Simple logarithm simplifications

  • Thread starter Thread starter ehilge
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Logarithm
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers around simplifying the expression eC*ln(x). It is clarified that eC*ln(x) can be rewritten as e^(ln(x^C)), which simplifies to x^C. Participants correct misconceptions about the properties of exponents and logarithms, emphasizing the importance of proper notation. The final consensus is that e^(C ln(x)) simplifies to x^C, confirming the cancellation of e and ln. Understanding these simplifications is crucial for solving integrals involving logarithmic expressions.
ehilge
Messages
160
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Hey all, I just need some help remembering my basic simplification rules.

Can the expression eC*ln(x) be simplified anymore. It would certainly help out an integral I'm working on but I don't remember my simplification real well.

Homework Equations


elnx=x

The Attempt at a Solution


I'm doubting there is a solution since eC*ln(x) = eclnx and I don't see how that helps much. But I thought I'd check with you guys and see if anyone had a better idea.
Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, e^{C ln(x)} is NOT equal to e^{C^{ln x}}. I don't know where you got that. It is equal to e^{ln(x^C)} (because [/itex]C ln(x)= ln(x^C)[/itex]).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
HallsofIvy said:
No, e^{C ln(x)} is NOT equal to e^{C^{ln x}}. I don't know where you got that. It is equal to ]e^{ln(x^C)} (because [/itex]C ln(x)= ln(x^C)[/itex]).

ohhhhh, I see now, thanks!

edit: also ecln(x) is equivalent to ecln(x)
this is the same as saying that 23*2 = 232 = 64
 
Last edited:
ehilge said:
ohhhhh, I see now, thanks!

edit: also ecln(x) is equivalent to ecln(x)
this is the same as saying that 23*2 = 232 = 64

Are you sure? Because 23*2=26 and 232=29. What you said is equivalent to saying 4*6 = 46 or 64.

As HallsofIvy said, ecln(x)=eln(xc). This can be simplified. Can you see how?
 
ehilge said:
ohhhhh, I see now, thanks!

edit: also ecln(x) is equivalent to ecln(x)
this is the same as saying that 23* = 232 = 64
No, it is not. You are not distinguishing between
\left(e^a\right)^b
and
e^{(a^b)}

What you are writing, eab, is equivalent to
e^{\left(a^b\right)}
which is NOT the same as
\left(e^a\right)^b= e^{ab}.
 
HallsofIvy said:
What you are writing, eab, is equivalent to
e^{\left(a^b\right)}
which is NOT the same as
\left(e^a\right)^b= e^{ab}.

ya, you're right, I meant to write what you have in the 2nd part there, I just wasn't liberal enough with parenthesis. Sorry, my bad.

so what I should have written in the first place is ecln(x) = (ec)ln(x) , right?

also, Kaimyn, eln(xc) simplifies to xc, if I remember my log stuff right (which obviously isn't a given) the e and the ln should essentially cancel each other out.

thanks
 
ehilge said:
ya, you're right, I meant to write what you have in the 2nd part there, I just wasn't liberal enough with parenthesis. Sorry, my bad.

so what I should have written in the first place is ecln(x) = (ec)ln(x) , right?

also, Kaimyn, eln(xc) simplifies to xc, if I remember my log stuff right (which obviously isn't a given) the e and the ln should essentially cancel each other out.

thanks
Yes, ec ln(x)= eln xc= xc.
 
He thought:

(e^c)^{ln(x)}=e^{c*ln(x)}=e^{ln(x^c)}
 
Back
Top