Efficient Logarithmic Calculations for 0.3048 without a Calculator

  • Thread starter Thread starter RChristenk
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logarithm
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around calculating the logarithm of 0.3048 without the use of a calculator, specifically focusing on logarithmic properties and approximations. The subject area includes logarithmic calculations and number factorization.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore different ways to factor 0.3048 and express it in terms of known logarithmic values. There are attempts to approximate logarithmic values using nearby integers and powers of 2, with some questioning the relevance of certain approximations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with various participants offering approximations and questioning the validity of different approaches. Some participants suggest using interpolation between approximated logarithmic values, while others express uncertainty about which approximation might be preferred.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraint of solving the problem without a calculator, which influences their approach to approximating logarithmic values.

RChristenk
Messages
73
Reaction score
9
Homework Statement
Given ##\log2=0.3010300##, ##\log3=0.4771213##, ##\log7=0.8450980##, find ##\log0.3048##
Relevant Equations
Logarithm rules
##0.3048=\dfrac{3048}{10000}=\dfrac{2^3\cdot3\cdot127}{10^4}##

##\log0.3048=\log(\dfrac{2^3\cdot3\cdot127}{10^4})##

##\Rightarrow 3\log2+\log3+\log127-4\log10##

I don't have the value for ##\log127##, and this problem is to be solved without a calculator. All the logarithms are base ##10##. I'm not sure how else to factorize ##0.3048##. Is there another way entirely or some artificial artifice I can use here? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure I'd worry about this problem. I can't see a solution.
 
As an approximation, can you use ##2^8 = 128##? CORRECTION: ##2^7=128##
##2^3*3*128 = 3072##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: WWGD
FactChecker said:
As an approximation, can you use ##2^8 = 128##?
##2^3*3*128 = 3072##.
But then, what's ##\log 7## for?

##126##?

Both?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
Hill said:
But then, what's ##\log 7## for?

##126##?

Both?
Good point! So both approximations are doable with the information given. I don't know which one was expected or better. It seems like 126 was expected.
 
FactChecker said:
Good point! So both approximations are doable with the information given. I don't know which one was expected or better. It seems like 126 was expected.
Or you could do both approximations and interpolate.
 
FactChecker said:
Good point! So both approximations are doable with the information given. I don't know which one was expected or better. It seems like 126 was expected.
Maybe, the midpoint between ##\log 126## and ##\log 128##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
FactChecker said:
As an approximation, can you use ##2^8 = 128##?
##2^3*3*128 = 3072##.
##2^8=256.## It's ##\log 127 \approx 7\log 2.##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
fresh_42 said:
##2^8=256.## It's ##\log 127 \approx 7\log 2.##
Thanks! I stand corrected and will note that in the post.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
8K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
Replies
38
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K