Talk:Logarithm/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Standard name for natural log in Wikipedia?

This article uses ln(x) for the natural logarithm of x. But is this standard for the rest of Wikipedia, or can each article choose whichever of ln(x) or log(x) it prefers? For example Sophomore's dream uses log(x). Can an argument be made for changing it to ln(x), or should it be left alone? Vaughan Pratt (talk) 20:34, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

The common uses are summarized in § Particular bases. It appears that "ln" is the notation recommended by ISO. However, ISO is not a recognized standard in mathematics, and although many mathematiciens use "ln", "log" seems more commonly used in mathematics, especially in advanced mathematics, where no confusion is possible with other bases. On the other hand, no convention for logarithms is specified in MOS:MATH. So the choice between "ln" and "log" is left to editors under the condition of a coherent use in each article. In the case of Sophomore's dream, the presence of integrals in the formula makes clear that the logarithms are the natural ones. So, MOS:VAR recommends to not change the notation without a clear consensus. D.Lazard (talk) 21:15, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

In the case of Sophomore's dream, it is inside an exp(), so obviously natural log. For anything close to calculus and integrals, log() commonly means natural log. There are a number of cases where log is understood to be log10, such ad dB, pH, optical density. If one is close to one of those cases, but needs natural log, then ln is probably a good choice. There are a fair number of cases where it doesn't matter, one usual case being in big-O notation, where constant factors are ignored. Not as common, but a ratio of logs is also base independent. Gah4 (talk) 23:04, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Citation style

Up through the version of 3:53, 25 March 2010, this article used {{cite}} templates. That version had 9 {{cite}} templates and 0 (zero) {{citation}} templates. The next revision, the version of 15:24, 25 March 2010, had 9 {{cite}} templates and 2 {{citation}} templates. By now, the article uses nearly all {{citation}} templates, but as far as I can see, there has never been a discussion on this talk page authorizing this change. If that discussion never took place, we should revert to the original {{cite}} markup, unless there is a consensus now to the contrary. —Anomalocaris (talk) 05:15, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

That is an interesting observation. However, what is the difference between {{cite}} and {{citation}}? Somerandomuser (talk) 05:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

The "cite" templates use Citation Style 1 while the "citation" templates use Citation Style 2. The biggest. Difference. Is that. Citation Style. 1. Puts. Periods. Between. Everything. Instead, Citation Style 2, separates parts, of the citation, with commas, and doesn't, end with a period —David Eppstein (talk) 05:48, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Also, the earliest citations in a recognizable format in the article used comma-separated citations; see e.g. this 2006 version, with the first footnote to an actual publication, or even earlier versions with only the in-text citation to Peirce. So it is really not accurate to claim that Citation Style 1 has priority merely because at some arbitrary point halfway between its creation and now it happened to predominate. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

Antiderivative of logarithm

The section of Logarithm#Derivative_and_antiderivative just showed the integral of the natural logarithm. But, is it supposed to be integral of the logarithm with the base $b$? ${\underset {\text{JR}}{\underset {\cdot }{\text{DEDHERT}}}}$ 04:34, 3 November 2021‎ (UTC)

It says right there that "Related formulas, such as antiderivatives of logarithms to other bases can be derived from this equation using the change of bases.", with a link a ref for those who want it for other bases. And your signature is super obnoxious. Dicklyon (talk) 04:45, 3 November 2021 (UTC)