Re: Re: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg96144] Re: [mg96120] Re: [mg96062] Re: [mg96049] Log[x]//TraditionalForm*From*: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>*Date*: Fri, 6 Feb 2009 04:14:24 -0500 (EST)*Organization*: Mathematics & Statistics, Univ. of Mass./Amherst*References*: <200902031132.GAA00303@smc.vnet.net> <200902041018.FAA18533@smc.vnet.net> <200902050941.EAA10589@smc.vnet.net>*Reply-to*: murray at math.umass.edu

So far as I have seen, almost any recently published, high-selling textbook in calculus -- as distinct from advanced calculus or analysis -- aimed at the U.S. market uses ln rather than log for the natural logarithm. No wonder students are confused when they go on to a more advanced course and suddenly it's log, not ln. Then of course there's the issue that computer scientists often use log to mean base-2 log. Andrzej Kozlowski wrote: > Tthe notation ln seems to have become essentially extinct since the > disappearance of slide rules. It fact, was almost never used in books > on analysis or calculus aimed at mathematicians. I have just checked and > Dieudonne, Foundations of Modern Analysis, published in 1969 uses log, > Apostol, Calculus, published in 1967 uses log, Rudin, "Principles of > Modern Analysis", published in 1964 uses L after remarking that "the > usual notation is, of corse, log"), Rudin "Real and complex analysis", > published in 1970 uses (naturally) log. Of 5 books that I have looked > at only one, Fichtenholtz - A course of differential and integral > calculus (in Russian) published in 1966 uses ln, which is presumably > because it was aimed at engineers, who in those days still used slide > rules (at least in Russia). (In spite of that, it is still a rather > good book). > > Andrzej Kozlowski > > > On 4 Feb 2009, at 11:18, Murray Eisenberg wrote: > >> 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 >> logarithm. >> >> O.T.: P.S. M.I.T. has an all-male a cappella singing group named the >> "Logarhythms". >> >> slawek wrote: >>> The natural logarithm function in "traditional form" in Mathematica >>> (version >>> 6.0.2.0) >>> >>> 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 math.umass.edu >> 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 >> > > -- Murray Eisenberg murray at math.umass.edu 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

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Re: Re: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm***From:*Curtis Osterhoudt <cfo@lanl.gov>

**Re: Re: Re: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm***From:*Curtis Osterhoudt <cfo@lanl.gov>

**References**:**Log[x]//TraditionalForm***From:*"slawek" <human@site.pl>

**Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm***From:*Murray Eisenberg <murray@math.umass.edu>

**Re: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm***From:*Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl>