617:: In an effort to judge the accessibility of this article to a general audience, I read it through - or as much of it as I could understand. It's a while since I studied maths at school, and though I half-remembered some terms I found most of the article beyond me. I enlisted the help of a 17-year-old in his final school year, who is intending to study mathematics at University. His view on the article is that most of his school class would be able to follow the article without too much difficulty, though given the nature of the subject it is unlikely that it can ever be written in terms that the mythical "general reader" would find comprehensible. Between us we picked up a few instances in the lead that we thought could be clarified:-
495:". Sorry for the inconvenience I have caused by speaking so lengthily while I had missed something essential. A footnote after the first definition hinting there is another one further might be useful, though, now that this first definition has been reinserted in the article proper (I agree it would be a unproductive in the lead), but feel free to think this is pointless cluttering, and that I was definitely wrong on this one.
744:< 1 should be given more attention: although such bases never used in practice, it's a common trap in highschool exams to give such a base and have the direction of monotonicity reversed. Starting from the first picture (with 3 logarithm curves), we should add a 4th curve there, corresponding to, say,
324:
and here again I might be a bit lost - am I supposed to understand by my own that the place to read is the subsection called "Real powers"Â ? The two first wikilinks are not informative enough (I have not tried the following ones). As I may seem a bit negative, here follows a suggestion (I practise it
536:
to address, especially if we begin to try to imagine the situation of a reader clicking on a chain of three or four successive wikilinks to expand a definition. I have no such constructive solution as for my first remark, but I could suggest that somewhere in the article there should be a subsection
531:
On higher level articles, the reader can be expected to have the experience that a given concept has several equivalent definitions. On such an elementary concept, there obviously exist readers unaware that a mathematical topic can be defined in two seemingly very different ways. So, at the level of
624:"It is critical to calculus since it is the inverse function of the exponential function." Rather than relying on links to explain this complex sentence, in the lead I would simplify it to "The natural logarithm is especially critical in calculus", and leave the explanation for later in the article.
476:
More concretely, what precisely do you like to be changed? Mention the integral-based definition in the first section or in the lead? I was reproached (probably rightfully) for having too many internal links in the article, so I'm hesitating about putting a "see below for another definition" in the
333:
a section called "Radix in analysis" can be created (even should, since the information is badly classified under the title "In
Arithmetic". Then a redirect called ] (or something similar) sending to ] may be created, and at last the link in the logarithm article can be reinstated more precisely as
565:
I think it would be highly beneficial if this article could explain for the lay reader, up front, the true benefit of logarithms: that, prior to the invention of the computer, logarithms turned a tedious number crunching operation (multiplication and division) into a simple procedure (addition and
409:
that vanishes at 1. (I suppose this is the choice of a minority of sources, but certainly a significant minority). As long as we consider these "points of view" as different points of view about the logarithm, they are both adressed in the article, which respects NPoV. But if we consider that they
631:
Beyond the lead it will definitely require at least some mathematical knowledege to make sense of most of the content, though often the general gist can be gleaned by non-experts. I hope that this is useful by way of general advice. Please contact me if you need any clarification concerning these
545:
from other premises that the logarithm is "the exponent to which the base must be raised". I fully understand this kind of joke can awfully clutter an article, and I would understand quite well if I was rebuked - you might be right indeed. But I think it is necessary to think about it, even if to
358:
More generally, a complete review of every wikilink in the article should be underdone before label is asked. Circular references are the plagues of maths articles, and I would not be suprised that a few ones haunt this place ; even if they don't, making wikilinks as precise as possible is an
287:
First, the definition is not obvious to find - as far as I looked for it, I finally found it in the first sentence of the lead, but nowhere clearly in the article proper. This is not very suitable, such an important thing could be retold in the article proper - or even sent in the article and
432:
Yes, I did of course, and I underlined I knew it was already here, but not already here pointed as a possible definition. And as I explained in the following too longish paragraphs, I understand very well there are good reasons to answer me "no sorry". But I don't agree with your
417:
Did you see that the article characterizes/redefines logarithms as the integral in section 4.3? If yes, I'm not quite sure I can follow you about the NPOV. The first definition we give is clearly not POV, it is just the usual definition any elementary math book contains.
