Determining the Existence of any Intersection Between a

Logarithmic Function and a Polynomial

Yizhou (Ethan) Xu

Mathematics
Supervisor: Ms. Kobbi
Sir Winston Churchill Secondary School
May 2016
Word Count: 3975

Acknowledgements: Special thanks to Ms. Kobbi and Dr. Mark

Krusemeyer who has provided helpful insights throughout this research

Abstract
This research paper aims to find mathematical formulae that can be used to predict the
existence of intersections between a logarithmic function and a polynomial. To narrow the focus
of this paper, several assumptions have been made: intersections between the two functions at
infinity are not considered as intersections, all coefficients of the two functions are real numbers
other than , and the base of the logarithmic function is greater than 1. Case analysis was used
as the main approach. The degrees of the two functions were varied in each case, and their
behaviour was analyzed. For each case, I established an inequality between the coefficients of the
two functions for determining if there are intersections between the functions.

Word Count: 119

Table of Contents
Introduction------------------------------------------------------------------------------------1
1. deg (f) = 0 or deg (g) = 0------------------------------------------------------------------3
2. deg (f) = 1, deg (g) = 1---------------------------------------------------------------------3
3. deg (f) = 2, deg (g) = 1---------------------------------------------------------------------6
4. deg (f) = 1, deg (g) = 2--------------------------------------------------------------------10
5. deg (f) = 2, deg (g) = 2-------------------------------------------------------------------12
6. Further observation-----------------------------------------------------------------------21
7. Conclusion---------------------------------------------------------------------------------22
Bibliography----------------------------------------------------------------------------------24

Introduction
My research question asks: are there mathematical formulae to predict whether the
equation, log () = (), where () and () are polynomials, has any solutions.
The reason why I chose to investigate this question is that, from my past algebraic problemsolving experiences, I often found it difficult to determine whether a solution exists for a given
equation. In order to solve this problem, I strive to find a quicker and more convenient way for
solving these questions, which can vastly increase the efficiency.
In my research paper, I have limited the scope of my investigation to a specific type of
equation: one between a logarithmic function and a polynomial function. There may be ways to
determine if intersections exist for other types of equations.
My research integrates three fields of mathematics: calculus, algebra, and geometry. Calculus
will be mainly employed to calculate the slopes of log () and () at a given point in order
to determine when the two functions do not intersect. Finding the slopes of log () and ()
will be very helpful for determining the x-value at which these functions lie tangent to each other.
I will use algebra to manipulate the two functions and their derivatives to yield a restriction on
the coefficients of () and () such that there exists no intersections between them.
Geometry will be mainly used to predict the behaviour of log () and () in order to
determine how the restrictions on the coefficients of these functions should be placed such that
they do not intersect.

I will first limit the degrees of the functions () and () to 1 in order to gain a better
understanding of my investigation. Afterwards, I will vary the degrees of these functions to
generalize my results so that they can be applied to more scenarios.
The solution to my research question will provide a relatively simple way to solve these
equations. Its significance lies in the fact that it is especially useful for those who have not yet
learned calculus to solve for these similar questions, since my formulae do not require any
understanding of calculus or any other area of mathematics beyond high school algebra.
Considering that the formulae I find can decrease the number of operations one has to make and
thus shorten the calculation time for a given equation in the form of log () = (), where
() and () are polynomials, my solution can potentially be very useful for efficiently
solving these similar equations.
To proceed with my investigation, I will first make several assumptions that can simplify my
research and narrow my focus:
1. Despite the theory that two curves can intersect at infinity, I would not consider
intersection of log () and () at = or = to be an intersection.
2. All coefficients of () and () must be real numbers other than .
3. log () has base > 1.

1. deg (f) = 0 or deg (g) = 0

I will discuss the two cases for which deg (f) = 0 or deg (g) = 0. When deg (f) = 0,
the two sides of the equation turn into a polynomial and a constant, which may be solved if
deg (g) < 5. When deg (g) = 0, the equation, under transformations, can still be written in
the form of a polynomial being equal to a constant term, which means that these two scenarios
are similar. These cases do not require a formula to determine whether log () and
() intersect since they can both be simplified to a polynomial equation.

