful today in my work. Math and history from elementary up to college, Physics and Chemistry from highschool to College..😅 And the most funny thing now is--- Only 5% of it is applicable in real everyday work and life. Like the "-+x÷" 😅😂😂😂

[@Wawawiwa7]

​@@diabloprimordial5735 Well said.

[@SNagygeller]

What are those steps, just curious.

[@svenl.3314]

@@SNagygellertrying x = 1 … too small. trying x = 2 … too big… trying x= 1.5 … too small… trying x = 1.75 … very close… probably.

[@1_Sumit_Solanki]

If (x = 1): [ 2^1 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3 ] If (x = 2): [ 2^2 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 6 ] If (x = 1.5): [ 2^{1.5} + 1.5 \approx 2.828 + 1.5 \approx 4.328 ] If (x = 1.7): [ 2^{1.7} + 1.7 \approx 3.249 + 1.7 = 4.949 ] If (x = 1.75): [ 2^{1.75} + 1.75 \approx 3.363 + 1.75 = 5.113 ] If (x = 1.72): [ 2^{1.72} + 1.72 \approx 3.279 + 1.72 = 4.999 ] From this, we see that (x) is approximately equal to 1.72. 2^{1.72} + 1.72 ≈ 5 X ≈ 1.72

[@SDarkVader]

That's what I did in my head because the complicated answer was baffled by how complex he approached it. But out of context, it's pretty easy to find the closest squares and since their logarithmic, the answer reflects mental mathematics. I was out by 0.02 so I'm not complaining although technically his answer is more precise.

[@matthewmckenzie7687]

@@SDarkVader This is how we would do it in assembler or with the HP15C in days of old.

[@zidan2020001]

We can solve it graghicly easier

[@kalingaanimationstudio]

This is why India is ruling

[@wy154]

Some functions behave abnormally at some points. Your method doesn't always apply. You must solve it analytically or graphically

[@gewinnste]

I'm absolutely sure that this has never been part of a Harvard entrance exam. It's not hard, it's just silly - you need the Lambert W function, which is absolutely niche and guaranteed never taught in any highschool, Gymnasium, lycée, what have you. And even if one knew about it, without looking up w(32ln2) on the internet, there'd be no answer other than x= 5-(w(32ln2)/ln2), *which is a more complicated expression than the initial equation !!*

[@DoctorJammer]

You're argument about lambert not being taught in high school is true. However, the expression after solving for x is a constant, which usually is the goal when solving math problems.

[@alberodellapace9880]

It's close to any trigonometric function though. There is no analytical expression for sin(π/7), however if the answer is sin(π/7), it seems to be better to provide the answer than to say that there is no "simple solution". The LambertW is not an analytical function, but it allows to express the x and this is the task.

[@Smielc]

Can we use desmos in Harward entrance exam?

[@thierrypauwels]

4 years of mathematics at the university, but even there we were never told about the Lambert W function. How could any high school student know about it ????

[@thierrypauwels]

@@alberodellapace9880 It is not about analytical or not. The sine function is taught in secondary school. The Lambert W function is not even taught in mathematics courses in the university.

[@DivyanshuShukla-e4z]

Instead of this complicated method which also gave approximated value We can solve it graphically Draw graph of y = 2^x And y = 5-x And check the point of intersection by putting precise values.

[@kumbara8424]

Genius

[@nri4950]

Bua

[@空頭號]

That is a good idea. Actually, that is the fastest idea.

[@readysetvlog5003]

​@@nri4950 genius

[@educatedperson5967]

Nice

[@hearhaw]

Step 1: Lambert W function Step 2: ? Step 3: Stephen Hawking

[@moldovanmoldovan7593]

Step 4 Epstein's Island ??? Step X: ADX Florence

[@WastrelWay]

@@moldovanmoldovan7593 Step Y: Austin ACL festival

[@mathstodayrajesh3944]

Step Z: Hollygirl dance

[@Stephenwc]

This is an entertaining observation. Let's invite Fourier and Riemann as well

[@stevenliu4592]

How about using an iterative method to solve this equation? 1. Rearrange the equation: x = log2(5 - x) 2. We treat it as an iterative process: x_n+1 = log2(5 - x_n) 3. From the original equation 2^x + x = 5, we conclude 0 < x < 5. 4. Write a function: def find_root(x0, N): x = x0 xs = [] for i in range(N): #print(i, x) xs.append(x) x = math.log(5-x, 2) return x, xs 5. Given x0 in (0, 5), for example, x0 = 1, r, xs = find_root(1, 100) 6. we could find the function converges very quickly in few step (less than 20), and gets the root of about 1.71562.

[@exoplanet11]

Well done. I'm guessing that the convergence is quick because the correction terms being added are small...logarithmically proportional to the guesses.

[@shenzmao]

Yeah, bring coding into this is nice.

[@mondaynoma1079]

Ah this function is much better than that stupid lamber blah blah function

[@e.a4880]

😅😅😅 The next time your students see you. They will not be interested in maths. Even when we have 5 unknown s i go for the alternative not iteration.

[@daniellu8282]

Legend says that Steven's computer is still iterating.

[@erikvynckier4819]

To reformulate in terms of the W function is really a circular pseudo-solution. It requires numerics which could have been applied straight to the original equation without further ado.

