Awkard question with logarithms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Byrgg
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logarithms
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the equation b^(log_b x) = x, with various methods explored. One method involves substitution, where log_b x is defined as y, leading to the conclusion that b^y = x. Another approach highlights the relationship between logarithmic and exponential functions as inverses, reinforcing that b^(log_b x) returns x. Participants also discuss the intuitive understanding of this relationship, emphasizing that the definition of logarithms inherently supports the proof. Ultimately, the conversation clarifies the connection between logarithmic and exponential functions as inverses, affirming the validity of the original equation.
  • #31
HallsofIvy said:
Who were you responding to? I surely wouldn't say that- I would maintain that the function f(y)= by is only defined for positive and therefore, x= by must be positive.

For b positive, the function f(x)= bx has domain all real numbers and range all positive real numbers and so logb(x) has domain all positive real numbers and range all real numbers.
That's what I thought Byrgg was saying in his post. I wanted to make sure, before I launched into an explanation.

Byrgg, your explanation there is correct. However, I would state as Halls of Ivy and many others have that the two functions are defined as inverses.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
I came up with another, though very crude demonstration, someone tell me if this is ok:

(x + 1) - 1 = x

Obviously, it can be seen simply that x + 1 - 1 = x, but could you also see this as a composition of inverses? Take x + 1 and x - 1 to be inverses, and thus by substituting one into the other, you receive either
(x + 1) - 1 = x or (x - 1) + 1 = x

Very simple, but I think this also shows an example.
 
  • #33
Yes, I think that qualifies albeit trivial .
 
  • #34
Byrgg said:
I came up with another, though very crude demonstration, someone tell me if this is ok:

(x + 1) - 1 = x

Obviously, it can be seen simply that x + 1 - 1 = x, but could you also see this as a composition of inverses? Take x + 1 and x - 1 to be inverses, and thus by substituting one into the other, you receive either
(x + 1) - 1 = x or (x - 1) + 1 = x

Very simple, but I think this also shows an example.
In other words, if f(x)= x+ 1 then f-1(x)= x-1 is its inverse.
Or, in words, adding and subtracting are "inverse" operations.
 
  • #35
Yeah that's what I was getting at.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K