Prove it! Properties of logarithms
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 01. 2021
- In this video, I prove the properties of logarithms like ln(xy) = ln(x) + ln(y) by using the integral definition of the logarithm. Enjoy!
Calculus Playlist: • Calculus
Subscribe to my channel: / drpeyam
Check out my TikTok channel: / drpeyam
Follow me on Instagram: / peyamstagram
Follow me on Twitter: / drpeyam
Teespring merch: teespring.com/stores/dr-peyam
I love when he gives himself a clean edit point, but then later goes “Hmm... Edit it? Nah... Let ‘em see it all!“ 😂😂
Yes, I love how genuine he is.
Omg I forgot to cut it out lol
@@drpeyam 😂😂😂
I'm new to this great site and so I was scratching my head; "What's a Chen-Lu?" Going back 3 years I find Dr. Peyam's video on the Chen-Lu. Fell out of my chair laughing: It's the chain rule.
Simple identity but simpler presentation wow ! DrRahul Rohtak Haryana India
I had such a long complicated proof for ln(x^r), yours is great, thanks!
I have the shortest in my channel
It has been so long since I did maths that I have forgotten most of it, so understanding this stuff is beyond me now, but I love watching because of the joyful and interesting presentation! So nice to see someone with a love for maths explain it like this, with a smile on their face!
When I was a small child, we learned at school, that the definition ln x is, that this function is inverse to a^x function. But I heard that this function ln x existed a lot of years before a^x function. At the University we learnet any definition. We learnet this(it's from my notes):
Lemma: Exists only one function on interval (0;infinity) with propertis f(x*y)=f(x)+f(y) and lim f(x)/(x-1) =1 where x go to 1. This function is named logaritmic function.It's continues, growing on (0;infinity) , ,Hf=R, and applies to it rule (ln x)'=1/x , x>0.
Is only this integral from 1 /t where t in interval (1;x), x>0 the definition ln x in USA??
It's not the definition, it's the property of ln x
you can define it whatever you like, you will always get same results
@1412 I was talking about the integral in the video
@1412 before that
Sir, really you're a genius. It was awesome. This type of video makes the concept of mathematics more clear and strong too. Love and regards...
He's speaks like 4 languages too. Your right genius fits to describe him.
Thanks for reminding those proofs from high school ! I enjoyed these very much
Editing like that assures zero discontinuity errors. Brilliant.
"dos equis", clase de matemáticas con un poco de español, me encanta!!!
I really like his brilliant derivation steps.
Bravo doc.it was wonderful
Amazing!
I remember these questions from a few years back.
Unfortunately the teacher forgot to remind us which definition to use in the questions of the test.
We had remembered that exp(x) was defined as the continuous function such that exp(0)=1 and exp(x+y)=exp(x)exp(y); and defined ln(x) as the reciprocal. In the end, many students, me included, answered "hey it's easy, just take the inverse function on both sides and you are done", which seemed oddly easy compared to the difficulty of other questions.
I think I did 2) in a similar way but got stuck in 3) because I thought it was for reals and was a bit stuck and I think I didn't answer but the question was probably for integers only and didn't think of calculating the derivative.
As a Freshman at UCLA, we used Apostle’s Calculus textbook that also started with the definition of the natural logarithm as you stated.
Unfortunately, my class was an “honors” section and I while I could solve the problems, I couldn’t follow the proofs. It wasn’t until half a century later that by watching your videos that I could piece together the proofs.
Very elegant
Hey Dr.Peyam, I always wondered how you would prove the thing you mention at 6:24 and so I would really love to see a follow up video showing how it’s done, or maybe you can just give me some hints so I can try it on my own, that would be really cool 😁👌
i believe 'early transcendentals' textbooks would use a different definition of ln(x), since i think 'early transcendentals' just means that things like e^x and ln(x) are introduced pre-calculus, so you wouldnt be able to define it in terms of an integral. however, i think late transcendentals is more historically accurate, because lnx was originally defined as an integral and e^x was discovered later as its inverse. kinda interesting.
I think you forgot to cut some things out, but still nice prove!
this definition says that 223 / 71 < pi < 22 / 7 .
The circumference of any circle is greater than three times the diameter and exceeds it by a quantity less than the seventh part of the diameter but greater than ten seventy-first parts.
NOte : it was translated from ancient greek writing.
Genial dos x, saludo desde Colombia.
You can also prove it via homorphisms,if f is a homorphism so is f^(-1)
Very neat!
Another way to prove (2) is ln(x)=ln(x/y*y)=ln(x/y)+ln(y).
Nice!
Hi Dr Peyam!! Love from Hong Kong. May I ask a question ?
Normally if you differentiate lnx, you have to deal with (ln(x+h)-lnx)/h, which hasn't been proven yet. Isn't that kind of circular?
The last example made me think what if we fix the x and treat r as variable. Sadly, it doesn't help, because derivative (d/dr)x^r is not simple and uses ln, so it's probably circular reasoning. However it works the other way, if you know that ln(x^r)=r*ln(x) then you can differentiate both size by r and solve for (d/dr)x^r.
There is something more fundamental, it's that even if you prove f is constant depending on r, you don't prove that it is constant on x, so you would end up with f(x,r)=K(x), so you always need to differentiate with respect to x.