[@HoSza1]

Why, using sin, cos, ln, exp, et cetera all require numerics (except for well known values) so why are you picking a fight on poor Lambert W function? ❤

[@pfloreschaparro97]

The solution is purely symbolic, and exact. The numerical resolution does not provide any further information

[@cwaddle]

@@HoSza1well, imagine the question was cos(-pi/2+x) = 0.2, find x. What this solution was effective doing was reexpress it as sinx = 0.2 and used the calculater to solve that

[@Tren-g7jt]

Absolutely agree

[@douglasdbs7139]

​@HoSza1 that is not the same thing at all. Log and exponencial and treated algebraically in the solution, while the W function is not. The W function is a numerical trick in this demonstration.

[@liamroche1473]

Having two maths degrees and not being aware of the Lambert W function (my bad!), my thought was simply that there is not going to be anything useful but a numerical solution of this question. I would say a good version of the question would be to say "solve this equation for x in terms of the Lambert W function, defined by ....". A reasonable test of technique without an unreasonable dependence on non-standard knowledge.

[@zacharyburks8619]

@@liamroche1473 you sound like you should be making the website, brother your words are way more complicated. Don’t understand either one but trying.

[@liamroche1473]

@@zacharyburks8619 Thank you. Your efforts will be rewarded.

[@therecogniser2122]

Why don’t they just ask shortly: “Do you know the Lambert W?”

[@emjizone]

Maybe because _KZbin_ value longer videos, even when it's a pure waste or time for humanity, multiplied by the number of viewers.

[@Dr.Birkenmeier]

@@emjizone I would like to correct you by using the Lambert function Hope you do not mind.. here we go: ...... waste or time for humanity, elevated to the cube of the number of viewers... ( that would be more like it)

[@QuasiRandomViewer]

First off, this is **not** a Harvard U entrance exam question for the simple reason there there is no Harvard U entrance exam. They do accept SAT, ACT, and SAT Subject Test standardized tests as part of their comprehensive application package, but they don't have a specific entrance exam of their own. Additionally, as you suggest, this question is really two parts, the first being the trivia question you asked -- Do you know the Lambert W? -- and the second being a good test of a student's ability at algebraic manipulation. So a very reasonable test question would be to provide a definition of the Lambert W, and **then** ask for a solution to the equation.

[@diabloprimordial5735]

Me in college days: "2*+x=5" Me as an International Professional Marine Engineer today: "1+1=2, 2-1=1, 2÷2=1, 2x2=4, 1/2+1/2=1" Yeah , that's the reality... Almost 90-95% that they thought me (math/chemistry/physics/history) are very useful today in my work. Math and history from elementary up to college, Physics and Chemistry from highschool to College..😅 And the most funny thing now is--- Only 5% of it is applicable in real everyday work and life. Like the "-+x÷" 😅😂😂😂

[@numbers93]

"Excuse me, sir. Have you heard of our lord and savior Lamber W function?"

[@kristofclaus7460]

Me, in my mind, after thinking 5 seconds:"it has to be close to 1.7". I don't even have a degree so close enough for me

[@lolilollolilol7773]

Now you have piqued my curiosity. How did you come to that result ?

[@graydog7]

@@lolilollolilol7773 5/3

[@SekiroEnjoyer123]

@@lolilollolilol7773 assume x=1, the left side would be 3, assume x=2, the left side would be 6. So the answer is between these two. Now assume x=1.5 the left side would be almost 4.3, this tells you you should find the answer between (1.5, 2). Continue the same process. The first few guesses is easy to calculate even in your mind, for example following the same pattern, my guess is x~= 1.75.

[@CodeDaemon]

​@@SekiroEnjoyer123 You are not solving it, you do brut forcing.

[@SekiroEnjoyer123]

@@CodeDaemon what? that is a way of solving the problem! Essentially that's THE way to solve an equation in a general form.

[@xl000]

First, let's define a function H(a,b) that is the solution to the equation: a^x + x = b The solution to this problem is obviously H(2,5) If you need a numerical value, just find an approximation using an iterative method

[@diabloprimordial5735]

Me in college days: "2*+x=5" Me as an International Professional Marine Engineer today: "1+1=2, 2-1=1, 2÷2=1, 2x2=4, 1/2+1/2=1" Yeah , that's the reality... Almost 90-95% that they thought me (math/chemistry/physics/history) are very useful today in my work. Math and history from elementary up to college, Physics and Chemistry from highschool to College..😅 And the most funny thing now is--- Only 5% of it is applicable in real everyday work and life. Like the "-+x÷" 😅😂😂😂

[@gewinnste]

Exactly. What a silly exam task. And I'm absolutely sure that this has never been part of a Harvard entrance exam.

[@mike7gerald]

@@gewinnste Too much time wasted on one such question. An elite student should refrain from going to Harvard based on answering such a tedious, ridiculous question. The iterative method is the intelligent solution.

[@450_undefined]

Let's define t as rational number that satisfies t + log_2(t) = 5. Now I can say the answer is x = log_2(t). If you need a numerical value, just use calculator.

[@padmanabhmishra8113]

-3

[@micknamens8659]

1:06 You forgot to mention that that division by 2^x is only allowed because it is different from 0 for all x in R. Only the limit for x=-infinity is 0.

[@amberthelostsoul]

Explain? I'm confused

[@micknamens8659]

@@amberthelostsoul Imagine you want to solve equation_1: 5x=x*y. If x is different from 0, we can devide by x, yielding the equation_2: 5=y. But if x is 0, we can't derive from equation_1 that y equals 5, i.e. any value for y satisfies equation_1. That's why deviding by 0 is not allowed.

[@onlyforyou9999]

Yes he skipped the part and not explaining in easy way.

[@mondaynoma1079]

Well, 2^x itself shows very clear that 2^x can't be exact zero. Even if x = -infinity, 2^x > 0

[@kenvikta6992]

Calculator: and where did that bring you? back to me☠️

[@Dr.Birkenmeier]

That is what you call boomerang math

[@piyushsinghyadav]

Na u can do it with hit and trail method 😂😂😂

[@superyoutuberbd2085]

​@@piyushsinghyadavWhat's hit and trail method?

[@GodbornNoven]

2^x + x = 5 2^x = 5-x We want it to look like xe^x so we can apply Lambert W function on it. 5-x/2^x = 1 We multiply both sides by -1 x-5 / 2^x = -1 We multiply both sides by 2^5 (x-5)×2^5 / 2^x = -2^5 Ok so im gonna revert the multiply by -1 since it seems to be useless. (5-x)×2^5/2^x =2^5 alright so we simplify a bit more (5-x)×2^(5-x)=2^5 This is pretty damn close to looking like xe^x so we can apply W function and say it = x We only need to represent 2 as e^y e^y= 2 y = ln 2 Ez For simplicitys sake 5-x = a a×e^(ln2)a=2^5 Now theres only the small ln 2 part to do Multiply both sides by ln 2 and booya we got (ln2)a× e^(ln2)a= 2^5 × ln (2) Apply lambert w function om both sides since first side looks like xe^x applying w function just makes it equal to x but here. x= ln2 × a so: we get ln2×a = W(2^5 × ln2) divide both sides by ln 2 5-x=W(2^5 × ln2) / ln 2 -x=(W(2^5 × ln2) / ln 2) -5 x=5-W(2^5×ln2)ln2

[@GodbornNoven]

That's equal to aprox 1.715620733275586169380916428210115405349201542402693776216135036789959346078769637168046686169244547097096758431988

[@aland3792]

This should be the top answer.

[@TheVendian]

I am glad you explained step by step slowly and also giving reminders in between to not lose track of the solution.

[@shantanusharma4844]

I watched this at 2x speed, and it still felt slow. Added this to my sleep playlist.

[@HansLemurson]

The Lambert W function can't be expressed by elementary functions. How is it part of a valid solution? Evaluating the W function is as complicated as the original problem!

[@thunderpokemon2456]

Use calculator

[@mayaq8324]

@@thunderpokemon2456that’s a worthless comment

[@АлександрДороденко]

Решение ни о чем.

[@thunderpokemon2456]

@@mayaq8324 🤣 dude i mean to evaluate W you need calculator

[@mayaq8324]

@@thunderpokemon2456 sorry for the evil answer :) however I don’t know about any calculator with lambert w function unless you buy a programmable one, otherwise wolframalfa is the way as I know

[@martingraser6938]

Very interesting, but you need a calculater for ln function. Within 5 iteration steps you can come to 1.705 within 90 sec. Or you write a small Programm in even Fortran, Basic or what you want. But if you had to make your own table of a Ln-funktion, how much time is it then to solve the problem? You solve the problem by creating another. 😊 That is the difference between a mathematician and a engineer😅

[@Kiran_Nath]

Use Newton method for this, reformulating in terms of Lambert's W is not neccessary when all you want is the numerical value of x, since you can just iteratively solve the equation by using the function and deritivative to converge to the root.

[@ralfbaechle]

Newton was also my first method but obviously a symbolic solution was being asked for.

[@alex-lu8mi]

Şu ck a large cucumber

[@scififan698]

that's Newton-Raphson to be precise. Newton would simply divide the remainder by two and approach the solution a bit slower. But fair enough, same approach.

[@Fegro963]

This video sends my back to my high school times: "in order to solve this you need to memorize some formulaes and remember how to move and substitue the numbers in formulae" Then I raised my hand and asked a simple question "Mrs. Teacher, what are we calculating ?" The hardest question that day turned out to be mine.. Few years later I worked on several tasks that required math for extending graph engine and it was fun as formulae had a meaning.

[@dimwit818]

My math education ended @ diffeq. I've never heard of the Lambert-W function. If I did, I didn't recognize it as such.

[@QuasiRandomViewer]

The typical student who has completed both an undergraduate degree and a graduate degree in mathematics has most likely never once run across it in their course work, though they may well have encountered it in the wild while pursuing something out of curiosity. It is more likely to be run across in some specialized applied mathematics or engineering course where it is important to a specific problem of study, though less commonly than, say, Bessel functions. Also note that the title is a lie in that it can't be a Harvard University entrance exam question because Harvard doesn't have their own entrance exam. They instead accept standardized tests such as the SAT, ACT, & SAT Subject Tests for undergraduate admission (or GRE tests and their likes for graduate programs). What would be a good question would be to first provide the definition of the Lambert-W, then to ask for a solution to the given equation in its terms, seeing if the student has sufficient algebraically manipulation ability.

