Re: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg96428] Re: [mg96282] Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm*From*: "Louis A. Talman" <talmanl at mscd.edu>*Date*: Fri, 13 Feb 2009 03:44:51 -0500 (EST)*References*: <200902031132.GAA00303@smc.vnet.net> <gmrm45$9m4$1@smc.vnet.net> <200902111016.FAA16824@smc.vnet.net>

It never fails to amaze me how dogmatic some people can be about the conventions of notation. Or how hard it is for some people to notice a tongue planted firmly in a cheek. On Feb 11, 2009, at 3:16 AM, slawek wrote: > U=BFytkownik "Lou Talman" <talmanl at mscd.edu> napisa=B3 w wiadomo=B6ci > news:gmrm45$9m4$1 at smc.vnet.net... >> The notational distinction between "ln" and "log" makes sense for >> engineers who must use both natural logarithms and common >> logarithms. But in advanced mathematics there is only one logarithm. > > > False. The ln/log/alog was introduced when base ten logarithms was > applied > to calculation like: --Lou Talman Department of Mathematical and Computer Sciences Metropolitan State College of Denver <http://clem.mscd.edu/%7Etalmanl>

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Re: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm***From:*Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl>

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

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