472:
By "elementary" I meant middle and high-school text-books. I don't doubt you find many (French, Chinese or
English) university-level textbooks (one is cited in the article) which take this path, since it is more smooth and maybe more elegant,
477:
first section. (NPOV and similar accusations should only be based on assessing the whole article.) I'm slightly more open to putting a brief note in the lead section, but even here it is not clear to me that this would be beneficial.
233:
I expect most people looking this article up will have had limited expose to reading mathematics. An afterthought: maybe my examples are confusing since most of the numbers are the same. I'll try and add more comments later. Cheers,
769:
Now briefly mentioned (in the inverse function section). As you rightly say, bases < 1 are hardly ever used and highschool exams are not important enough to give a full-fledged discussion of the function, I think.
627:"...the Richter scale is the common logarithm of the amplitude of a seismic event." Unclear as it stands, suggest "...the Richter scale uses the common logarithmn to measure the amplitude of seismic events".
307:
Then, supposing I am a highschool student looking for precise information, and supposing I have understood the definition lies in this first sentence, I don't fully understand it. I click on the wikilink on
316:, which seems in casual reading to be about "bases" in elementary arithmetic - if I read it thoroughly, I discover relevant information in the bottom, but it was not obvious where to find it. If I click on
438:
it might be a difference of culture between undergraduate level teaching in the US and in France, but here (in France) it is fairly common to begin an exposition by building the logarithm as a primitive,
341:
I removed the wikilink to base/radix (which was superfluous there) and changed the "power" to "exponent". (The suggestion with the subsection might work, but ideally we would not need such a technique.)
273:(Which are not contradictory with the previous suggestion, as far as it could be suggested to bring this formal sentence further down in the article, and rewrite it in a less formal style in the lead).
282:
the logarithm ?" that a beginner could be expected to be interested in, and for which an answer could reasonably be wished in every maths article, be it a highschool topic or a research topic.
458:
is quite venerated in France :-)) ; I can certainly find several others when I access a library next Monday. Two definitions with two different flavors really do happen in different sources.
414:
of the logarithm, NPoV is not respected. Due to the expected mastery of mathematics of some readers of such an article, I quite think we are in the second branch of this alternative.
153:
I've listed this article for peer review because this article recently passed its Good
Article Nomination and I'm planning to push it to FA level. Any comments welcome.
403:
171:
Can I suggest toning down the first sentence a little bit? Perhaps by recasting the logarithm as a relationship before fleshing out some technical details, for example:
195:
b. For example, since 4 = 2 = 16, the logarithm of 16 with respect to the base 4 is 2, and with respect to the base 2 is 4. This relationship is denoted log
76:
378:
Now another topic about the definition : NPoV. The present definition is sourced by only one book, probably well suited to this purpose,
748:= 1/2. Because right now the article leaves the impression that logarithm is always an increasing function, which is not quite correct.
126:
794:
122:
69:
491:
My God, I realize only now that while I had of course seen section 4.3 I had read it too quickly and not seen the sentence "
107:
382:
by Kate, S.K.; Bhapkar, H.R. As an experienced reader, I know that for other sources, the logarithm is the primitive of
334:]. The same can be done with a redirection to section which may be called ], sending on the relevant section of the big
252:) to a function/relation is helpful and/or necessary. The logarithm is, most basically, really just a number. Isn't it?
452:
99:
62:
775:
652:
586:
520:
482:
455:
423:
367:
347:
296:
257:
161:
50:
551:
500:
463:
187:
a = c. The relationship is defined as follows: given a = c, the logarithm of the number c, with respect to the
220:
637:
180:
239:
17:
203:
This proposed sentence is terrible. If the logarithm is a "relationship", then that "relationship" is
235:
771:
648:
582:
516:
478:
419:
363:
343:
292:
253:
157:
44:
532:
this article, my opinion is that I think this is a problem which should be addressed, and which is
779:
763:
656:
641:
606:
590:
555:
547:
524:
504:
496:
486:
467:
459:
427:
371:
351:
300:
291:
Thanks, someone has apparently removed it from the first section. I'll reinstate it there at once.
