Using Newton-Raphson method, find the solution for $e^{frac{x^2}{4vt}} = 1+frac{x^2}{2vt}$












1














I need help with solving this difficult fluid dynamic expression. I have tried using rules of logs, symbolab algebra calculator and Wolfram Alpha calculator, and I have got no solution.




How would you solve the following expression USING the NEWTON-RAPHSON method for $x$?
$$e^{frac{x^2}{4vt}} = 1+frac{x^2}{2vt}$$




When solving this USING the NEWTON-RAPHSON method, the solution is: $x=2.2418sqrt{vt}$





I want to know how you could solve the first expression using the NEWTON-RAPHSON method to get the solution. So could someone please provide a step-by-step solution, by using this method please?





Note: This question was answered, however it was NOT answered using NEWTON-RAPHSON method. It was answered using the Lambert W function, which is a very long and complicated process as compared to the Newton-Raphson method.










share|cite|improve this question







New contributor




Alan Glenn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.

























    1














    I need help with solving this difficult fluid dynamic expression. I have tried using rules of logs, symbolab algebra calculator and Wolfram Alpha calculator, and I have got no solution.




    How would you solve the following expression USING the NEWTON-RAPHSON method for $x$?
    $$e^{frac{x^2}{4vt}} = 1+frac{x^2}{2vt}$$




    When solving this USING the NEWTON-RAPHSON method, the solution is: $x=2.2418sqrt{vt}$





    I want to know how you could solve the first expression using the NEWTON-RAPHSON method to get the solution. So could someone please provide a step-by-step solution, by using this method please?





    Note: This question was answered, however it was NOT answered using NEWTON-RAPHSON method. It was answered using the Lambert W function, which is a very long and complicated process as compared to the Newton-Raphson method.










    share|cite|improve this question







    New contributor




    Alan Glenn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.























      1












      1








      1


      1





      I need help with solving this difficult fluid dynamic expression. I have tried using rules of logs, symbolab algebra calculator and Wolfram Alpha calculator, and I have got no solution.




      How would you solve the following expression USING the NEWTON-RAPHSON method for $x$?
      $$e^{frac{x^2}{4vt}} = 1+frac{x^2}{2vt}$$




      When solving this USING the NEWTON-RAPHSON method, the solution is: $x=2.2418sqrt{vt}$





      I want to know how you could solve the first expression using the NEWTON-RAPHSON method to get the solution. So could someone please provide a step-by-step solution, by using this method please?





      Note: This question was answered, however it was NOT answered using NEWTON-RAPHSON method. It was answered using the Lambert W function, which is a very long and complicated process as compared to the Newton-Raphson method.










      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      Alan Glenn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      I need help with solving this difficult fluid dynamic expression. I have tried using rules of logs, symbolab algebra calculator and Wolfram Alpha calculator, and I have got no solution.




      How would you solve the following expression USING the NEWTON-RAPHSON method for $x$?
      $$e^{frac{x^2}{4vt}} = 1+frac{x^2}{2vt}$$




      When solving this USING the NEWTON-RAPHSON method, the solution is: $x=2.2418sqrt{vt}$





      I want to know how you could solve the first expression using the NEWTON-RAPHSON method to get the solution. So could someone please provide a step-by-step solution, by using this method please?





      Note: This question was answered, however it was NOT answered using NEWTON-RAPHSON method. It was answered using the Lambert W function, which is a very long and complicated process as compared to the Newton-Raphson method.







      algebra-precalculus newton-raphson






      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      Alan Glenn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.











      share|cite|improve this question







      New contributor




      Alan Glenn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question






      New contributor




      Alan Glenn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.









      asked 2 days ago









      Alan Glenn

      253




      253




      New contributor




      Alan Glenn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





      New contributor





      Alan Glenn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






      Alan Glenn is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.






















          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          Let $u = frac{x^2}{4 v t}$ so that
          $$ e^u - 1 - 2u = 0. $$



          enter image description here



          Defining $g(u) = e^u - 1 - 2u, $ we iterate
          $$ u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)} ,$$
          $$ u mapsto frac{1 +(u-1)e^u}{e^u - 2} $$



          enter image description here



          ? u = 1.25
          %9 = 1.250000000000000000000000000
          ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
          %10 = 1.256479745141752637179209827
          ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
          %11 = 1.256431211361022818343348929
          ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
          %12 = 1.256431208626169685666336003
          ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
          %13 = 1.256431208626169676982737617
          ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
          %14 = 1.256431208626169676982737617
          ?


          We find that
          $$ frac{x^2}{4vt} = 1.256431208626169676982737617 $$ so
          $$ x^2 = 5.025724834504678707930950466 ; vt $$
          $$ x = 2.241812845557068063953533471 ; sqrt {vt} $$






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • Thank you very much @Will
            – Alan Glenn
            2 days ago










          • My final question is, when choosing the initial value 'u', do we always plot the '$u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)}$' expression and also plot the 'y=u' expression and wherever they intercept we choose that as the initial value of u?
            – Alan Glenn
            2 days ago












          • @AlanGlenn I added in a picture of $y=e^u - 1 - 2u,$ and I do recommend graphing that. That is where I got the initial estimate 1.25, looking at that picture.
            – Will Jagy
            2 days ago





















          3














          Well, we have:



          $$expleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)=1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}tag1$$



          Now, we know that we can write:



          $$expleft(alpharight)=sum_{text{n}=0}^inftyfrac{alpha^text{n}}{text{n}!}=frac{alpha^0}{0!}+frac{alpha^1}{1!}+frac{alpha^2}{2!}+dots=$$
          $$1+alpha+frac{alpha^2}{2}+dotstag2$$



          So, for equation $(1)$ we can write:



          $$1+frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}+frac{1}{2}cdotleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)^2+dots=1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}tag3$$



          Using the aproximation of three terms we have:



          $$1+frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}+frac{1}{2}cdotleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)^2approx1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}spaceLongleftrightarrowspace$$
          $$xapprox0spaceveespace xapproxpm2sqrt{2}cdotsqrt{text{v}cdottext{t}}tag4$$






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • That is the wrong answer. $2sqrt{2}=2.828$ which is not the same as 2.2418.
            – Alan Glenn
            2 days ago










          • @AlanGlenn It is not wrong!
            – Jan
            2 days ago



















          1














          First express this in terms of a single variable: letting $s = x/sqrt{vt}$, the equation becomes
          $$ e^{s^2/4} = 1 + s^2/2$$
          Now with $f(s) = exp(s^2/4) - (1 + s^2/2)$, $f'(s) = s exp(s^2/4)/2 - s$, and the Newton iteration is
          $$ s_{n+1} = s_n - frac{f(s_n)}{f'(s_n)}$$
          Note that $s=0$ is also a solution, so you don't want to start too close to that.
          Starting with, say, $s_0 = 2$, you just iterate until the numbers get close enough to each other.



          $s_1 = 2 - f(2)/f'(2) = 2.392211192$



          $s_2 = 2.392211192 - f(2.392211192)/f'(2.392211192) = 2.269512712$



          etc.



          I find that $s_5$ and $s_6$ differ only in the $9$'th decimal place.






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            0














            We put $0 le y=x^2/(4vt)$ and look for the non-negative zeros of the function $f(y)$
            $$
            left{ matrix{
            f(y) = e^{,y} - 2y - 1 = 0 hfill cr
            f'(y) = e^{,y} - 2quad Rightarrow quad min f(y):;y = ln 2 hfill cr
            0 < f''(y) = e^{,y} hfill cr} right.
            $$



            Clearly, $f(y)$ is convex, has a negative minimum at $y=ln2$, thus it has two zeros.

            One of them is at $y=0$ and the other will be past the minimum.

            Since for $ln2 < y$ the function is increasing we can apply Newton-Raphson
            method to find the second zero, provided that the starting point $y_0$ be to the right of the minimum.



            Exp_Newton_1



            We can choose $y_0=2$ for instance, and then start the recursion
            $$
            eqalign{
            & {{f(y_0 )} over {y_1 - y_0 }} = f'(y_0 )quad Rightarrow quad cr
            & Rightarrow quad y_1 = y_0 + {{f(y_0 )} over {f'(y_0 )}} = y_0 + {{e^{,y_0 } - 2y_0 - 1} over {e^{,y_0 } - 2}}quad Rightarrow cr
            & Rightarrow quad y_{n + 1} = y_n + {{e^{,y_{,n} } - 2y_n - 1} over {e^{,y_{,n} } - 2}} cr}
            $$



            Of course, once found a satisfactory value for $y$, you can easily
            convert it back to $x$






            share|cite|improve this answer





























              0














              Just as Will Jagy did, let$u = frac{x^2}{4 v t}$ to make the equation $e^u - 1 - 2u = 0$.



              So, let consider that you look for the zero's of function
              $$f(u)=e^u - 1 - 2u $$ for which
              $$f'(u)=e^u - 2 qquad text{and} qquad f''(u)=e^u > ,,forall u$$



              The first derivative cancels when $u=log(2)$. You can get an estimate of the root builiding the Taylor series at this point. This would give
              $$e^u - 1 - 2u =(1-2 log (2))+(u-log (2))^2+Oleft((u-log (2))^3right)$$ Ignoring the gigher order terms, you then have as an estimate
              $$u_0=log(2)+sqrt{2 log (2)-1}approx 1.31467$$ With this estimate, you can now use Newton method
              $$u_{n+1}=u_n-frac{f(u_n)}{f'(u_n)}=frac{e^{u_n} (u_n-1)+1}{e^{u_n}-2}$$ and get, for twelve significant figures, the following iterates
              $$left(
              begin{array}{cc}
              n & u_n \
              0 & 1.31467301359 \
              1 & 1.26002526328 \
              2 & 1.25644611685 \
              3 & 1.25643120888 \
              4 & 1.25643120863
              end{array}
              right)$$



              One of the important points when you use Newton method is to get a "reasonable" estimates.



              You will notice in the table that, at no time, we overshoot the solution because we started at a point whe $f(x_0) times f''(x_0) > 0$ (Darboux theorem).



