Easy and useful way to calculate Log(a+b)

  • Thread starter Thread starter guifb99
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Log Logarithms
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the approximation of Log(a+b) using limits, specifically under the conditions a>b and b>a. It emphasizes that the limit approaches Log(a) + Log(√(a⋅b)) as a and b become equal. However, participants point out that the conditions require a+b>0 and ab>0, and that c cannot equal 1. The validity of the approximation is questioned, as it only holds true when a=b, limiting its practical usefulness. The conversation highlights the need for clearer mathematical definitions and conditions for the approximation to be applicable.
guifb99
Messages
10
Reaction score
1
a>b ⇒ Lim(a–b)→0 Logc(a+b) ≈ Logc(a) + Logc(√a⋅b)

b>a ⇒ Lim(b–a)→0 Logc(a+b) ≈ Logc(a) + Logc(√a⋅b)

a∈ℝ
b∈ℝ
c∈ℝ / c>0
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
guifb99 said:
a>b ⇔ Lim(a–b)→0 Logc(a+b) ≈ Logc(a) + Logc(√a⋅b)

b>a ⇔ Lim(b–a)→0 Logc(a+b) ≈ Logc(a) + Logc(√a⋅b)

a∈ℝ
b∈ℝ
c∈ℝ / c>0

Yes, this is the second post I do about it, but now I did it in a better format, the other one was too confusing because I didn't know how to use the mathematical symbols in the thread, I'm new here.
 
guifb99 said:
a>b ⇒ Lim(a–b)→0 Logc(a+b) ≈ Logc(a) + Logc(√a⋅b)

b>a ⇒ Lim(b–a)→0 Logc(a+b) ≈ Logc(a) + Logc(√a⋅b)
I don't see the point of writing this as a limit. Also, when you take a limit, use =, not ≈.
[QUOTE="guifb99]
a∈ℝ
b∈ℝ
[/quote]These won't do. You need to have a + b > 0 and ab > 0, not just arbitrary real numbers.
[QUOTE="guifb99]
c∈ℝ / c>0[/QUOTE]
Also, c cannot be 1.
 
But this only calculates log(a+b) in the limit when (a-b) = 0 i.e. a=b. Then we have $$
\begin{align*} \log(a+b) &= \log(2a) = \log 2 + \log a \\
\log a + \log \sqrt{a \cdot a} &= 2 \log a \end{align*}
$$ So your equation is only true when a=b=2: that doesn't look very useful to me.
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
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

Back
Top