How do e^lnx and 8^log8x simplify to x?

  • Thread starter Thread starter escryan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Laws Log
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the simplification of expressions involving exponential and logarithmic functions, specifically e^lnx and 8^log8x, and their equivalence to x. Participants are exploring the underlying definitions and properties of these mathematical concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are questioning how the expressions e^lnx and 8^log8x simplify to x, with some referencing definitions of logarithms and inverse functions. There is an exploration of the relationship between exponential and logarithmic functions, particularly how they can be seen as inverses that cancel each other out.

Discussion Status

The discussion includes various attempts to clarify the reasoning behind the simplifications. Some participants have provided definitions and properties of logarithms and exponentials, while others have expressed appreciation for the explanations offered. There is an ongoing exploration of the concepts without a definitive conclusion reached.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working within the constraints of algebraic definitions and properties of logarithms and exponentials, with no additional context or examples provided. The discussion reflects a common area of confusion in understanding these mathematical relationships.

escryan
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I don't know how I managed to forget this one, but I did somehow...

If there's something like:

e^lnx, why is that equal to just x?

and same goes for sokmething like:

8^log8x which is just equal to x.

I'm just wondering how, algebraically, one could show this to be true.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You generally DEFINE ln(x) to be the inverse function of e^x. Or vice versa depending on which you define first. So you don't show it algebraically, it largely a matter of definition.
 
well, by definition of log we have

[tex]log_a(x)=b<=> a^b=x[/tex]

Now let's substitute [tex]b=log_a(x)[/tex] in
[tex]a^b=x[/tex] So:

[tex]a^{log_a(x)}=x[/tex]

Or, since [tex]f(x)=a^x[/tex] and [tex]g(x)=log_ax[/tex] are inverse functions, so it means that they cancel each other out. That is

[tex]fg(x)=f(g(x))=x=>a^{log_ax}=x[/tex] and also

[tex]g(f(x))=log_a(a^x)=x[/tex]

Edit: Dick was faster!
 
sutupidmath said:
well, by definition of log we have

[tex]log_a(x)=b<=> a^b=x[/tex]

Now let's substitute [tex]b=log_a(x)[/tex] in
[tex]a^b=x[/tex] So:

[tex]a^{log_a(x)}=x[/tex]

Or, since [tex]f(x)=a^x[/tex] and [tex]g(x)=log_ax[/tex] are inverse functions, so it means that they cancel each other out. That is

[tex]fg(x)=f(g(x))=x=>a^{log_ax}=x[/tex] and also

[tex]g(f(x))=log_a(a^x)=x[/tex]

Edit: Dick was faster!

You are slow because you write more. Doesn't mean you think slower. I appreciate the TeX though.
 
Last edited:
Oh I see now! Thanks so much for your help Dick and sutupidmath!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
6K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 69 ·
3
Replies
69
Views
11K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K