2. deg (f) = 1, deg (g) = 1

Let () = + c and () = + , where , c, , R and , 0.

Figure 1. () = log (10x + 3)

3

The shape of this curve, as well as the shape of any other functions in the form of
log ( + ) for > 1 and > 0, is concave down. Each of these functions has one vertical
asymptote at the point where x =

and approaches when x approaches . The slope of this

type of functions approximates as x approaches

and stays at 0 as x approaches . For

< 0, these functions remain concave down, but approaches when x approaches

For > 0 or < 0, () has to be strictly greater than log () for all real values of
x in the domain of log () in order to not intersect with log (). Function () must
intersect with log () if () is set to be less than log () for all x in the domain of
log () since log () approaches as approaches

When > 0, the leading coefficient of (), d, must be greater than 0 such that no
intersection exists between log () and (). This is due to the fact that log ()
approaches when x approaches for > 0, and if < 0, then () approaches
when x approaches . An intersection must exist in this case. Similarly, when < 0,
log () and () have no intersection only if < 0.
I will set restriction on the constant term of () to determine whether log () and
() intersect. This way gives me the advantage of vertically translating () through
manipulating the value of e without changing the shape of (), and has the nice property of
providing an inequality on the value of e.
Now, I suppose that the values for a, b, c, d, e are already given and it is my task to
determine whether an intersection exists between log () and ().
4

In order to solve this question, I envision the function log () and () = + to be

tangent to each other, Since log () is concave down and () is linear, there is only one
intersection between these two functions, which is at the point of tangency. The reason that
log () and () do not intersect at any points other than the point of tangency is that, for xvalue greater or less than the x-value at the intersection point, the slope of () will be strictly
greater or less than the slope of log () respectively, assuming that b > 01. As a result, the
value of log () will be less than () for all values of x other than the point of tangency in
the domain of log () (Rooftop Theorem).
By increasing the value of e and thus translating () upwards, the intersection point
between these two functions disappears. Therefore, if e is greater than the value for which ()
lies tangent to log (), there is no intersection between these two functions. I will use this
property to set a restriction on e such that the two functions do not intersect.
From the formula for calculating the derivative of a logarithmic function,

log () =

ln ( + )
Suppose there exists a value 1 such that:

log (1 ) =
()

Then, we can differentiate both functions to determine 1 :

The case in which < 0 is similar to > 0, and it can be shown that log () does not
intersect () other than the point of tangency.
1


=
ln (1 + )

= 1 +
ln
1 =

ln

If log (1 ) < (1 ), there would be no intersection between the two functions:

log [ (1 ) + ] < (1 ) +
1

log [ (
) + ] < (
)+
ln
ln
> log (

)
+
ln
ln

In this case, for () and () coefficients a, b, c, d, e that satisfy this inequality, there is
no real solution for log () = ().

3. deg (f) = 2, deg (g) = 1

Let () = 2 + + and () = + , where b, c, d, e, f R and b, e 0.

There are two different behaviour of log () for > 0 and < 0 . Here are two
examples of log () for each of the two cases:

Figure 2. () = ( 2 + 10 + 1)

Figure 3. () = ( 2 + 10 + 1)

For > 0, log () approaches when x approaches . For < 0, log () has
two vertical asymptotes at =

2 4
2

, because () is positive between its two roots.

It is helpful to note that if 2 4 < 0, and consequently there would be no intersection

between log () and (). In these two scenarios, the shapes of log () greatly differ
from each other in their end behaviour.
When > 0, there must be an intersection between log () and (), since ()
approaches on one infinity side and on the other, whereas log () approaches on
both sides. Thus, there may exist no intersection between these two functions if and only if
< 0.

Lemma 1. The shape of () when b < 0 and 2 4 > 0 is concave down.

Due to the fact that the concavity of a function does not change as it undergoes horizontal or
vertical shift, translation, expansion, or compression, if log ( + 2 ) is concave down for a
given real number > 0, then log () has to be concave down. The function

log ( + 2 ) can be further transformed into log + log (1 + 2 ), and through horizontal
expansion or, this function transforms into log + log (1 2 ), for log as a real constant.
Given that a function is concave down if and only if its second derivative is less than 0, it is
important to calculate the second derivative of log (1 2 ). This is the end of the proof.

