Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

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

Apologies for the simple question. Is it possible to analytically minimize a function such as

$$f(x) = a^x + c x (x-1) \qquad x > 0, \quad 0 < a,c < 1$$

Nothing else can be said about the constants $a$ or $c$.

share|cite|improve this question
Mathematica says that the Lambert function is involved here, but considering your range of validity for a and c (can they be negative, for instance?), I'm still verifying the solution I got. – J. M. Sep 15 '10 at 15:10
That's a good point, I'm most interested in cases where a and c are positive. – user1910 Sep 15 '10 at 15:21
@J.M.: If c is negative, f is unbounded below; if a is negative, f is not everywhere real-valued. So your solution should be ok. Its nature draws our attention to the interesting part of this question: exactly what should be considered an "analytical" solution? – whuber Sep 15 '10 at 15:27
whuber: I carried the analysis through, and you are of course correct. :) – J. M. Sep 15 '10 at 15:47
up vote 6 down vote accepted

Alright, here's my expansion of my comment.

Let's rearrange the equation in VFG's answer like so:


and multiply both sides by $\sqrt{a}$:


We're close to a form where we can now use the Lambert function, but let's change bases first:


We're much closer now, so we multiply both sides by a factor of $\ln\;a$


and then perform the inversion:


which is now easily solved for $x$:


Now, the Lambert function has two real branches $W(z)$ (principal branch) and $W_{-1}(z)$; one is real for $z\geq-e^{-1}$, and the other is real only in the interval $[-e^{-1},0)$. If both $a$ and $c$ are in the interval $(0,1)$, the argument of the Lambert function would be much greater than 1, and thus we can dispose of the $W_{-1}$ branch, as well as consider $W(z)$ only for $z\geq 0$, which is true for $a$ and $c$ in the interval $(0,1)$. Thus, the Lambert solution using the principal branch is valid.

share|cite|improve this answer
Having derived the beastie, I would say that for numerical work, you're probably still better off using Newton-Raphson directly on the derivative of the objective function instead of using the solution I gave. – J. M. Sep 15 '10 at 16:17

I think there is no analytical solution to $f^{\prime }(x)=0$

$f^{\prime }(x)=2cx-c+\left( \ln a\right) a^{x}$.

Update: I mean no solution in elementary functions.

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.