261:
243:
224:
165:
216:
752:
633:
537:
titled "Definitions of the logarithm" which will explain to an hypothetical lost reader that
388:
647:
Thanks for your comments, all of which I found useful. They are now integrated in the lead.
600:
571:
708:< 1) is never spelled out explicitly, although it is quite useful. Similarly, there is
493:
The right hand side of this equation can serve as a definition of the natural logarithm
335:
321:
192:
115:
788:
249:
288:
replaced in the lead by something a bit more informal, as suggested by Ben above.
596:
567:
566:
subtraction). Hence the benefit of logarithm tables and the slide rule. Thanks.—
92:
443:
the exponential as a reciprocal, and at last the powers from the formula
317:
184:
621:
Clarify that "e" is a mathematical constant. Don't rely on the link on e
330:
313:
309:
188:
435:
it is just the usual definition any elementary math book contains
248:
Thanks for your suggestion; however I'm not sure the detour (and
581:
I tried to give more emphasize to it. Better/sufficient now?
329:
wikipedia)Â : use redirects towards sections. In the article
325:
as often as I can when I edit maths articles, mostly on
199:
c = b and (enunciated?) the log of c to the base a is b.
141:
134:
103:
391:
278:
My comments would be about the question "but what is
270:
Two suggestions about the definition of the logarithm
397:
312:. Oooops, this brings me to an article titled
666:Section on monotonicity properties is needed.
70:
8:
451:. Here is an example available on the web :
150:This peer review discussion has been closed.
77:
63:
32:
390:
515:No problem. Further comments welcome ;)
35:
183:between the numbers a,b, and c in the
7:
541:books (with at least an example) do
24:
740:1). In fact, I believe the case
392:
1:
780:21:04, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
764:02:12, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
704:(with reverse inequality for
657:22:00, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
642:22:46, 16 February 2011 (UTC)
607:21:23, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
591:19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
556:22:21, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
525:21:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
505:17:01, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
487:14:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
468:10:59, 12 February 2011 (UTC)
428:19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
410:are points of view about the
372:19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
352:19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
301:19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
262:19:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC)
244:11:47, 10 February 2011 (UTC)
225:04:48, 14 February 2011 (UTC)
166:21:38, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
811:
456:Encyclopaedia Universalis
398:{\displaystyle \mapsto }
795:March 2011 peer reviews
546:decide to do nothing.
399:
615:Brianboulton comments
400:
380:Basics Of Mathematics
320:, I am redirected on
18:Knowledge:Peer review
389:
395:
362:OK, I'll do that.
142:Watch peer review
87:
86:
802:
762:
758:
755:
734:
724:
703:
693:
404:
402:
401:
396:
139:
130:
111:
79:
72:
65:
47:
33:
810:
809:
805:
804:
803:
801:
800:
799:
785:
784:
772:Jakob.scholbach
756:
753:
749:
726:
715:
709:
695:
687:
677:
671:
649:Jakob.scholbach
583:Jakob.scholbach
517:Jakob.scholbach
479:Jakob.scholbach
420:Jakob.scholbach
387:
386:
364:Jakob.scholbach
359:important aim.
