MHB Calculating a Logarithmic Product Series

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on calculating the product of a series of logarithmic terms from log base 2 of 3 to log base 127 of 128. The key method involves using the change of base formula to rewrite the product, allowing for cancellation of terms. This simplification leads to the conclusion that the final result is log base 2 of 128, which equals 7. Participants confirm that the calculation is straightforward once the correct setup is established. The final answer to the logarithmic product series is 7.
karush
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,240
Reaction score
5
compute the product.

$\left(\log_{2}\left({3}\right)\right)\cdot
\left(\log_{3}\left({4}\right)\right)\cdot
\left(\log_{4}\left({5}\right)\right)\cdots
\left(\log_{126}\left({127}\right)\right)\cdot
\left(\log_{127}\left({128}\right)\right)$

The answer to this is 7
I assume this can be done with a $\lim_{{2}\to{127}}$

or use a change of base

$\frac{\log\left({3}\right)}{\log\left({2}\right)}\cdot
\frac{\log\left({4}\right)}{\log\left({3}\right)}$ etc

but I can't seem to figure out the setup:confused:
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You are on the right track with the change of base formula. Write the product as follows:

$$\frac{\log_2(3)\cdot\log_2(4)\cdots\log_2(127)\log_2(128)}{\log_2(3)\cdot\log_2(4)\cdots\log_2(126)\log_2(127)}$$

After cancelling, you are then left with:

$$\log_2(128)=\log_2\left(2^7\right)=7\log_2(2)=7$$
 
Really, it's that easy, (Speechless)(Speechless)(Speechless)
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top