- 2,832
- 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.
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: