My Math Forum  

Go Back   My Math Forum > High School Math Forum > Algebra

Algebra Pre-Algebra and Basic Algebra Math Forum


Thanks Tree1Thanks
  • 1 Post By skipjack
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
August 11th, 2017, 06:34 AM   #1
Newbie
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Britain

Posts: 18
Thanks: 0

Converting formula to linear relationship

I am struggling with converting formulae to the linear form Y = mX +C

For example if I have the relationship ay=b^x and I need to express this in linear form using logs, I get:

logy+ loga = xlogb

not sure how to get this to the form Y=mX+C because if I move the loga onto the other side I get:

logY = xlogb - loga which would correspond to -C

Help appreciated. Thanks.

Last edited by skipjack; August 11th, 2017 at 07:15 AM.
Simonsky is offline  
 
August 11th, 2017, 07:20 AM   #2
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 18,142
Thanks: 1417

The "- log(a)" is equivalent to "+ (-log(a))", so C = -log(a).

Of course, your Y is log(y) and your m is log(b).
Thanks from JeffM1
skipjack is offline  
August 11th, 2017, 07:22 AM   #3
Senior Member
 
Joined: May 2016
From: USA

Posts: 823
Thanks: 335

I do not understand the question.

It is false that $ay = b^x \implies y = mx + c.$

The relationship between y and x is exponential rather than linear.

Furthermore in the general linear form of y = mx + c, c can be a negative number. Adding a negative number is equivalent to subtracting a positive number. (And m may be a negative number as well.)

Let's do this in steps.

$ay = b^x \implies log(ay) = log(b^x) \implies$

$log(a) + log(y) = xlog(b) \implies log(y) = log(b) * x - log(a) \implies$

$u = mx + c, \text { where } u = log(y),\ m = log(b),\ \text { and } c = -\ log(a).$

Clear now?

EDIT: Very long winded way to say what skipjack already said.
JeffM1 is offline  
August 11th, 2017, 07:40 AM   #4
Newbie
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Britain

Posts: 18
Thanks: 0

Thanks to both of you.

I think I phrased the question badly -I meant that it was the 'reduction' of an exponential relationship to a linear one.

Thanks for the clear explanation-I was thinking it had to be +C always! ( of course i knew m could be -m as a negative gradient).
Simonsky is offline  
August 12th, 2017, 09:58 AM   #5
Newbie
 
Joined: Jan 2017
From: Britain

Posts: 18
Thanks: 0

Keep making errors



Not sure what I'm doing wrong in this reduction of formula to linear law:

The formula given with data is:

s = ab^-t

t: 1 2 3 4
s: 1.5 0.4 0.1 0.02

What I have done is tried to convert the formula like this:

logS = -tlogb = loga with logb as 'm', loga as 'c' so I then plotted -t against logS:

-t: -1 -2 -3 -4
log's': 0.2 -0.4 -1 -1.7

The answer in the book is a=6 and b = 4 so the gradient is 4 but

m= (taking sets of points) -1.7 -(-1)/-4-(-3) = -0.7/-1 = 0.7!!!!

I'm clearly getting things badly wrong here!!! Help please
Simonsky is offline  
August 12th, 2017, 03:33 PM   #6
Global Moderator
 
Joined: Dec 2006

Posts: 18,142
Thanks: 1417

If s, b, and a are all positive, s = ab^-t implies log(s) = log(a) - t*log(b).
skipjack is offline  
Reply

  My Math Forum > High School Math Forum > Algebra

Tags
converting, formula, linear, relationship



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can you express this relationship as a formula? The Galin Algebra 1 February 21st, 2016 07:11 PM
The relationship between 1+2+3+4+... and -1/12 Karma Peny Math 28 November 13th, 2015 08:21 PM
Relationship between singular matrices and linear dependency? vyoung831 Linear Algebra 1 December 12th, 2014 09:20 PM
Need help with converting 2 nonlinear equations to linear JJP Linear Algebra 1 December 7th, 2014 05:21 PM
Converting a linear graph to a linear equation? Regnes Algebra 3 July 13th, 2011 05:56 PM





Copyright © 2017 My Math Forum. All rights reserved.