Awkard question with logarithms

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

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the equation b^(log_b x) = x, focusing on the properties of logarithms and exponents. Participants explore various methods of understanding this relationship, including definitions and intuitive reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss substitution methods and the definition of logarithms as inverses of exponentiation. Questions arise about the intuitive understanding of the relationship between logarithmic and exponential functions.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing insights and clarifying definitions. Some express curiosity about the intuitive approach suggested by a math teacher, while others confirm their understanding of the properties of logarithms and exponents.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of potential misconceptions and the challenge of understanding the relationship under exam stress. Participants also note the importance of definitions in establishing the inverse nature of logarithmic and exponential functions.

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