Calculate Base 10 Logs Without Calculator

  • Thread starter Thread starter jenzao
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Base Log
jenzao
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Is there a way to calculate multi digit base 10 logs without a calc or tables?

eg.. what is ? log (base 10) of 1381.42?? (without a calulator)??
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
(with caveat that i memorized log 1 - 9)
 
Of coursethat is possible, the first people who made tables did not have calculators.
since
log(ab)=log(a)+log(b)
numbers should be decomposed multiplicatively.
One method is to factor into primes
log(1381.42)=-2+log(2)+2log(17)+log(239)
This shows a problem logs of many primes will be needed
another method would involve writing the number as a product of factors with known logs and factors near 1 since when x is small
log(1+x)~log(e)[x-x^2/2+x^3/3-x^4/4+...]
say one knew log(138176)
then
log(1381.42)=-2+log(138176)-log(1+1/4064)
 
What I would do is this:
First, log(1381.42)= log(0.138142 x104)= 4+ log(0.138142).

Now, use the 'Taylor's Polynomial' expansion:
for 0< x< 1, log(x)= x+ (1/2)x2+ (1/3)x^3+ ...+ (1/n)x^n.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
6K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
17K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Back
Top