Re: prove of ln
From: JoeS (jhs_at_math.brown.edu)
Date: 12/09/04
- Next message: David Kastrup: "Re: Disappointed"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- In reply to: Zdislav V. Kovarik: "Re: prove of ln"
- Next in thread: The World Wide Wade: "Re: prove of ln"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 9 Dec 2004 11:32:20 -0800
That's really clever. You can do it less explicitly by using the first
two terms of Taylor series with the remainder term expressed as an
integral.
But why not simply use the Mean Value Theorem for f(z) = ln(z). This
gives
(f(x) - f(1)) / (x - 1) = f'(y)
for some y (depending on x) satisfying 1 < y < x.
Hence
(ln(x) - ln(1))/(x - 1) = 1/y for some y between 1 and x.
Then use ln(1)=1 and multiply through by x - 1 to get
ln(x) = (x - 1) / y for some y satisfying 1 < y < x.
This immediately gives both inequalities.
ln(x) < x - 1 since y > 1,
and
ln(x) > (x - 1)/x since y < x.
- Next message: David Kastrup: "Re: Disappointed"
- Previous message: Lester Zick: "Re: Platonism"
- In reply to: Zdislav V. Kovarik: "Re: prove of ln"
- Next in thread: The World Wide Wade: "Re: prove of ln"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]