The tangent lines of concave down functions do not intersect with the functions at any points
other than their point of tangency. An upward vertical translation of (), as a result, removes
the intersection between these two functions if () is tangent to log ().
According to the formula for calculating the derivative of log (),
8


2 +
log 2 + + =

ln ( 2 + + )
Suppose there exists a number 1 in the domain of () such that:

log (1 ) =
(1 )

21 +
=
ln (1 2 + 1 + )
2

(
) 1 +
= 1 2 + 1 +
ln
ln
1 2 + (

) 1 + (
)=0
ln
ln

1 2 + (
) 1 + (
)=0
ln
ln
2
2

) (
) 4(
)
ln
ln
ln
1 =
2

1 =

2 ln 2 2 ln2 + 4 2 4 2 ln2
2 ln

There are two possible values of 1 , but one of the two is not in the domain of log ()
since the two functions would only intersect once in the given conditions. Let 1 that is within the
domain of log () be .
In order for log () not to intersect with (), log () must be strictly less than ()
due to the fact that log () approaches at its vertical asymptotes. It follows that:
log ( 2 + + ) < +
> log ( 2 + + )
Therefore, if < 0 and 2 4 > 0 and the above inequality is satisfied, there exists no
solution for log () = () for deg (f) = 2 and deg (g) = 1.
9

4. deg (f) = 1, deg (g) = 2

Let () = + and () = 2 + + , where b, c, d, e, f R and b, d 0.

Lemma 2. Considering the end behaviour of () and (), the leading coefficient
of (), , must be greater than 0 if there exists no intersection between the two functions.
If log () does not intersect (), then log () must be either greater or smaller than
() for all in the domain of log (). However, since, if < 0, () would reach
as x approaches , log () cannot be entirely below () for < 0. It cannot be entirely
above () either due to the fact that it approaches for some real value of . This is the
end of the proof.

It is now clear to see that log () does not intersect () if and only if > 0. Ideally,
an upward vertical translation by a certain value on () can reduce the original two
intersections between the two functions to one point of tangency, such that any other upward
vertical translation of () would remove all intersections between them. My goal is to find
such a value.

Lemma 3. The intersection between the concave up function () and the concave down
function () is only one point if and only if the two functions are tangent to each other.
10

Let 1 be the point of tangency between the two functions. Then,

(1 ). For : > 1 ,

() >

(1 ), while

log (1 ) = (1 ),

log (1 ) =

log () < log (1 ) due to

the properties of concave up and concave down functions. Thus,

: > 1 . Similarly, we can deduce that

() > log () for

() < log () for < 1 . Since

() > log () for : 1 . This is the end of the proof.

In order to locate that potential point of tangency, it is important to first locate the point at
which

log () =

(). Suppose the two functions have the same slope at 1 :

log (1 ) =
(1 )

= 21 +
ln (1 + )

= (21 + )(1 + )
ln
21 2 + (2 + )1 +

=0
ln

1
1 2 + ( + ) 1 + (

)=0
2
2 2 ln

( + )2 + 4(

)
2
2
2 ln 2
1 =
2
1 =

2 ln ln 4 2 2 ln2 + 2 2 ln2 + 8 2 ln 4ln2

4 ln

There are two possible values of 1 , but one is not in the domain of log () since
log () and () intersect only once if < 0 and the two functions are tangent to each other.
Let the value 1 that is within the domain of log () to be .
11

log () must be strictly less than (), which can be satisfied by letting () be greater
than log () at 1 . An inequality between the two functions follows:
log ( + ) < 2 + +
> log ( + ) 2

5. deg (f) = 2, deg (g) = 2

Let () = 2 + + and () = 2 + + , where b, c, d, e, f, g R and

b, e 0.

