Welcome to the Wikipedia Mathematics Reference Desk Archives |
---|
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages. |
June 11
I know that
(because I asked Wolfram Alpha), but I don't know why. I suspect it has something to do with
, but that is where I lose course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- Take the log: With
both sides end up as
. --Wrongfilter (talk) 07:16, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]- Thanks a lot. I can follow that computation. It does not quite give me the the intuitive understanding I have hoped for (I probably need to do more work with logarithms), but I think I can convert it to a forward argument, which may give me more insight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 07:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- The essence is the exponent rule
Substitute
and
for
and
in the last equation, and you get
which is the same as
Walking this through with
on a concrete example:
- --Lambiam 09:42, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]
- To clarify, Lambiam's statement applied to the equivalence talked about above is this:
.- Another way of showing it, switching bases only once but also using more complicated log identities, is:
. GalacticShoe (talk) 13:51, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]- The shortest version I can think of now uses
and includes some of the arguments above:
. --Wrongfilter (talk) 15:52, 11 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]