Services & ResourcesWolfram ForumsMathGroup Archive

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

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>