Notation of ln_2(k): Logarithmic or Trig Functions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CRGreathouse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,832
Reaction score
0
I started looking at a proof I had set aside for myself to read some time ago* and wondered if I was missing something in the notation.
In several of the author's formulas, he writes \ln_2k. Is this just \log_2k=\lg k?

On a related note, since I see this as well: I've seen notation of the form f^k used in two different ways -- f^k(x)=f(x)\cdot f^{k-1}(x) (usually trig functions or logs) and f^k(x)=f(f^{k-1}(x)) (usually number-theoretic functions like \sigma, but I suppose function inverses are like this in a sense). Is there any rhyme or reason behind the choice to use one or the other as convention? Is one gaining popularity with respect to the other over time?

* Pierre Dusart, "The kth Prime is Greater than k(\ln k+\ln\ln k-1) for k\geq2", Math. Comp. 68/225 Jan 1999, pp. 411-415.

Edit: I'm such a fool. The author does define it after all, I just missed it in my carelessness. \ln_2k=\ln\ln k in this paper.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Notation can be a funny thing, particularly when talking about superscipts. It is important for the author to define precisely what is meant in a given context. Sometimes it could mean the kth derivative as opposed to the two definitions you described.

For the log notation, once you have the subscript 2, it doesn't matter whether you write ln or log. However it is customary to use ln without a subscript to refer to base e (natural) log.
 
mathman said:
Notation can be a funny thing, particularly when talking about superscipts. It is important for the author to define precisely what is meant in a given context. Sometimes it could mean the kth derivative as opposed to the two definitions you described.

I've seen f^{(n)} for that, but never just f^n for the nth derivative.

I wish the author was more explicit -- a base-2 log is a base-2 log, but when you write ln ("natural log"), it seems like a way to disclaim that interpretation for another. You're probably right on that, though; it is the most sensible possibility I see.
 
It is well known that a vector space always admits an algebraic (Hamel) basis. This is a theorem that follows from Zorn's lemma based on the Axiom of Choice (AC). Now consider any specific instance of vector space. Since the AC axiom may or may not be included in the underlying set theory, might there be examples of vector spaces in which an Hamel basis actually doesn't exist ?
Thread 'Determine whether ##125## is a unit in ##\mathbb{Z_471}##'
This is the question, I understand the concept, in ##\mathbb{Z_n}## an element is a is a unit if and only if gcd( a,n) =1. My understanding of backwards substitution, ... i have using Euclidean algorithm, ##471 = 3⋅121 + 108## ##121 = 1⋅108 + 13## ##108 =8⋅13+4## ##13=3⋅4+1## ##4=4⋅1+0## using back-substitution, ##1=13-3⋅4## ##=(121-1⋅108)-3(108-8⋅13)## ... ##= 121-(471-3⋅121)-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24(471-3⋅121## ##=121-471+3⋅121-3⋅471+9⋅121+24⋅121-24⋅471+72⋅121##...
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
12K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top