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 >>> >>> >> >> >> > >

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

**Re: Reposted, Reformatted Re: "mapping" functions over lists, again!**

**Problem Solved! - FW: Reposted, Reformatted Re: "mapping" functions over lists, again**

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

**Split Screen**