Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg96192] Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm*From*: peter <plindsay.0 at gmail.com>*Date*: Mon, 9 Feb 2009 05:32:42 -0500 (EST)*References*: <200902031132.GAA00303@smc.vnet.net>

not being a very advanced person myself, and only being an engineer, I have to admit to thinking that ln was the correct name for natural log. Thank god I've been put right on this. regards Peter 2009/2/6 Murray Eisenberg <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 > >

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

**Titles/Labels in Graphics**

**Re: How to simplify?**

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

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