Rough automatic draft, low quality: expect mistakes and awkward wording. It will be replaced by a better translation. Original →
50
LEARN TO WORK
WITH LOGARITHMES
A. Ya. Margulis, B. A. Radunsky
Definite logarithm
As is known, the logarithm of the number N to the base a (a>0;a=1) is the exponent to which the base a must be raised to obtain a given number N, that is, for a>0, a=1x=logaN, if ax=N.
The mathematical notation for the definition of a logarithm is the so-called basic logarithmic identity:
alogaN=N(a>0,a=1,N>0).
Let us recall that any positive number with any base (positive and different from one) has a logarithm, but negative numbers and zero do not have logarithms.
10 corollaries from the main identity
If the numbers a and b are positive and different from one (M>0 and N>0), then the following relations (properties of logarithms) are valid:
logaMN=logaM+logaN,
logaNM=logaM−logaN,
logaMα=αlogaM,
logaN=logbalogbN,
logba×logaN=logbN,
logab=logba1,
logakN=k1logaN(k=0),
logakNk=logaN(k=0),
logaMlogaN=logbMlogbN(M=1),
logaN×logbM=logaM×logbN,
alogbc=clogba.
Formulas (1), (2) and (3) are called logarithm rules. They allow you to find the logarithms of the product (1), quotient (2) and degree (or
51
(3). The same formulas allow you to find a number by its logarithm, that is, the product of potentiation.
Formula (4) has a special meaning - it is the formula for moving to a new base. Thanks to this formula, there is no need to have tables of logarithms for different bases: it is enough to have, for example, a table of decimal logarithms to use formula (4) to find the logarithm for any base that intersects with us.
Formula (8) shows that the ratio of the logarithms of two numbers does not depend on the base.
Proofs of formulas (1) - (5) are carried out in a school course *); The reader can easily prove formulas (6) and (7) himself, moving to the base a using formula (4). It is easy to verify the validity of formula (8) if you notice that both its left and right sides are equal to the number logMN (why?); formula (9) is simply another representation of equality (8). And here is the rationale for formula (10):
alogbc=alogablogac=(alogac)logba=clogba.
Comment
We proposed that M>0 and N>0. However, when solving logarithmic equations (or inequalities), when the roles of M and N are expressions from the unknown x, transformations using the above formulas can lead to unequal equations (inequalities). In such cases, more general formulas should be used **); for example, if M(x)⋅N(x)>0, then
logaM(x)⋅N(x)=loga∣M(x)∣+loga∣N(x)∣.
Now we will not consider hairs either. Our goal is to show how the basic properties of logarithms are applied to equations, calculating one logarithm in terms of another, and comparing them in magnitude.
Simplifying expressions containing logarithms
Carefully examine the examples given with pencil and paper; It is important to understand where the formulas listed above are used (we specifically carry out the conversions in detail, but with almost no explanation).
Solution. Let us first define the range of permissible parameter values: a>0, a=1, b>0, b=1 (since a and b serve as the bases of logarithms), a>1 (for the existence of log2lga there must be lga>0, whence a>1), windows
*) See, for example, E. S. Kochetkov, E. S. Kochetkova, Algebra and elementary functions, M., “Enlightenment”, 1970, §§ 183-186.
**) For more details, see G.V. Dorofeev, M.K. Potapov, N.Kh. Rozov, A manual on mathematics for university applicants, M., “Nauka”, 1970.
52
Particularly
a>1;b>0;b=1.
We have loga[b21logba2]⋅lga⋅loga21100=logablogba⋅lga2loga10= =lgalogaa⋅lga⋅2=2lga;(lga⋅2log2lga)21lg−21a2= =2lgalga⋅lga=2lga;
finally, N=2lga2lga=2.
Example 3. Let’s simplify the expression: (blgalog1000a⋅algalog1000b)3logab(2a+3b)
Solution. The parameters must satisfy the conditions a>0;a=1;b>0;b=1 (explain why).