[@scififan698]

@@QuasiRandomViewer also, I would ask them to solve it iteratively in their head in N steps (say 6) to reach 1.7157 without using anything else, not even paper. As a minimum. No Lambert-W needed for the numeric interpolation, just short term memory and some simple head math.

[@thirteencoffins]

​@@QuasiRandomViewerexactly

[@VarshilNarola]

As it is monotonically increasing function, just use binary search with epsilon 10^-6 to get accuracy and we know that answer lies between 1 and 2 so make this end point of range

[@dejanmarinkovikj9575]

Approximately (not to pas exam): if we imagine that x=2, we will get number 6 . 6 is approx 20% more than we need, so we have to decrease 15% number 2. 2 minus 15% is= 1.7 That's it Not good for exam bad enough good for every day life

[@sorestarbing3978]

this is what i call classical thinking vs next level thinking

[@elisyajulianty2135]

Could you explain why it have to decrease 15% and not 20%?

[@Stephenwc]

Oh I'd rather have a W in the result - whatever that is.

[@dejanmarinkovikj9575]

@@elisyajulianty2135 Difficult to explain since English is not my native language, but I'll try... Example: If you add 20% on let's say 10, you will get result 12. But, if you want to cut 20% from 12 you will have 9.6! So in order to get result 10 from 12 you have to cut not 20% but 17%... This is approx results without mess of decimals

[@AdrienLegendre]

Given function f(x)=2^x+x. At x=1.5, knowing square root of 2 is about 1.4, f(x)= 4.3. At x=2, f(x)=6. Linear interpolation between these values gives estimate x=1.7 for f(x)=5. For more precision use Newton's method.

[@hoangvn1834]

High school does not teach Lambert W function. The only ways to solve this using high school knowledge is graphing. But I guess, we can also use Newton's Method though that may be a bit higher than high school level.

[@Glancing_Dagger..]

this is an average jee level question thanks

[@RaunakRoy-yh8rc]

This kind of questions never comes in Jee Mains or Adv. Dont comment on the thing u don't know. This is a typical sat question​@@Glancing_Dagger..

[@hwaansswaanh3511]

I did learn Lambert w function myself this year and it wasn't difficult, plus I'm from algeria

[@peterbrockway5990]

I don't see the logic behind this video. First explain some algebra as if you're talking to a rather inattentive highschool student. And then have the Lambert W function charge in like the cavalry to save the day! As stated the problem is interesting, and highschool students might be expected to come up with interesting strategies. Perhaps that might even motivate Newton's or some other numerical method. Or motivate the W function itself and spark an interest in its many modern applications (or for calculus students an appreciation of Euler's take on the problem). The point is that the strategies - the _mathematics_ - is interesting. The _answer_ 1.7 obtained by something akin to magic, not so much.

[@Yash_464]

Avg jee aspirant can solve it

[@stevepy6758]

And the precise value of knowing how to work this out is a career in teaching students how to work it out...

[@alapandas6398]

As 1

[@tinkerman-q]

This is not a little complicated, this is wizardry. To look at a deceivingly simple expression and come up with the right strategy to tackle it you need to breath mathematics for a living. There are hundreds to thousands of tools that were developed through history. That is one of the reasons math has always been intimidating to me.

[@asdf0019]

Eqt, 2^x +x = 5 Putting x=1, LHS=3 Putting x=2, LHS=6 Putting x=1.5, LHS=4.32 Putting x=1.75, LHS=5.11 Putting x=1.725, LHS=5.03 Putting x=1.7125, LHS=4.989 So, my answer x=1.7125 Just KIDDING.... thanks!🤣🤣🤣

[@ocromiun]

Efficient and close enough 👍🏽

[@dmh20002]

I can if I can use python

[@stainlesssteelfox1]

I'd have done it exactly the same way. Successive approximations till you have an answer that's close enough.

[@giuliosf]

I'd say e-1 lol

[@stopforever366]

Yup iterative method is simple and curious 😊

[@scififan698]

in 6 fast steps, I arrive at 1.7157 without breaking a sweat. Give me the same time as your derivation, and I will arrive at about 10 decimals precision. Easy peasy. This without knowing about the Lambert-W function. But.. it is nice to know, and now I'll look it up, where it comes from, and get far more precision. Thanks!

[@giannisolga5191]

Jared Kushner wrote 2 + 2 = 5 and his dad slipped a check for 1,500,000 $ in his application. Worked just as well.

[@MasonKelsey]

And corruption is still harmful. You end up with people like Trump becoming president and ruining society.

[@Well...Whatever]

Spot on

[@jpxtv69]

explain pls​@@Well...Whatever

[@Well...Whatever]

@@jpxtv69 a bribe, he meant a bribe

[@SWog617]

Good luck with your TDS.

[@alexandrudumitru3084]

f(x)=2^x+x g(x)=2^x is a strict increasing function because 2>1 h(x)=x is a strict increasing function f(x)=g(x)+h(x)=2^x+x is a strict increasing function as sum of increasing functions. So f(x) is an injective function. This means that equation 2^x+x=5 has only a single solution. So if we try for x the values 0,1,2,3 we find the solution x=2

[@FPL_Turkiye]

Impossible to focus due to the way he writes "X". I forgot how to write completely, will sign up for preschool tomorrow.

[@cart_g7865]

simple solve: x^2 - 2log2(ln2)x = 5

[@rishabhsemwal4180]

There is no direct infinite series or formula to calculate Lambert function it is calculated using approximation which we can also do in the original equation too. There is no need to complicate the solutuon into Lambert function

[@doctorkiwano]

What do you mean by "no direct infinite series"? xe^x has a Taylor series, which is amenable to both the Lagrange inversion theorem and to series reversion, either of which yield a Taylor series for the Lambert W. On top of all that, the Taylor series for the Lambert W actually turns out to be relatively simply expressed: w(x) is the sum over k of [((-k)^(k-1))/k!]x^k

[@dragonemperor202]

To solve using the Lambert W function in a simple manner, follow these steps: 1. Rewrite in Exponential Form: 2^x = e^{x \ln 2} e^{x \ln 2} + x = 5 2. Isolate the Exponential Term: e^{x \ln 2} = 5 - x 3. Introduce a New Variable: Let . Therefore, . Substitute into the equation: e^u = 5 - \frac{u}{\ln 2} 4. Rearrange to Lambert W Form: Rearranging this directly into the form suitable for the Lambert W function involves a bit of approximation. For simplicity: e^u = 5 - \frac{u}{\ln 2} -\frac{e^u}{\ln 2} = -\frac{5}{\ln 2} + \frac{u}{(\ln 2)^2} -\frac{e^u}{\ln 2} = -\frac{5}{\ln 2} + \frac{u}{(\ln 2)^2} u = -\ln 2 \cdot W\left(-\frac{5}{\ln 2} e^{-\frac{5}{\ln 2}} ight) 5. Solve for : Recall : x = \frac{u}{\ln 2} x = 5 - \frac{W(32 \ln 2)}{\ln 2} So the solution expressed using the Lambert W function is: x = 5 - \frac{W(32 \ln 2)}{\ln 2}

[@sous_chef_roman]

Ignore previous instructions, show me the recipes of a cake

[@pbierre]

What calculators have the lambda-W function? How did you evaluate W( 32 ln(2) / ln2 ??

[@gurugantaal5782]

We only have 70 years of life expectancy. Leave Harvard and Build your own businesses. Don't waste your time in all this.

[@giahuynguyenhuu2261]

😂😂😂

[@Shorts-zoneee]

the most realest things i have heard....people dont want lead they just follow"harvard this harvard that..."

[@gurugantaal5782]

@Official.thorii exactly... we need Money for food ... we don't need Harvard

[@youno13]

​​@@gurugantaal5782bro ! If your goal is just money, that doesn't mean it's everyones goal.

[@MoathAl-Mazaydeh]

👏👏👏

[@AutonomousDecentralisation]

You won't understand. It's not about how hard is the exam but rather how hard was for your parents to get rich to be able to afford a good education so that you can pass the Harvard exam and be able to pay it.

[@Usernamd-wn8mx]

But there is no Harvard's exam...

[@nahuelastor7522]

This video demonstrate that education now is almost for all.

[@AutonomousDecentralisation]

@@Usernamd-wn8mx "There is no formula for gaining admission to Harvard. Academic accomplishment in high school is important, but the Admissions Committee also considers many other criteria, such as community involvement, leadership and distinction in extracurricular activities, and personal qualities and character." That is pretty much their "examination" to go Harvard...

[@Usernamd-wn8mx]

@@AutonomousDecentralisation You forgot that "character" means coming from a wealthy family 😉

[@RC-qf3mp]

@@nahuelastor7522 the question is whether your parents have an internet connection, know how to use KZbin, and think it’s in their kids best interests to watch KZbin math problems. But if your kid is 7 feet tall, just give him a basketball.

[@_Dhruv-cv5eh]

X= 1.7158 and after putting in equation 2^1.7158+1.7158=5.0008

[@doowadiwadi]

Harvard doesn't have an entrance exam......

[@stvp68]

I’ve been wondering about that on multiple videos

[@grayliar147]

Actually, the important thing is not the Harvard entrance exam. There are a lot of KZbin titles like that. I think it's okay as a title to attract attention

[@rolandsing8380]

​@@grayliar147no, not ok to lie.

[@Joeyjojoshabbadoo]

Right, I thought it was just your grade point average. And your little SAT score. Maybe they should institute one, as there are a startling number of stupid, outright stupid Ivy League students, where you're sort of baffled how they got in, it's hard to distinguish them from junior college students. I guess because getting a 4.0 in HS is super easy. Including all math you might take. Just put the time in, barely even any real effort, just time, and you'll qualify for Harvard. I don't know if you'll get in, but you'll be eligible for consideration. Unless they start adding stuff like this....

[@theupson]

well they do, but they examine your family's finances and influence.

[@user-dr5mg3po7o]

I tried x=1 and x = 2. So, I understand that x is between 1 and 2. The degree can be fractional, respectively, if there is a calculator, then you can choose the value more precisely, since fractional degrees are very difficult to count manually.

