How exactly do logarithms work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter TidusBlade
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logarithms Work
AI Thread Summary
Logarithms are the inverse of exponential functions, not merely their reverse. Understanding logarithms involves recognizing their relationship to exponents, which can be confusing due to different notation. To compute logarithms without a calculator, one can use methods like Borchardt's Algorithm or Taylor Series, which approximate logarithmic values through elementary processes. The discussion emphasizes the importance of grasping these foundational concepts to demystify logarithms and their calculations. Continued study in mathematics, particularly calculus, can provide deeper insights into these functions.
TidusBlade
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I was just wondering what's the "magic" behind logarithms. Just took them in school, and I get the part that they're just the reverse of exponents but it still feels sort of like a mystery every time I solve a logarithm using a calculator. Just like how addition is the slow way of multiplication: 6\times3 = 6 + 6 + 6 and multiplication is the slow way of raising something to some power: $ 6^3 = 6\times6\times6 so surely there must some long/slow way to do logarithms that was in use before they were discovered/invented? $ (\log _{2}^{32} = 5) = ?$

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this, it's sort of bugging me that I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes, Thanks ^^
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The more reliable characterization is Logarithms are exponents. Logarithms are not reverses of exponents; logarithmic functions are the inverses of exponential functions.

One first learns the rules of exponents with a common base. Derivations and exercises help to fix these rules. Later, when one studies functions, one reaches exponential functions, does some exercises, and then examines the idea of the inverse of an exponential function. Finally, one is shown the rules of logarithms, which are the same as the rules of exponents because logarithms ARE exponents. The notation appears different for logarithms than for exponents. Because this has a different appearance, students struggle with initial confusion.

Learn how to transcribe between exponential forms and logarithmic forms of equations; doing so is often very helpful:

b^x = y <------> LOG_b (y) = x [the logarithm base b of y equals x]

y = b^x is the inverse of y = LOG_b (x)
 
Thanks for the reply but I think I might have worded my question wrongly... I know how to use logs and I know they're the inverse of exponential functions but was wondering how exactly would one go about computing logarithms without using the log function. Like if I wanted to figure out x in $ 4^x = 1024 $ without using logs and without guessing how would I do it? I guess I'm trying to find out how people solved that for x before logarithms were discovered.

The only thing close to what I was looking for is Borchardt's Algorithm: $ ln(x) \approx \frac{6\times(x - 1)}{x + 1 + 4x^{0.5}}
I was looking for something like that, something that allows us to solve problems that include something raised to x without logs.

Thanks again symbolipoint but wasn't what I was looking for :)

//EDIT: What I meant by "I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes" is that I have no idea how the calculator calculates logs, surely it doesn't guess and it doesn't have a list of values ready, it must have computed my log by using a combination of more elementary processes, and that's sort of what I want to know.
 
Last edited:
You could, for example, use the Taylor's series:
log(1+x)= \sum_{n= 1}^\infty \frac{x^n}{n}= x+ \frac{x^2}{2}+ \frac{x^3}{3}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot
 
You could, for example, use the Taylor's series:
log(1+ x)= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(-1)^{n+1}x^n}{n}= x- \frac{x^2}{2}+ \frac{x^3}{3}- \frac{x^4}{4}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot
 
TidusBlade said:
Thanks for the reply but I think I might have worded my question wrongly... I know how to use logs and I know they're the inverse of exponential functions but was wondering how exactly would one go about computing logarithms without using the log function. Like if I wanted to figure out x in $ 4^x = 1024 $ without using logs and without guessing how would I do it? I guess I'm trying to find out how people solved that for x before logarithms were discovered.

The only thing close to what I was looking for is Borchardt's Algorithm: $ ln(x) \approx \frac{6\times(x - 1)}{x + 1 + 4x^{0.5}}
I was looking for something like that, something that allows us to solve problems that include something raised to x without logs.

Thanks again symbolipoint but wasn't what I was looking for :)

//EDIT: What I meant by "I have no idea what goes on behind the scenes" is that I have no idea how the calculator calculates logs, surely it doesn't guess and it doesn't have a list of values ready, it must have computed my log by using a combination of more elementary processes, and that's sort of what I want to know.

HallsofIvy has given examples of Taylor Series formulas, which are developed in the study of Calculus, usually the Second Semester course of College Calculus. Look at this as a way of being motivated to keep studying Math courses at least through Calculus 2.
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top