E^ln(x)=x Is it true always?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vkash
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the expression E^ln(x) and whether it holds true for all real numbers x. Participants explore the conditions under which this expression is valid, particularly focusing on the domain of x and the implications of extending logarithmic functions to negative numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant argues that E^ln(x) cannot be equated to x for negative values of x, suggesting that the expression is not universally true.
  • Another participant states that E^ln(x) is only valid for positive real numbers, implying that the expression holds true in that domain.
  • Some participants mention that extending logarithms to negative numbers could allow for E^ln(x) to equal x for all x, referencing the complex logarithm.
  • There is a suggestion that for real numbers, E^ln(x) equals x only when ln(x) is defined, which is for positive real numbers.
  • One participant proposes an alternative representation for negative x, suggesting that E^ln(-x) could be used to express the relationship without venturing into complex numbers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that E^ln(x) is true for positive real numbers. However, there is disagreement regarding the validity of the expression for negative numbers and whether extending logarithms to complex numbers resolves the issue.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the definitions of logarithms and the conditions under which E^ln(x) is applicable. There is also an acknowledgment of the complexities introduced by negative values and the potential for extending logarithmic functions.

vkash
Messages
316
Reaction score
1
consider this f(x)=eln(sin(x)) f:R-->R.
Can we write this function defination like this f(x)=x f:R-->R
I think no because if we put x as any negative number in first function(function in first line) then there will no solution exist for this but if we put x as any negative number in second function then their will be a solution.
So does it mean that eln(x)=x Is not true[/color] always.
ln represent natural log wih base e. R represent set of all real numbers.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's only true for x greater than zero, so the positive real numbers onto the real numbers. In my limited experience I believe it is true for any log base.
 
If you extend the logarithms to negative numbers (to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_logarithm" ), you do have
e^{\ln x}=x
 
Last edited by a moderator:
S_Happens said:
It's only true for x greater than zero, so the positive real numbers onto the real numbers. In my limited experience I believe it is true for any log base.
thanks for confirming my thought.

dalcde said:
If you extend the logarithms to negative numbers (to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complex_logarithm" ), you do have
e^{\ln x}=x

I have not read any such thing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Then I presume you haven't dealt with functions of a complex variable.

For real numbers,
e^{ln(x)}= x
for any x such that ln(x) is defined- i.e. for positive real numbers.
 
To avoid getting into complex numbers, can't you just use x = -e^{\ln(-x)} for x<0?

Or for any nonzero (real) x, x = \frac{x}{|x|}e^{ln|x|}?
 
Last edited:
vkash said:
I have not read any such thing.
I apologize if I have gone too far, but my point is that if you somehow extend the logarithms to allow negative numbers, e^{\ln x}=x is true for all x.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K