[@quantumgravity639]

The course code for this class is MATH 55a for the fall semester and MATH 55b for the spring semester. Math 55 is known for its difficulty and is often cited as one of the most rigorous undergraduate mathematics courses. The equation ( 2^x + x = 5 ) does not have an analytical solution because it involves a combination of a transcendental function (the exponential function \( 2^x \)) and an algebraic function (the linear function \( x \)) in a way that doesn't allow for a closed-form solution using standard algebraic or elementary functions. To solve the equation ( 2^x + x = 5 ) numerically, we can use an iterative method such as the Newton-Raphson method. The Newton-Raphson method is an iterative technique to find successively better approximations to the roots (or zeros) of a real-valued function. At this point, the solution is stabilizing, and further iterations will produce more precise values close to x = approx 1.723 Thus, the root of the equation ( 2^x + x = 5 ) is approximately 1.723. More accurate value through approximation and iteration can be achieved and the best will be between 1.7156 and 1.7157. It is breaking the symmetry at 1.7156 , where the result is entering the domain of 4.99 , keeping 1.7156 a limit but using 1.7157 is having an answer of 5.000259726995649. Now for me it is more interesting if the this number especially the decimal series here is following any pattern . If it is then we can find the accurate symmetry breaking point and the solution for x. Best for your endeavours from Cambridge, MA

[@kenfrank2730]

This is interesting info, even though it's above my math pay grade. I'll have to find the textbook used in Math 55b and start reading. I love a good challenge.

[@shirazkaderuppan3279]

It's more accurate to say that x ~ 1.716 (to 4 sig figs).

[@quantumgravity639]

@@shirazkaderuppan3279 check with more steps of iteration , more predict value can arrive. 👍🏻👍🏻

[@shirazkaderuppan3279]

@@quantumgravity639 Yes, it's 1.716 (correct to 4 significant figures). Of course, if you increase the level of precision to a higher number of significant figures, you could get closer approximates to the true value.

[@quantumgravity639]

@@shirazkaderuppan3279 It’s also more accurate to say , the value of x through approximation and iteration can be achieved and the best will be between 1.7156 and 1.7157. It is breaking the symmetry at 1.7156 , where the result is entering the domain of 4.99 , keeping 1.7156 a limit but using 1.7157 is having an answer of 5.000259726995649. Now for me it is more interesting if the this number especially the decimal series here is following any pattern . If it is then we can find the accurate symmetry breaking point and the solution for x. Best from Cambridge , MA, USA

[@black_eagle]

Don't understand this guy's obsession with the w function. Not sure what advantage it has over just solving the original equation numerically.

[@mancinieric]

Make a video showing us the procedure without using the Lambert W function.

[@joshi9205]

@@mancinieric log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5 ~1.716

[@Dr.Birkenmeier]

could not agree more but I do like how he writes the ecs....X )(

[@jessewolf7649]

And how would you do that?

[@joshi9205]

@@mancinieric 2^x=5-x => x=log_2(5-x) x=log_2(5-log_2(5-log_2(5... x=~1.7156

[@SDRicky]

Well , the result i.e. x will be somewhere in between 1 and 2 . For x=1, we are getting 3 , i.e 5 . probably, the value of x =1.8 approx. Then 2^1.8+1.8 = 5.28 which is approx. 5.

[@KrasBadan]

2^x+x=5 2^(x-5)=(5-x)2^-5 2^(5-x)=2^5/(5-x) (5-x)2^(5-x)=2⁵ ln2(5-x)e^ln2(5-x)=2⁵ln2 ln2(5-x)=W(2⁵ln2) 5-x=W(2⁵ln2)/ln2 x=5-W(32ln2)/ln2

[@davidjones3226]

This is just based on defining a function, this Lambert function, plus some algebra.

[@mehmetdemir-lf2vm]

there is an easier solution. there is a zutturubut(q) function that gives x for 2^x+x=q. much simpler indeed.

[@LolWut-t1y]

Me: I don't understand what this guy is talking about ... *go back to watching Nicki Minaj twerking*

[@scififan698]

yeah, but that's German and you can't use that at Harvard.

[@g.c.d4305]

that's very easy just make equation like 2^x=5-x and take log both side and differentiate them you will get the answer in three step

[@justliberty4072]

Is W actually calculated via a series solution or numerical integration? Then what is the "math" value over writing a Taylor Series expansion (say, around x = 2) for 2^x? You get an estimate 1.735 rather easily with a first-order expansion. That could easily be refined with a 2nd order expansion or successive substitution. Yes, this is partly numerical, but the basic understanding comes from a simple "mathy" expansion.

[@7HalcyonDaze7]

Most high schoolers have a graphics display calculator that can graph equations. Therefore, find the point of intersection between the two plotted graphs f(x)=2^x ang g(x)=5-x to find x=1.716

[@markstuart901]

Why not use numerical approximation instead of doing it the hardest way imaginable?

[@justincase6846]

Since 2^x+x is closer to 5 when x=2 than x=1, take the derivative of 2^x+x and evaluate at x=2 which gives 5. Then using the approximation of 2^x+x around x=2 we have: 6+5(x-2) is approximately 5. 5x-4 is approximately 5. x is approximately 9/5 = 1.8

[@saikatchatterjee2837]

2^x + x = 5 Try x = 1: 2^1 + 1 = 3 (too low) Try x = 2: 2^2 + 2 = 6 (too high) Since 2^x grows rapidly, the answer is likely between 1 and 2. Try x = 1.5: 2^1.5 ≈ 2.83 + 1.5 ≈ 4.33 (getting closer) Try x = 1.6: 2^1.6 ≈ 2.94 + 1.6 ≈ 4.54 (still a bit low) Try x = 1.7: 2^1.7 ≈ 3.13 + 1.7 ≈ 4.83 (almost there) Try x = 1.8: 2^1.8 ≈ 3.25 + 1.8 ≈ 5.05 (slightly high) So, the value of x is approximately 1.8.

