I'm confused about your notation. Is this what you mean for the first one? ?

Results 1 to 7 of 7

- June 5th 2006, 05:44 AM #1

- Joined
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 4

- June 5th 2006, 05:49 AM #2

- Joined
- Oct 2005
- From
- Earth
- Posts
- 1,599
- Thanks
- 1

- June 5th 2006, 05:51 AM #3

- June 5th 2006, 05:58 AM #4

- Joined
- Nov 2005
- From
- someplace
- Posts
- 14,972
- Thanks
- 4

Originally Posted by**scfan000**

I'm guessing here, do you intend that

?

Then do you intend that denote the common (log to base 10)

or natrural log of ?

I am also mystified by what you want "Log4Log(2)X" to represent.

Might I suggest that you use "log_n(x)" to denote the log to the base

n of x, be explicit in all instances about the base, and rewrite your questions

accordingly?

RonL

- June 5th 2006, 06:13 AM #5

- Joined
- Nov 2005
- From
- someplace
- Posts
- 14,972
- Thanks
- 4

Originally Posted by**Jameson**

To solve:

,

first turn it upside down (this is a personal preference, it can be done this way up):

,

then apply the change of base rule for logs to the left hand side to reduce

the all the logs to the same base as that on the right hand side.

RonL

- June 5th 2006, 06:19 AM #6

- Joined
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 4

- June 5th 2006, 06:57 AM #7

- Joined
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 5