stupid math question

[SONYFX]

log x = 4.203

how do you get x without using calculator?

 

[nakedfrog]

Liberal application of explosives and pudding.

 

[josphII]

Originally posted by: SONYFX
log x = 4.203

how do you get x without using calculator?

assuming its log base 10, x = 10^4.203

and to go from there id start by coverting 4.203 to a fraction, the hand calculations from there im sure would get tedious

 

[nakedfrog]

My way's more fun.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog
My way's more fun.

Yes, but only if you get to use a naked frog.

 

[eLiu]

Originally posted by: SONYFX
log x = 4.203

how do you get x without using calculator?

Well, you could go the old-school way and use a sliderule. Or even older...get a table of logs. hehe. Other than that, I hope you're good at calculating nth roots by hand.

 

[eakers]

anti-log
duh

 

[Vertimus]

Linear approximations, Quadratic approximations, Taylor polynomials etc

 

[MikeMike]

10^4.203

but long hand square rooting is more fun.

MIKE

 

[Hector13]

Originally posted by: SONYFX
log x = 4.203

how do you get x without using calculator?

easy... you post on the internet...

log(15958.79147) = 4.203, or
ln(66.88669042) = 4.203

 

[Spencer278]

Duh, you use a computer, calculators are for wusses.

 

[LordMorpheus]

Log(x)=4.203

10^4.203=x

10^4 * 10^.203 =x

sooo, 10^.203 is a wee bit less than 10^.33333, which, is turn, is a wee bit more than 2. SO lets estimate 10^.203 as "about 2"

Which gives us "about 20000"

which is accurate to one signifigant figure, which is about as good as it will be with now machine-assistance. Or log tables.

I suppose you could work out a taylor series for this and calculate X, using 20000 as the starting point for x to keep accuracy up. It would be tedious, but doable. That said, I'm not going to do it.