MHB How Can I Express a Combination of Logarithms as a Single Logarithm?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cbarker1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logarithms
cbarker1
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
345
Reaction score
23
Express as a Single Logarithm. Assume all the logarithms have the same base. The problem is:
$4*\log_{d}\left({a}\right)-\frac{5}{6}*\log_{d}\left({b}\right)+\frac{2}{3}*\log_{d}\left({c}\right)$, where $d\gt1$

then I use the power rule for logarithm for the beginning and use some grouping symbols for last two:

$\log_{d}\left({a^4}\right)-(\frac{5}{6}\log_{d}\left({b}\right)+\frac{2}{3}\log_{d}\left({c}\right))$

Afterwards, I combine the coeffecients of the logarithms to be the common denominator of one sixth :
$\log_{d}\left({a^4}\right)-(\frac{5}{6}\log_{d}\left({b}\right)+\frac{4}{6}\log_{d}\left({c}\right))$

Here is where I have some trouble. Do I factor the one-sixth;then, use the sum-multiplication inside the group symbol or use the power again and the sum-multiplication rule for log inside the grouping symbol like this:
$\log_{d}\left({a^4}\right)-(\frac{5}{6}\log_{d}\left({b}\right)+\frac{4}{6}\log_{d}\left({c}\right))$ to
$\log_{d}\left({a^4}\right)-(\frac{1}{6}({5}\log_{d}\left({b}\right)+4\log_{d}\left({c}\right)))$
from that to this
$\log_{d}\left({a^4}\right)-(\frac{1}{6}(\log_{d}\left({b^5*c^4}\right))$
to $\log_{d}\left({a^4}\right)-\frac{1}{6}(\log_{d}\left({b^5*c^4}\right))$

Or

$\log_{d}\left({a^4}\right)-(\frac{5}{6}\log_{d}\left({b}\right)+\frac{4}{6}\log_{d}\left({c}\right))$
$\log_{d}\left({a^4}\right)-(\log_{d}\left({\sqrt[6]{b^5}}\right)+\log_{d}\left({\sqrt[6]{c^4}}\right))$
$\log_{d}\left({a^4}\right)-(\log_{d}\left({\sqrt[6]{b^5}*\sqrt[6]{c^4}}\right))$
$\log_{d}\left({a^4}\right)-(\log_{d}\left({\sqrt[6]{b^5*c^4}}\right))$

What to do next?Thank you

Cbarker1
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I think you can skip a lot of the intermediate steps you are taking. It's not wrong the way you're doing it though.

$$4*\log_{d}\left({a}\right)-\frac{5}{6}*\log_{d}\left({b}\right)+\frac{2}{3}*\log_{d}\left({c}\right)$$

$$\log_{d}\left({a^4}\right)-\log_{d}\left({b}^{\frac{5}{6}} \right)+\log_{d}\left({c}^{\frac{2}{3}}\right)$$

From here you need to remember two rules:

1) $$\log_{d}\left({a}\right)+\log_{d}\left({b}\right)=\log_{d}\left({ab}\right)$$

2) $$\log_{d}\left({a}\right)-\log_{d}\left({b}\right)=\log_{d}\left({\frac{a}{b}}\right)$$

Combine any two terms into one, then combine that with the third term. Simplify if possible at the end and keep powers written in fractional form until the end too.
 
Should I use the quotient to difference rule or the sum to multiplication rule first?The answer in the back of the book is $\log_{d}\left({a^4\sqrt[6]{\frac{c^4}{b^5}}}\right)$
 
It doesn't matter. You'll get the same answer either way, which is why I wrote pick any two terms to combine. If it's easier for you to stick with terms left to right then try combining the first two and see what you get. :)
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
41
Views
5K
Replies
2
Views
10K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
11K
Back
Top