Combinatorial Proof that the Logarithm of a Product is the Sum of the Logarithms












3














I've been strongly drawn recently to the matter of the fundamental definition of the exponential function, & how it connects with its properties such as the exponential of a sum being the product of the exponentials, and it's being the eigenfunction of simple differentiation, etc. I've seen various posts inwhich clarification or demonstration or proof of such matters as how such & such a property proceeds from its definition as $$e^zequivlim_{krightarrowinfty}left(1+frac{z}{k}right)^k .$$ I'm looking at how there is a web of interconnected theorems about this; and I am trying to spin the web as a whole. This is not necessary for proving some particular item to be proven - a path along some one thread or sequence of threads is sufficient for that; but I think the matter becomes 'unified', and by reason of that actually simplified, when the web is perceived as an entirety. This is why I bother with things like combinatorial demonstrations of how the terms in a binomial expansion evolve towards the terms in a Taylor series as some parameter tends to ∞, when the matter at hand is actually susceptible of a simpler proof by taking the logarithm of both sides ... & other seeming redundancies.



To this end, another 'thread' I am looking at is that of showing that the coefficients in the Taylor series for $ln(1+z)$ actually are a consequence of the requirement that the logarithm of a product be the sum of the logarithms, and ... if not quite a combinatorial derivation of them from that requirement, at least a reverse- (or sideways-) engineering equivalent of it - the combinatorially showing that if the coefficients be plugged into the Taylor series, then the property follows



Taking the approach that $$(1+x)(1+y) = 1+x+y+xy ,$$ plugging $z=x+y+xy$ into the series for $ln(1+z)$ and hoping that all non-fully-homogeneous terms cancel out, leaving sum of the series for $ln(1+x)$ & that for $ln(1+y)$, we are left with proving that



$$sum_{k=1}^inftyleft((-1)^k(k-1)!×sum_{pinℕ_0,qinℕ_0,rinℕ_0,p+q+r=k}frac{x^{p+r}y^{q+r}}{p!q!r!}right)$$$$=$$$$sum_{k=1}^infty(-1)^kfrac{x^k+y^k}{k} .$$



The inner sum of the LHS of this quite appalling-looking theorem is the trinomial expansion of $(x+y+xy)^k$ for arbitrary $k$, & the outer sum is simply the logarithm Taylor series expansion (with its $k$ in the denominator 'absorbed' into the combinatorial $k!$ in the numerator of the inner sum) . This theorem can be quite easily verified by 'brute force' - simply doing the expansions at the first (very!) few terms; but the labour of it escalates extremely rapidly. An algebraic manipulation package would no-doubt verify it at a good few more terms; but what I am looking-for is a showing of the fully general case: but I do not myself have the combinatorial toolage for accomplishing this.



So I am asking whether anyone can show me an outline of what to do ... or even actually do it for me, although that would probably take up a very great deal of space and be an extremely laborious task for the person doing it ... so I'm content to ask for just an outline of doing it, or for some 'signposts' as to how to do it - maybe someone knows some text on this kind of thing that they would recommend.










share|cite|improve this question



























    3














    I've been strongly drawn recently to the matter of the fundamental definition of the exponential function, & how it connects with its properties such as the exponential of a sum being the product of the exponentials, and it's being the eigenfunction of simple differentiation, etc. I've seen various posts inwhich clarification or demonstration or proof of such matters as how such & such a property proceeds from its definition as $$e^zequivlim_{krightarrowinfty}left(1+frac{z}{k}right)^k .$$ I'm looking at how there is a web of interconnected theorems about this; and I am trying to spin the web as a whole. This is not necessary for proving some particular item to be proven - a path along some one thread or sequence of threads is sufficient for that; but I think the matter becomes 'unified', and by reason of that actually simplified, when the web is perceived as an entirety. This is why I bother with things like combinatorial demonstrations of how the terms in a binomial expansion evolve towards the terms in a Taylor series as some parameter tends to ∞, when the matter at hand is actually susceptible of a simpler proof by taking the logarithm of both sides ... & other seeming redundancies.