5.1 >
When > 0, there are two possible shapes of log (). One shape consists of two concave
down functions separated by a region in which () 0, as shown in Figure 2. It approaches
when x approaches

2 4
2

. This shape is distinguished from the other shape by the

fact that it satisfies the inequality 2 4. Let us denote the shape that satisfies the inequality
2 4 to be the first shape, and the other shape to be the second shape.

5.1.1 The first shape

Lemma 4. log () consists of two concave down curves if > 0 and 2 4.

12

It is useful to note that the concavity of log () is preserved after horizontal and vertical
transformations. As a result, we can rewrite log () as log( 2 + + ), with 2 4,
1

and then further transform the function to log[( + 2 ) + 42 ]. The resulting function, after
horizontal shift, is log( 2 ) for some positive real number k, which is equivalent to
1

log ( 2 1) + log . After vertical translation and horizontal expansion or compression, this
function ultimately becomes log( 2 1).

2
2

number r. From this equation, we can see that

log( 2 1) =
2

(2 2 2)
( 2 +1)2

for some positive real

log( 2 1) < 0. Therefore, log( 2 1)

consists of two concave down curves, which implies that the first shape of log () also has
two concave down curves. This is the end of the proof.

The first shape that consists of two separate concave down curves cannot be discussed using
the aforementioned vertical translation of (). Since this shape has two separate curves, ()
may be tangent to one curve of this shape but intersect at two points with the other curve, such
that when vertical translation is applied to (), there still exist intersections between log ()
and (). A slight modification is needed for this method.
First, I will determine the lines of reflection for the two curves. The function () reaches

minimum value at the vertex, where = 2 , and it is symmetrical on either side of the line of
reflection. This means that log () will also be symmetrical at =

13

Lemma 5. a symmetrical pair of non-intersecting concave down curves and a symmetrical

concave up curve tangent to one of the concave down curves, both with reflection symmetry
parallel to the y-axis, intersect only at the tangent point if and only if the reflection line of the
concave up curve is on the same side as the tangent point according to the y-axis.
Without the loss of generality, we assume that the reflection line of the symmetrical concave
up curve is on the left side of the reflection line of the two concave down curves. By applying a
horizontal shift of the right side concave down curve to the left by a certain number of units, we
can create another concave down curve such that it is symmetrical to the left side concave down
curve at the reflection line of the concave up curve. If the concave up curve is tangent to the left
side concave down curve, then it must also be tangent to the new right side concave down curve
after the horizontal shift. Due to the fact that the concave up curve would intersect the right side
concave down curve from the left, it would intersect with the transformed concave down curve
for two times before it intersects with the original right side concave down curve. However, since
the concave up curve intersects with the transformed concave down curve only once, there would
be no intersection between the concave up curve and the right side concave down curve. This is
the end of the proof.
This lemma indicates that if we choose the tangent point to be on the same side as the vertex
of () with respect to the reflection line of log (), then there will only be one point of
intersection between the two functions. This fact proves to be extremely useful by providing
information about the lower bound on the value of the constant term g in () such that
14

log () and () do not intersect.

5.1.2 The second shape

The second shape is a continuous function that resembles the first shape, but is different in
that it is not entirely concave down. Here is an example of the second shape:

Figure 4. () = ( 2 + 5 + 12)

In the second shape, there exist two inflection points at which the slope of the function
changes from decreasing to increasing and from increasing to decreasing. The situation in which
the second shape would occur is when the equation () = 0 has no real solution.
Essentially, there needs to be a minimum value on the constant value of () such that
log () does not intersect with ().
The difficulty of this case lies in the fact that the function log () will no longer be just a
concave down curve and cannot be dealt with using the same method. To simplify this problem, I
15

will apply case analysis by examining the two distinct shapes of log () for > 0
individually.
The second shape is a continuous, non-concave down function with two inflection points,
and we can prove this fact through algebraic manipulation.

Lemma 6. () = 2 + + has two inflection points if b > 0 and 2 < 4,

with b, c, d being real numbers.
log () does not change its general shape after horizontal or vertical shift, translation,
expansion, or compression. The function can be reduced to log (1 + 2 ).
22 2
ln (1+ 2 )2

2
2

log (1 + 2 ) =

, which equals to 0 only if 2 2 2 = 0. Since the numerator, (2 2 2 ), is a

quadratic polynomial, there are at most two solutions to

2
2

log (1 + 2 ) = 0. Thus, log ()

has at most 2 inflections points.

log () = 0 at the reflection line2, and gradually approaches 0 as x approaches .

