Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg96155] Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm
- From: "slawek" <human at site.pl>
- Date: Sat, 7 Feb 2009 03:51:24 -0500 (EST)
- References: <200902031132.GAA00303@smc.vnet.net> <200902041018.FAA18533@smc.vnet.net> <200902050941.EAA10589@smc.vnet.net> <gmgv0g$33k$1@smc.vnet.net>
U¿ytkownik "Murray Eisenberg" <murray at math.umass.edu> napisa³ w wiadomo¶ci news:gmgv0g$33k$1 at smc.vnet.net... > 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. Question: how high-selling must be a book in USA to *prove* that pi is equal exactly 3 ? What is a criteria for "advanced book"? Answer: useage Log instead ln... What have AMS estabilished about ln/log notation? slawek BTW, SQR is the square-root in BASIC, but SQR is the square of a number in Pascal.
- 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>
- Log[x]//TraditionalForm