[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Log[4]==2*Log[2]
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg50635] Re: Log[4]==2*Log[2]
*From*: p-valko at tamu.edu (Peter Valko)
*Date*: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 01:49:34 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <chp8q9$jjm$1@smc.vnet.net>
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Andreas,
In my view two symbolic expressions are not necessarily equal if
numerically they are equal.
What you wish to know is if the left and right hand sides can be
brought to a standard form and then if the standard forms are equal.
To achieve this you may wright:
(Log[4] // Simplify) == (2*Log[2] // Simplify)
that gives a solid True.
Regards
Peter
Andreas Stahel <sha at hta-bi.bfh.ch> wrote in message news:<chp8q9$jjm$1 at smc.vnet.net>...
> To whom it may concern
>
> the following answer of Mathematica 5.0 puzzeled me
>
> Log[4]==2*Log[2]
> leads to
>
> N::meprec: Internal precision limit $MaxExtraPrecision = 50.` reached while \
> evaluating -2\Log[2]+Log[4]
>
> with the inputs given as answer. But the input
>
> Log[4.0]==2*Log[2]
>
> leads to a sound "True"
>
> Simplify[Log[4]-2*Log[2]]
> leads to the correct 0, but
> Simplify[Log[4]-2*Log[2]==0]
> yields no result
>
> There must be some systematic behind thid surprising behaviour.
> Could somebody give me a hint please
>
> With best regards
>
> Andreas
Prev by Date:
**anyone else have same problems? partition grahics**
Next by Date:
**Re: more than 1 function with Plot3D**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Re: Log[4]==2*Log[2]**
Next by thread:
**Re: Re: Log[4]==2*Log[2]**
| |