Calculate Natural Logarithm of 273/263

  • Thread starter Thread starter Brunno
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logarithm Natural
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the natural logarithm of the ratio 273/263. Participants explore whether the expression can be simplified or evaluated directly, and they question the necessity of breaking it down further.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants question the need to evaluate the expression, suggesting it may already be in its simplest form. Others propose breaking down the logarithm into components, while some consider using a calculator or logarithm tables for evaluation.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various interpretations being explored. Some participants have provided calculations and approximations, while others express confusion about the original question and the relevance of certain calculations to the logarithm of the ratio.

Contextual Notes

There is a lack of clarity regarding the specific question being asked, with participants debating the approach to take for evaluating the logarithm. Additionally, some participants reference specific logarithmic values and calculations, but there is no consensus on the method to be used.

Brunno
Messages
80
Reaction score
0
Calcule: ln\frac{273}{263}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Brunno said:
Calcule: ln\frac{273}{263}

That doesn't make any sense. What are we supposed to evaluate it to? Isn't it already given in the simplest form?
 


Defennder said:
That doesn't make any sense. What are we supposed to evaluate it to? Isn't it already given in the simplest form?

Is it?I'm sorry I don't quite understand this...Well,could this be the answer:

ln3*91
ln3+ln9,1*10
ln3+ln9,1+ln10

According to the table of natural logs:ln3=1.09;ln9,1=2.2;ln10=2.3
So:ln= 1.1+2.2+2.3=5.6

Is it right?
 
Defennder said:
That doesn't make any sense. What are we supposed to evaluate it to? Isn't it already given in the simplest form?

The first question to ask is, can you reduce the rational number? The quantities are not multiples of 3 or 9. Anything else possible? If not, then either use a calculator for natural logarithm of that ratio or look in tables for log_e of the numerator minus log_e of the denominator.
 
symbolipoint said:
The first question to ask is, can you reduce the rational number? The quantities are not multiples of 3 or 9. Anything else possible? If not, then either use a calculator for natural logarithm of that ratio or look in tables for log_e of the numerator minus log_e of the denominator.

So,It's correct my answer,right?
 
You still haven't made clear what the question is!

Yes, 271= 3*91= 3*9.1*10 so ln(271)= ln(3)+ ln(9.1)+ ln(10). and, to one decimal place, ln(271)= 5.6. But what does that have to do with ln(271/263)?
 
HallsofIvy said:
You still haven't made clear what the question is!

Yes, 271= 3*91= 3*9.1*10 so ln(271)= ln(3)+ ln(9.1)+ ln(10). and, to one decimal place, ln(271)= 5.6. But what does that have to do with ln(271/263)?

ln263=ln2+ln1,315+ln10+ln10
We have that ln2=0.7;ln1,3=0.26;ln10=2.3 The sum is equable to 5.56.

At that time I was looking for for ln\frac{273}{263},that's equal to ln273-ln263.It answer is,by a calculator,roughly 0.0373177.

I think that's the corect way isn't it?
 
Since 263/273 is only slightly larger than 1, you could use the taylor series expansion for x near 1. To the first power ln(1+a) ~ a, to the second ln(1+a) ~ a - 1/2a^2. These give results of .03802 and .03729 respectively. The correct answer is .03732.

Or do this:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=ln(273/263)&btnG=Search
 
Brunno said:
ln263=ln2+ln1,315+ln10+ln10
We have that ln2=0.7;ln1,3=0.26;ln10=2.3 The sum is equable to 5.56.

At that time I was looking for for ln\frac{273}{263},that's equal to ln273-ln263.It answer is,by a calculator,roughly 0.0373177.

I think that's the corect way isn't it?

Or just use your calculator to find "LN (273/263)". I still don't understand what the problem is. If the problem is just to find an (approximate) value, why break it into parts? Why not just do it directly- find 273/263 and then find the logarithm of that.
 
  • #10
Thankyou both guys,You were very helpful.I already got my question answered.Was just that simple!
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K