You are Here: Home

# Log Question watch

1. (Original post by bono)
A comma before the "and" doesn't make a difference in terms of affecting meaning.
Oh yes it does, it pauses the sentence and separates the points. Try putting a comma where Zapsta recommended.
2. No it doesn't, the only affect it has is that you get to pause. Meaning wise nothing changes.

"I thought lnX² = 2lnX ,and (lnX)² was just that..."

If anything I would say it could even emphasisze moreso that you had thought (or at least originally thought) that all 3 were the same.

"just that" in this context implied "just like the other 2 that I mentioned".

Obviously you meant differently, in your mind.
3. (Original post by bono)
A comma before the "and" doesn't make a difference in terms of affecting meaning.
Yes it does! Bloody hell, let's analyze the sentence:

I thought lnX² = 2lnX, and (lnX)² was just that.

The comma divides the sentence into two parts. The first part states that ln(x^2) and 2lnx are equal. After the comma a new statement begins. It suggests that there is no other way of expressing (lnx)^2. Therefore the three expressions cannot be equal to each other. The lack of comma makes it slightly more ambiguous, however I still thought that it was clear what he meant.
4. (Original post by bono)
No it doesn't, the only affect it has is that you get to pause. Meaning wise nothing changes.

"I thought lnX² = 2lnX ,and (lnX)² was just that..."

If anything I would say it could even emphasisze moreso that you had thought (or at least originally thought) that all 3 were the same.

"just that" in this context implied "just like the other 2 that I mentioned".

Obviously you meant differently, in your mind.
Oh no it didn't. Zapsta read it right, I'm sure plenty of others would, how didn't you? How does "that" substitute for "like the other two..."?
5. Sorry Juwel, but not for one minute will I accept that your post implied that you (originally anyway) thought that (lnx)^2 was different to the other two.

You even put, "HOLD ON!" !!!! - This means that you at one stage was confused/thought different to what me, ralfskini and co. had put as our solutions - We put 2lnx = lnx^2 for answer to part 1, and (lnx)^2 as answer to part 2.

Your "HOLD ON!!!" Clearly implies that you thought differently, along with your sentence afterwards which said "just that" as in "just like the other 2 expressions".

That will be my last comment in this, because your post was worded terribly.

How on earth is "HOLD ON A MINUTE!!!!" supposed to directly lead to "Aaaagh, I agre, yep i understand, correct." Complete BS.
6. (Original post by bono)
Sorry Juwel, but not for one minute will I accept that your post implied that you (originally anyway) thought that (lnx)^2 was different to the other two.

You even put, "HOLD ON!" !!!! - This means that you at one stage was confused/thought different to what me, ralfskini and co. had put as our solutions - We put 2lnx = lnx^2 for answer to part 1, and (lnx)^2 as answer to part 2.

Your "HOLD ON!!!" Clearly implies that you thought differently, along with your sentence afterwards which said "just that" as in "just like the other 2 expressions".

That will be my last comment in this, because your post was worded terribly.

How on earth is "HOLD ON A MINUTE!!!!" supposed to lead to "Aaaagh, I agre, yep i understand, correct." Complete BS.
My "hold it" was because Fermat had typed something I thought was wrong, and this I disputed. And it turns out I was right to dispute it.

I did not at all agree with what Fermat typed so you can forget your last sentence.

Seriously, get some English lessons!
7. (Original post by bono)
Sorry Juwel, but not for one minute will I accept that your post implied that you (originally anyway) thought that (lnx)^2 was different to the other two.

You even put, "HOLD ON!" !!!! - This means that you at one stage was confused/thought different to what me, ralfskini and co. had put as our solutions - We put 2lnx = lnx^2 for answer to part 1, and (lnx)^2 as answer to part 2.

Your "HOLD ON!!!" Clearly implies that you thought differently, along with your sentence afterwards which said "just that" as in "just like the other 2 expressions".

That will be my last comment in this, because your post was worded terribly.

How on earth is "HOLD ON A MINUTE!!!!" supposed to directly lead to "Aaaagh, I agre, yep i understand, correct." Complete BS.
Fermat wrote: Yes, but if your answer is 2lnx + lnx² then it looks, and sounds, better as,

(lnx)² + lnx²

This is incorrect. 2lnx + lnx^2 = 4lnx, but not (lnx)^2 + lnx^2. Either Fermat missed the brackets in his first equation by mistake or just got it plain wrong. This is why Juwel said "HOLD ON A MINUTE!!!!". He was correctly stating that what Fermat had written was wrong.
8. (Original post by XTinaA)
My "hold it" was because Fermat had typed something I thought was wrong, and this I disputed. And it turns out I was right to dispute it.

