"Niek Otten" wrote...
<This can be completely solved analytically

I know, Harlan. Many complex problems can be solved analytically.
We don't need computers at all, . . .

Intentionally oversimplified bombast.

There are many situations in which iterative approaches are necessary.
This just isn't one of them. Problems with analytical solutions that
can be achieved with 10 or fewer lines of algebra will always produce
more accurate results and likely take no more time than would be
needed to set up the problem in Solver.

But I'm sure I'm not alone in preferring an iterative approach if
there is an easy one.
....

More's the pity. Making laziness (and ignorance?) into a virtue?

I think your limit of 10 lines is just *your* figure. Nothing to do
with an objective limit.

True. Let me rephrase: analytical solutions are always as accurate if
not more accurate than iterative solutions. There's a trade-off
between the time and effort needed for some analytical solutions vs
the speed of less accurate but accurate enough iterative solutions.

I will not try to turn this forum into a math class.

So you'll ignore math unless absolutely necessary? Well, at least
you've internalized Microsoft's long term intentions for Excel.

But how about the other point I raised? The OP's equations have **2**
equally valid solutions. Given any initial conditions, Solver will
only produce one of them. You don't view this as a deficiency of the
Solver approach?