Natural Logarithms: Are They Equal to Other Logarithms?

  • Thread starter Thread starter funlord
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logarithm Natural
AI Thread Summary
Natural logarithms (ln) and other logarithmic notations are discussed regarding their equality and notation clarity. The use of ln is emphasized as the standard for logarithms with base e, while alternative notations like log_e y are considered rare and potentially confusing. There is debate over the interpretation of logarithmic expressions, particularly when raised to powers, with some suggesting that notation can imply different bases. The consensus is that ln and other logarithmic forms describe the same mathematical concept, reinforcing their equality. Overall, clarity in notation is crucial to avoid misunderstandings in mathematical communication.
funlord
Messages
15
Reaction score
1
upload_2015-8-31_15-9-38.png

are they equal?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The first is hard to recognize, but I would take them both as the fourth power of the natural logarithm of (x+3).

The fact they use ln instead of log is decisive.

The first notation is to be avoided: there are already two notations for the base of a logarithm: ##^e\log y## and ##\log_e y## for ##\ln y## and this looks too much like a third notation for the same, which it is NOT.
 
when i tried it on symbolab.com i subtract them both and i'd come up with answer of 0

does that mean they are equal?
 
I don't acknowledge that kind of authority in a website. But yes, they are equal for the reason that they describe one and the same thing: the fourth power of the natural logarithm of (x+3).
 
ok, thank you very much
 
funlord said:
View attachment 88026
are they equal?
BvU said:
The first notation is to be avoided: there are already two notations for the base of a logarithm: ##^e\log y## and ##\log_e y## for ##\ln y## and this looks too much like a third notation for the same, which it is NOT.
Just for the record, I have never seen this notation -- ##^e\log y##. By "never" I mean in the past 55+ years. That's not to say that someone hasn't used it somewhere, but if so, it's certainly not in common usage. The notation ##\log_e y## is rarely used, since ##\ln y## is defined to mean log, base e, of y.

If someone were to write ##\log^4 (x + 3)##, I would interpret this to mean the same as ##(\log(x + 3))^4## following the usual shorthand as used in powers of trig functions. I would also interpret the log base to be 10, but in some contexts the implied log base could be e or possibly 2, in computer science textbooks.
 
Mark44 said:
Just for the record, I have never seen this notation -- ##^e\log y##. By "never" I mean in the past 55+ years. That's not to say that someone hasn't used it somewhere, but if so, it's certainly not in common usage. The notation ##\log_e y## is rarely used, since ##\ln y## is defined to mean log, base e, of y.

If someone were to write ##\log^4 (x + 3)##, I would interpret this to mean the same as ##(\log(x + 3))^4## following the usual shorthand as used in powers of trig functions. I would also interpret the log base to be 10, but in some contexts the implied log base could be e or possibly 2, in computer science textbooks.
I now miss how you DO write ##^4\log 16 = 2## ? With the rarely used notation ?

Writing ##^4\log 16## is pretty common in Europe...

Ah, wait, of course ##
^e\log y ## is rarely used because ##\ln y## exists. In fact ##
\log y =\ ^e\log y\ ## for a lot of decent people (mathematicians, for one) :smile: !
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
13K
Back
Top