Understanding the Transformation of ln(x^2+1) = ln(abs: 2y-3) into x^2+1 = 2y-3

  • Thread starter Thread starter kasse
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation of the equation ln(x^2+1) = ln(abs: 2y-3) into x^2+1 = 2y-3. Participants are exploring the implications of logarithmic properties and the conditions under which absolute values can be eliminated.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants question the necessity of the argument of the logarithm being positive and discuss the implications of using absolute values in the context of logarithmic functions. Some express confusion about the elimination of the absolute sign in the transformation.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the definitions and properties of logarithms and absolute values. Some participants provide insights into the conditions required for the arguments of logarithmic functions, while others seek clarification on specific steps in the transformation process.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the argument of the ln function must be positive, leading to discussions about the constraints on y values. There is also mention of a reference document in Norwegian that may provide additional context, though its language barrier is acknowledged.

kasse
Messages
383
Reaction score
1
Why is it that ln(x^2+1) = ln (abs: 2y-3) can be transformed into x^2+1 = 2y-3 , this according to an example in my book.

What I don't understand is why you can eliminate the absolute sign.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Huh ? The argument of the ln function always needs to be positive by definition : if ln(A) = B then exp(B) = A.

marlon
 
http://www.math.ntnu.no/emner/kode/SIF5003/gamle-eks/TMA4100_2006_08_18_lf.pdf

It's task 3 here. You won't understand the language, but hopefully understand the maths :smile:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
That's Norwegian, right ?

yep, they write the absolute sign because the argument of the ln function NEEDS to be positive. So in that case, you only consider the y values for which 2y-3 > 0 --> y>1.5

marlon
 
I don't really understand why it needs to be positive. Is it not possible to say that e^(ln(abs: 2y-3)) = (abs: 2y-3) ?

And yes, it's Norwegian. Did you guess that without checking my profile?
 
Last edited:
kasse said:
I don't really understand why it needs to be positive. Is it not possible to say that e^(ln(abs: 2y-3)) = (abs: 2y-3) ?
e^(ln(abs: 2y-3)) = (abs: 2y-3) : YES THAT IS CORRECT.

Now, if you are using the absolute value function like |x| and you know that x > 0 (because of the argument of ln), the definition of |.| says that |x| = x.

In short : definition for |.|

|x| = x if x > 0
|x| =-x if x < 0

So |2y-3| = 2y-3 IF 2y-3 > 0

Finally, let me repeat why the argument (2y-3) of the ln function is positive BY DEFINITION:

ln(A) = B <--> A = exp(B)

But exp(B) is always positive so A must always be positive.

Keep in mind that exp(B) = [tex]e^B = (2.7)^B[/tex]

When you exponentiate 2.7, it can never become a negative number.



And yes, it's Norwegian. Did you guess that without checking my profile?

Yes, my native language is Dutch and some of the words look very much alike.

marlon
 
Last edited:
kasse said:
Why is it that ln(x^2+1) = ln (abs: 2y-3) can be transformed into x^2+1 = 2y-3 , this according to an example in my book.

What I don't understand is why you can eliminate the absolute sign.
The citation you give doesn't say that! It says "if ln(x2+ 1)= ln(|2y- 3|)+ C1, then x2+ 1= C1(2y-3)".

You don't need the "| |" because the C1 can be chosen positive or negative.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K