              Starting instead with $x_0=1$, the iterates would have been
              $$left(
              begin{array}{cc}
              n & u_n \
              0 & 1.00000000000 \
              1 & color{red}{1.39221119118} \
              2 & 1.27395717022 \
              3 & 1.25677778598 \
              4 & 1.25643134800 \
              5 & 1.25643120863
              end{array}
              right)$$






              share|cite|improve this answer





















                Your Answer





                StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
                return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
                StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
                StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
                });
                });
                }, "mathjax-editing");

                StackExchange.ready(function() {
                var channelOptions = {
                tags: "".split(" "),
                id: "69"
                };
                initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

                StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
                // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
                if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
                StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
                createEditor();
                });
                }
                else {
                createEditor();
                }
                });

                function createEditor() {
                StackExchange.prepareEditor({
                heartbeatType: 'answer',
                autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
                convertImagesToLinks: true,
                noModals: true,
                showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
                reputationToPostImages: 10,
                bindNavPrevention: true,
                postfix: "",
                imageUploader: {
                brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
                contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
                allowUrls: true
                },
                noCode: true, onDemand: true,
                discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
                ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
                });


                }
                });






                Alan Glenn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                draft saved

                draft discarded


















                StackExchange.ready(
                function () {
                StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3060838%2fusing-newton-raphson-method-find-the-solution-for-e-fracx24vt-1-fra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                }
                );

                Post as a guest















                Required, but never shown

























                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes








                5 Answers
                5






                active

                oldest

                votes









                active

                oldest

                votes






                active

                oldest

                votes









                1














                Let $u = frac{x^2}{4 v t}$ so that
                $$ e^u - 1 - 2u = 0. $$



                enter image description here



                Defining $g(u) = e^u - 1 - 2u, $ we iterate
                $$ u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)} ,$$
                $$ u mapsto frac{1 +(u-1)e^u}{e^u - 2} $$



                enter image description here



                ? u = 1.25
                %9 = 1.250000000000000000000000000
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %10 = 1.256479745141752637179209827
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %11 = 1.256431211361022818343348929
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %12 = 1.256431208626169685666336003
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %13 = 1.256431208626169676982737617
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %14 = 1.256431208626169676982737617
                ?


                We find that
                $$ frac{x^2}{4vt} = 1.256431208626169676982737617 $$ so
                $$ x^2 = 5.025724834504678707930950466 ; vt $$
                $$ x = 2.241812845557068063953533471 ; sqrt {vt} $$






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • Thank you very much @Will
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago










                • My final question is, when choosing the initial value 'u', do we always plot the '$u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)}$' expression and also plot the 'y=u' expression and wherever they intercept we choose that as the initial value of u?
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago












                • @AlanGlenn I added in a picture of $y=e^u - 1 - 2u,$ and I do recommend graphing that. That is where I got the initial estimate 1.25, looking at that picture.
                  – Will Jagy
                  2 days ago


















                1














                Let $u = frac{x^2}{4 v t}$ so that
                $$ e^u - 1 - 2u = 0. $$



                enter image description here



                Defining $g(u) = e^u - 1 - 2u, $ we iterate
                $$ u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)} ,$$
                $$ u mapsto frac{1 +(u-1)e^u}{e^u - 2} $$



                enter image description here



                ? u = 1.25
                %9 = 1.250000000000000000000000000
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %10 = 1.256479745141752637179209827
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %11 = 1.256431211361022818343348929
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %12 = 1.256431208626169685666336003
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %13 = 1.256431208626169676982737617
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %14 = 1.256431208626169676982737617
                ?


                We find that
                $$ frac{x^2}{4vt} = 1.256431208626169676982737617 $$ so
                $$ x^2 = 5.025724834504678707930950466 ; vt $$
                $$ x = 2.241812845557068063953533471 ; sqrt {vt} $$






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • Thank you very much @Will
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago










                • My final question is, when choosing the initial value 'u', do we always plot the '$u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)}$' expression and also plot the 'y=u' expression and wherever they intercept we choose that as the initial value of u?
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago












                • @AlanGlenn I added in a picture of $y=e^u - 1 - 2u,$ and I do recommend graphing that. That is where I got the initial estimate 1.25, looking at that picture.
                  – Will Jagy
                  2 days ago
















                1












                1








                1






                Let $u = frac{x^2}{4 v t}$ so that
                $$ e^u - 1 - 2u = 0. $$



                enter image description here



                Defining $g(u) = e^u - 1 - 2u, $ we iterate
                $$ u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)} ,$$
                $$ u mapsto frac{1 +(u-1)e^u}{e^u - 2} $$



                enter image description here



                ? u = 1.25
                %9 = 1.250000000000000000000000000
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %10 = 1.256479745141752637179209827
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %11 = 1.256431211361022818343348929
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %12 = 1.256431208626169685666336003
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %13 = 1.256431208626169676982737617
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %14 = 1.256431208626169676982737617
                ?


                We find that
                $$ frac{x^2}{4vt} = 1.256431208626169676982737617 $$ so
                $$ x^2 = 5.025724834504678707930950466 ; vt $$
                $$ x = 2.241812845557068063953533471 ; sqrt {vt} $$






                share|cite|improve this answer














                Let $u = frac{x^2}{4 v t}$ so that
                $$ e^u - 1 - 2u = 0. $$



                enter image description here



                Defining $g(u) = e^u - 1 - 2u, $ we iterate
                $$ u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)} ,$$
                $$ u mapsto frac{1 +(u-1)e^u}{e^u - 2} $$



                enter image description here



                ? u = 1.25
                %9 = 1.250000000000000000000000000
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %10 = 1.256479745141752637179209827
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %11 = 1.256431211361022818343348929
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %12 = 1.256431208626169685666336003
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %13 = 1.256431208626169676982737617
                ? u = ( 1 + (u-1) * exp(u) ) / (exp(u)-2 )
                %14 = 1.256431208626169676982737617
                ?


                We find that
                $$ frac{x^2}{4vt} = 1.256431208626169676982737617 $$ so
                $$ x^2 = 5.025724834504678707930950466 ; vt $$
                $$ x = 2.241812845557068063953533471 ; sqrt {vt} $$







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 2 days ago

























                answered 2 days ago









                Will Jagy

                102k599199




                102k599199












                • Thank you very much @Will
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago










                • My final question is, when choosing the initial value 'u', do we always plot the '$u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)}$' expression and also plot the 'y=u' expression and wherever they intercept we choose that as the initial value of u?
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago












                • @AlanGlenn I added in a picture of $y=e^u - 1 - 2u,$ and I do recommend graphing that. That is where I got the initial estimate 1.25, looking at that picture.
                  – Will Jagy
                  2 days ago




















                • Thank you very much @Will
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago










                • My final question is, when choosing the initial value 'u', do we always plot the '$u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)}$' expression and also plot the 'y=u' expression and wherever they intercept we choose that as the initial value of u?
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago












                • @AlanGlenn I added in a picture of $y=e^u - 1 - 2u,$ and I do recommend graphing that. That is where I got the initial estimate 1.25, looking at that picture.
                  – Will Jagy
                  2 days ago


















                Thank you very much @Will
                – Alan Glenn
                2 days ago




                Thank you very much @Will
                – Alan Glenn
                2 days ago












                My final question is, when choosing the initial value 'u', do we always plot the '$u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)}$' expression and also plot the 'y=u' expression and wherever they intercept we choose that as the initial value of u?
                – Alan Glenn
                2 days ago






                My final question is, when choosing the initial value 'u', do we always plot the '$u mapsto u - frac{g(u)}{g'(u)}$' expression and also plot the 'y=u' expression and wherever they intercept we choose that as the initial value of u?
                – Alan Glenn
                2 days ago














                @AlanGlenn I added in a picture of $y=e^u - 1 - 2u,$ and I do recommend graphing that. That is where I got the initial estimate 1.25, looking at that picture.
                – Will Jagy
                2 days ago






                @AlanGlenn I added in a picture of $y=e^u - 1 - 2u,$ and I do recommend graphing that. That is where I got the initial estimate 1.25, looking at that picture.
                – Will Jagy
                2 days ago













                3














                Well, we have:



                $$expleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)=1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}tag1$$



                Now, we know that we can write:



                $$expleft(alpharight)=sum_{text{n}=0}^inftyfrac{alpha^text{n}}{text{n}!}=frac{alpha^0}{0!}+frac{alpha^1}{1!}+frac{alpha^2}{2!}+dots=$$
                $$1+alpha+frac{alpha^2}{2}+dotstag2$$



                So, for equation $(1)$ we can write:



                $$1+frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}+frac{1}{2}cdotleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)^2+dots=1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}tag3$$



                Using the aproximation of three terms we have:



                $$1+frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}+frac{1}{2}cdotleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)^2approx1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}spaceLongleftrightarrowspace$$
                $$xapprox0spaceveespace xapproxpm2sqrt{2}cdotsqrt{text{v}cdottext{t}}tag4$$






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • That is the wrong answer. $2sqrt{2}=2.828$ which is not the same as 2.2418.
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago










                • @AlanGlenn It is not wrong!
                  – Jan
                  2 days ago
















                3














                Well, we have:



                $$expleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)=1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}tag1$$



                Now, we know that we can write:



                $$expleft(alpharight)=sum_{text{n}=0}^inftyfrac{alpha^text{n}}{text{n}!}=frac{alpha^0}{0!}+frac{alpha^1}{1!}+frac{alpha^2}{2!}+dots=$$
                $$1+alpha+frac{alpha^2}{2}+dotstag2$$



                So, for equation $(1)$ we can write:



                $$1+frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}+frac{1}{2}cdotleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)^2+dots=1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}tag3$$



                Using the aproximation of three terms we have:



                $$1+frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}+frac{1}{2}cdotleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)^2approx1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}spaceLongleftrightarrowspace$$
                $$xapprox0spaceveespace xapproxpm2sqrt{2}cdotsqrt{text{v}cdottext{t}}tag4$$






                share|cite|improve this answer























                • That is the wrong answer. $2sqrt{2}=2.828$ which is not the same as 2.2418.
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago










                • @AlanGlenn It is not wrong!
                  – Jan
                  2 days ago














                3












                3








                3






                Well, we have:



                $$expleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)=1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}tag1$$



                Now, we know that we can write:



                $$expleft(alpharight)=sum_{text{n}=0}^inftyfrac{alpha^text{n}}{text{n}!}=frac{alpha^0}{0!}+frac{alpha^1}{1!}+frac{alpha^2}{2!}+dots=$$
                $$1+alpha+frac{alpha^2}{2}+dotstag2$$



                So, for equation $(1)$ we can write:



                $$1+frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}+frac{1}{2}cdotleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)^2+dots=1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}tag3$$



