Re: [sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

A much more problematical issue is whether you are going to do this: Log, the Principal Log vs log, the ordinary log, where log(x) = Log(x) + 2*n*i*pi for integer n. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

> > > Don't change anything. Status quo is fine. > > +1 > > Agreed. There is likely some optimization possible, but probably not really necessary. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" group. To post to this group, send email to sage-devel@

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

On Thu, 10 Jan 2013 22:15:45 +0800 P Purkayastha wrote: > On 01/10/2013 10:09 PM, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > H Yep, log2 and log10 sound good indeed ! > > > > So what do we do, in the end ? > > > > ln(e) = 1 > > log(10) = 1 > > log2(2) = 1 > > > > Or do we stick log(e) = ln(e) = 1 ? >

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

> I don't see why we have to burn anything. Sheer fun. > Why not define log_2 and log_10? > Aren't those legitimate identifiers? It would be weird to have both log2 and log_2, both having different meanings O_o > The only objection I can see to this is the ISO standard mentioned above, in > whi

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

On Thursday, January 10, 2013 8:38:56 AM UTC-6, Nathann Cohen wrote: > > > i.e. log2 is already defined to equal log(2) (to base e!). We are > > already inconsistent, since log2 is a symbolic constant meaning > > log(2), whereas there are *already* functions in Sage whenre log2 > > means log-to-th

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

> i.e. log2 is already defined to equal log(2) (to base e!). We are > already inconsistent, since log2 is a symbolic constant meaning > log(2), whereas there are *already* functions in Sage whenre log2 > means log-to-the-base-2: > > sage: RR(32).log2() > 5.00 Ahahaahahahahahahahahahaa

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

I would agree to all the above, but be warned: sage: log2 log2 sage: type(log2) sage: log2.n() 0.693147180559945 sage: log(2) log(2) sage: log(2).n() 0.693147180559945 i.e. log2 is already defined to equal log(2) (to base e!). We are already inconsistent, since log2 is a symbolic constant mean

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

> Certainly don't change log(), that would break way too much! Ahahaah. I'm in this kind of mood, sometimes :-P okok, then just an alias for log10 and log2 ? I believe that this makes sense... Nathann -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "sage-devel" gr

[sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

On 01/10/2013 10:09 PM, Nathann Cohen wrote: H Yep, log2 and log10 sound good indeed ! So what do we do, in the end ? ln(e) = 1 log(10) = 1 log2(2) = 1 Or do we stick log(e) = ln(e) = 1 ? Don't change anything. Status quo is fine. -- You received this message because you are su

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

On 2013-01-10 15:09, Nathann Cohen wrote: > H Yep, log2 and log10 sound good indeed ! > > So what do we do, in the end ? > > ln(e) = 1 > log(10) = 1 > log2(2) = 1 > > Or do we stick log(e) = ln(e) = 1 ? Certainly don't change log(), that would break way too much! -- You received t

Re: [sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

H Yep, log2 and log10 sound good indeed ! So what do we do, in the end ? ln(e) = 1 log(10) = 1 log2(2) = 1 Or do we stick log(e) = ln(e) = 1 ? Nathann On 10 January 2013 14:07, Kresimir Kumericki wrote: > Note that log(x) means log(x, 10) for many people, including most of those

[sage-devel] Re: About log and ln. Free fight.

Note that log(x) means log(x, 10) for many people, including most of those using pocket calculators where "log" key often calculates log(x, 10) by default. Furthermore ISO standard 31-11 says: lb(x) = log(x, 2). -- You received this message because you