Notation of ln_2(k): Logarithmic or Trig Functions?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter CRGreathouse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the notation \ln_2(k) and its equivalence to \log_2(k) or \lg(k), as clarified in Pierre Dusart's paper. The author emphasizes the importance of precise definitions in mathematical notation, particularly when superscripts are involved. Additionally, the conversation explores the dual meanings of f^k, which can represent either repeated function application or multiplication, depending on context. The consensus is that clarity in notation is crucial for accurate interpretation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of logarithmic functions, specifically base-2 logarithms.
  • Familiarity with mathematical notation conventions, including superscripts and subscripts.
  • Knowledge of function notation and its various interpretations in mathematics.
  • Basic comprehension of mathematical proofs and their structure.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the differences between \ln and \log notations in mathematical literature.
  • Explore the implications of notation in mathematical proofs and definitions.
  • Study the conventions of function notation, particularly in calculus and number theory.
  • Examine Pierre Dusart's paper for deeper insights into logarithmic inequalities and their applications.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of mathematics, and anyone interested in the nuances of mathematical notation and its implications in proofs and functions.

CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,832
Reaction score
0
I started looking at a proof I had set aside for myself to read some time ago* and wondered if I was missing something in the notation.
In several of the author's formulas, he writes [tex]\ln_2k[/tex]. Is this just [tex]\log_2k=\lg k[/tex]?

On a related note, since I see this as well: I've seen notation of the form [tex]f^k[/tex] used in two different ways -- [tex]f^k(x)=f(x)\cdot f^{k-1}(x)[/tex] (usually trig functions or logs) and [tex]f^k(x)=f(f^{k-1}(x))[/tex] (usually number-theoretic functions like [tex]\sigma[/tex], but I suppose function inverses are like this in a sense). Is there any rhyme or reason behind the choice to use one or the other as convention? Is one gaining popularity with respect to the other over time?

* Pierre Dusart, "The kth Prime is Greater than [tex]k(\ln k+\ln\ln k-1)[/tex] for [tex]k\geq2[/tex]", Math. Comp. 68/225 Jan 1999, pp. 411-415.

Edit: I'm such a fool. The author does define it after all, I just missed it in my carelessness. [tex]\ln_2k=\ln\ln k[/tex] in this paper.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Notation can be a funny thing, particularly when talking about superscipts. It is important for the author to define precisely what is meant in a given context. Sometimes it could mean the kth derivative as opposed to the two definitions you described.

For the log notation, once you have the subscript 2, it doesn't matter whether you write ln or log. However it is customary to use ln without a subscript to refer to base e (natural) log.
 
mathman said:
Notation can be a funny thing, particularly when talking about superscipts. It is important for the author to define precisely what is meant in a given context. Sometimes it could mean the kth derivative as opposed to the two definitions you described.

I've seen [tex]f^{(n)}[/tex] for that, but never just [tex]f^n[/tex] for the nth derivative.

I wish the author was more explicit -- a base-2 log is a base-2 log, but when you write ln ("natural log"), it seems like a way to disclaim that interpretation for another. You're probably right on that, though; it is the most sensible possibility I see.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K