Is Stephen Wolfram trying to troll the mathematical community?

Is Stephen Wolfram trying to troll the mathematical community?

logarithm should be symbolised by an upside down e

what even is log
what is the math behind it, what exactly does it do to a number

def Log(x,b):
exp = 0
ans = 1
while ans

It's the inverse of exponentiation, i.e, undoes an exponent.

nice digits

I knew it did that but I don't know f(log)^-1 off the top of my head

thank you

[eqn]\log(x) := \int_1^x \frac{1}{u}\ \text{d}u[/eqn]

that guy's wrong

his program only works if x=b^n for some positive integer n

[math]\log[/math] always denotes the inverse of [math]\exp[/math] in real mathematical literature

Veeky Forums is 18+ btw

Wtf am I supposed to be looking at?

A ban for not recognizing high school math

I recognize it, but how is it trolling the mathematical community?

Do calculation.
Numbers getting too big.
Calculate log to make them small but keep proportion.

more like WolfjewAlpha
>put result in "easier" "shortened" form, that you don't know from where the it came from
>"oy vey, such misfortune have come upon you, why won't by subscription my poor little Go..i mean Guy"

The troll formula on Wolfram Alpha is [math]\int x^\sqrt{x} \,\mathrm dx[/math].

log is the standard notation for the natural logarithm in mathematics. You don't work with any other base after high school, unless you do CS or something.

Undergrad plz

[math]\ln(x):= \sum_{k=1}^\infty (-1)^{k+1}\frac{(x-1)^k}{k} \quad \forall x \in \mathbb{R}: |x|

G ?

No, I have a master's in math and I've never seen anyone use a different base... maybe in first year calculus.

Log offers no advantages over Ln.
There is literally no reason to use Log instead of Ln for expressing the inverse of e^x

Well, it's more descriptive since it's shorthand for (log)arithm. I'd also guess it has a longer history than that other way I'm not going to mention.

The natural logarithm of x is often written "ln(x)", instead of log_e(x) especially in disciplines where it isn't written "log(x)". However, some mathematicians disapprove of this notation. In his 1985 autobiography, Paul Halmos criticized what he considered the "childish lnln notation," which he said no mathematician had ever used. In fact, the notation was invented by a mathematician, Irving Stringham, professor of mathematics at University of California, Berkeley, in 1893.

Only in high school and first year calc do they use ln(x) to mean the inverse of e.
When you reach second year maths, you just call it logx and then you specify the base for other bases.

I'm pretty sure that's defined [math] \forall x \in \mathbb{R}: 0

>Is Stephen Wolfram trying to troll
yes.

Seinfeld is so smug.

What the fuck

what trash you are to define log(x) like this.

The question
>The logarithm of 100 to base 10 equals WHAT?
could also be said this way:
>10 to the power of WHAT equals 1000?

Also when no base is given, it's either 2 or 10.

Sorry, didn't see I should read the thread before posting.