I see where you're coming from but the answer is no. If you were to graph ln(x) it might be easier to understand. 1: ln is not defined for x <= 0 so it's simply understood that if you declare ln(x) to be a function, x > 0 is implied. 2. Try graphing ln(x) and in(|x|) and you'll see that you get two different graphs. Hope this helps.
Comments
Usually you would write Log and then the Base
Log(10). You are substituting n (for natural) as the base instead of using the actual number. Hence ln.
I see where you're coming from but the answer is no. If you were to graph ln(x) it might be easier to understand. 1: ln is not defined for x <= 0 so it's simply understood that if you declare ln(x) to be a function, x > 0 is implied. 2. Try graphing ln(x) and in(|x|) and you'll see that you get two different graphs. Hope this helps.
because there are several different logs...
log base 10 is written as Log
natural log to distinguish base ten
is written ln
LogNatural
LN
Its latin - logarithmique naturale (sp?)