                Using the aproximation of three terms we have:



                $$1+frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}+frac{1}{2}cdotleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)^2approx1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}spaceLongleftrightarrowspace$$
                $$xapprox0spaceveespace xapproxpm2sqrt{2}cdotsqrt{text{v}cdottext{t}}tag4$$






                share|cite|improve this answer














                Well, we have:



                $$expleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)=1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}tag1$$



                Now, we know that we can write:



                $$expleft(alpharight)=sum_{text{n}=0}^inftyfrac{alpha^text{n}}{text{n}!}=frac{alpha^0}{0!}+frac{alpha^1}{1!}+frac{alpha^2}{2!}+dots=$$
                $$1+alpha+frac{alpha^2}{2}+dotstag2$$



                So, for equation $(1)$ we can write:



                $$1+frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}+frac{1}{2}cdotleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)^2+dots=1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}tag3$$



                Using the aproximation of three terms we have:



                $$1+frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}+frac{1}{2}cdotleft(frac{x^2}{4cdottext{v}cdot t}right)^2approx1+frac{x^2}{2cdottext{v}cdot t}spaceLongleftrightarrowspace$$
                $$xapprox0spaceveespace xapproxpm2sqrt{2}cdotsqrt{text{v}cdottext{t}}tag4$$







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited 2 days ago

























                answered 2 days ago









                Jan

                21.7k31240




                21.7k31240












                • That is the wrong answer. $2sqrt{2}=2.828$ which is not the same as 2.2418.
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago










                • @AlanGlenn It is not wrong!
                  – Jan
                  2 days ago


















                • That is the wrong answer. $2sqrt{2}=2.828$ which is not the same as 2.2418.
                  – Alan Glenn
                  2 days ago










                • @AlanGlenn It is not wrong!
                  – Jan
                  2 days ago
















                That is the wrong answer. $2sqrt{2}=2.828$ which is not the same as 2.2418.
                – Alan Glenn
                2 days ago




                That is the wrong answer. $2sqrt{2}=2.828$ which is not the same as 2.2418.
                – Alan Glenn
                2 days ago












                @AlanGlenn It is not wrong!
                – Jan
                2 days ago




                @AlanGlenn It is not wrong!
                – Jan
                2 days ago











                1














                First express this in terms of a single variable: letting $s = x/sqrt{vt}$, the equation becomes
                $$ e^{s^2/4} = 1 + s^2/2$$
                Now with $f(s) = exp(s^2/4) - (1 + s^2/2)$, $f'(s) = s exp(s^2/4)/2 - s$, and the Newton iteration is
                $$ s_{n+1} = s_n - frac{f(s_n)}{f'(s_n)}$$
                Note that $s=0$ is also a solution, so you don't want to start too close to that.
                Starting with, say, $s_0 = 2$, you just iterate until the numbers get close enough to each other.



                $s_1 = 2 - f(2)/f'(2) = 2.392211192$



                $s_2 = 2.392211192 - f(2.392211192)/f'(2.392211192) = 2.269512712$



                etc.



                I find that $s_5$ and $s_6$ differ only in the $9$'th decimal place.






                share|cite|improve this answer


























                  1














                  First express this in terms of a single variable: letting $s = x/sqrt{vt}$, the equation becomes
                  $$ e^{s^2/4} = 1 + s^2/2$$
                  Now with $f(s) = exp(s^2/4) - (1 + s^2/2)$, $f'(s) = s exp(s^2/4)/2 - s$, and the Newton iteration is
                  $$ s_{n+1} = s_n - frac{f(s_n)}{f'(s_n)}$$
                  Note that $s=0$ is also a solution, so you don't want to start too close to that.
                  Starting with, say, $s_0 = 2$, you just iterate until the numbers get close enough to each other.



                  $s_1 = 2 - f(2)/f'(2) = 2.392211192$



                  $s_2 = 2.392211192 - f(2.392211192)/f'(2.392211192) = 2.269512712$



                  etc.



                  I find that $s_5$ and $s_6$ differ only in the $9$'th decimal place.






                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                    1












                    1








                    1






                    First express this in terms of a single variable: letting $s = x/sqrt{vt}$, the equation becomes
                    $$ e^{s^2/4} = 1 + s^2/2$$
                    Now with $f(s) = exp(s^2/4) - (1 + s^2/2)$, $f'(s) = s exp(s^2/4)/2 - s$, and the Newton iteration is
                    $$ s_{n+1} = s_n - frac{f(s_n)}{f'(s_n)}$$
                    Note that $s=0$ is also a solution, so you don't want to start too close to that.
                    Starting with, say, $s_0 = 2$, you just iterate until the numbers get close enough to each other.



                    $s_1 = 2 - f(2)/f'(2) = 2.392211192$



                    $s_2 = 2.392211192 - f(2.392211192)/f'(2.392211192) = 2.269512712$



                    etc.



                    I find that $s_5$ and $s_6$ differ only in the $9$'th decimal place.






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    First express this in terms of a single variable: letting $s = x/sqrt{vt}$, the equation becomes
                    $$ e^{s^2/4} = 1 + s^2/2$$
                    Now with $f(s) = exp(s^2/4) - (1 + s^2/2)$, $f'(s) = s exp(s^2/4)/2 - s$, and the Newton iteration is
                    $$ s_{n+1} = s_n - frac{f(s_n)}{f'(s_n)}$$
                    Note that $s=0$ is also a solution, so you don't want to start too close to that.
                    Starting with, say, $s_0 = 2$, you just iterate until the numbers get close enough to each other.



