Awkard question with logarithms

  • Thread starter Thread starter Byrgg
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logarithms
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving the equation b^(log_b x) = x, with participants exploring various methods of proof. Key methods include substitution, where log_b x is set to y, leading to the conclusion that b^y = x, and the concept of logarithmic and exponential functions being inverses. The intuitive understanding of this relationship is emphasized, as well as the definition of logarithms, which states that log_b(x) represents the exponent to which b must be raised to yield x. Participants also discuss the implications of function inverses and their definitions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of logarithmic functions and their properties.
  • Familiarity with exponential functions and their inverses.
  • Basic knowledge of function composition and inverse functions.
  • Ability to manipulate mathematical expressions and equations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of logarithmic and exponential functions in detail.
  • Explore function composition and the concept of inverse functions further.
  • Learn about the definitions and applications of logarithms in various mathematical contexts.
  • Practice proving relationships between logarithmic and exponential functions through examples.
USEFUL FOR

Students, educators, and anyone interested in deepening their understanding of logarithmic and exponential functions, particularly in mathematical proofs and applications.

  • #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 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K