Wait a minute. Part of the original problem was that x was a base, and a base cannot be negative. True. I allowed my respect for Steven and pka to override my confidence in my own logic. I did not say that x was negative. I said that
9={log5(x)}2⟹log5(x)=±3⟹x=53=125>0 or x=5−3=0.008>0.
There is no bar to the
exponent of a positive number being negative. And 0.008 is indubitably a positive number.
In Steven’s notation
u=±3, and u is a logarithm. There is no bar to a
logarithm being negative even though its argument must be positive.
Upon rereading pka’s answer, I see that he carefully noted that x = 125 when using the square root function, which is defined to be non-negative. He simply did not opine on the alternative root.
As for lookagain’s post its apparent logic is beyond silly. He starts from
±3log(5)=log(x). He did not show his work, but he then apparently proceeded
±3log(5)=log(x) and x>0⟹{x>0 and {3log(5)=log(x)} or {−3log(5)=log(x) and x>0}⟹{x>0 and {log(53)=log(x)} or {log(5−3=log(x) and x>0}⟹{x=53 and x>0} or {x=5−3 and x>0}⟹{x=125 and x>0} or {x=0.008 and x>0}.But 0.008≤0.∴ x=125,which is the unique solution.
There are two valid solutions, just as the OP’s calculator said.