How can Stirling's approximations be used to simplify a log equation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter UniPhysics90
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Log
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion focuses on the application of Stirling's approximations to simplify a logarithmic equation involving a small parameter, c. The original equation, S=K(Nln(N)-cNln(cN)-N(1-c)ln(1-c)), is simplified to S=-kNcln(c) by recognizing that the term N(1-c)ln(N(1-c)) can be neglected when c is small. The simplification relies on the logarithmic identity ln(cN) = ln(c) + ln(N) and the assumption that N is much smaller than 1/c, allowing for the cancellation of terms.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Stirling's approximations
  • Familiarity with logarithmic identities
  • Basic knowledge of calculus and limits
  • Experience with simplifying mathematical expressions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of Stirling's approximations in detail
  • Explore logarithmic properties and their applications in calculus
  • Learn about asymptotic analysis and its relevance in mathematical simplifications
  • Investigate the implications of small parameters in mathematical modeling
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying statistical mechanics or thermodynamics who seek to understand the simplification of complex logarithmic expressions using Stirling's approximations.

UniPhysics90
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
This is from a worked example involving using Stirlings approximations.

I have the log equation, where c<<1:

S=K(Nln(N)-cNln(cN)-N(1-c)ln(1-c))


In the next line of the example, this is simplified to

S=-kNcln(c)



I've tried a few ways of getting to this, but have had no success. I've tried making the last term 0, but still don't get the right answer.

Any help would be great :) Thanks
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
First off, I think you're missing a factor of N inside the last logarithm. I.e., your expression (aside from the Boltzmann constant) is

[tex]N\ln N - cN\ln(cN) - N(1-c)\ln(N(1-c))[/tex]

From there a bunch of stuff should cancel, leaving you with

[tex]-Nc\ln c - N(1-c)\ln(1-c)[/tex].

Using the fact that c is small, you can show that the first term is much larger than the other term, hence you can neglect the other term.
 
It looks like they are using

ln(cN) = ln(c) + ln(N)​

and then neglecting the ln(N) terms relative to -ln(c), i.e. N « 1/c.

UniPhysics90, from the context of what you are reading, does that seem a reasonable assumption?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 37 ·
2
Replies
37
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K