Therefore, there must exist at least one point on the right side of the reflection line such that the

log () changes from increasing to decreasing. Due to the fact that the second shape of

log () is symmetrical, there exist at least two inflection points for log (). Therefore, the
second shape of log () has two inflection points, one on each side of the reflection line. This
is the end of the proof.

The slope of a symmetrical function that is continuous on (, ) and differentiable on

(, ) equals 0 at the reflection line,
16
2

log () approaches 0 as x approaches , and has a rotational symmetry around the

point on log () at x =

, where the slope of log () = 0. An example of this derivative

is shown on the figure below:

Figure 5. =

20+5
10 2 +5+1

Note that the derivative of () is a line with a positive slope.

As mentioned previously, the tangent point that will be taken must be on the same side as the
vertex of () according to the reflection point at =
taken is at the left side of =

. This means that, if the tangent point

, then the derivative of () must intersect with the x-axis left

to = 2 as well.
Since the derivative of log () has rotational symmetry around the point on log () at
=

, and the set of all lines with positive slope is unchanged after an 180 rotation around that

17

point, without the loss of generality, we can assume that the vertex of () is on the left side of
=

From the fact that the derivative of () is a line with a positive slope, we can deduce that
the derivative of () will only intersect once with the derivative of log () on the left side
of =

. This finding is very useful, since if there are two intersections between the derivative

of () and log () at the left hand side of =

, then it is more difficult to determine

which tangent point to use as the boundary for the constant term, g, in ().
It is important to note that, if log () and () are tangent to each other and the vertex
of () and the tangent point are on the same side with respect to =

, then there will be no

intersection between log () and () on the other side of = 2 .

What we have determined here is that the case of the second shape is congruent with the case
of the first one, and that it can be solved using the same method.
Due to the occurrence of the second shape of log () for > 0, the function () is
allowed to open downwards such that there exists no intersection between log () and ().
In other words, e, the leading coefficient of (), can be negative. The reason is that the second
shape of log () does not approach negative infinity for any real values of x, and thus allows
() to approach when x approaches .
Using the same approach as before, we first try to determine the values of x for which the
derivative of log () and the derivative of () are the same. This question simplifies to
solving a polynomial equation with degree 3, which has a maximum of three real solutions. In
18

other words, the derivative of log () and the derivative of () intersects at most three
times.
There are three possibilities for the intersections between the derivatives of the two
functions: one intersection, two intersections including a tangent point, and three intersections.
If there exists only one solution to the polynomial equation, which means that there exists
one intersection between the derivatives, we should choose that point as the tangent point
between log () and () and determine a restriction on the value of g, the constant term of
() such that there exists no intersection between the two functions. The reason why this
method works is that to the left of the intersection of the two derivatives, the derivative of ()
is greater than that of log (), and to the right of the intersection, that of () is less than
that of log (), which guarantees that () will be less than log () for all values of x
other than the value of x at the tangent point.
It is possible for the two derivatives to have two intersections, but one of the intersections
must be a tangent point between the derivatives. If log () = () at this tangent point
between the derivatives, the two functions cross each other at this point even though their slopes
are equal. This point is also called the inflection point of the two tangent curves. This point can
be disregarded in our investigation, since it does not provide us with information about the
restriction on the constant term g for log () and () to not intersect. The way to see if an
intersection between the derivatives is a tangent point is by calculating the second derivatives of
log () and (). If the second derivatives are equal to each other at the intersection, then
19

this intersection is indeed a tangent point. After knowing which one is the inflection point, we
would just use the other intersection and employ the same method previously mentioned.
If there are three intersections between the two derivatives, then we call the x-coordinates of
the intersections as 1 , 2 , and 3 , with 1 > 2 > 3 . Since there is no tangent point
between the derivatives in these three intersections,
and 3 , and

log () <

log () >

() for between 2

() for between 1 and 2 .

