Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg96302] Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm*From*: "Kevin J. McCann" <Kevin.McCann at umbc.edu>*Date*: Wed, 11 Feb 2009 05:20:12 -0500 (EST)*Organization*: University System of Maryland*References*: <200902031132.GAA00303@smc.vnet.net> <7461949.1234000227010.JavaMail.root@m02> <gmp121$c7f$1@smc.vnet.net>

I generally prefer "log" rather than "ln" in my notes, because "ln" looks too much like "1n", i.e. one-n, and I find that I often have to reread stuff that uses ln. Maybe I am just old or something, but "log" is easier for my brain/visual cortex to translate. Kevin David Park wrote: > When I was studying electrical engineering, we had a well known professor, > Ernst A. Guillemin. He always used 'p' to stand for complex frequency as did > many other authors. But then some professional electrical engineering > society decreed that 'p' must always be used for complex frequency. This > attempted coercion made him angry and from then on he always used 's', > taking much of the profession with him. > > Mathematical symbols are always arbitrary and the only important thing is > that a book or application make explicit the meaning of the symbols used. > And Mathematica does make clear how Log is used. Presumably, the reader or > user will know what he wants. > > > David Park > djmpark at comcast.net > http://home.comcast.net/~djmpark/ > > > > > From: peter [mailto:plindsay.0 at gmail.com] > > > 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>

**Re: Re: testing if a point is inside a polygon**

**Re: Logarithmic Plot**

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

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