[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
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
>
>
Prev by Date:
**Titles/Labels in Graphics**
Next by Date:
**Re: How to simplify?**
Previous by thread:
** Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm**
Next by thread:
**Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm**
| |