344:Jakob.scholbach
293:Jakob.scholbach
254:Jakob.scholbach
198:
158:Jakob.scholbach
145:
120:
97:
91:
83:
51:Manual of Style
43:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
808:
806:
798:
797:
787:
786:
783:
782:
711:
683:
673:
670:The fact that
668:
667:
662:
660:
659:
629:
628:
625:
622:
612:
611:
610:
609:
578:
577:
559:
558:
548:French Tourist
534:very difficult
529:
528:
527:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
497:French Tourist
474:
460:French Tourist
394:
376:
375:
374:
356:
355:
354:
336:exponentiation
322:exponentiation
305:
304:
303:
284:
283:
275:
274:
271:
267:
266:
265:
264:
250:disguised link
231:
230:
229:
228:
227:
196:
152:
147:
146:
144:
90:
85:
84:
82:
81:
74:
67:
59:
56:
55:
54:
53:
48:
38:
37:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
807:
796:
793:
792:
790:
781:
777:
773:
768:
767:
766:
765:
760:
759:
747:
743:
738:
733:
729:
723:
719:
714:
707:
702:
698:
691:
686:
681:
676:
665:
664:
663:
658:
654:
650:
646:
645:
644:
643:
639:
635:
626:
623:
620:
619:
618:
616:
608:
604:
603:
598:
594:
593:
592:
588:
584:
580:
579:
575:
574:
569:
564:
561:
560:
557:
553:
549:
544:
540:
535:
530:
526:
522:
518:
514:
506:
502:
498:
494:
490:
489:
488:
484:
480:
475:
471:
470:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
450:
446:
442:
436:
431:
430:
429:
425:
421:
416:
415:
413:
408:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
361:
360:
357:
353:
349:
345:
340:
339:
337:
332:
328:
323:
319:
315:
311:
306:
302:
298:
294:
290:
289:
286:
285:
281:
277:
276:
272:
269:
268:
263:
259:
255:
251:
247:
246:
245:
241:
237:
232:
226:
222:
218:
217:Michael Hardy
214:
210:
207:expressed by
206:
202:
201:
200:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
173:
172:
170:
169:
168:
167:
163:
159:
154:
151:
143:
138:
137:
133:
128:
124:
119:
118:
114:
109:
105:
101:
96:
95:
89:
88:
80:
75:
73:
68:
66:
61:
60:
58:
57:
52:
49:
46:
45:Copying check
42:
41:
40:
39:
34:
29:
26:
19:
751:
745:
741:
736:
735:(again, for
731:
727:
721:
717:
712:
705:
700:
696:
689:
684:
679:
674:
669:
661:
634:Brianboulton
630:
614:
613:
601:
572:
562:
542:
538:
533:
492:
448:
444:
440:
434:
411:
406:
383:
379:
326:
279:
212:
208:
204:
181:relationship
176:
174:
155:
149:
148:
135:
131:
117:Article talk
116:
112:
93:
27:
595:Thank you.—
104:visual edit
682:) < log
412:definition
191:a, is the
338:article.
280:precisely
177:logarithm
28:Logarithm
789:Category
632:points.
437:" -: -->
193:exponent
185:equation
156:Thanks,
720:) <
563:Comment
205:already
127:history
108:history
94:Article
36:Toolbox
757:pasha
739:: -->
730:<
699:<
543:prove
454:(the
331:radix
318:power
314:radix
179:is a
136:Watch
16:<
776:talk
653:talk
638:talk
602:talk
587:talk
573:talk
552:talk
539:some
521:talk
501:talk
483:talk
473:too.
464:talk
441:then
424:talk
368:talk
348:talk
310:base
297:talk
258:talk
240:talk
221:talk
189:base
175:The
162:talk
123:edit
100:edit
750://
710:log
672:log
597:RJH
568:RJH
447:ln
445:a=e
327::fr
236:Ben
791::
778:)
761:»
754:st
725:⇒
694:⇒
655:)
640:)
605:)
589:)
554:)
523:)
503:)
485:)
466:)
426:)
405:1/
393:↦
370:)
350:)
299:)
260:)
242:)
223:)
215:.
211:=
164:)
140:•
125:|
106:|
102:|
774:(
746:b
742:b
737:b
732:b
728:x
722:y
718:x
716:(
713:b
706:b
701:y
697:x
692:)
690:y
688:(
685:b
680:x
678:(
675:b
651:(
636:(
599:(
585:(
576:)
570:(
550:(
519:(
499:(
481:(
462:(
449:a
433:"
422:(
407:x
384:x
366:(
346:(
295:(
256:(
238:(
219:(
213:c
209:a
197:a
160:(
132:·
129:)
121:(
113:·
110:)
98:(
78:e
71:t
64:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.