j is for imajinary.
Should that have read " - imakinary " ? WFL On 3/2/15, Bill Gosper <billgosper@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2015-03-01 20:39, Dan Asimov wrote:
On Mar 1, 2015, at 7:51 PM, Adam P. Goucher <apgoucher@gmx.com> wrote:
John Napier was Scottish, rather than French.
Yes, and for that matter I can't even find any suggestion that Napier worked in base e.
And natural logarithm in French appears to actually be "logarithme naturel" instead of what I wrote. While googling about this, I came across some comments by Europeans who said they learned that ln is an abbreviation for the Latin phrase (approximately) logarithmum naturalis.
Maybe the origin of ln notation is in doubt, but I'm pretty sure how it became widespread in the U.S. and maybe the world: The calculus book by George B. Thomas was the number one calculus book used in college and high school courses for many years*. It is used all over the world. That book probably helped popularize the ln notation more than any other.
--Dan _________________________ * The first edition came out in 1952, it's now in its 13th edition. Of course it has been overshadowed by other books in recent years, especially those by James Stewart.
Sent: Monday, March 02, 2015 at 3:16 AM From: "Dan Asimov <dasimov@earthlink.net>
I thought "ln" was invented by the French, maybe even Napier, standing for logarithme naturale.
On Mar 1, 2015, at 4:33 PM, Victor S. Miller <victorsmiller@gmail.com> wrote: . . . Some mathematicians disapprove of this notation [ln for log_e]. In his 1985 autobiography, Paul Halmos criticized what he considered the "childish ln notation," which he said no mathematician had ever used.[13] The notation was invented by Irving Stringham, a mathematician.[14][15]
Pippinger, Nicholas (1976). "Formula nova pro numero cujus logarithmus hyperbolicus unitas est". *IBM Research Report RC 6217*
JPropp>
A somewhat similar issue comes up with the way Mazur uses the term "imaginary part" in his book "Imagining Numbers". The discrepancy between his use of the term and the way many high school students are taught to use the term led one reviewer to proclaim on Amazon as follows:
"I regret that I cannot recommend this book for general enlightenment. Neither can I see how anyone reviewing this book can honestly call it lucid and well-written. <Major flamage> Many books explain both imaginary and complex numbers better than this one. Try Churchill's text, for one. I could say more, but need I? Caveat Emptor!!"
I've highlighted the relevant passage from the guy's review (I say "guy" because, although the reviewer doesn't give a first name from which gender could be deduced, more men than women write this sort of bombastic prose). And, much as I resent the guy's tone and general ignorance, I have to admit that on this point,
Some would say that there'll always be bozos, and that you can't anticipate every way in which you'll be misunderstood by bozos.
<JPropp
This sounds sounds suspiciously like Martin Gardner pseudonomously reviewing one of his own books.
Gene, j is for imajinary.
--rwg _______________________________________________ math-fun mailing list math-fun@mailman.xmission.com https://mailman.xmission.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/math-fun