Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

One-to-one property of logs in EL3, EL5, and EL6 #430

Open
AbbyANoble opened this issue Nov 18, 2024 · 6 comments · May be fixed by #470
Open

One-to-one property of logs in EL3, EL5, and EL6 #430

AbbyANoble opened this issue Nov 18, 2024 · 6 comments · May be fixed by #470
Assignees

Comments

@AbbyANoble
Copy link
Contributor

We define this property in Definition 5.6.7, and I think it would help to write it out in the notation instead of just words:

$log_b M = log_b N$ if and only if $M=N$.

Also, I would suggest changing the second half of the definition into an Observation. Something like "Notice this definition allows us to set the arguments (M and N) equal to each other once we get each side expressed as a single logarithm with matching bases."

Also, this seems to be the first time it's defined (in EL6), but it is mentioned in the previous section (EL5) as if it was defined in EL3. See

We need to clear this up and figure out where we want everything located and referenced.

@siwelwerd
Copy link
Contributor

I agree that is not a definition. And while I know it's common, I'd rather we stay away from the language "We can set them equal to each other" instead of saying precisely what we are doing, namely exponentiating both sides of the equation and simplifying.

We need to clear this up and figure out where we want everything located and referenced.

Maybe it fits nicely right after Remark 5.3.9 ? Then in Activity 5.6.8 we can still call back to it.

@AbbyANoble
Copy link
Contributor Author

See #431 too, which is about Remark 5.3.9. I think that needs expanding.

At that point we haven't mentioned exponentiating both sides of an equation as a thing we can do, so I don't know that we should phrase it that way. Perhaps say we are applying the one-to-one property (or whatever it ends up being numbered, referencing it.)

Although, I actually couldn't find where we mentioned exponentiating both sides of an equation as a valid step. Nor could I find mention of the inverse property $b^{\log_b x} =x$. (I put this is #431.)

@siwelwerd
Copy link
Contributor

At that point we haven't mentioned exponentiating both sides of an equation as a thing we can do

This isn't a new thing, it's just the idea we use all the time in solving equations that if a=b then f(a)=f(b) for whatever function f you like. Here f is exponentiation.

Nor could I find mention of the inverse property

I think my brain went ahead and filled this into Remark 5.3.9 as #431 suggests even though it isn't written there (yet?) 🤪

@StevenClontz
Copy link
Contributor

This isn't a new thing, it's just the idea we use all the time in solving equations that if a=b then f(a)=f(b) for whatever function f you like. Here f is exponentiation.

I think an explicit reminder of this (or even having this as a Fact somewhere to reference, maybe in https://library.tbil.org/2024/precalculus/instructor/FN2.html ?) can't hurt, at least within the scaffolding of the first activity where they need to apply this fact.

@AbbyANoble
Copy link
Contributor Author

Yeah. I don't think the new application (exponentiating) is something that they will recognize as following from other situations. It feels new at this level in the context of new functions. It should be mentioned.

@tdegeorge
Copy link
Contributor

tdegeorge commented Dec 17, 2024

What about this? I moved some things around between EL5 and EL6.....I didn't address everything but put the one-to-one property in EL5 as that is another property of logs....thought it would fit better there?

@siwelwerd siwelwerd added this to the 2025 Early Edition milestone Dec 19, 2024
@StevenClontz StevenClontz removed this from the 2025 Early Edition milestone Jan 17, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

5 participants