Whatcha Know About Math!?

[NaOH]

Text

 

[DVK916]

A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

 

[cirthix]

rofl

 

[cirthix]

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

different bases...

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

um... no...

 

[DVK916]

Originally posted by: cirthix

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

different bases...

log(x) is still base e. Only nonmath people refer to log(x) as base 10.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

There was a significant lack of females in that rap video.

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: cirthix

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

different bases...

log(x) is still base e. Only nonmath people refer to log(x) as base 10.

I know plenty of mathematicians who use ln(x); log(x) has no universally implied base.

 

[cirthix]

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: cirthix

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

different bases...

log(x) is still base e. Only nonmath people refer to log(x) as base 10.

I know plenty of mathematicians who use ln(x); log(x) has no universally implied base.

log is assumed to be base 10 unless an explicit base is written as a subscript it it, and ln is log (sub) e, and is nearly always written that way.

 

[randumb]

Originally posted by: cirthix

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: cirthix

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

different bases...

log(x) is still base e. Only nonmath people refer to log(x) as base 10.

I know plenty of mathematicians who use ln(x); log(x) has no universally implied base.

log is assumed to be base 10 unless an explicit base is written as a subscript it it, and ln is log (sub) e, and is nearly always written that way.

No, it depends on discipline. Pure mathematicians never use base 10 and almost always use log(x) to denote the natural logarithm. Introductory mathematics textbooks often teach that log(x) has an implied base 10. I've also seen log(x) used with implied base 2 in computer science.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

You guys are arguing with DVK916 :laugh:

Did any of you notice that the chicks in the vid ran away from the math nerds? Didn't think so.

 

[BrownTown]

In my experience "log" is defined as base 10 when you first learn it, but in all my math and engineering courses its generally assumed to be base 'e' unless otherwise specified. So, It is more or less a matter of learning, but personally I've found the high level you get the more likely people are to assume that "log" means base 'e' and not base 10. You can usually figure it out from context though, if you are looking at some sort of equation describing the physical world its gonna be base 'e', if its a logarithmic graph of dopant concentrations or something like that its gonna be base 10 since base 10 corresponds with out numbering systems and base 'e' corresponds to the real world.

 

[NaOH]

wow...i don't know whether or not to be surprised by you guys arguing.

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

Not true, it's written ln but spoken as simply "log." You are the fraud here!

 

[Eeezee]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: cirthix

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

different bases...

log(x) is still base e. Only nonmath people refer to log(x) as base 10.

But real math people realize that writing ln(x) takes less time than writing log(x). Which is why we write it that way.

 

[potoba]

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

Not true.

 

[TallBill]

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

You remind me of a log that I dropped off about an hour ago.

 

[pradeep1]

wow, creative. painful, but creative.

 

[Gibson486]

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

My engineering and math professors have never done that. I guess my whole college is a fraud.

 

[eakers]

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: cirthix

Originally posted by: randumb

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: cirthix

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

different bases...

log(x) is still base e. Only nonmath people refer to log(x) as base 10.

I know plenty of mathematicians who use ln(x); log(x) has no universally implied base.

log is assumed to be base 10 unless an explicit base is written as a subscript it it, and ln is log (sub) e, and is nearly always written that way.

No, it depends on discipline. Pure mathematicians never use base 10 and almost always use log(x) to denote the natural logarithm. Introductory mathematics textbooks often teach that log(x) has an implied base 10. I've also seen log(x) used with implied base 2 in computer science.

When I got my undergraduate degree in math, log(x) was always base 10.

 

[Apathetic]

Originally posted by: DVK916

Originally posted by: cirthix

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

different bases...

log(x) is still base e. Only nonmath people refer to log(x) as base 10.

Ummm.. no. In computer science, log base 2 is quite common so when refering to logs it's common to specify a base to be clear about things.

Dave

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

A real math person would not get a D in Real Analysis.

 

[Fenixgoon]

if we are integrating over a piecewise smooth, simple closed curve in the real-complex plane, and there are no discontinuities on/inside that curve, then the line integral of said PWSSCC is 0 by the cauchy-goursat theorem

 

[Vidda]

Wow, that was painful yet good. The integrate line was pretty funny.

 

[cKGunslinger]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: DVK916
A real math person would write natural log as simply log(x) rather than ln(x). They are frauds.

A real math person would not get a D in Real Analysis.