I like as mathematician. Someone can ask you to prove it and you actually can.
Best maths teacher ✌️😊
Is (ln 2)*(ln 3) a transcendental number?
And what about ln(1+e) and ((ln ln 2)^2)*(ln 2)?
Hi love ur vids, I had a request. Could you plz make some videos on the STEP Exam. It is the Cambridge entrance exam for High School students and the questions in it are absolutely brutal. There are 3 papers in total and they increase in difficulty from STEP 1 being the easiest and STEP 3 is the hardest. I think you will really enjoy some of the questions since in my opinion, having looked at both the JEE advance maths questions and STEP 3, I would say that STEP 3 is actually even harder than Jee so plz give it a go. But if you want the really hard ones then do STEP 3. STEP 2 AND 1 are still hard but not as hard. Also, if you want the hardest ones, even from STEP 3, then there is a mark scheme which has all the answers of the questions from the past years and towards the end of that, you can go to STEP 3 and they tell you which questions were done well or poorly. Hence which were hardest and which were easiest.
More proofs please :)
5:41
And last but not least for the power law...
*Cosmo's RE-DO!*
And last but not least for the power law...
Ellen of Why has a friend in a nearby town of Ecks called Ellen of Ecks
Sir I have a challenging question for you!
if y=2r+s and x=3r-s then find derivative of y with respect to x?
A slide 📏 ruler proves the rule using hardware in hardware !
Dr Peyam uses integrals
Le Me: writes Ln(x) = a or x= e^a
Similarly Ln(y)=b or y=e^b
xy=e^a * e^b = e^(a+b)
Taking Ln both sides
Ln(xy) = Ln(e^(a+b))= a+b = Ln(x) + Ln(y)
Dr Peyam, you explain a very good topics but sometimes you use abbreviations that they are not understood.
In general, thank you very much
¡Genial!
I want to ask, why we use f(1)=f(x), and why other number doesnt work f(2) or f(3)
They should all technically work, but f(1) is clearly the easiest.
Very complicated proof. It follows just because it is the reverse function of exp(x) where exp(x+y)=exp(x)*exp(y). So exp is a group isomorphism from (R,+) to (R+,*) and ln is the backwards group isomorphism from (R+,*) to (R,+)
No but this assumes you know that exp(x+y) = exp(x) exp(y)
@@drpeyam we knew exp(x) first ;-)
very nice
Please keep proving stuff like that
I'd like you prove in the next video
This: exp(x+y) = exp(x) × exp(y)
I’ve done that already
@@drpeyam ok thanks
I know a general way to prove that log_a (MN)= log_a M+ log_a N. Let log_a M=x and log_a N=y. Therefore, M=a^x and N=a^y. Replacing these terms: log_a (MN)=log_a [(a^x)*(a^y) ]= log_a [a^(x+y)] = x+y= log_a M+ log_a N
1:00 i think should be ln’(x) not (ln(x))’ because ln is a function and ln(x) is a number so its derivative should be 0
Same thing
Put Ln XY = A , Ln X + Ln Y = B . first of all f(t) = exp t is a continuous strictly increasing function over IR, in particular it is Injective so f(x) = f(y) implies x=y . so taking exponential of each side we have : Exp A = exp (ln XY) = XY since exp is the reverse function of exp for XY >0.
And Exp B = exp (lnX + lnY) = exp ln X . exp ln Y = X.Y. so Exp A = exp B. Again . since Exp is injective we have A=B #
Cool way to define lnx, but I dont think it is that much of a natural way to define it, because you would have to know that the derivative of lnx is equal to 1/x, and to find that out you must use these famous log rules. Therefore I think the arguments are sircular.
I love you bro
Ln(1/y) = ln [(y)^-1] = - ln (y). Do you know someone named Ellen who lives at Why? If not, why (!) Are you always talking about Ellen of Why? ;)
👍
Just raise e to both sides...
But then you have to define what e^x is. From what I have seen, it is more common in an introductory real analysis class to define ln first, and define e^x as the inverse.
Today I had a dream where Dr Peyam did a collab with pewdiepie
In the collab they would explore the properties of ⌊x⌋
Chen Lu, Prada Lu😀
Excellent video but 2:59 I'm having trouble understanding how it is true for all x.
If f’(x) = 0 then f is constant (by the mean value theorem), and if it is constants, its value is the same everywhere, so it’s equal to the value at 1
Math is pure philosophy with many branches to be explored.😜
Is it me or has Dr Peyam looked really handsome lately? Haha
Us lefties need to be creative long ago !
Dr 3.14159........m.Thanks a log . for nice presentation. DrRahul Rohtak Haryana India
LOL
d/dx (Ellen) :D
I appreciate the mathematical rigour, starting by a definition. Not like the bprp strategy.
I have a much simpler proof and for any base, not just base e
Let just called the base a
log xy= log x+log y
a^log xy= a^(log x+log y)
xy= a^log x × a^log y
xy=xy
couldn't you just write x= e^k, y=e^l => ln(x)+ln(y)=k+l=ln(e^(k+l))=ln(e^k*e^l)=ln(xy)
i didn't like using integral defintions for something that pops up out of the property that it is the inverse to exponential functions.
Ln ewwwww 🤢 it’s ln
Ln is more univerzal then ln, if you meen Log z
👍