Interactive · 2 questions
Deriving and Understanding Log Rules Using the Definition
Logarithms have some pretty cool properties. Let's dive in and check some of them out.
Recall (or maybe not: that's okay!) the definition of a logarithm. A logarithm is the solution to the equation . From now on, I'll leave out the base when I'm writing logarithms. You can assume that I mean base .
First, a trivial one: . If you don't see why this is true, think about it for a bit.
It follows from the definition of . Let's look at some more interesting stuff :)
The second identity we'll tackle is that .
Intuitively, why might you think this is true?
We don't really know much about what logarithms are, yet, so what should we do next? Think about it for a sec.
We'll write out the definition of and , and good things should happen!
We have Multiplying the equations according to our intuition gives To finish, let's go back to logarithms by taking the of both sides to get , as desired.
Note that could be replaced with any other letter, so of course this proof holds for any base (if it helps, think of as a variable rather than a number to convince yourself).
If we got something this nice by adding logs, surely, there exists something similar by subtracting logs, right? Try working it out.
We use the exact same procedure as before, except we divide by , and we get .
Next we'll prove that . An implication of this identity is that .
What rule of exponents will help us here?
We're going to use ; we'll start by writing the defintion of and then make some manipulations.
Though this proof is nice and straightforward, I have another proof. I like it a lot, but unfortunately it only works when is a positive integer.
We want to prove that :
The above proof is another reason why this property should be fairly intuitive to you.
Finally, I'll show a quick proof of the change-of-base formula. I don't really care too much for this one since I rarely run into base issues, but it's useful to know for problems that intentionally force base change.
The formula states that . (An editor will have to help me with some intuition for this one!)
Let . Then , so and substituting for gives which implies , as desired.
Well, that about covers most useful logarithm identities. Don't worry too much about memorizing these properties; hopefully, seeing the proofs have made them intuitive for you, so that you'll pull them out your sleeve as necessary!

