English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

2006-11-15 06:26:49 · 4 answers · asked by froggersdh0303 1 in Science & Mathematics Mathematics

4 answers

well...ln(x) does not cancel e^x....but...

given e^x, if we take the natural log of e^x then we have ln(e^x), well this means that we have an exponent...we recall that we can pull the exponent down infront of a logrithm...so we now have xln(e)

ah! the ln(e) is 1, we recall that ln's are base e and if we take the logrithm of the base we get 1. so we have x*1=x

so...likewise...lnx^2 is 2ln(x)...and thats all we can do

hope this helps

matttlocke

2006-11-15 07:32:27 · answer #1 · answered by matttlocke 4 · 0 0

ln(x) is another way to write "log base e of x"

If I had some number called (?), and I said that

(?) = ln(x)

I'm basically saying e to the (?) power is x.

If I had
(?) = ln(e^x), I'm saying e to the (?) power is e^x. Well duh, the (?) in this case could only be x. So yes, ln(e^x) is simply x.

Important: ln(1) is zero, and ln(e) is 1. Try to figure out why using the above examples.

Also, there is no special rule involving the square of a natural log.

Hope that helped,
UMRmathmajor

(p.s. These are important! You'll see them more in higher math.)

2006-11-15 14:36:00 · answer #2 · answered by UMRmathmajor 3 · 0 0

Yes they are mutually anti-functions, except that with ln(x), the natural log, x MUST be > 0.

2006-11-15 16:05:51 · answer #3 · answered by rhino9joe 5 · 0 0

I don't quite understand the question. ln(x) * e^x is not x, but ln(e^x) is.

2006-11-15 14:30:13 · answer #4 · answered by Amy F 5 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers