Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums / MathGroup Archive
-----

MathGroup Archive 2009

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

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
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 


  • Prev by Date: Re: Re: testing if a point is inside a polygon
  • Next by Date: Re: Logarithmic Plot
  • Previous by thread: Re: Re: Log[]//TraditionalForm
  • Next by thread: Re: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm