[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg96338] Re: [mg96302] Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm
*From*: peter <plindsay.0 at gmail.com>
*Date*: Thu, 12 Feb 2009 06:33:01 -0500 (EST)
*References*: <200902031132.GAA00303@smc.vnet.net>
I prefer Sin to Log anyway, its funkier.
Peter
2009/2/11 Kevin J. McCann <Kevin.McCann at umbc.edu>:
> 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: Reposted, Reformatted Re: "mapping" functions over lists, again!**
Next by Date:
**Problem Solved! - FW: Reposted, Reformatted Re: "mapping" functions over lists, again**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm**
Next by thread:
**Split Screen**
| |