MathGroup Archive 2009

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg96062] Re: [mg96049] Log[x]//TraditionalForm
  • From: Murray Eisenberg <murray at>
  • Date: Wed, 4 Feb 2009 05:18:02 -0500 (EST)
  • Organization: Mathematics & Statistics, Univ. of Mass./Amherst
  • References: <>
  • Reply-to: murray at

No, in mathematics log x or log(x) is a perfectly acceptable, perhaps 
the predominant, notation for the base-e, natural logarithm.

In calculus books, ln x or ln(x) is typically used for that --  so as 
not to confuse students who were taught that log means the base-10 

O.T.: P.S. M.I.T. has an all-male a cappella singing group named the 

slawek wrote:
> The natural logarithm function in "traditional form" in Mathematica (version 
>   Log[x]//TraditionalForm
>   log(x)
> This is "not a bug but a feature", but in mathematics the natural logarithm 
> is just ln(x) or even ln x.
> The true traditional notation use log for decimal logarithm, ln for natural 
> logarithm, lb for binary logarithm, and
> log_{b}x  for logarithm with base b. Unfortunatelly in most computer 
> programs (see FORTRAN) LOG
> stands for natural logarithm (an exception is Pascal).
> Nevertheless, how to force to use ln(x) instead log(x) ?
> The brute way is use /.Log->ln//TraditionalForm.
> Is any more elegant way to do this?
> slawek

Murray Eisenberg                     murray at
Mathematics & Statistics Dept.
Lederle Graduate Research Tower      phone 413 549-1020 (H)
University of Massachusetts                413 545-2859 (W)
710 North Pleasant Street            fax   413 545-1801
Amherst, MA 01003-9305

  • Prev by Date: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm
  • Next by Date: Re: symbolic matrix manipulation
  • Previous by thread: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm