Formula for finding logarithms possible?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Thymo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Logarithms
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the possibility of deriving a formula for calculating logarithms of any base, exploring whether such a formula exists, and the methods that could be used to compute logarithms without a calculator. Participants consider the implications of logarithms being transcendental functions and discuss various approaches, including infinite series and iterative methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether a formula can be created for logarithms of any base and mentions the use of series for base e.
  • Another participant presents the change of base formula, suggesting that knowing one base allows for the calculation of logarithms in any base.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the practicality of calculating logarithms without a calculator, suggesting the use of tables or iterative methods like Newton's method.
  • There is a discussion about the transcendental nature of logarithms and the challenges in reducing them to polynomial forms, with references to Taylor series and iterative processes.
  • One participant inquires about the existence of a formula that is theoretically possible but impractical, seeking further explanations or links.
  • Another participant mentions that calculators use algorithms, such as the Cordic algorithm, to compute transcendental functions, raising questions about the nature of these calculations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence and practicality of a formula for logarithms, with some asserting that it is possible while others emphasize the impracticality of such methods without calculators. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the feasibility of deriving a usable formula for logarithms of any base.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in practical applications, such as the reliance on calculators or logarithmic tables, and the challenges posed by the transcendental nature of logarithms. There is also mention of unresolved mathematical steps in deriving formulas.

Thymo
Messages
8
Reaction score
0
Is it possible to make a formula for logarithms of any base?

logb(a)=x

I want to find x through some formula. I've seen that you can use a series for e as the base, is that the only base that can be solved for?

Is there any work being done to accomplish this, or, maybe it has been proven impossible? In that case, how was it proven impossible?

Sorry if this is a noobish question... In my defence, a noob can't recognize a noobish question...

Thanks in advance for any answers.
~ Thymo
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Sure it's possible. If you know one base, you know all bases.

The equation you are looking for, is: [tex]\log_k x=\frac{\log_n x}{\log_n k}[/tex] where k and n can be any positive number above 1. (Do you see why this formula works?)

So if you use e as your end base, you have a fraction bewteen two logarithms which equals to x.
 
Last edited:
I don't suppose you're looking for the change of base formula, used when a calculator only has a log10( ) key:

logb(a) = log10(a)/log10(b)

Actually you don't have to use base 10; anything, including e, is workable. (Of course, you can't use 1, 0, negative numbers, etc.)

If this looks new I think I can derive it, free of charge.


Everyone is a rehabilitated noob.
 
But this doesn't really help me do logs without a calculator does it? ... :confused:
 
Thymo said:
But this doesn't really help me do logs without a calculator does it? ... :confused:

If you want to do it by hand you should use a table/slide rule. Failing those you're going to have to use Newton's method or something similar.
 
Thymo said:
Is there any work being done to accomplish this, or, maybe it has been proven impossible? In that case, how was it proven impossible?

The logarithm is a transcendental function. The only way to reduce it to something like a polynomial with rational coefficients is through infinite series like Taylor's or iterative processes like Newton-Raphson. However, practical applications use either logarithmic tables/slide rules or calculating machines.
 
slider142 said:
The logarithm is a transcendental function. The only way to reduce it to something like a polynomial with rational coefficients is through infinite series like Taylor's or iterative processes like Newton-Raphson. However, practical applications use either logarithmic tables/slide rules or calculating machines.



So it's possible to use either a Taylor Series or "Newton-Raphson"-method(??). There EXISTS a formula that makes it possible, but impractical? Does it EXIST? Any LINKS or EXPLENATIONS? :blushing:
 
Thanks! It seems as if I have a lot to work with... At least it's something... ;)
 
  • #10
Thymo said:
There EXISTS a formula that makes it possible, but impractical?

You already know it's possible, if you accept that a calculator can do it. You could simply make a circuit diagram of the calculator and trace through its operation when given the appropriate set of keystrokes. That's far less practical, but possible.
 
  • #11
CRGreathouse said:
You already know it's possible, if you accept that a calculator can do it. You could simply make a circuit diagram of the calculator and trace through its operation when given the appropriate set of keystrokes. That's far less practical, but possible.

That might not necessarily mean a formula exists. The calculator could just be estimating values for the exponential and then by much trial and error, give a 10 decimal value display :-p
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
16K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
17K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
5K