I did not at all agree with what Fermat typed so you can forget your last sentence.

Seriously, get some English lessons!
No, you need the english lessons.
9. (Original post by bono)
No, you need the english lessons.
Did you even read what I just typed?! Or are you afraid that by reading it you'll get egg on your face? Grow up and admit you're wrong.
10. (Original post by Zapsta)
Fermat wrote: Yes, but if your answer is 2lnx + lnx² then it looks, and sounds, better as,

(lnx)² + lnx²

This is incorrect. 2lnx + lnx^2 = 4lnx, but not (lnx)^2 + lnx^2. Either Fermat missed the brackets in his first equation by mistake or just got it plain wrong. This is why Juwel said "HOLD ON A MINUTE!!!!". He was correctly stating that what Fermat had written was wrong.
Aaaargh, now it comes clear.

Sorry Juwel, I thought you were not talking about what Fermat put at all. I thougt you simply read the thread, thoguht that our solution to part 2 was dodgy and then said something along the lines of "but I thought all 3 were the same".

I had no idea you were on about what fermat said. I enver even read that bit of what fermat said, was it in another thread? I think it may have been.

If you quoted what fermat had said, with the same post in reply, I would have understood. the quote was important, because originally u didn't quote him.

It's clear now.
11. Wowzer.
12. (Original post by bono)
Aaaargh, now it comes clear.

Sorry Juwel, I thought you were not talking about what Fermat put at all. I thougt you simply read the thread, thoguht that our solution to part 2 was dodgy and then said something along the lines of "but I thought all 3 were the same".

I had no idea you were on about what fermat said. I enver even read that bit of what fermat said, was it in another thread? I think it may have been.

If you quoted what fermat had said, with the same post in reply, I would have understood. the quote was important, because originally u didn't quote him.

It's clear now.
OK it's clear, that's it. Phew!
13. (Original post by XTinaA)
OK it's clear, that's it. Phew!
"Read through the thread" - I just noticed, there are 2 threads with virtually the same topic, Logs....

And the fact that there are 2 threads with virtually identical topics and inter-twining discussion, sort of increases my confusion.....

Next time, just quote it!
14. (Original post by Ralfskini)
on the subject of logs, natural log of sec t looks quite funny when you write it...

lnsect

lol
15. Oh dear!

Sory about that folks - all my fault, it seems. Yes, I did miss off some brackets.

I wrote: Yes, but if your answer is 2lnx + lnx² then it looks, ...

It should have been, of course,

2lnx + (lnx)²

mea culpa.
16. (Original post by Fermat)
Oh dear!

Sory about that folks - all my fault, it seems. Yes, I did miss off some brackets.

I wrote: Yes, but if your answer is 2lnx + lnx² then it looks, ...

It should have been, of course,

2lnx + (lnx)²

mea culpa.
it is clear Fermat that this whole miunderstanding/confusion thing started because of you.

I suggest that you no longer participate in Maths threads, as it is clear that you are incapable of even putting brackets where you mean to put them.

Sorry fermat.

bono. (Joking BTW)
17. (Original post by bono)
it is clear Fermat that this whole miunderstanding/confusion thing started because of you.

I suggest that you no longer participate in Maths threads, as it is clear that you are incapable of even putting brackets where you mean to put them.

Sorry fermat.

bono. (Joking BTW)
Ah bono, your wisdom knows no bounds.
I assume that this injunction should also apply to those of a mentally ethereal nature, which causes them to respond to a post without reading the entire thread.
Just so! So just!
18. Please allow Fermat to continue answering my questions even if he is banned from everyone elses! lol! We forgive you - and thanks for the help wiht my question!
19. (Original post by Hoofbeat)
Please allow Fermat to continue answering my questions even if he is banned from everyone elses! lol! We forgive you - and thanks for the help wiht my question!
I ain't stopping him, he's godly at Maths!

We need you Fermat, not just 4 your theorems! help us!
20. (Original post by bono)
I ain't stopping him, he's godly at Maths!

We need you Fermat, not just 4 your theorems! help us!
fkin hellfire!

so much rubbish over something so clear.

i dont know, what's the world coming to?

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: April 18, 2004
Today on TSR

### University open days

1. University of Cambridge
Wed, 26 Sep '18
2. Norwich University of the Arts
Fri, 28 Sep '18
3. Edge Hill University
Faculty of Health and Social Care Undergraduate
Sat, 29 Sep '18
Poll

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE