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

How can I solve this equation, $$x = -c_1 e ^ x + c_2e ^{-x}, \;\;\; 0 < c_1, c_2 < 1$$ We can use $t = e^x$ which will result in, $$t \ln(t) + c_1 t ^ 2 - c_2 = 0, \;\;\; 0 < c_1, c_2 < 1$$ but how can I solve this one then?

share|cite|improve this question
That doesn't have the look of something with an analytical solution. Use Newton-Raphson or something like it. – J. M. Apr 18 '11 at 4:45
Ummm, I already did it. I am just wondered if it can be solved analytically or not. – Helium Apr 18 '11 at 4:52
@Mohsen: Highly unlikely. If $c_1=0$ or $c_2=0$, then you need Lambert's W function, having both nonzero is only going to make it more difficult. It is equivalent to $xe^x = -c_1(e^2)^x + c_2$. – Arturo Magidin Apr 18 '11 at 4:54
@Arturo: You are right. Actually, I was solving a system of equations containing two Lambert's W functions. I simplified the equations and got the one I posted here. – Helium Apr 18 '11 at 5:02
@Mohsen: Yeah, if you have a system of transcendental equations, the likelihood of obtaining an analytical solution is rather tiny. On the other hand, I'd rather do Newton-Raphson on a system with exponentials than a system with Lambert functions. – J. M. Apr 18 '11 at 5:14

Let's find first derivative of the both sides of the equation:


$1=-C_1e^x - C_2e^{-x}$ and now let's find first derivative of the left and right side:

$(1)'=(-C_1e^x)' - (C_2e^{-x})'$

$0=-C_1e^x + C_2e^{-x} \Rightarrow C_1e^x=C_2e^{-x}$ , which means that:

$x=-C_1e^x + C_1e^x$


share|cite|improve this answer
I don't know what you are doing, but surely for $c_1\not= c_2$ $x=0$ is not a solution? – Thomas Rot Sep 18 '11 at 13:50
$x=0$ would be right if $c_1$ and $c_2$ were the same, but your method is not a proper method for a general solution. Differentiation "loses" constants... – J. M. Sep 18 '11 at 13:52
@J.M,you are right...obvious logical mistake – pedja Sep 18 '11 at 14:04

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.