Big-O With Change of Base for Log

  • Thread starter Thread starter TheLegace
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Base Change Log
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between logarithmic functions in the context of Big-O notation, specifically proving that if \( f(x) = O(\log_b(x)) \) for bases \( a > 1 \) and \( b > 1 \), then it follows that \( f(x) = O(\log_a(x)) \). Participants are exploring the implications of changing the base of logarithms and the associated constants in Big-O notation.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the implications of the change of base formula for logarithms and how it affects the constants in Big-O notation. There are attempts to clarify the inequalities involved and the reasoning behind the constants used in the proofs. Some participants express confusion about the validity of certain steps in the reasoning.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants seeking clarification on the steps taken in the proofs. Some have provided alternative formulations to express the problem more clearly, while others have raised concerns about the validity of specific inequalities presented. There is no explicit consensus yet on the correctness of the approaches discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the assumption that \( a > 1 \) and \( b > 1 \), and there are references to specific constants \( C \) and \( k \) that are relevant to the Big-O notation being discussed. Some participants question the assumptions made in the proofs and the validity of the reasoning leading to the conclusions drawn.

TheLegace
Messages
26
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hi, I am trying to prove for a>1, b>1 that f(x) = O(log_b(x)) then f(x) = O(log_a(x)).
[Hint: log_b(x) = log_a(x)/log_a(b)).

Homework Equations




The Attempt at a Solution


Assuming |f(x)| <= C|log_b(x)| true for x>k,
then,
f(x) <= log_a(x)/log_a(b)| for all x>1, C=1
then,
log_a(b)*f(x) <= log_a(x) all x>1 C= 1/log_a(b)
f(x) <= log_a(x) x>1 C=1/log_a(b)
f(x) is O(log_a(x))


Now here comes my problems with most big-O problems, since the right side is being divided by something I should just multiply it out to other side:

log_a(b)*f(x) <= log_a(x) I know that log_a(b) on left side would not matter except that it might be
C= 1/log_a(b) and k =1

According to my textbook/notes, C = 1/log_a(b), I still do not see why though, because if I multiply both sides by log_a(b) why C is like dividing both sides log_a(b), if someone could explain it, I would appreciate it thank you very much.


Please Let me Know if this correct, thank you very much.

TheLegace.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
TheLegace said:
Assuming |f(x)| <= C|log_b(x)| true for x>k,
then,
f(x) <= log_a(x)/log_a(b)| for all x>1, C=1
then,
log_a(b)*f(x) <= log_a(x) all x>1 C= 1/log_a(b)
f(x) <= log_a(x) x>1 C=1/log_a(b)
f(x) is O(log_a(x))


Sorry, I don't follow that list of inequalities at all.

Can you try it more clearly, perhaps like this.

Given: There exist C and k such that |f(x)| < C |log_b (x)| for all x > k.

Prove: There exist C' and k' such that |f(x)| < C' |log_a (x)| for all x > k'.

Your k' can be the same as k. Your C' will be expressed in terms of C and log_a (b).
 
Billy Bob said:
Sorry, I don't follow that list of inequalities at all.

Can you try it more clearly, perhaps like this.

Given: There exist C and k such that |f(x)| < C |log_b (x)| for all x > k.

Prove: There exist C' and k' such that |f(x)| < C' |log_a (x)| for all x > k'.

Your k' can be the same as k. Your C' will be expressed in terms of C and log_a (b).


Ok...
Prove : a>1, b>1
f(x) = O(log_b (x)) then f(x) = O(log_a (x))

|f(x)| < C |log_b (x) | for all x>k
|f(x)| < |log_a (x) / log_a (b) | for all x>1

then f(x) = O(log_b (x)) = O(log_a (x)) when k=1 C=1/log_a (b)
I am just hoping to know if that's correct.

Thank You Very Much.
TheLegace.
 
TheLegace said:
Ok...
Prove : a>1, b>1
f(x) = O(log_b (x)) then f(x) = O(log_a (x))

|f(x)| < C |log_b (x) | for all x>k
|f(x)| < |log_a (x) / log_a (b) | for all x>1

I don't know how you are obtaining the last line quoted. It is invalid reasoning.

Example:

Let a=10, b=e. Use ln x to denote log base e of x, and let log x denote log base 10 of x.

Let f(x) = 1 + 4 ln x.

Then f is O(ln x), because f(x) < 5 ln x when x > 3. (C=5, k=3.) (Verify with a graph if you want.)

Your next step says f(x) < log x / log e for x > 1. There is no reason for this to be true, and in fact it is false. (Verify with a graph if you want.)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K