4

My understanding of the point of logarithms is that they turn multiplication into addition, and exponentiation into multiplication.

i.e.

$$ \ln cx = \ln c + \ln x $$

$$ \ln x^c = c \ln x $$

Let's call the above two statements about logarithms their "useful" properties.

The above two are somewhat the "point" of logarithms in so far as they were originally invented to simplify calculations: Take the logarithm, do all the calculations in the easier world of "log space" where multiplication is addition, then at the end take the inverse-logarithm (exponentiation) to convert the result back.

I'm aware of various definitions of logarithm, such as:

$$ \ln c = \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{c^h-1}{h} $$

and there are then proofs that this definition leads to what I have called the "useful" properties.

But are there any derivations that go the other way?

i.e. a definition of logarithm that starts with

"Define $\ln x$ as the function that turns multiplication into addition" etc.

and concludes with

"$\ln$ exists and it can be computed by calculating $\lim_{h\to 0} \frac{x^h - 1}{h} $

2 Answers2

3

I do not see why we would need to have both $$ \begin{align} \ln(cx)&=\ln(c)+\ln(x)\\ \ln(x^c)&=c\ \ln(x) \end{align} $$ since we can derive the first directly from the latter writing $c=x^t$ so that $t \ln(x)=\ln(c)$: $$ \ln(cx)=\ln(x^{t+1})=(t+1)\ln(x)=\ln(c)+\ln(x) $$ but it is true that solutions to $f(x^c)=c\ f(x)$ (with $\mathbb R^+$ as domain) are proportional and in fact uniquely determined by say $f(2)$ since any $y\in\mathbb R^+$ can be written in the form $y=2^c$ so that $$ f(y)=c\ f(2) $$ so once $k=f(2)$ is determined all values of $f(y)$ are. But to have $f(\mbox{e})=1$ so that we are talking about the natural logarithm $\ln$ we will first need to define $\mbox{e}$ in some way or another.

Paramanand Singh: Do we explicitly need to define $\log$ or $\exp$ before defining $x^h$ for some given $x\in\mathbb R^+$? If $p/q\in\mathbb Q$ is given ($p,q$ integers) then $$ \left(x^{p/q}\right)=x^p $$ uniquely determines $x^{p/q}>0$. So the we may find a sequence in $q_1,q_2,...\mathbb Q$ converging to $h$ and define $$ x^h=\lim_{n\rightarrow \infty}x^{q_n} $$ But generally I see how the definitions given by the asker are insufficient to establish a connection to the limit $$ \ln(x)=\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{x^h-1}{h} $$

String
  • 18,395
  • I agree you don't really need both pre-requisites. The mapping from multiplication to addition is enough. – Paul Hollingsworth Nov 29 '13 at 11:51
  • @PaulHollingsworth: But if you only assume $f(cx)=f(c)+f(x)$ you will have to assume differentiability of $f$ as well. Otherwise $f$ could have many independent 'branches'. Clearly, induction would give $f(2^c)=c\ f(2)$ for any integer $c$ and $f(1)=f(1)+f(1)$ implies $f(1)=0$. But how would you ever connect say $f(3)$ to these as $3$ cannot be written as a product of $1$ and $2$? We could choose $f(3)=f(2)$ or $f(3)=100f(2)$ if we wanted! – String Nov 29 '13 at 12:01
2

Let us try with the simple functional equation $f(xy) = f(x) + f(y)$ satisfied by $f(x) = \log x$. We will show that any solution of this equation has to be of the form $k\log x$ where $k$ is a constant. We need to assume the differentiability of $f$. Treating $y$ as constant and differentiating with respect to $x$ we get $yf'(xy) = f'(x)$ and exchanging $x, y$ we get $xf'(xy) = f'(y)$ so that $xf'(x) = yf'(y) = xyf'(xy)$. Since $x, y$ are arbitrary it follows that $xf'(x) = k$ and then $f'(x) = k/x$.

Clearly if $k = 0$ then $f(x)$ is constant and from the function equation this constant must be $0$. If $k \neq 0$ then we can write $f(x) = k\int_{a}^{x}(1/t)\,dt$ where $a, x$ are of same sign. Putting this into the functional equation we will get $a = 1$ so that $f(x) = k\int_{1}^{x}(1/t)\,dt$

Also note that the functional equations can't determine $k$. Hence from the function equation you can't derive $$\ln x = \lim_{h \to 0}\frac{x^{h} - 1}{h}$$ There is another fundamental problem that we can't talk about the above limit unless we define $x^{h}$ for all $h$. This can only be done is a simple way if $\log$ and $\exp$ functions are already defined.

  • Thanks very much Paramanand! Relating it to the integral definition is just as good. I only picked the "limit" definition because that was the one I could remember off the top of my head. – Paul Hollingsworth Nov 29 '13 at 10:58
  • I also appreciate that your derivation is quite "elementary" - not requiring lots of other new concepts. – Paul Hollingsworth Nov 29 '13 at 11:02
  • @PaulHollingsworth: Thanks for the compliments, but this is typical standard proof which I read long back in "A Course of Pure Mathematics" by G. H. Hardy. He gives further proofs for exponential and trigonometric functions based on the functional equations satisfied by them. If you are interested you can find an online free version of this book. – Paramanand Singh Nov 29 '13 at 11:08
  • @ParamanandSingh Regarding your last paragraph, there is an alternative: using Dedekind cuts to define elementary functions (I've seen this once in a russian book, but sadly I've lost the reference). Or, similarly, define first $a^b$ for $b \in \mathbb{Z}$, extend to $\mathbb{Q}$ (you can prove existence of nth root without log), and finish with a continuity argument. Logarithm is not strictly necessary, though it's an easier path to follow. – Jean-Claude Arbaut Nov 29 '13 at 13:31
  • @arbautjc: fully agree with you that's why I added the word "simple" for log based approach. But it is good that you pointed out this alternative approach for the benefit for readers. – Paramanand Singh Nov 29 '13 at 15:05