[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

*To*: rrrs-authors@zermatt.lcs.mit.edu*Subject*: LOG vs LN*From*: "Michael R. Blair" <ziggy@hx.lcs.mit.edu>*Date*: Thu, 23 Nov 89 21:44:23 EST

I do not understand why LOG in Scheme is the natural logarythm. I would have expected it to be base 10 logarythm and for the natural logarythm (i.e., base e) to be called ln, since this is the standard name among math texts. I realize that this is what Common LISP does, so please don't plead compatibility (with it or any other language...like Footran). I am fishing for a more substantive reason. I also noticed in the rrrs-authors archive that Kent D. had once asked why LOG does not take an optional base argument. I did not find any replies to this. Granted (log n b) = (/ (log n) (log b)), I would think better precision could be achieved for example in taking log base 2 (a.k.a. lg) of powers of 2...or am I deluded? Given the fervor of the MAX v SUPRA name debate, dare I suggest that we rename LOG to LN for the same ``neophyte programmer'' reasons? After all, I just naturally assumed that LOG was base 10 until it bit me. ~Ziggy