Understanding Logarithm Functions: f(x) = log(100x)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nesan
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The function f(x) = log(100x) can be interpreted in two ways: as a vertical translation of the graph of log(x) up by 2 units, or as a compression toward the y-axis by a factor of 100. Both interpretations stem from the equivalence of log(100x) and log(x) + 2, but they represent different transformations. The compression affects the x-values, while the vertical translation affects the y-values. Ultimately, these two perspectives illustrate the same function through different transformations.
nesan
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
We're learning logarithms in school. I asked my teacher this question but she couldn't explain it very well.

For a function such as f(x) = log(100x), base ten of course.

When graphed I could say the graph is "compressed by a factor of 1 / 100"

or

Rewriting f(x) = log(100x) into f(x) = logx + log100 = logx + 2

Now it's f(x) = logx + 2

which is a vertical translation up two units. Why is it both? O.o

What do they have in relation? ]

Please and thank you, just want to understand this. >_<
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
nesan said:
We're learning logarithms in school. I asked my teacher this question but she couldn't explain it very well.

For a function such as f(x) = log(100x), base ten of course.

When graphed I could say the graph is "compressed by a factor of 1 / 100"

or

Rewriting f(x) = log(100x) into f(x) = logx + log100 = logx + 2

Now it's f(x) = logx + 2

which is a vertical translation up two units. Why is it both? O.o

What do they have in relation? ]

Please and thank you, just want to understand this. >_<


It is not both: it is the same as the graph of log x but translated two units.

DonAntonio
 
DonAntonio said:
It is not both: it is the same as the graph of log x but translated two units.

DonAntonio

Why is it the same?
 
I think you just showed why it's the same. Think of as the number 5. 4 + 1 = 5, 3 + 2 = 5, there can be two ways to write the same number, and in much the same way we can write some functions in multiple ways.
 
If you take any point (x, y) on the graph of y = log(x), you'll see that there is a point (x/100, y) on the graph of f(x) = log(100x), so one way of looking at the graph of f is that it represents a compression toward the y-axis of the graph of y = log(x) by a factor of 100.

On the other hand, the same point (x, y) on the graph of y = log(x) corresponds to the point (x, y + 2) on the graph of y = log(x) + 2, so this version of the function represents a translation up by 2 units.

Although log(100x) ##\equiv## log(x) + 2, we're looking at two different transformations, one in the horizontal direction, and one in the vertical direction. All we are doing is looking at one thing in two different ways.
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...

Similar threads

Replies
60
Views
5K
Replies
23
Views
6K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Back
Top