Base 10 logarithms are evil

The very first tables of logarithms were according to the natural base
e (essentially). Base 10 was only adopted because it is somewhat more
easy for calculation with the decimal system. Now that technology was
obliviated the need to use log table for calculating, there is no
further reason to use base 10 logarithms at all.

Yet, many fields of science continue to do so. Sometimes this creates
confusion, as in the fact that optical depths may be measured either
way, and it is not always specified which. There is no benefit to
thinking in base 10, conceptually, and there is the serious
disadvantages of always having to insert factors of log 10.

Using base 10 logs is another example (along with the metric system)
of ignorant decimal-philia.

Andrew Usher

Andrew Usher wrote:

The very first tables of logarithms were according to the natural base
e (essentially).
[snip crap]

Death by adjective.

--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz4.htm

"Andrew Usher" wrote in message
...
The very first tables of logarithms were according to the natural base
e (essentially). Base 10 was only adopted because it is somewhat more
easy for calculation with the decimal system. Now that technology was
obliviated the need to use log table for calculating, there is no
further reason to use base 10 logarithms at all.

Yet, many fields of science continue to do so. Sometimes this creates
confusion, as in the fact that optical depths may be measured either
way, and it is not always specified which. There is no benefit to
thinking in base 10, conceptually, and there is the serious
disadvantages of always having to insert factors of log 10.

Using base 10 logs is another example (along with the metric system)
of ignorant decimal-philia.


we all know log2 is the one true logarithm...

down with decimal, in the future all math will be done in hexadecimal, and
we will not teach school-children this crufty old-style arithmetic, but to
it all the natural way, with bitwise operations and shifts...

in these days, knowledge will be written on whiteboards in the form of
base-64 encoded data, and people will ask questions in the form of SQL
queries and provide their answers in the form of a table in the form of a
question...

or, whatever...

Andrew Usher wrote:
The very first tables of logarithms were according to the natural base
e (essentially). Base 10 was only adopted because it is somewhat more
easy for calculation with the decimal system. Now that technology was
obliviated the need to use log table for calculating, there is no
further reason to use base 10 logarithms at all.

Yet, many fields of science continue to do so. Sometimes this creates
confusion, as in the fact that optical depths may be measured either
way, and it is not always specified which. There is no benefit to
thinking in base 10, conceptually, and there is the serious
disadvantages of always having to insert factors of log 10.

Using base 10 logs is another example (along with the metric system)
of ignorant decimal-philia.

Andrew Usher

plonk

In article ,
Andrew Usher wrote:

Using base 10 logs is another example (along with the metric system)
of ignorant decimal-philia.

Can we explain Usher's obsessions by conjecturing that his mother used
to beat him with a metre rule?

-- Richard
--
Please remember to mention me / in tapes you leave behind.

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:21:21 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher wrote:

The very first tables of logarithms were according to the natural base
e (essentially). Base 10 was only adopted because it is somewhat more
easy for calculation with the decimal system.

That seems like a reasonable thing to do.


Now that technology was
obliviated the need to use log table for calculating,

Does that make a log10 table "evil" but a table of natural logs is
not?

Your subject line says log10 is "evil." Why is it "evil?"


there is no
further reason to use base 10 logarithms at all.

For anything?


Yet, many fields of science continue to do so.

If they find it convenient to do so, why not?

Are you proposing that the definition of pH be changed to use natural
logs? For what benefit?

ln(10^7) = 16.1180957

You won't get the pro-metric crowd to endorse your new value for
neutral pH.


Sometimes this creates
confusion, as in the fact that optical depths may be measured either
way, and it is not always specified which.

Then they should specify which. Poor expression by some is not a
reason to hamstring everyone else.


There is no benefit to
thinking in base 10, conceptually,

You think better in some other base? Have at it.


and there is the serious
disadvantages of always having to insert factors of log 10.

"Always" where?


Using base 10 logs is another example (along with the metric system)
of ignorant decimal-philia.

The pro-metric crusaders want to impose a decimalized system on a
world that doesn't divide well into tenths. And they disparage those
who disagree with them.

You want to ban a decimalized calculation where it has been found to
be useful.

Both positions seem to be about imposing the proponents will on
others.

Matt wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:21:21 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher wrote:

The very first tables of logarithms were according to the natural base
e (essentially). Base 10 was only adopted because it is somewhat more
easy for calculation with the decimal system.

That seems like a reasonable thing to do.


Now that technology was
obliviated the need to use log table for calculating,

Does that make a log10 table "evil" but a table of natural logs is
not?

Your subject line says log10 is "evil." Why is it "evil?"

Because he's gone senile. Just look at the "evil metric system" thread. :-)

Yousuf Khan

Yousuf Khan wrote:

Your subject line says log10 is "evil." Why is it "evil?"

Because he's gone senile. Just look at the "evil metric system" thread. :-)

Because mathematics proves it.

Andrew Usher

Matt wrote:
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 16:21:21 -0800 (PST), Andrew Usher wrote:

The very first tables of logarithms were according to the natural base
e (essentially). Base 10 was only adopted because it is somewhat more
easy for calculation with the decimal system.

That seems like a reasonable thing to do.

It was then!

there is no
further reason to use base 10 logarithms at all.

For anything?

For anything, yes.

Yet, many fields of science continue to do so.

If they find it convenient to do so, why not?

Are you proposing that the definition of pH be changed to use natural
logs? For what benefit?

It would remove the factor of log 10 from several equilibrium
equations in that well-known equation (I can't remember the name)
relating concentration and oxidation potential. Actually that's pE,
but pH and pE obviously ought to have the same units. Indeed the best
unit for pH (or pKa) would be Volts.

Sometimes this creates
confusion, as in the fact that optical depths may be measured either
way, and it is not always specified which.

Then they should specify which. Poor expression by some is not a
reason to hamstring everyone else.

Work out the mathematics yourself. If the thickness if x, and the
optical depth A (for attenuation), we should surely have

A = -x dI/dx (I = intensity)

which integrated gives

I/I0 = exp(-A),

proving that base e is the correct way. (If scattering as well as
absorption is significant (which it generally is not) the relation is
complicated, but base e also works there.)

and there is the serious
disadvantages of always having to insert factors of log 10.

"Always" where?

Where do you think? In equations just like the preceding.

Andrew Usher

BGB / cr88192 wrote:

Using base 10 logs is another example (along with the metric system)
of ignorant decimal-philia.


we all know log2 is the one true logarithm...

down with decimal, in the future all math will be done in hexadecimal, and
we will not teach school-children this crufty old-style arithmetic, but to
it all the natural way, with bitwise operations and shifts...

OK, you're right. We need log2 in computing. 2 is the only base other
than e that should be allowed to survive.

Andrew Usher