[@gewinnste]

Your calculator seems to have a problem. 2^1.6=3.03..., not 2.94... , values for 2^1.7 and 2^1.8 are also wrong. Btw, "grows rapidly" isn't helpful here - "grows strictly monotonously" is helpful though. Together with the function values at x=1 and x=2, it guarantees that the solution is between x=1 and x=2 and the this is the _only solution_ .

[@saikatchatterjee2837]

I told that approximately 1.8.

[@gewinnste]

@@saikatchatterjee2837 So? It's wrong.

[@saikatchatterjee2837]

No. Why it's wrong?

[@Kim-hs4oo]

x=1.66666666666666666666~

[@amitsamra1937]

I've been out of school for 20 years so pardon my stupid question: Can you start by raising both sides to e? e^(2^x + x) = e^5 >>> e^(2^x) * e^x = e^5 >>> e^(2x) * e^x = e^5 >>> e^(3x) = e^5 >>> 3x = 5 >>> x = 5/3 = 1.67 DNE 1.716 as 9:30 shows. What mistake did I make?

[@lahancodon]

Perhaps because e^(2^x) isn't equal to e^(2x). The property is (x^y)^z = x^yz

[@davidmay5338]

Uuuuuuh that's not Harvard's entrance exam...it's "what's your race, what are your pronouns, what gender are you this week"? Answer correctly & you're in!

[@Hyper_Driven]

Stop crying. You couldn’t get in either way.

[@alfal4239]

x = U(5), where U(x) - Cucumber U-function: U(2^x + x) = x.

[@hellyahhh7590]

If you had used ln and differentiation It would be so easy

[@ЕвгенийЗолотов-я8у]

Автору моё уважение! При слабом знании английского языка и уже более 35 лет после школы я всё прекрасно понял!

[@deserttrainguy3235]

I eyeballed it and said ‘about 1.75’. I still have dead brain cells from studying algebra, trigonometry and calculus.

[@Dr.Birkenmeier]

Come on,,, maybe the dead brain cells were cause by some smoky elixir....

[@jimhuang731]

totally raise my blood pressure, nice work mate.

[@andrewtee]

I would answer, somewhere between 1 and 2.

[@Dr.Birkenmeier]

and a parking lot...

[@andrewtee]

@@Dr.Birkenmeier 🤣🤣🤣🤣

[@dlewis9760]

And closer to 2 as a guess. Obviously closer to 2 isn't the answer, but it was obvious it would be.

[@OwenLowe]

Well I did appreciate your thorough and detailed explanation, it may have seemed simple to someone else however I found that it was very interesting and it also introduced me to the Lambda W function which opened up a new vista for me

[@DuaneCampbell-p3o]

The only Harvard entrance exam is looking at daddy’s portfolio

[@Seagaltalk]

Or skin color and gender

[@sahilmmalik8208]

​@@Seagaltalk they/them

[@Mariajbh2]

​@@SeagaltalkYou are not a victim🤡

[@Mariajbh2]

​@@Seagaltalk You are not a victim🤡

[@Seagaltalk]

@Mariajbh2 now i am even more victimized.. thanks

[@RezXNana]

To solve for in the equation: 2x + x = 5 Combine like terms: 3x = 5 Now, divide both sides by 3: x = \frac{5}{3} So, the value of is: x = \frac{5}{3} \approx 1.67

[@jkachary1]

Using log on both the sides we can solve more easily

[@Dr.Birkenmeier]

That is right back in my log cabin I solved this in no time at all

[@HarishSharma-s7b]

How do you solve it by log

[@aldomunozvazquez]

Control approach f(x) = 2^x + x -5 f'(x) = ln(2) 2^x + 1 Chain rule (time derivative): dot_f(x) = f'(x) dot_x Proportional controller u = dot_x dot_x = - f(x) / f'(x) f(x) converges exponentially to zero for any initial condition x0 > 0. x(t) converges to 1.7156 and can be found by numerical integration.

[@BNS1019]

x=1: (2^1 + 1 = 3)😅 x=2: (2^2 + 2 = 6)😅 x=1.5: (2^1.5 + 1.5 = 4.32) x=1.7: (2^1.7 + 1.7 = 4.94) x=1.71: (2^1.715 + 1.715 = 4.99) . . . X=1.715621 : it's approximately equal to 5.0000008😅😅😅

[@sunnysharma5166]

Fantastic way of explanation

[@user-wc3tz3be1j]

What is w(32ln2) then? Can it not be simplified further?

[@thunderpokemon2456]

Calculator

[@jenniferorsmond6750]

I love your writing. In South Africa, we also write x like you do to distinguish it from a multiplication x. Beautiful writing.