We have blga3log1000a⋅algb3log1000b=blgalga⋅algblgb=ab,
poseable
N=(ab)logab(2a+3b)=2a+3b.
Example 4. Let’s simplify the expression: N=(2logabloga2b+1−1)21+(2logab2loga2b+1+1)212loga21b.
Solution. The parameters must satisfy the following conditions: a>0;a=1;b>0,b=1 (explain why); furthermore, for loga21b to exist there must be logab≥0. Therefore, definitively: a>1 and b>1 or 0<a<1 and 0<b<1. Next,
Everything is simple here, because, firstly, the bases of all logarithms are the same and, secondly, you can express the number 2 through numbers, logarithms
53
which are given (or known), that is, through the numbers 30, 3 and 5. Obviously this is not always easy to do.
Example 6. Given: lg196=a; lg56=b; find lg 0.175.
Solution. Representing the number 0.175 in terms of the well-known numbers 196, 56 and 10 is not so easy. Let’s convert:
lg0,175=lg1000175=lg407=lg7−2lg2−1.
Thus, the problem was reduced to finding lg7 and lg2.
The conditions of the problem can be written in the form of two equalities:
2lg2+2lg7=a, 3lg2+lg7=b.
Of these is
lg2=42b−a;lg7=43a−2b.
Then
lg0,175=43a−2b−44b−2a−1=45a−6b−4.
Example 7. Given: log147=a;log145=b;найтиlog2528.
Solution. In the case of different bases, it is advisable to go to one base:
All that remains is to find log122. According to the conditions of the problem
a=log1227=3log123=3log12412=3(1−2log122).
From here log122=63−a, and then
log616=1−63−a4⋅63−a=3+a4(3−a).
Comparing logarithms by magnitude
Knowing the properties of the logarithmic function, it is easy to answer the following questions: which of the two numbers is greater: log23 or log32?
When solving more complex examples, in addition to using the properties of the logarithmic function, it will be necessary to perform various transformations.
54
Example 9. (MSU, Faculty of Chemistry, 1969). Without a table, determine which is greater: log2080 or log80640?
Solution. We will use the given logarithms as much as possible and reduce them to the same base:
log2080=1+2log202=1+log2202,
log80640=1+3log802=1+log2803.
It remains to compare the numbers log2202 and log2803. But log220>0;log280>0, and 2log280=log26400<3log220=log28000. Therefore log2202<log2803, that is log2080<log80640.
Example 10. (MSU, Faculty of Psychology, 1969). Do not use tables, prove that log37>log727.
Solution. Since log727=3log73=log373 and log37>0, it is enough to prove that log327>3 or log37>3 or 7>33.
Let’s try to detail the “convenient” approximation for the irrational exponent. Namely, using the fact that 3<1,75=47, let us compare 7 and 347, that is, 74 and 37. From it 74=2401>37=2187 is introduced, followed by 7>347>33, and then log37>log727.
Example 11. Without a table, determine which is greater: log57 or log1317?
Solution. Reduction to one basis does not give anything good. However, this example is solved by the previous two. Note that 1<log57<2, 1<log1317<2. Let’s compare the numbers then
log57−1=log57−log55=log557
And
log1317−1=log1317−log1313=log131317.
But log557>log1357>log131317 (explain why), and then log57>log1317.
Example 12. Prove that for any natural number n>1
logn(n+1)>logn+1(n+2).
Solution. Obviously nn+1=1+n1>n+1n+2=1+n+11. Therefore, using the properties of the logarithmic function, we have (for n>1)
lognnn+1>logn+1nn+1>logn+1n+1n+2.
Transforming the left and right sides, we immediately obtain that
logn(n+1)>logn+1(n+2).
From here it follows, for example, that
log23>log34>⋯>logk+1(k+2).
55
Reception 13. (MSU, Faculty of Philology, 1969). Prove, without using tables, that log23>log35.
Solution. The method used in the previous two examples cannot be directly applied (check this). Therefore, we will do this: log23=log827;
log35=log925,а827>925.
Next, log8827>log9827>log9925 or log827−1>log925−1, hence log23>log35.