APPENDIX B

Evaluating implicit equations

There is a certain amount of difficulty for some students in understanding the

difference between implicit and explicit equations, and in knowing how to
evaluate equations of the implicit type. Most people are comfortable with explicit
equations (i.e., equations that can be made explicit), but implicit equations occur
commonly enough in mathematical modeling that an aspiring modeler should
have a reasonable understanding of how to approach them.
An explicit equation is one in which the independent variables can all be put
on one side of the equation, and the unknown can be put on the other side.
For example,
y = x2 + 2x + 3, (B.1)
−αt
f (t) = 5e , (B.2)
f (z) = A sin(nπz), (B.3)
In each of these, a value can be substituted into the independent variable on
the right-hand side (for x, t, or z) and, by performing the indicated operations, a
value can be computed for the dependent variable on the left-hand side (y, f (t),
or f (z), respectively).
In contrast, implicit equations cannot be solved in a closed-form sense. Take,
for example, the implicit equation,
λβ = tan β, (B.4)
where λ is a constant, or the equation (Fairley, 2009),
1 − e−β
θL = (B.5)
β
where θL is a known (observed) quantity.
In neither of these equations is there any way to get the desired quantity, β,
by itself on one side of the equation so that it may be conveniently calculated. In
particular, Equation B.4 comes up quite often in mathematical models of physical
systems, and implicit equations in general are encountered often enough that
approaches must be found for evaluating them. To the best of my knowledge,
there are (at least) four methods for evaluating implicit equations; they are trial-
and-error, the graphical method, iteration, and Newton’s method. I will present
a brief synopsis of each of these approaches in the following text.

Models and Modeling: An Introduction for Earth and Environmental Scientists, First Edition. Jerry P. Fairley.
© 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Published 2017 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Companion website: www.wiley.com/go/Fairley/Models

238
 Evaluating implicit equations 239

B.1 Trial and error

Trial and error is probably the most obvious method of solving implicit equations;
many of us learned to make a good guess at a value and improve it while trying
to shortcut problems in a High School algebra or trigonometry class. However,
guessing a number, then making another guess and seeing if the answer is closer
than the previous guess, is not a very efficient way of going about finding trial-
and-error solutions to equations. Probably the easiest and most straightforward
way to apply trial and error to an equation is to first decide in what range of
values the answer is expected to lie. Next, decide what precision is required for
the application (usually trial-and-error methods work best in situations where
the requirements for precision are modest); for example, say you would like the
answer to a precision of 0.01. Finally, write a simple computer program (e.g., in
Fortran, C++, or Matlab) or use a spreadsheet program to calculate all the values
in between the two limits with a step size of 0.01 (or whatever precision you
decided on). The answer can then be found by simply reading down through the
list of values and selecting the closest one. If the number of values would be too
great for such a brute force approach, one can do it in phases, starting with a
large range but a coarse step size, then identifying a smaller range and using a
finer step size.
Trial and error is not a very elegant way to seek a solution to an implicit
equation, but it is simple and understandable. Although the other methods
discussed later are more elegant and satisfying (at least to my mind), trial and
error is good for quick, one-time estimates, or as a fallback method when all
else fails.

B.2 The graphical method

Next to trial and error, the graphical method is probably the oldest approach
to finding solutions to implicit equations, and it is generally easy to apply.
Unfortunately, the precision that can be obtained from this method is limited;
however, it is useful in situations where exact solutions are not required, or as
a first step for gaining a good initial guess before refining it with either iteration
or Newton’s method. Simply stated, the method treats each side of the implicit
equation as an explicit equation, and each side is plotted separately, but on the
same set of axes. The locations of the intersections of the two plots are the
solutions to the complete implicit equation.
For a concrete example, take the following equation:

x = 4π cos x. (B.6)

Plotting the left-hand side of Equation B.6 gives a straight line running from
y =−4π (at x =−4π ) to y = 4π (at x = 4π ). On the right-hand side is a cosine
240 Appendix B

function with amplitude 4π that runs through four complete cycles on the
interval −4π ≤ x ≤ 4π . When plotted on the same set of axes, the two functions
cross at eight points, four negative and four positive values of x, the largest
of which is at 4π. (For values of x <−4π or x > 4π, the linear function is less
than or greater than, respectively, the amplitude of the cosine function, and no
intersections are possible.)
As mentioned before, this method is not terribly precise. It is easy to use,
and, besides being intuitive, it has the advantage of drawing the practitioner’s
attention to equations that have multiple roots. For these reasons, it is a good
idea to practice this method and apply it to unfamiliar equations, or in situations
where it is not clear what the structure of the solution(s) of a particular equation
may be.

