Can this be solved?

no, never

>>8755581
Yes, now fuck off

What the fuck

>>8755581
X=1

>>8755581
taylor expansion

>>8755593
Dude what does that even mean?

>>8755593
>>8755602
He means that a numerical approximation can be done.
Also >>8755592

>>8755581
made me think >>8755592

X=1; 2.4909

>>8755622
>2.4909
where did that shit come from?

>>8755625

my arse

>>8755648

Wanna rp?

I don't understand what's so hard about this. It's 1.

Of course I got that by rationally inputting a value, not by actually changing the equation around.

But its not just 1, its some other value also. where does that shit come from?

File: dumbfuck.png (11KB, 434x218px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 434x218px

It's 1 and 2.4909. Case closed.

>>8755670
Why is it 2.4909? Where is the proof? Unless you or someone QED's that shit, it can be simply brushed off as calculation error or nuance in calculation by a computer.

>>8755678
Numerical approximation and error analysis to prove the digits are correct. QED

>>8755678
proof sketch

if you put x=2.4908, ln(x) > x-sqrt(x)
if you put x=2.4910, x-sqrt(x) > ln(x)
both functions are continuous
now get arbitrarily close to 2.4909 from both sides and show the relationship remains

LMB

>>8755703
>>8755714
What is the exact form?

So far 2.4909 is just an approximation at best. Both of these proofs are bad because of that.

For example, you wouldn't say 2.7183, you would say e, when referring to e.

>>8755744
>For example, you wouldn't say 2.7183, you would say e, when referring to e.

Well in that case [math] y [/math] is the solution.

I gurss setting x=e^{2t} is a good start