                    $s_1 = 2 - f(2)/f'(2) = 2.392211192$



                    $s_2 = 2.392211192 - f(2.392211192)/f'(2.392211192) = 2.269512712$



                    etc.



                    I find that $s_5$ and $s_6$ differ only in the $9$'th decimal place.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered 2 days ago









                    Robert Israel

                    318k23208457




                    318k23208457























                        0














                        We put $0 le y=x^2/(4vt)$ and look for the non-negative zeros of the function $f(y)$
                        $$
                        left{ matrix{
                        f(y) = e^{,y} - 2y - 1 = 0 hfill cr
                        f'(y) = e^{,y} - 2quad Rightarrow quad min f(y):;y = ln 2 hfill cr
                        0 < f''(y) = e^{,y} hfill cr} right.
                        $$



                        Clearly, $f(y)$ is convex, has a negative minimum at $y=ln2$, thus it has two zeros.

                        One of them is at $y=0$ and the other will be past the minimum.

                        Since for $ln2 < y$ the function is increasing we can apply Newton-Raphson
                        method to find the second zero, provided that the starting point $y_0$ be to the right of the minimum.



                        Exp_Newton_1



                        We can choose $y_0=2$ for instance, and then start the recursion
                        $$
                        eqalign{
                        & {{f(y_0 )} over {y_1 - y_0 }} = f'(y_0 )quad Rightarrow quad cr
                        & Rightarrow quad y_1 = y_0 + {{f(y_0 )} over {f'(y_0 )}} = y_0 + {{e^{,y_0 } - 2y_0 - 1} over {e^{,y_0 } - 2}}quad Rightarrow cr
                        & Rightarrow quad y_{n + 1} = y_n + {{e^{,y_{,n} } - 2y_n - 1} over {e^{,y_{,n} } - 2}} cr}
                        $$



                        Of course, once found a satisfactory value for $y$, you can easily
                        convert it back to $x$






                        share|cite|improve this answer


























                          0














                          We put $0 le y=x^2/(4vt)$ and look for the non-negative zeros of the function $f(y)$
                          $$
                          left{ matrix{
                          f(y) = e^{,y} - 2y - 1 = 0 hfill cr
                          f'(y) = e^{,y} - 2quad Rightarrow quad min f(y):;y = ln 2 hfill cr
                          0 < f''(y) = e^{,y} hfill cr} right.
                          $$



                          Clearly, $f(y)$ is convex, has a negative minimum at $y=ln2$, thus it has two zeros.

                          One of them is at $y=0$ and the other will be past the minimum.

                          Since for $ln2 < y$ the function is increasing we can apply Newton-Raphson
                          method to find the second zero, provided that the starting point $y_0$ be to the right of the minimum.



                          Exp_Newton_1



                          We can choose $y_0=2$ for instance, and then start the recursion
                          $$
                          eqalign{
                          & {{f(y_0 )} over {y_1 - y_0 }} = f'(y_0 )quad Rightarrow quad cr
                          & Rightarrow quad y_1 = y_0 + {{f(y_0 )} over {f'(y_0 )}} = y_0 + {{e^{,y_0 } - 2y_0 - 1} over {e^{,y_0 } - 2}}quad Rightarrow cr
                          & Rightarrow quad y_{n + 1} = y_n + {{e^{,y_{,n} } - 2y_n - 1} over {e^{,y_{,n} } - 2}} cr}
                          $$



                          Of course, once found a satisfactory value for $y$, you can easily
                          convert it back to $x$






                          share|cite|improve this answer
























                            0












                            0








                            0






                            We put $0 le y=x^2/(4vt)$ and look for the non-negative zeros of the function $f(y)$
                            $$
                            left{ matrix{
                            f(y) = e^{,y} - 2y - 1 = 0 hfill cr
                            f'(y) = e^{,y} - 2quad Rightarrow quad min f(y):;y = ln 2 hfill cr
                            0 < f''(y) = e^{,y} hfill cr} right.
                            $$



                            Clearly, $f(y)$ is convex, has a negative minimum at $y=ln2$, thus it has two zeros.

                            One of them is at $y=0$ and the other will be past the minimum.

                            Since for $ln2 < y$ the function is increasing we can apply Newton-Raphson
                            method to find the second zero, provided that the starting point $y_0$ be to the right of the minimum.



                            Exp_Newton_1



                            We can choose $y_0=2$ for instance, and then start the recursion
                            $$
                            eqalign{
                            & {{f(y_0 )} over {y_1 - y_0 }} = f'(y_0 )quad Rightarrow quad cr
                            & Rightarrow quad y_1 = y_0 + {{f(y_0 )} over {f'(y_0 )}} = y_0 + {{e^{,y_0 } - 2y_0 - 1} over {e^{,y_0 } - 2}}quad Rightarrow cr
                            & Rightarrow quad y_{n + 1} = y_n + {{e^{,y_{,n} } - 2y_n - 1} over {e^{,y_{,n} } - 2}} cr}
                            $$



                            Of course, once found a satisfactory value for $y$, you can easily
                            convert it back to $x$






                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            We put $0 le y=x^2/(4vt)$ and look for the non-negative zeros of the function $f(y)$
                            $$
                            left{ matrix{
                            f(y) = e^{,y} - 2y - 1 = 0 hfill cr
                            f'(y) = e^{,y} - 2quad Rightarrow quad min f(y):;y = ln 2 hfill cr
                            0 < f''(y) = e^{,y} hfill cr} right.
                            $$



                            Clearly, $f(y)$ is convex, has a negative minimum at $y=ln2$, thus it has two zeros.

                            One of them is at $y=0$ and the other will be past the minimum.

                            Since for $ln2 < y$ the function is increasing we can apply Newton-Raphson
                            method to find the second zero, provided that the starting point $y_0$ be to the right of the minimum.



                            Exp_Newton_1



                            We can choose $y_0=2$ for instance, and then start the recursion
                            $$
                            eqalign{
                            & {{f(y_0 )} over {y_1 - y_0 }} = f'(y_0 )quad Rightarrow quad cr
                            & Rightarrow quad y_1 = y_0 + {{f(y_0 )} over {f'(y_0 )}} = y_0 + {{e^{,y_0 } - 2y_0 - 1} over {e^{,y_0 } - 2}}quad Rightarrow cr
                            & Rightarrow quad y_{n + 1} = y_n + {{e^{,y_{,n} } - 2y_n - 1} over {e^{,y_{,n} } - 2}} cr}
                            $$



                            Of course, once found a satisfactory value for $y$, you can easily
                            convert it back to $x$







                            share|cite|improve this answer












                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer










                            answered 2 days ago









                            G Cab

                            18k31237




                            18k31237























                                0














                                Just as Will Jagy did, let$u = frac{x^2}{4 v t}$ to make the equation $e^u - 1 - 2u = 0$.



                                So, let consider that you look for the zero's of function
                                $$f(u)=e^u - 1 - 2u $$ for which
                                $$f'(u)=e^u - 2 qquad text{and} qquad f''(u)=e^u > ,,forall u$$



                                The first derivative cancels when $u=log(2)$. You can get an estimate of the root builiding the Taylor series at this point. This would give
                                $$e^u - 1 - 2u =(1-2 log (2))+(u-log (2))^2+Oleft((u-log (2))^3right)$$ Ignoring the gigher order terms, you then have as an estimate
                                $$u_0=log(2)+sqrt{2 log (2)-1}approx 1.31467$$ With this estimate, you can now use Newton method
                                $$u_{n+1}=u_n-frac{f(u_n)}{f'(u_n)}=frac{e^{u_n} (u_n-1)+1}{e^{u_n}-2}$$ and get, for twelve significant figures, the following iterates
                                $$left(
                                begin{array}{cc}
                                n & u_n \
                                0 & 1.31467301359 \
                                1 & 1.26002526328 \
                                2 & 1.25644611685 \
                                3 & 1.25643120888 \
                                4 & 1.25643120863
                                end{array}
                                right)$$



                                One of the important points when you use Newton method is to get a "reasonable" estimates.



                                You will notice in the table that, at no time, we overshoot the solution because we started at a point whe $f(x_0) times f''(x_0) > 0$ (Darboux theorem).



                                Starting instead with $x_0=1$, the iterates would have been
                                $$left(
                                begin{array}{cc}
                                n & u_n \
                                0 & 1.00000000000 \
                                1 & color{red}{1.39221119118} \
                                2 & 1.27395717022 \
                                3 & 1.25677778598 \
                                4 & 1.25643134800 \
                                5 & 1.25643120863
                                end{array}
                                right)$$






                                share|cite|improve this answer


























                                  0














                                  Just as Will Jagy did, let$u = frac{x^2}{4 v t}$ to make the equation $e^u - 1 - 2u = 0$.



                                  So, let consider that you look for the zero's of function
                                  $$f(u)=e^u - 1 - 2u $$ for which
                                  $$f'(u)=e^u - 2 qquad text{and} qquad f''(u)=e^u > ,,forall u$$



                                  The first derivative cancels when $u=log(2)$. You can get an estimate of the root builiding the Taylor series at this point. This would give
                                  $$e^u - 1 - 2u =(1-2 log (2))+(u-log (2))^2+Oleft((u-log (2))^3right)$$ Ignoring the gigher order terms, you then have as an estimate
                                  $$u_0=log(2)+sqrt{2 log (2)-1}approx 1.31467$$ With this estimate, you can now use Newton method
                                  $$u_{n+1}=u_n-frac{f(u_n)}{f'(u_n)}=frac{e^{u_n} (u_n-1)+1}{e^{u_n}-2}$$ and get, for twelve significant figures, the following iterates
                                  $$left(
                                  begin{array}{cc}
                                  n & u_n \
                                  0 & 1.31467301359 \
                                  1 & 1.26002526328 \
                                  2 & 1.25644611685 \
                                  3 & 1.25643120888 \
                                  4 & 1.25643120863
                                  end{array}
                                  right)$$



                                  One of the important points when you use Newton method is to get a "reasonable" estimates.



                                  You will notice in the table that, at no time, we overshoot the solution because we started at a point whe $f(x_0) times f''(x_0) > 0$ (Darboux theorem).



