Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
[9] [7] [10] As tends towards infinity, the difference between the harmonic numbers (+) and converges to a non-zero value. This persistent non-zero difference, ln ( n + 1 ) {\displaystyle \ln(n+1)} , precludes the possibility of the harmonic series approaching a finite limit, thus providing a clear mathematical articulation of its divergence.
The logarithmic scale is usually labeled in base 10; occasionally in base 2: = ( ()) + (). A log–linear (sometimes log–lin) plot has the logarithmic scale on the y-axis, and a linear scale on the x-axis; a linear–log (sometimes lin–log) is the opposite.
For example, the logarithm of 1000 to base 10 is 3, because 1000 is 10 to the 3 rd power: 1000 = 10 3 = 10 × 10 × 10. More generally, if x = b y, then y is the logarithm of x to base b, written log b x, so log 10 1000 = 3. As a single-variable function, the logarithm to base b is the inverse of exponentiation with base b.
Equally spaced values on a logarithmic scale have exponents that increment uniformly. Examples of equally spaced values are 10, 100, 1000, 10000, and 100000 (i.e., 10 1, 10 2, 10 3, 10 4, 10 5) and 2, 4, 8, 16, and 32 (i.e., 2 1, 2 2, 2 3, 2 4, 2 5). Exponential growth curves are often depicted on a logarithmic scale graph.
A plot of the Napierian logarithm for inputs between 0 and 10 8. The 19 degree pages from Napier's 1614 table of logarithms of trigonometric functions Mirifici Logarithmorum Canonis Descriptio. The term Napierian logarithm or Naperian logarithm, named after John Napier, is often used to mean the natural logarithm.
Leonhard Euler, [10] disregarding , nevertheless applied this series to = to show that the harmonic series equals the natural logarithm of ; that is, the logarithm of infinity. Nowadays, more formally, one can prove that the harmonic series truncated at N is close to the logarithm of N , when N is large, with the difference converging to the ...
Napier then calculated the products of these numbers with 10 7 (1 − 10 −5) L for L from 1 to 50, and did similarly with 0.9998 ≈ (1 − 10 −5) 20 and 0.9 ≈ 0.995 20. [32] These computations, which occupied 20 years, allowed him to give, for any number N from 5 to 10 million, the number L that solves the equation