Don't try to do too many steps at once or in your head, as this can easily lead to the sort of confusion you're exhibiting. You're on the right track; you just need to write things out a bit more clearly. :wink:
. . . . .ln(20) = ln(4 * 5) = ln(4) + ln(5) = a + b
Since a[sup:31mg1c1r]2[/sup:31mg1c1r] does not equal 2a (unless a = 0 or a = 2, and we have no justification for assuming this), then, no, your "a[sup:31mg1c1r]2[/sup:31mg1c1r]" answer, as demonstrated, was incorrect. :!:
You'll need to use the log rules they taught you to evaluate these expressions. :wink:
o_O said:
Yep. Since "a" is a logarithm, then 2a and a[sup:31mg1c1r]2[/sup:31mg1c1r] are equivalent:
No. There is a big difference between the log of a square, such as "ln(4[sup:31mg1c1r]2[/sup:31mg1c1r]) = 2ln(4)", and the square of a log, such as "ln[sup:31mg1c1r]2[/sup:31mg1c1r](4) = [ln(4)][sup:31mg1c1r]2[/sup:31mg1c1r]". :shock:
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.