                                  Starting instead with $x_0=1$, the iterates would have been
                                  $$left(
                                  begin{array}{cc}
                                  n & u_n \
                                  0 & 1.00000000000 \
                                  1 & color{red}{1.39221119118} \
                                  2 & 1.27395717022 \
                                  3 & 1.25677778598 \
                                  4 & 1.25643134800 \
                                  5 & 1.25643120863
                                  end{array}
                                  right)$$






                                  share|cite|improve this answer
























                                    0












                                    0








                                    0






                                    Just as Will Jagy did, let$u = frac{x^2}{4 v t}$ to make the equation $e^u - 1 - 2u = 0$.



                                    So, let consider that you look for the zero's of function
                                    $$f(u)=e^u - 1 - 2u $$ for which
                                    $$f'(u)=e^u - 2 qquad text{and} qquad f''(u)=e^u > ,,forall u$$



                                    The first derivative cancels when $u=log(2)$. You can get an estimate of the root builiding the Taylor series at this point. This would give
                                    $$e^u - 1 - 2u =(1-2 log (2))+(u-log (2))^2+Oleft((u-log (2))^3right)$$ Ignoring the gigher order terms, you then have as an estimate
                                    $$u_0=log(2)+sqrt{2 log (2)-1}approx 1.31467$$ With this estimate, you can now use Newton method
                                    $$u_{n+1}=u_n-frac{f(u_n)}{f'(u_n)}=frac{e^{u_n} (u_n-1)+1}{e^{u_n}-2}$$ and get, for twelve significant figures, the following iterates
                                    $$left(
                                    begin{array}{cc}
                                    n & u_n \
                                    0 & 1.31467301359 \
                                    1 & 1.26002526328 \
                                    2 & 1.25644611685 \
                                    3 & 1.25643120888 \
                                    4 & 1.25643120863
                                    end{array}
                                    right)$$



                                    One of the important points when you use Newton method is to get a "reasonable" estimates.



                                    You will notice in the table that, at no time, we overshoot the solution because we started at a point whe $f(x_0) times f''(x_0) > 0$ (Darboux theorem).



                                    Starting instead with $x_0=1$, the iterates would have been
                                    $$left(
                                    begin{array}{cc}
                                    n & u_n \
                                    0 & 1.00000000000 \
                                    1 & color{red}{1.39221119118} \
                                    2 & 1.27395717022 \
                                    3 & 1.25677778598 \
                                    4 & 1.25643134800 \
                                    5 & 1.25643120863
                                    end{array}
                                    right)$$






                                    share|cite|improve this answer












                                    Just as Will Jagy did, let$u = frac{x^2}{4 v t}$ to make the equation $e^u - 1 - 2u = 0$.



                                    So, let consider that you look for the zero's of function
                                    $$f(u)=e^u - 1 - 2u $$ for which
                                    $$f'(u)=e^u - 2 qquad text{and} qquad f''(u)=e^u > ,,forall u$$



                                    The first derivative cancels when $u=log(2)$. You can get an estimate of the root builiding the Taylor series at this point. This would give
                                    $$e^u - 1 - 2u =(1-2 log (2))+(u-log (2))^2+Oleft((u-log (2))^3right)$$ Ignoring the gigher order terms, you then have as an estimate
                                    $$u_0=log(2)+sqrt{2 log (2)-1}approx 1.31467$$ With this estimate, you can now use Newton method
                                    $$u_{n+1}=u_n-frac{f(u_n)}{f'(u_n)}=frac{e^{u_n} (u_n-1)+1}{e^{u_n}-2}$$ and get, for twelve significant figures, the following iterates
                                    $$left(
                                    begin{array}{cc}
                                    n & u_n \
                                    0 & 1.31467301359 \
                                    1 & 1.26002526328 \
                                    2 & 1.25644611685 \
                                    3 & 1.25643120888 \
                                    4 & 1.25643120863
                                    end{array}
                                    right)$$



                                    One of the important points when you use Newton method is to get a "reasonable" estimates.



                                    You will notice in the table that, at no time, we overshoot the solution because we started at a point whe $f(x_0) times f''(x_0) > 0$ (Darboux theorem).



                                    Starting instead with $x_0=1$, the iterates would have been
                                    $$left(
                                    begin{array}{cc}
                                    n & u_n \
                                    0 & 1.00000000000 \
                                    1 & color{red}{1.39221119118} \
                                    2 & 1.27395717022 \
                                    3 & 1.25677778598 \
                                    4 & 1.25643134800 \
                                    5 & 1.25643120863
                                    end{array}
                                    right)$$







                                    share|cite|improve this answer












                                    share|cite|improve this answer



                                    share|cite|improve this answer










                                    answered yesterday









                                    Claude Leibovici

                                    119k1157132




                                    119k1157132






















                                        Alan Glenn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.










                                        draft saved

                                        draft discarded


















                                        Alan Glenn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                                        Alan Glenn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                                        Alan Glenn is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
















                                        Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                                        Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                                        Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                                        • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                        But avoid



                                        • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                        • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                        To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                        draft saved


                                        draft discarded














                                        StackExchange.ready(
                                        function () {
                                        StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3060838%2fusing-newton-raphson-method-find-the-solution-for-e-fracx24vt-1-fra%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                        }
                                        );

                                        Post as a guest















                                        Required, but never shown





















































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown

































                                        Required, but never shown














                                        Required, but never shown












                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Required, but never shown







                                        Popular posts from this blog

                                        An IMO inspired problem

                                        Management

                                        Investment