To find the tangent point between log () and () such that it is the only point of
intersection, we first assume each of the three points, 1 , 2 , and 3 to be that tangent point.
Through calculations same to the ones mentioned above, we would obtain three maximum values
on the value of g such that log () and () do not intersect. At this point, we choose the
least of the three values as the restriction on g.

5.2 <
The shape of log () when < 0 and 2 4 > 0 is concave down3. () can be
either a concave up or concave down quadratic function.
If () is concave up, which implies that > 0, then there would be only one intersection
between log () and () if the two functions are tangent to each other4. It follows that:

log () = ()

2 +
= 2 +
ln ( 2 + + )
3
4

Refer to the proof of the lemma 1 on page 8

Refer to the proof of the lemma 5 on page 10
20

) + (
) = 2 3 + (2 + ) 2 + (2 + ) +
ln
ln
2

2 3 + (2 + ) 2 + (2 +
) + (
)=0
ln
ln
(

By applying the cubic formula, we can find at least one and at most three solutions. Only one
value would be within the domain of log () due to the fact that there is at most one point for
which a concave up and a concave down function has the same slope. Let that value be .
log ( 2 + + ) < 2 + +
> log ( 2 + + ) 2
There would be no intersection between the two functions if this inequality is satisfied with
the given conditions.

6. Further observation

Lemma 7. Two functions, () and (), that are differentiable on the interval of
(, ) and continuous on the interval of (, ) do not intersect only if
1 R:

(1 ) =
(1 )

Given that () and () are two non-intersecting continuous and differentiable functions
with x R, without the loss of generality, we can assume that () is greater than () for all
real values of x. By applying downward vertical translation on (), we can guarantee that ()
and () would intersect. Suppose that after translating () n units down, () and ()
intersect for the first time. We can show that the intersections must be tangent points, by
21

contradiction. If one intersection is not a tangent point, then either on the left side or the right side
of that intersection there must be an interval of x-values such that () < (). This means that
if we can translate () up by a certain unit such that () still intersects with (),
contradicting the assumption that () first intersects with () after its translation by n units
downward. This is the end of the proof.

This is an observation that I have made from my research, and would have great contribution
to future investigation. The implication is that if I determine that it is possible for two functions
to not intersect, I only have to locate the x-values for which the two functions have the same
slope, and determine for which x-value would place the greatest restriction on the constant term
for one of the function, significantly simplifying my future research.

7. Conclusion

The purpose of my research is to find a more efficient way of determining the existence of
intersections between a logarithmic function and a polynomial. I have discussed four cases and
provided solutions to each of the cases with respect to my research question.
The method I have employed, which is analyzing the behaviour of functions and finding
tangent points between the two functions, unfortunately becomes ineffective when the degrees of
() and () begin to increase. The reason comes from the fact stated in the Abel-Ruffini
22

Theorem: there exists no general algebraic solution to a polynomial equation with degree greater
than or equal to 5 (oldek, 2000). It is important to note that this theorem does not claim that there
is no solution to polynomial equations of degree greater than or equal to 5.
The original way for locating a point at which the slopes of log () and () are equal
to each other would not work with this restriction. To let

() be equal to

() would then

turn into a polynomial equation with degree of deg (f) + deg (g) 1, and it must be strictly
less than 5. Equivalently, deg (f) + deg (g) must be smaller than 6 in order for our original
method to work. I left out 6 cases that may be solved using this method. I would not discuss them,
since they can all be solved using the similar way of analyzing functions and finding tangent points
between them.
There are other ways of solving a polynomial equation. One of which is the Newtons
method, which gives good approximation to the zeroes of a function. Another way is by graphing
the polynomial and see if it intersects with the x-axis. However, both of them can be timeconsuming.

23

Bibliography

Rooftop Theorem for Concave down Functions. University of Southern California, Santa
Barbara. Retrieved from
http://www.econ.ucsb.edu/~tedb/Courses/GraduateTheoryUCSB/Rooftop.pdf

oldek, Henryk. (2000). The Topological Proof of Abel-Ruffini Theorem. Journal of the
Juliusz Schauder Center, 16, 253-265.

24