Appropriate graphic symbol for log()?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around finding an appropriate graphic symbol for the logarithm function in programming, aiming for a more elegant representation than the traditional LogBase10(1000)=3. The user suggests that a single operator could unify various logarithmic notations, similar to how exponentiation uses the caret (^). There is a debate about the order of numbers in the proposed notation, with suggestions like 10_100=2 and 100_10=2, each with its pros and cons. The conversation also touches on potential Unicode characters that could serve as a new symbol, while considering the need to avoid confusion with existing operators. Ultimately, the goal is to create a more streamlined and user-friendly notation for logarithms in calculators.
Twinbee
Messages
116
Reaction score
0
In the computer world at least, the symbol ^ is often used for exponentiation.

I was just wondering if log has had anything in the multitude of languages out there. It would be nice to see an operator such as "1000¬10=3" instead of writing LogBase10(1000)=3 which is more ugly. I'm writing a calculator, so I'd include the new symbol in that.

If such a symbol hasn't been already used, I'd be grateful for suggestions, especially ones which are already on US/UK keyboards (maybe one of these: ¬ ` ¦ | \ @ ~ )
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The usual notation is "ln" for natural log and "log" for base 10. Other bases are usually written using a subscript.
 
Yes I realize that, but the arbitrary-base log function is kind of the opposite of the power operator. You wouldn't necessarily want numbers 10 or e as the default base when using exponentiation. If people were forced to forego the general x^y and instead only allowed to use pow(4) or exp(4) to mean 10^4 or e^4 respectively, there'd be lots of complaints.

Likewise, instead of only having ln, log and logbase, with all the initial confusion and kludgy notation all that provides, why not just (also) have a single operator which unifies them all as described in my first post?
 
Last edited:
The latex code for a superscript is ^. The latex code for a subscript is _. It would seem to me that this is the closest thing to a character representing subscript. The problem is that underscore is used much more generally in programming. There is also the problem that no character by itself really lends itself to the same type of notation.

3^4 works well because there is only one character needed, between the exponent and base.
log_3 81 isn't as nice. Here the word log serves as the operator, and the underscore only serves to designate the base.

I suppose you could do a similar thing as exponents and use only a single character between the numbers. I don't really like this though as it is too ambiguous.

3_81 is wrong because 81 isn't a subscript.
81_3 is wrong because it is in the wrong order.

It's probably no coincidence that there is no real convention for logs.
 
Thanks, I overlooked the underscore!

Since we're creating a new operator so to speak, previous notation rules for log() can be suspended for now. Therefore, I'm not sure which order is better:

10_100 =2 (closer to old notation)
100_10 =2 (perhaps more consistent generally, feels like divide almost)

An arrow down would be nice for the symbol (the user would press underscore, but the editor would come up with an arrow). Potential unicode characters include:

U+02C5 ˅ Modifier Letter Down Arrowhead
U+1D5B ᵛ Modifier Letter Small V
U+2227 ∨ Logical OR (don't want to use this, as I need OR in the calc)

My only reservation is that any of the above look pretty close to a logical OR, apart from being smaller. Of course, ¬ is also taken (logical not), so maybe I should choose a different unicode symbol (I'll keep underscore for what the user actually presses though - nice one).
 
Last edited:
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Back
Top