Have you heard of the glog function?

Steven G

Steven G

Elite Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2014
Messages
14,561
You can use this new glog function to solve exponential-linear equations, like ax = bx+c.
Here are two videos you should see regarding the glog function. The first video gives the definition of glog and the 2nd video shows an example using it.
Video 1
Video 2
 
Steven G said:
You can use this new glog function to solve exponential-linear equations, like ax = bx+c.
Here are two videos you should see regarding the glog function. The first video gives the definition of glog and the 2nd video shows an example using it.
Video 1
Video 2
Click to expand...
She shows how to define the glog function, but doesn't give a single word on actually how to calculate it!

-Dan
 
topsquark said:
She shows how to define the glog function, but doesn't give a single word on actually how to calculate it!

-Dan
Click to expand...
True! It's not so easy to solve. Solving Lambert W is not easy as well. Fortunately there are calculators (like WA) that will solve it for us. She pointed out that this function is so new that calculators don't solve for it yet.
It's the theory, as you know, that makes this nice.
 
She doesn't even show how to use glog to solve the equation she presented, much less how it makes anything easier than Lambert W (which, for example, Wolfram Alpha can evaluate). Or did I miss something?

Before watching, I did a search to see if glog is mentioned anywhere else; it is not in Wikipedia, and in fact the only place I found it (with this meaning) was a paper from 2000 (not really that new!) by Dan Kalman, whom she mentions. This refers to a paper "to appear" in College Mathematics Journal. Exploring further, I find that paper (from 2001). The video quotes from the first two pages of this; I haven't read the whole thing yet, but it looks like it will fill in the gaps.

What I don't know yet is whether it deserves any more attention than Lambert W gets; I'd say that the video overstates its significance, and at least fails to support the claim. (Any equation can be "solved" by giving a name to the required inverse, especially if you let yourself talk about the inverse of a non-invertible function.)
 
It's just an alternate method to use the Lambert W function.
It's a nice function. Will it catch on? I doubt it as it's seems so close to the Lambert W function in terms of how it's used.
I still say that it is worth noting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top