[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Re: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm
You are, of course, completely right. I have frequently experienced
the same amazement.
But in this particular case the tongue need not even be "firmly
planted in the cheek". There is only one function Log[t] given by
Integrate[1/x, {x, 1, t}, Assumptions -> Re[t] > 1 || Im[t] != 0]
All other so called logs are just constant multiples of this unique
Log. Of course we can give each of them a separate name but this is no
different than using the notation Sin[a,x] for, say, a Sin[x]. The
statement that there is only one logarithm in "advanced calculus" does
not really need any qualification.
Andrzej Kozlowski
On 13 Feb 2009, at 08:44, Louis A. Talman wrote:
> 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>
>
>
>
Prev by Date:
**Re: Chain Matrix**
Next by Date:
**Re: Conditional evaluations of functions**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Re: Log[x]//TraditionalForm**
Next by thread:
** Re: Log[]//TraditionalForm**
| |