Talk:Exponential function: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Paul Wormer (New page: {{subpages}} I have a preference for the notation ln(z) for the inverse of exp(z). Is that not more common?--~~~~) |
imported>Paul Wormer |
||
| (3 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | {{subpages}} | ||
==Notation== | |||
I have a preference for the notation ln(z) for the inverse of exp(z). Is that not more common?--[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 10:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:The notation log(z) is more common in advanced mathematics. I have seen a quote to the effect that you can distinguish those that know maths by whether they use log or ln for the natural logarithm :-) But ln(z) is more common in the secondary schools (at least in my experience) and probably also in physics, and it is not ambiguous. I think that we should use ln(z), perhaps with the exception of articles on advanced (say graduate-level) mathematics. -- [[User:Jitse Niesen|Jitse Niesen]] 13:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Concur. [[User:J. Noel Chiappa|J. Noel Chiappa]] 13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC) | |||
I | ::So, I.M. Gelfand and G.E. Shilov (Generalized Functions, Vol I, Academic 1964) don't know maths? And neither does Knuth, the Art ... vol 1, p. 23? --[[User:Paul Wormer|Paul Wormer]] 09:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC) | ||
Latest revision as of 04:18, 30 October 2008
Notation
I have a preference for the notation ln(z) for the inverse of exp(z). Is that not more common?--Paul Wormer 10:52, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- The notation log(z) is more common in advanced mathematics. I have seen a quote to the effect that you can distinguish those that know maths by whether they use log or ln for the natural logarithm :-) But ln(z) is more common in the secondary schools (at least in my experience) and probably also in physics, and it is not ambiguous. I think that we should use ln(z), perhaps with the exception of articles on advanced (say graduate-level) mathematics. -- Jitse Niesen 13:21, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- Concur. J. Noel Chiappa 13:33, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
- So, I.M. Gelfand and G.E. Shilov (Generalized Functions, Vol I, Academic 1964) don't know maths? And neither does Knuth, the Art ... vol 1, p. 23? --Paul Wormer 09:18, 30 October 2008 (UTC)