Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

struggle4progress

(126,010 posts)
15. Read the translator's preface at your link: the table of so-called "hyperbolic logarithms"
Tue Mar 18, 2014, 06:35 PM
Mar 2014

at the end of the book is clearly a table of what we now call "natural logarithms" -- which do obey log(xy) = log(x) + log(y) -- but, as the translator notes, that table was not actually in Napier's original book: in fact, those logarithms were invented by others, while the table Napier himself published is the one with the sine and logarithm headings

Napier's table, unlike a table of "hyperbolic logarithms" (that is, "natural logarithms&quot , and unlike the even more convenient table of "Briggsian logarithms" (that is, "common logarithms&quot , has the unfortunate features that log(10 000 000) = 0 -- rather than the more convenient log(1) = 0 -- and that log(x) decreases with increasing x, as you can see by inspecting Table I "Napier's Logarithms of Sines," which is the table Napier himself published

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

I agree with the solution to Black-Scholes. louis-t Mar 2014 #1
Ain't that the truth! TxDemChem Mar 2014 #2
No kidding, but nothing will throw a spanner into it more quickly Warpy Mar 2014 #3
Some hard prison time for some of these bankers wouldn't hurt either. hunter Mar 2014 #4
The first of Maxwell's Equations is given incorrectly jobendorfer Mar 2014 #5
In the book, Stewart notes that he's using a simpler form of the equations. Jim__ Mar 2014 #6
That's boooring. You end up with equation 8 again. DetlefK Mar 2014 #7
Wow! I bet Stewart didn't know *that* when he included both equations in his book. Jim__ Mar 2014 #8
One does not need to dumb it down to discuss it. DetlefK Mar 2014 #12
Stewart's point was that Maxwell's simplified equation resolves to the wave equation. Jim__ Mar 2014 #13
Perhaps Napier's logarithms did not actually satisfy equation #2 but something rather like struggle4progress Mar 2014 #9
I'm not sure what point they're trying to make. Jim__ Mar 2014 #14
Read the translator's preface at your link: the table of so-called "hyperbolic logarithms" struggle4progress Mar 2014 #15
OK, thanks. I this thought that this was his original book. Jim__ Mar 2014 #16
Part of it seems to be his original book, in English translation struggle4progress Mar 2014 #17
#3 is anachronistic: the limit concept is nineteenth century struggle4progress Mar 2014 #10
Regarding #5, Euler did indeed introduce the symbol i for the square root of -1, struggle4progress Mar 2014 #11
Latest Discussions»Culture Forums»Science»The 17 Equations That Cha...»Reply #15