Characteristics of the parent logarithmic function

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter opus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Logarithmic
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the characteristics of the parent logarithmic function, specifically the function ##f\left(x\right)=log_{b}\left(x\right)##. Participants explore the implications of the domain of this function, questioning whether it applies to all real numbers or only to positive values. The conversation includes considerations of related concepts such as the inverse function and the distinction between real and complex logarithms.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion over the statement "for any real number x," questioning if this includes negative values, as logarithms of negative numbers are not defined in the real number system.
  • One participant asserts that the logarithm is defined only for positive real numbers, referencing the domain of the function as ##(0,\infty)##.
  • Another participant suggests that the range of the logarithm's exponential inverse function also supports the domain being restricted to positive values.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of injectivity and the existence of inverses, with some participants arguing that the terminology used in the text may be misleading.
  • One participant critiques the original text for being "sloppy" in its wording, emphasizing that the real-valued logarithm is intended to apply only to positive real numbers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the wording used in the original text regarding the domain of the logarithmic function. While there is agreement that the function is defined for positive values, there is contention over the clarity of the statement about real numbers.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the discussion involves assumptions about the definitions of logarithmic functions and their domains, particularly in relation to real versus complex numbers. The implications of injectivity and the existence of inverse functions are also considered but remain unresolved.

opus
Gold Member
Messages
717
Reaction score
131
I just started going over logarithmic functions in my text, and I have a question on a summary it gives on the parent function ##f\left(x\right)=log_{b}\left(x\right)##
In the attached image, it says that "for any real number x...we see the following characteristics of ##f\left(x\right)=log_{b}\left(x\right)##

My confusion is with the "for any real number x". If we were allowed to take the logarithm of any real number x, we would be allowed to take the logarithm of negative values. And if we were allowed to take the logarithm of negative values, we could have something like ##f\left(-8\right)=log_{2}\left(-8\right)##. However 2 raised to any power will not give a negative value. So can we take the logarithm of all reals, or only positive values?
 

Attachments

  • Screen Shot 2018-03-22 at 5.52.56 PM.png
    Screen Shot 2018-03-22 at 5.52.56 PM.png
    39.7 KB · Views: 1,762
Physics news on Phys.org
opus said:
I just started going over logarithmic functions in my text, and I have a question on a summary it gives on the parent function ##f\left(x\right)=log_{b}\left(x\right)##
In the attached image, it says that "for any real number x...we see the following characteristics of ##f\left(x\right)=log_{b}\left(x\right)##

My confusion is with the "for any real number x". If we were allowed to take the logarithm of any real number x, we would be allowed to take the logarithm of negative values. And if we were allowed to take the logarithm of negative values, we could have something like ##f\left(-8\right)=log_{2}\left(-8\right)##. However 2 raised to any power will not give a negative value. So can we take the logarithm of all reals, or only positive values?
Only of positive real numbers, that's what is meant by domain in the text, which is ##(0,\infty)##. Things change if we consider complex variables and the complex logarithm. But in ##\mathbb{R}## we only can have positive values. This is why I don't like the notation one-to-one for injectivity, because although no two numbers are hit the same value, we still don't have all values available. So it should be one-of-all-allowed-to-one, but I guess this terrible habit of calling something one-to-one only if it's injective won't get extinct.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: opus
So it is an implied positive real x values? Or we just know that the domain, as you stated, is ##\left(0,∞\right)##, because the range of it's exponential inverse function is ##\left(0,∞\right)##?
 
opus said:
So it is an implied positive real x values? Or we just know that the domain, as you stated, is ##\left(0,∞\right)##, because the range of it's exponential inverse function is ##\left(0,∞\right)##?
I wouldn't reason with the inverse function, as it doesn't always exist, but we can always speak of domain and range. The domain are the allowed values a variable can take for a function, here the logarithm. So for all positive values ##x>0## the function ##\log_b(x)## is defined. Now the range is simply the set of values we can reach with the function: ##\operatorname{range}(f) = \{y\in \mathbb{R}\, : \,y=f(x) \text{ for some }x\text{ of the domain }\}##. In general there can be more than one value ##x## which hits ##f(y)##. For the range we just need at least one. There is exactly one for injective functions and we can build an inverse on the range, plus the logarithm has this property, but we wouldn't have an inverse for ##x \mapsto x^2##. However, it also has a domain (##\mathbb{R}##) and a range (##\mathbb{R}^+_0##).
 
opus said:
So it is an implied positive real x values?
You shouldn't have to infer it. The author of the piece in the screenshot was being sloppy by saying "for any real number x". The real-valued log function that is evidently intended is defined only on the positive real numbers. There is a complex-valued log function, but that's definitely not what the author intended or showed in the pictured graphs.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 42 ·
2
Replies
42
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
5K