Calculating Uncertainty for ln x: A Short Guide

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the natural logarithm of a value with associated uncertainty, specifically for the measurement x = (7.2 ± 0.6) m. Participants are exploring how to derive the uncertainty in ln x, which is noted to be 1.97 ± 0.08.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to compute ln(7.2) and questions how to arrive at the uncertainty of 0.08. Some participants suggest a general formula for determining uncertainty in functions, while others express uncertainty about their familiarity with the concept.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, with some offering guidance on the formula for uncertainty in differentiable functions. There is a recognition of the need for further understanding of the underlying principles, but no explicit consensus has been reached regarding the approach to take.

Contextual Notes

Some participants indicate a lack of familiarity with certain mathematical concepts, such as derivatives and partial derivatives, which may affect their ability to fully engage with the discussion.

fluppocinonys
Messages
19
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


If x = (7.2[tex]\pm[/tex]0.6) m, determine the value of ln x with its associated uncertainty.

(Ans is 1.97[tex]\pm[/tex]0.08)


Homework Equations


[tex]A = k{B^m}{\rm{ }} \Rightarrow {\rm{ }}\frac{{\Delta A}}{A} = m\frac{{\Delta B}}{B}[/tex]
(perhaps?)

The Attempt at a Solution


i tried to ln7.2 and got 1.97, however ln0.6 = negative value. How to get 0.08?
Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you have any (differentiable) function f(x), and the measurement is given as [itex]x = x_0 + \Delta x[/itex], there is a general formula for giving the central value of f (which is just [itex]f(x_0)[/itex] as you would expect) and the uncertainty. Do you know what formula I'm hinting at?
 
CompuChip said:
If you have any (differentiable) function f(x), and the measurement is given as [itex]x = x_0 + \Delta x[/itex], there is a general formula for giving the central value of f (which is just [itex]f(x_0)[/itex] as you would expect) and the uncertainty. Do you know what formula I'm hinting at?
No... :rolleyes:
I don't think I've learned that far
 
Well, maybe it's time you learn it.
It's very useful and easy to remember:

[tex]\Delta f = f'(x_0) \cdot \Delta x[/tex] (*)
so the uncertainty in f is the derivative of f w.r.t. x (evaluated at the central value) times the uncertainty in x.
The justification is of course, that very close to [tex]x_0[/tex], we can approximate the function f by a straight line with slope [itex]f'(x_0)[/itex]. So if you vary x by an amount [itex]\Delta x[/itex], then you can approximate the change in f by the variation [tex]f'(x_0) \Delta x[/itex] of the line.<br /> <br /> If you have multiple variables, like f(x, y, z, ...) then you can simply extend this to<br /> [tex]\Delta f^2 = \left( \frac{\partial f(x_0, y_0, z_0, \cdots)}{\partial x} \Delta x \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial f(x_0, y_0, z_0, \cdots)}{\partial y} \Delta y \right)^2 + \left( \frac{\partial f(x_0, y_0, z_0, \cdots)}{\partial z} \Delta z \right)^2 + \cdots[/tex]<br /> which looks like a combination of that identity and the Pythagorean theorem. <br /> <br /> [If you haven't learned about partial derivatives, forget about that last paragraph, you should remember formula (*) though].<br /> <br /> When you apply (*) to the special case [itex]f(x) = k x^m[/itex] you will get that <br /> [tex]\frac{\Delta f}{f} = m \frac{\Delta x}{x}[/tex]<br /> as you said. When you apply it to f(x) = ln(x) you will get the requested answer.[/tex]
 
All right, that was rather overwhelming...
Nonetheless, thanks for helping me! you're very helpful :D
 
Hmm, looks impressive doesn't it.
Just play around with it and you'll see that it looks harder than it is (if you know how to differentiate and multiply, that is).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K