MathGroup Archive 2009

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

Search the Archive

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> napisa=B3 w wiadomo=B6ci
>> news:gmrm45$9m4$1 at
>>> 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
>  <>

  • 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