Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Solve the equation: $$2^x=1-x$$

I know this is extremely easy and I know the solution using graphical approach. Basically, I can see the solution, but I can't work it out algebraically.

share|cite|improve this question
You can use the iterative formula: $$x_{n+1}=1-2^{x_{n}}$$ for a numerical approach, which eventually converges to $0$. – Shaktal Sep 11 '12 at 18:05
I would not classify an algebraic solution to this as "extremely easy"! However, Ross Millikan shows that if you keep your eyes open, a convincing solution presents itself. – rschwieb Sep 11 '12 at 18:37
Well, this community has much greater mathematical knowledge than I do, thus what I deem to be medium-hard or hard, you guys find to be easy or medium. That is why I wrote extremely easy because I though it is a medium-level exercise for me. – David Hoffman Sep 11 '12 at 18:41
Are there nonzero complex solutions? – Ben Crowell Sep 11 '12 at 23:03
up vote 6 down vote accepted

A different perspective on an algebraic solution: you know that for negative $x$, $2^x\lt 1$ but $1-x \gt 1$ (since the latter is $1+(-x)$ and $-x \gt 0$); contrariwise, for positive $x$, $2^x\gt 1$ but $1-x \lt 1$. This means that the only possibility for a solution is $x=0$, and of course by quick algebra that does in fact work.

share|cite|improve this answer

By inspection $0$ is a solution. As the left side is increasing with $x$ and the right decreasing, that is the only solution. Equations that mix exponentials and polynomials usually need the Lambert W function for a "closed form" solution.

share|cite|improve this answer
"By inspection" should be taken to mean: think about what the two graphs, of $y=1-x$ and $y=2^x$, look like. – Michael Hardy Sep 11 '12 at 18:25
@MichaelHardy "By inspection" could mean that I look at the equation, whether there is any graph involved or not, and I try a few easy values in my head and find one that works. You could also inspect it by looking at (thinking about) the graphs. That would be a different type of inspection, but they are both inspection. – Graphth Sep 11 '12 at 18:30
Equations that mix exponentials and polynomials usually have no closed form solution. Some (in particular, those of the form $a^x + b x + c = 0$) can be solved using the Lambert W function. But change the $b x$ to $b x^2$, for example, and Lambert doesn't help. – Robert Israel Sep 11 '12 at 18:36
Well f(x)=2^x intersects the y-axis at y=1, and so does f(x)=1-x. So it is fairly obvious I know. – David Hoffman Sep 11 '12 at 18:37
I meant that in this case, that's what "by insepction" should mean, since when you do that, you get the answer instantly. – Michael Hardy Sep 11 '12 at 22:32

Solution is $1-W(2\log(2))/\log(2) = 0$, using the Lambert W function. [added Mhenni's answer shows the steps to derive this.]

And for the non-real solutions, use the other branches of the Lambert W function. $$\begin{align} &\dots\\&5.430858450 + 42.90897219 i\\ &5.090239758 + 33.81905797 i\\ &4.642925846 + 24.71686730 i\\ &3.988583083 + 15.59001288 i\\ &2.732900763 + 6.418080468 i\\ &0.000000000 + 0.000000000 i\\ &2.732900763 - 6.418080468 i\\ &3.988583083 - 15.59001288 i\\ &4.642925846 - 24.71686730 i\\ &5.090239758 - 33.81905797 i\\ &5.430858450 - 42.90897219 i\\ &\dots \end{align} $$

share|cite|improve this answer
To pass by the W function to show that the real solution is what it is seems a REALLY (so to speak) weird suggestion. – Did Aug 3 '14 at 9:22

I posted a solution to a problem related to this where I used the Lambert W function which is the solution of $ y {\rm e}^{y}=x $. A solution to a more general form $a^x=bx+c$ is here.

Let $ 1-x = y $, then we have

$$ 2^x = 1-x \Rightarrow 2^{1-y} = y \Rightarrow y \,2^y = 2 \Rightarrow y\,{\rm e}^{y\, \ln(2)}=2 \Rightarrow \frac{z}{\ln(2)} {\rm e}^{z} = 2 \Rightarrow z {\rm e}^{z}= 2\,\ln(2)$$ $$ \Rightarrow z = W( 2 \,\ln (2) ) \Rightarrow y = \frac{W(2\,\ln(2))}{\ln(2)} \Rightarrow 1-x=\frac{W(2\,\ln(2))}{\ln(2)} \Rightarrow x = 1-\frac{W(2\,\ln(2))}{\ln(2)} = 0\,, $$

since $W(2\,\ln(2))=\ln(2)$. More on Lambert W function.

share|cite|improve this answer
$W(2 \log(2)) = \log(2)$. Your solution is actually the same as $x = 0$. – Ayman Hourieh Sep 11 '12 at 19:29
@AymanHourieh: Thanks. Of course you can look for the other solutions by considering the other branches of the Lambert W function. Here I showed the techniques of solving such equation. – Mhenni Benghorbal Sep 11 '12 at 19:34

Here is a method for finding complex roots that should be understandable to those of us who didn't learn the Lambert W function at our father's knee. $2^{i\phi}=e^{i\phi\ln 2}$ is on the unit circle in the complex plane. Say we put in some fairly large value of $\phi$. Then $1-x=1-i\phi$ is going to be pretty close to the negative imaginary axis. To make the l.h.s. and r.h.s. of the equation have about the same complex phase, we can just pick a value of $\phi$ such that $2^{i\phi}$ is on the imaginary axis. Suppose we try $\phi=(3\pi/2+10\pi)/\ln 2\approx 52.1$. Now the two sides of the equation match pretty well, except that their magnitudes are mismatched. To fix this, tack on $\ln 52/\ln 2\approx 5.7$ as a real part, giving $x=5.7+52.1i$. This is pretty nearly a solution. Now play around with the real and imaginary parts to minimize the error, and you can converge to a pretty good numerical approximation, about $5.7061+51.99191i$. By replacing the $10\pi$ with other multiples of $2\pi$, it should be clear that you can get as many solutions as you want.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.