B.3 Iteration

Iteration (sometimes known as fixed-point iteration, Logan (2006)), is a far more

elegant approach to finding solutions to an implicit equation than trial and error.
Unfortunately, its success is dependent on way the equation is arranged and (in
some cases), on having an appropriate initial guess or estimate of the final answer.
To apply iteration, you should get the unknown alone on one side of the
equation (of course, it will also be on the other side of the equation). Using
Equation B.5 as an example, we can rearrange slightly to get the following:

1 − e−β
β= . (B.7)
θL
Now an initial guess is substituted for β on the right-hand side, the indicated
operations are performed, and a value for the β on the left-hand side is found.
Of course, this second β will not be the same as the initial guess for β (unless
the initial guess was extremely lucky indeed). Therefore, we take this new value
of β and substitute it on the right-hand side and recalculate the β on the left-
hand side. We keep iterating in this fashion until either the difference between
two successive iterations drops below a predetermined target precision (i.e., the
iteration converges) or we see that the iterations are diverging (getting larger and
larger or smaller and smaller without bound). Occasionally, we may find that the
solution bounces around without ever converging on any specific value. If the
solution fails to converge, we either need to rearrange our equation in a manner
more suited to iteration, or use another approach to find a solution. According
to Logan (2006), the method converges to a solution x ∗ , for any initial guess that
is “sufficiently close” to the final value, provided the absolute value of the first
derivative of the function, evaluated at x ∗ , is less than 1.
Iteration has the advantage of (usually) being quick to use; in the example
given in Equation B.7, six iterations are sufficient to obtain five decimal places
 Evaluating implicit equations 241

of precision (with θL = 0.2 and an initial guess of β0 = 0.5; the final β6 =

4.96511). It is also easy to obtain values to arbitrarily high precision. As noted, its
drawbacks are that it doesn’t always converge, and the method can be sensitive
to the choice of the initial guess. For equations that have multiple roots or even,
like Equation B.4, have an infinite number of roots, it may be difficult to find
an initial guess that converges to the root of interest. When the method works,
however, it is probably the quickest and most accurate of the methods presented
here, so it is well worth trying. Sometimes, a few hand calculations will show
that the method will work; once this is established, it is easy to throw together a
quick-and-dirty computer program if many estimates need to be made.

B.4 Newton’s method

Newton’s method is another iterative method for finding approximations of the

roots of an equation; it is sometimes called Newton–Raphson iteration, after
sir Isaac Newton and Joseph Raphson, an English mathematician who refined
and simplified Newton’s original method. Starting from an initial guess (n = 0),
Newton iteration calculates an improved estimate of the root using the formula

f (xn )
xn+1 = xn − , (B.8)
f  (xn )

where the prime indicates the first derivative of the function f (x), the roots of
which are being sought.
Newton’s method usually converges rapidly, and it is much more likely to
converge than the iterative method described in the previous section (Newton’s
method works for any sufficiently “well-behaved” function). It is also easy to
refine the approximation to the solution to any desired degree, and the method
can be extended to systems of equations (Newton–Raphson iteration is the solver
of choice for many multiphase flow and transport models). The main drawbacks
of the method are that it is somewhat more difficult to program than either trial
and error or iteration (although not prohibitively difficult), and it requires careful
consideration of the initial guess in order to converge to the desired root in cases
when a function has more than one root. One additional difficulty is that, in order
to find the first derivative of the function f (x) and evaluate it at xn , the user may
need to resort to implicit differentiation (the technique of implicit differentiation
is described in almost any standard calculus textbook). Despite these difficulties,
which are generally slight, Newton iteration is probably the most commonly used
root-finding method, and its many positive attributes far outweigh any minor
difficulties in its application. You should most certainly learn how to use it and
write a root-finding program of your own for future use.
242 Appendix B

References
Fairley, J.P. (2009) Modeling fluid flow in a heterogeneous, fault-controlled hydrothermal
system. Geofluids, 9, 153–166, doi:10.1111/j.1468–8123.2008.00236.x.
Logan, J.D. (2006) A First Course in Differential Equations, Springer Science+Business Media, LLC,
New York.