Visual proof log(ab) = log a + log b

In summary: But, if you plot the graph of $y = \ln x$, then $y = \ln(x/b)$ is the same as the previous graph shifted $1/b$ units to the right. So, the integral (area) under the shifted graph is the same as the integral under the original graph. In summary, the conversation discusses the visual proof of the property log(ab) = log a + log b and how it can be illustrated intuitively. The conversation also mentions other functions that have this property and provides a visual example using the graph of y = 1/x. Finally, a more basic argument for this property using substitution and the definition of the logarithm is also given.
  • #1
Ppp1
4
0
Hi,

I'm looking for a visual proof log(ab) = log a + log b

I've seen diagrams where the values are measured out, but it's not immediately obvious why this holds. Is there an intuitive way to illustrate this? Also, are there other functions with this property.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Suppose we have:

\(\displaystyle y=\log_r(ab)\)

This is equivalent to:

\(\displaystyle ab=r^y\)

Now, this may be written as:

\(\displaystyle r^{\log_r(a)}\cdot r^{\log_r(a)}=r^y\)

Or:

\(\displaystyle r^{\log_r(a)+\log_r(b)}=r^y\)

And so equating exponents (and utilizing the one-to-one correspondence of the exponential function), we obtain:

\(\displaystyle y=\log_r(a)+\log_r(b)\)

Which means we conclude:

\(\displaystyle \log_r(ab)=\log_r(a)+\log_r(b)\)

As far as I know, only the logarithmic function has the property:

\(\displaystyle f(xy)=f(x)+f(y)\)
 
  • #3
Nice, but very bourbaki ;)
Seems there is no immediate way to visualize this.
 
  • #4
Let's start with the area under the curve $y=\frac 1x$ from $1$ to $a$.
That area is defined as $\color{red}\ln a$.
See the area marked in red.
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2]
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (4.4,0) node[above] {$x$-axis};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,1.2) node
{$y$-axis};
\draw[red] (1,0) node[below] {$1$}
-- (1,1) node[above right] {$1$} [domain=1:1.8, variable=\x, ultra thick] plot ({\x}, {1/\x}) node
{$\frac 1a$}
-- (1.8,0) node[below] {$a$}
-- (1,0);
\node[red] at (1.4,0.35) {$\ln a$};
\end{tikzpicture}

Now suppose we multiply the x coordinates with $b$.
To keep the area the same, we need to divide the y coordinates by $b$.
The result is the following red area, which still has area $\color{red}\ln a$.
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2]
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (4.4,0) node[above] {$x$-axis};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,1.2) node
{$y$-axis};
\draw[red] (1.6,0) node[below] {$b$}
-- (1.6,{1/1.6}) node[above right] {$\frac 1b$} [domain=1.6:2.88, variable=\x, ultra thick] plot ({\x}, {1/\x}) node
{$\frac 1{ab}$}
-- (2.88,0) node[below] {$ab$}
-- (1.6,0);
\node[red] at (2.24,0.25) {$\ln a$};
\end{tikzpicture}

Now we put the area belonging to $\color{blue}\ln b$ next to it in blue.
\begin{tikzpicture}[scale=2]
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (4.4,0) node[above] {$x$-axis};
\draw[->] (0,0) -- (0,1.2) node
{$y$-axis};
\draw[blue] (1,0) node[below] {$1$}
-- (1,1) node
{$1$} [domain=1:1.6, variable=\x, ultra thick] plot ({\x}, {1/\x})
-- (1.6,0)
-- (1,0);
\node[blue] at (1.3,0.35) {$\ln b$};
\draw[red] (1.6,0) node[below] {$b$}
-- (1.6,{1/1.6}) node[above right] {$\frac 1b$} [domain=1.6:2.88, variable=\x, ultra thick] plot ({\x}, {1/\x}) node
{$\frac 1{ab}$}
-- (2.88,0) node[below] {$ab$}
-- (1.6,0);
\node[red] at (2.24,0.25) {$\ln a$};
\end{tikzpicture}
The result is $\ln b + \ln a = \ln(ab)$.​
 
  • #5
I like Serena said:
Let's start with the area under the curve $y=\frac 1x$ from $1$ to $a$...

Now that's clever. (Yes)
 
  • #6
Nifty.
More basic, you could also argue multiplying the argument of a log just shifts the curve in the y-axis by the log of the multiplicator: log(b) = log(ab) - log(a), here with constant b = e, a on the x axis.
 

Attachments

  • log.jpg
    log.jpg
    11.7 KB · Views: 84
  • #7
Ppp said:
Nifty.
More basic, you could also argue multiplying the argument of a log just shifts the curve in the y-axis by the log of the multiplicator: log(b) = log(ab) - log(a), here with constant b = e, a on the x axis.

The visual proof I gave corresponds to the definition of the logarithm and substitution:
$$
\ln a + \ln b \overset{\small\text{def}}= \int_1^a \frac {dx}x + \int_1^b \frac{du}u
= \int_1^a \frac {d(u/b)}{u/b} + \int_1^b \frac{du}u
= \int_b^{ab} \frac {du}{u} + \int_1^b \frac{du}u
= \int_1^{ab} \frac {du}{u}
\overset{\small\text{def}}= \ln(ab)
$$

How would that argument be a visual proof?
 
  • #8
Well, to be precise, I didn't claim it was a rigorous proof ;) - it's more to gain intuition.
 

FAQ: Visual proof log(ab) = log a + log b

What is the formula for "Visual proof log(ab) = log a + log b"?

The formula for "Visual proof log(ab) = log a + log b" is used to show the relationship between the logarithms of two numbers multiplied together and the sum of the logarithms of each individual number.

How does the visual proof of log(ab) = log a + log b work?

The visual proof of log(ab) = log a + log b works by breaking down the logarithm of the product of two numbers into the sum of the logarithms of each individual number. This is done by using the properties of logarithms and algebraic manipulation.

Why is it important to understand the visual proof of log(ab) = log a + log b?

Understanding the visual proof of log(ab) = log a + log b is important because it helps to deepen our understanding of logarithms and their properties. It also allows us to simplify complex logarithmic expressions and solve logarithmic equations more efficiently.

Can the visual proof of log(ab) = log a + log b be applied to other logarithmic equations?

Yes, the visual proof of log(ab) = log a + log b can be applied to other logarithmic equations that involve multiplication or division. This is because the same properties of logarithms and algebraic manipulation can be used to simplify these equations.

Are there any limitations to the visual proof of log(ab) = log a + log b?

The visual proof of log(ab) = log a + log b is a valid and widely used proof, but it may not be applicable in all situations. For example, it cannot be used to prove logarithmic identities involving exponents or roots. Additionally, it may not be the most efficient method for solving certain logarithmic equations.

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top