Ok, so this has been bothering me for a while.Integral of (1/x)dx

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter -Castiel-
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integral of (1/x)dx and the significance of the base e in the natural logarithm. Participants explore the reasons behind the choice of e as the base for logarithms, questioning why other bases, such as 3.14, are not used instead. The conversation includes historical context, mathematical properties, and various interpretations of the implications of using e.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why the integral of (1/x)dx equals the natural logarithm (log base e) rather than another base, suggesting there must be a significant reason for the choice of e.
  • Another participant provides historical context, mentioning Bernoulli and Euler's contributions to the understanding of e as a natural rate function related to various natural phenomena.
  • A participant emphasizes that e is an irrational number and discusses the mathematical relationships between the logarithm and exponential functions, highlighting the special properties of e.
  • One participant explains the inverse function derivative theorem, showing how it leads to the conclusion that the derivative of the natural logarithm is 1/x.
  • Another participant introduces a probabilistic scenario (the Hat Check Problem) to illustrate the unexpected appearances of e in different contexts.
  • Several participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the mathematical explanations provided, indicating a need for further clarification.
  • A participant notes the functional properties of logarithms, suggesting that the definition of f(x) leads to the conclusion that f(x) = log(x) under certain conditions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that there is significance to the number e and its role in the natural logarithm, but multiple competing views and interpretations remain regarding the reasons for its selection as the base. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the specific reasons behind the choice of e over other bases.

Contextual Notes

Some mathematical steps and assumptions are not fully resolved, and the discussion includes varying levels of technical detail that may depend on participants' familiarity with calculus and logarithmic functions.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to students and enthusiasts of mathematics, particularly those exploring calculus, logarithmic functions, and the historical context of mathematical constants.

-Castiel-
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Ok, so this has been bothering me for a while.

Integral of (1/x)dx = log of x to the base e.

My question is, why e? Why can't it be instead to a base 3.14? Or any other number.

I am guessing there is some reason. 2.71 was not chosen at random.

I have searched a lot but can not seem to find it.

Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org


An interesting history of the number can be found on wikipedia. Its something that is very intricately ingrained in nature, not just something that was made up for convenience sake. The first person to actually come across it was Bernoulli when he tried to evaluate an interesting limit. It was then shown my Euler to have relevance also on the complex plane; and is also became more and more recognised as a natural rate function, meaning that the rates of many natural occurances such as bacterial growth or radioactive decay, can be modeled on this number.
 


Yes, I saw that history but I still do not know WHY "Integral of (1/x)dx = log of x to the base e" and not some other number.
 


-Castiel- said:
I am guessing there is some reason. 2.71 was not chosen at random.
It's not 2.71. It is 2.718281828459045235360287471352662497757247093... e is an irrational number.

Let's look at this function and its inverse:

[tex]\begin{align}<br /> g(x) = \int_1^x \frac{dt}{t} \\ \\<br /> \int_1^{f(x)} \frac {dt}{t} = x<br /> \end{align}[/tex]

I have not attached names other than the generic f(x) and g(x) to these functions. I'm not going to derive the following, but these functions are intimately coupled with the logarithm to some base and exponentiation functions:

[tex]\begin{align}<br /> \log_a(x) = \frac{g(x)}{g(a)} \\ \\<br /> a^x = f(x\cdot g(a))<br /> \end{align}[/tex]

The number a for which g(a)=1 is obviously special; it simplifies the above considerably. Call this number e. Note that e=f(g(e))=f(1). With this e defined as such,

[tex]\begin{align}<br /> g(x) &= \log_e(x) \\ \\<br /> f(x) &= e^x<br /> \end{align}[/tex]

This function f(x) is arguably the most important function in all of mathematics.
 
Using the inverse function derivative theorem, you can show that [tex]\ln' = \frac{1}{\exp' \circ \ln} = \frac{1}{\exp \circ \ln} = \frac{1}{\text{Id}}[/tex]
Thus [tex]\ln'(x) = \frac{1}{x}[/tex]
And by integrating
[tex]\int_1^x \frac{dt}{t} = \int_1^x \ln'(t)dt = \ln(x)[/tex]
 


So, as DH explained, you're basically asking, 'If I take the function 1/x and integrate it from 1 out to some number, how far do I have to go such that the area under the curve is 1?' If you draw out the curve and play a little, or use a graphing calculator, you'll quickly see where the number e comes from.
 


In fact, e can be defined this way. As other people have pointed out, e turns up in a number of really unexpected areas. For example, have you heard of the Hat Check Problem? Basically, imagine some sort of Ball in which every man leaves his hat with the hat check upon entering (OK, imagine this is the '60s when people wore hats). What is the probability that no one gets his hat back? That is, everyone gets someone else's hat? It turns out that as the number of people grow, this probability goes to e^-1. Pretty cool, isn't it?
 


I have to leave for class soon but thank you so much for your replies. Basically, I wanted confirmation that there is some significance with 2.71... and there is, I am going to read all the posts when i get back.
 


Okay, so I went through all. I somewhat understood what DH said (I am going to have to look at it all more closely), what sachav said went over my head abut I think phyzguy got what I was looking for.
 
Last edited:
  • #10


From the integral given it is easy to see that a function thus defined has the property
f(x y)=f(x)+f(y)
This together with f'(1)=1 tells us
f(x)=log(x)
in particular (limit h->0)
f'(1)=lim f(1+h)/h
since a f(x)=f(x^a)
=lim f((1+h)^(1/h))
since f is continuous at 1
=f(lim (1+h)^(1/h))
since lim (1+h)^(1/h)=e
=f(e)=1
 
  • #11


-Castiel- said:
Ok, so this has been bothering me for a while.

Integral of (1/x)dx = log of x to the base e.

My question is, why e? Why can't it be instead to a base 3.14? Or any other number.

I am guessing there is some reason. 2.71 was not chosen at random.

I have searched a lot but can not seem to find it.

Any ideas?

The exponential is the inverse function of the natural log. e is the value of this function at 1. Y
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K