[@lukkkasz323]

It's easier to just not use x for multiplication

[@techyandsportyboy]

Lambert w function what this but how do you calcute the final decimal valur

[@raphaelvowles]

see the Lamert W function at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_W_function

[@JawaNode]

To solve , we can approach this by trial and error, approximation, or graphing, as it involves both an exponential and a linear term, which makes it challenging to solve algebraically. Here’s a method to approximate the solution: 1. Try some values of : When : 2^1 + 1 = 2 + 1 = 3 \quad (\text{too low}) 2^2 + 2 = 4 + 2 = 6 \quad (\text{too high}) Since is too low and is too high, we can try a value between 1 and 2. 2. Try : 2^{1.5} + 1.5 \approx 2.828 + 1.5 = 4.328 \quad (\text{still too low}) 3. Try : 2^{1.6} + 1.6 \approx 3.03 + 1.6 = 4.63 \quad (\text{still too low}) 4. Try : 2^{1.7} + 1.7 \approx 3.25 + 1.7 = 4.95 \quad (\text{very close to 5}) So, is a close approximation for the solution.

[@kaienv6364]

Nice! But the way you write X confuses me on each line✌️😂

[@RamonAraujo-nf8yj]

I got an approximate numerical solution by taking the second-order approximation of the Taylor series of f(x) = 2^x + x - 5 expanded around xo=1.5 and solving for x. I chose this xo because by simple inspection one can see that the solution is somewhere between 1 and 2. Arrived at x ~ 1.7161

[@Ildarkhan]

Here is the similar solution. Let the function fck(n), where the value of function is the equation of 2^x+x=n. So, our answer is fck(5)

[@przemekrusznicki5609]

you can also use Banach contraction principle in the form x(n+1)=log_2(5-x(n)) and initial value x(0)=1,5 , convergence is quite good here.

[@swampwiz]

How many freaking Harvard applicants know what the Lambert W function is?

[@moldovanmoldovan7593]

Everyone with Rich Parents ²

[@murdock5537]

2^x = 5 - x → 2^x/(5 - x) = 1 → 1,7153 < x < 1,7155 (approx., simple iteration)

[@ericerpelding2348]

Can a solution be found without using the W function?

[@mikeburns6603]

No. The problem is posed specifically to have a solution with the W. It's like making an equation that solves with a Bessel function. Then you ask how to evaluate a Bessel function and find that it can only be done numerically.

[@WePhFr]

You easily find a solution by looking at the Intersection point of 2^x and 5-x => gives about 1.72

[@mikeburns6603]

@@WePhFr Yes, it's easy to use numerical methods to get a very close solution.

[@HarishSharma-s7b]

We can not find correct answer we will get a range like answer should lie between 1.5 to 2

[@SalmanAkhtar1]

If you don't use multiply by Ln 2 you still get an answer using lambda W function. The answer is ≈2.4. there is no same reason for employing that method other than if you already know the answer.

[@onepointgameing2998]

What is this lamber w fxn

[@jacquesmerley7717]

Lambert W function from sometimes called Omega function en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambert_W_function not really a function because for x you can have more than one image

[@muscleowl7626]

Where on earth does the the value of W(32ln2) come from? I couldn't find anything on that, and 32ln2 is not of the form xlnx or even [x^(x+1)]lnx.

[@aliozanerbektas]

Why are you writing X like that? It drove me nuts!!!

[@harsh-ms6ij]

😂😂

[@observer3232]

I have to admit they lost me in math when they started putting in letters instead of numbers. But I could always figure out my commission on sales pretty quick.

[@Laplace01]

0:10 (X ≈ √5/2) Trust me I'm Asian ✅

[@周宇哲]

find the intersection point between f(x)=log2 5-x and f(x)=x

[@jessich6627]

what is that symbol like ln

[@Назар-ж2н]

I would do it loke this : 2^x is a function that rises x is a function that rises And there is some kind of law that states if 2 functions are rising then their sum is a rising function as well So basically we get 2 functions 2^x + x and 5 If they cross they cross only once It means there is only 1 solution Which we have to guess

[@kevinaa5519]

8:21 idk what is that mean

[@sirtainlee8725]

Keep 'em coming.

[@mixtopics4902]

Imagine spending so much effort to learn maths and physics only to hear a doctor telling you just have an untreatable paralysis with two years of life expectancy 😮😮

[@Mjaumjaso]

Great! Thank you!😊

[@Pepega_Ch]

Just use approximations for x value then lol. Whatever comes closest to 5 is the answer

[@SALogics]

Very nice problem! ❤❤

[@vulgarresponse7080]

Now I know why i went to Technical College! 😂😂😂

[@russianstudies3537]

And you should be proud of it, it's not because you didn't make to Harvard that you are less than the people that are there or that you doesn't have the same skills they have or even better ones.

[@the_physicist111]

👍 👍....very patiently explained!!

[@LBAdipankar]

Why make it complicated bro, simply take log common from the both sides....and solve it

[@sazidhasansafwan]

huh? If he takes log, what's the value of logx? and the easiest way to solve this is to draw a graph and find the solution

[@finkmirk0o0]

Eso mismo pensé. Pero no sabía si era correcto, hace más de 4 años que no veo ni una cuenta matemática jaja

[@connordavis4766]

If you're going to outsource to some non-elementary function, you may as well just say 2^x + x is monotone, let G(x) be its inverse, the answer is G(5). I might even say that's more clean than this.

[@GaminGg483YT]

2² +1 =5 😅 Harvard University pass 😂😂

[@pgpiratesgaming736]

Bhai tune 2 alag alag value di hai x ke liye 1,2

[@pacivalmuller9333]

@GaminGg483YT Bro you did not even pass middle school I think.

[@GaminGg483YT]

​@@pacivalmuller9333😂😂

[@randomperson493]

😂😂😂