No one taught you that ln is "Natural Log" which is log base e? Typically, Log base 10 in the standard selection for the term "log". Although, I have seen many occasions where 'log' is defined as 'ln', but thats still different from log base 10.nukchebi0 wrote:
I learned that Log base 10 and ln were the same thing, too.
I guess I was wrong.
I learned that log base e and log base 10 were the same. Unless, of course, I am remembering wrong, since I learned it in pre-calculus.
Either your teacher taught you incorrectly, or you are mis-remembering.nukchebi0 wrote:
I learned that log base e and log base 10 were the same. Unless, of course, I am remembering wrong, since I learned it in pre-calculus.
(To add to the confusion...) Log base e is written as 'Log' for many scientific applications.
For example, in Mathematica (a useful mathematics program),
Log[e] is 1, which is correct for the natural log. Then, Log10[e] = 0.434294... (its an irrational number).N[Log[E]] = 1
N[Log[10, E]] = 0.434294
N[10^(0.434294)] = 2.71828 = e
In science, the natural logarithm is far more useful than log10. But you'll learn that if/when it becomes something to worry about.
Thanks for the clarification, I won't misremember it again.
QFMFT!!!Mitch wrote:
Completelyuselessmath is completely useless..
Try telling my maths teacher this, we try to tell her all the time that we just WON'T use any of this shit IRL, but she has none of it. She's called Mrs Gerrard and she looks like a badger, might explain it.
You won't, but engineers and scientists use it daily.Funky_Finny wrote:
QFMFT!!!Mitch wrote:
Completelyuselessmath is completely useless..
Try telling my maths teacher this, we try to tell her all the time that we just WON'T use any of this shit IRL, but she has none of it. She's called Mrs Gerrard and she looks like a badger, might explain it.
Remember Me As A Time Of Day
Yeah. I'm studying electrical engineering and that level of math is used in the basic classes. It's actually very useful for circuit analysis. Then again, you only use it for theoretical stuff. I'd rather just use a multimeter and measure everything.heggs wrote:
You won't, but engineers and scientists use it daily.Funky_Finny wrote:
QFMFT!!!Mitch wrote:
Completelyuselessmath is completely useless..
Try telling my maths teacher this, we try to tell her all the time that we just WON'T use any of this shit IRL, but she has none of it. She's called Mrs Gerrard and she looks like a badger, might explain it.
So I learned how to integrate today using the u substitution, but I don't see how that is relevant to an all variable problem such as this that has no functions of functions. We haven't even learned about logarithmic functions yet, so i assume the rest of the class won't be able to do it either.
Math is far from useless. If the word 'math' only means knowing how to balance your checkbook, then nothing will change your mind.Funky_Finny wrote:
QFMFT!!!Mitch wrote:
Completelyuselessmath is completely useless..
Try telling my maths teacher this, we try to tell her all the time that we just WON'T use any of this shit IRL, but she has none of it. She's called Mrs Gerrard and she looks like a badger, might explain it.