Lambert W Function vs GLOG Function / Which is better?
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 кві 2021
- In this video I will show you the application of two different methods, functions on one example. These Functions are the Lambert W Function and the glog Function.
For the glog Function go to: • The Function you have...
For the Lambert W function, go to: ua-cam.com/users/playlist?list...
Follow me on Instagram: intellecta9...
If you want to see more videos like this, please like and SUBSCRIBE.
Don't hesitate to click the "BELL ICON" next to the SUBSCRIBE button to be notified of UPLOADS.🔔
I apologize on the microphone stand throughout the video😅
Edit: if you want to know how to get all solutions for this equation, watch this video: ua-cam.com/video/hu8oXMFDNQk/v-deo.html
I didn't notice 😅😅
@@soccergamer6072 It is like a chameleon 😄
Finally the microphone stand gets the recognition it deserves
Decided to fight for his position, I hope other pieces of equipment will not follow it 😀
Professor;you are so so clear;i follow you tutorials;from argentina;buenos aires city;THANKS FOR ALLLLLLLL!!!!!
I loved your videos tahanks for your helps 😊 [from Turkiye]
Good pedagogy. Thanks
The Lambert W function is very well explained by you. Many congrats.
Which function we like the most? We like you the most. Your practical explanations and exotic accent. Keep up the good work.
Great style and content. I see that the glog function could be calculated using: glog(x) = -W(-1/x) where W is the Lambert W function so calculation can be fast.
Dear Intellecta,
Your explanation of the solutions is very good. We understand the problems easily. My question in this problem is: W(-ln2 /10 ) has two answers. The first one is -4.073634 and the second one is -0.07469. However, you determined the result of the problem as x=0.107 by using the second one (- 0.07469) in solving the problem. Could you please explain, how can we understand this?
Good work my friend. I am learning a little from you but it’s complicated math for me. Happy Easter Ivanna ☺️
Thank you, happy Easter to you too. Enjoy these days 🙂
This got me thinking about the general solution of a^bx = cx, which works out to be x = W([-b ln a ] / c) / (-b ln a). The usual restrictions on domain apply, of course.
Hi this is Sharvil 💝💐
Hi Ivanna,
I liked your simplicity in explanation. You earned a subscriber. Yay!!
Your series is the only one I found that covers Lambert-W function in a simple way.
But for the equation 2^x = 10x, there are two possible real values.
One is approx. 0.107755 (covered in your video.)
Another is approx, 5.877010.
This another answer will come because there are two real branches of Lambert-W function (W_0 branch and W_-1 branch)
Could you please cover W_-1 in your other video? Thanks.
The answer to your question is in this vide, hope it will help :)
ua-cam.com/video/hu8oXMFDNQk/v-deo.html
@@intellecta2686
Hi Ivana!
Thanks a lot for this video and taking my comment. 😊
Please maintain the best quality that you have in your videos. I pray that you get atleast 1 million subscribers very soon!
Guess who has made the simplest and the best explanation video series on Lambert-W function?! :)
@@adityakumargupta9730 Thank you very much, I am glad you like my videos. I'm very optimistic in life, but not so much that I think I'll have a million soon hehehe but thanks for believing in me 😄😅
thank you so much for this video! is there a way to compute glog without using wolfram alpha, since if you it cant compute it.
Thank you for watching 🙂
So e.g. Wolfram alfa, Maple and other computes let's say the Lambert W Function via Halley's method or via Newton's method, we can also use these methods for glog function (in some parts) only then we have to do it ourselves, still without help of wolfram alfa or maple. We can also use a second order Taylor approximation for one segment of the function.
Your explanation is good mam
Thank you.
I notice that the W function curve loops back on itself in this region, so I came out with two final solutions, X = 0.108 and X = 5.88 (where W(x) = -0.0693). Is there a reason to exclude the second possible solution?
No. X=5.88 is valid . Its the other branch of the lambert W function (W branch -1).
I don't know how to figure this out on paper on my own though , i only end up with the W0 branch (which is the principal branch and wich only gives the first answer).
She did a video on it ,as i saw later:
ua-cam.com/video/hu8oXMFDNQk/v-deo.html
is there already a calculator to calculate the glog function? if I compare glog and productlog on the example a^x=bx, then glog(k) = -W(-1/k). Is it true?
When you wrote "log" in the video, I assume you meant "ln" (i.e. log to the base e, not log to the base 10)?
That is correct.
おお GLOG関数がよくわからないけど、とてもsimpleに解けるんですね
これはいいな😊👍
Thank you 🙂
Actually there is a way to calculate the glog
Because
a=(e^-W(-1/a))/-W(-1/a)
So glob of a=-W(-1/a)
'glob'
I drew the graphs of the two functions and realized that another root is missing. x = 5,877 ( Desenhei os graficos das duas funções e percebi que está faltando outra raiz.)
How to use Lambert's formula to determine all roots of an equation, if any?
Wolphram Alpha
There are two answers, x=.107755 and x=5.87701 as per graphing y=2^x and y=10x
Teacher, Good night. I know solution is 1 and 2, but how to solve ? 2^x= 2x.
Thank you this video helped me out considerably although needs to dress like a witch in the future because her good looks was a distraction
Thank you 😆
2^x=10x >>>> e^xln2=e^(ln10 + lnx) >>> xln2=ln10+lnx take first power of Derivative on both sides>>> ln2=0+1/x>>> x=1/ln2 >>> x=1/ln2
This did nothing but find a local minimum of a different (transformed) function.
Nice girl, but looking mostly to hear her voice :)
Spanish?
Dear Intellecta,
Your explanation of the solutions is very good. We understand the problems easily. My question in this problem is: W(-ln2 /10 ) has two answers. The first one is -4.073634 and the second one is -0.07469. However, you determined the result of the problem as x=0.107 by using the second one (- 0.07469) in solving the problem. Could you please explain, how can we understand this?