Notation of ln_2(k): Logarithmic or Trig Functions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CRGreathouse
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the notation \ln_2(k) and its equivalence to \log_2(k), clarifying that in the referenced paper, \ln_2(k) is defined as \ln(\ln(k)). The conversation also touches on the differing uses of f^k, where one interpretation is multiplicative and the other is functional composition, raising questions about conventions in mathematical notation. Participants emphasize the importance of precise definitions in context, particularly with logarithmic and superscript notations. The consensus suggests that while base-2 logs are clear, the use of "ln" can lead to ambiguity regarding its interpretation. Overall, clarity in notation is crucial for effective communication in mathematical proofs.
CRGreathouse
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
2,832
Reaction score
0
I started looking at a proof I had set aside for myself to read some time ago* and wondered if I was missing something in the notation.
In several of the author's formulas, he writes \ln_2k. Is this just \log_2k=\lg k?

On a related note, since I see this as well: I've seen notation of the form f^k used in two different ways -- f^k(x)=f(x)\cdot f^{k-1}(x) (usually trig functions or logs) and f^k(x)=f(f^{k-1}(x)) (usually number-theoretic functions like \sigma, but I suppose function inverses are like this in a sense). Is there any rhyme or reason behind the choice to use one or the other as convention? Is one gaining popularity with respect to the other over time?

* Pierre Dusart, "The kth Prime is Greater than k(\ln k+\ln\ln k-1) for k\geq2", Math. Comp. 68/225 Jan 1999, pp. 411-415.

Edit: I'm such a fool. The author does define it after all, I just missed it in my carelessness. \ln_2k=\ln\ln k in this paper.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Notation can be a funny thing, particularly when talking about superscipts. It is important for the author to define precisely what is meant in a given context. Sometimes it could mean the kth derivative as opposed to the two definitions you described.

For the log notation, once you have the subscript 2, it doesn't matter whether you write ln or log. However it is customary to use ln without a subscript to refer to base e (natural) log.
 
mathman said:
Notation can be a funny thing, particularly when talking about superscipts. It is important for the author to define precisely what is meant in a given context. Sometimes it could mean the kth derivative as opposed to the two definitions you described.

I've seen f^{(n)} for that, but never just f^n for the nth derivative.

I wish the author was more explicit -- a base-2 log is a base-2 log, but when you write ln ("natural log"), it seems like a way to disclaim that interpretation for another. You're probably right on that, though; it is the most sensible possibility I see.
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
12K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K