    To this end, another 'thread' I am looking at is that of showing that the coefficients in the Taylor series for $ln(1+z)$ actually are a consequence of the requirement that the logarithm of a product be the sum of the logarithms, and ... if not quite a combinatorial derivation of them from that requirement, at least a reverse- (or sideways-) engineering equivalent of it - the combinatorially showing that if the coefficients be plugged into the Taylor series, then the property follows



    Taking the approach that $$(1+x)(1+y) = 1+x+y+xy ,$$ plugging $z=x+y+xy$ into the series for $ln(1+z)$ and hoping that all non-fully-homogeneous terms cancel out, leaving sum of the series for $ln(1+x)$ & that for $ln(1+y)$, we are left with proving that



    $$sum_{k=1}^inftyleft((-1)^k(k-1)!×sum_{pinℕ_0,qinℕ_0,rinℕ_0,p+q+r=k}frac{x^{p+r}y^{q+r}}{p!q!r!}right)$$$$=$$$$sum_{k=1}^infty(-1)^kfrac{x^k+y^k}{k} .$$



    The inner sum of the LHS of this quite appalling-looking theorem is the trinomial expansion of $(x+y+xy)^k$ for arbitrary $k$, & the outer sum is simply the logarithm Taylor series expansion (with its $k$ in the denominator 'absorbed' into the combinatorial $k!$ in the numerator of the inner sum) . This theorem can be quite easily verified by 'brute force' - simply doing the expansions at the first (very!) few terms; but the labour of it escalates extremely rapidly. An algebraic manipulation package would no-doubt verify it at a good few more terms; but what I am looking-for is a showing of the fully general case: but I do not myself have the combinatorial toolage for accomplishing this.



    So I am asking whether anyone can show me an outline of what to do ... or even actually do it for me, although that would probably take up a very great deal of space and be an extremely laborious task for the person doing it ... so I'm content to ask for just an outline of doing it, or for some 'signposts' as to how to do it - maybe someone knows some text on this kind of thing that they would recommend.










    share|cite|improve this question

























      3












      3








      3







      I've been strongly drawn recently to the matter of the fundamental definition of the exponential function, & how it connects with its properties such as the exponential of a sum being the product of the exponentials, and it's being the eigenfunction of simple differentiation, etc. I've seen various posts inwhich clarification or demonstration or proof of such matters as how such & such a property proceeds from its definition as $$e^zequivlim_{krightarrowinfty}left(1+frac{z}{k}right)^k .$$ I'm looking at how there is a web of interconnected theorems about this; and I am trying to spin the web as a whole. This is not necessary for proving some particular item to be proven - a path along some one thread or sequence of threads is sufficient for that; but I think the matter becomes 'unified', and by reason of that actually simplified, when the web is perceived as an entirety. This is why I bother with things like combinatorial demonstrations of how the terms in a binomial expansion evolve towards the terms in a Taylor series as some parameter tends to ∞, when the matter at hand is actually susceptible of a simpler proof by taking the logarithm of both sides ... & other seeming redundancies.



      To this end, another 'thread' I am looking at is that of showing that the coefficients in the Taylor series for $ln(1+z)$ actually are a consequence of the requirement that the logarithm of a product be the sum of the logarithms, and ... if not quite a combinatorial derivation of them from that requirement, at least a reverse- (or sideways-) engineering equivalent of it - the combinatorially showing that if the coefficients be plugged into the Taylor series, then the property follows



      Taking the approach that $$(1+x)(1+y) = 1+x+y+xy ,$$ plugging $z=x+y+xy$ into the series for $ln(1+z)$ and hoping that all non-fully-homogeneous terms cancel out, leaving sum of the series for $ln(1+x)$ & that for $ln(1+y)$, we are left with proving that



      $$sum_{k=1}^inftyleft((-1)^k(k-1)!×sum_{pinℕ_0,qinℕ_0,rinℕ_0,p+q+r=k}frac{x^{p+r}y^{q+r}}{p!q!r!}right)$$$$=$$$$sum_{k=1}^infty(-1)^kfrac{x^k+y^k}{k} .$$



      The inner sum of the LHS of this quite appalling-looking theorem is the trinomial expansion of $(x+y+xy)^k$ for arbitrary $k$, & the outer sum is simply the logarithm Taylor series expansion (with its $k$ in the denominator 'absorbed' into the combinatorial $k!$ in the numerator of the inner sum) . This theorem can be quite easily verified by 'brute force' - simply doing the expansions at the first (very!) few terms; but the labour of it escalates extremely rapidly. An algebraic manipulation package would no-doubt verify it at a good few more terms; but what I am looking-for is a showing of the fully general case: but I do not myself have the combinatorial toolage for accomplishing this.



      So I am asking whether anyone can show me an outline of what to do ... or even actually do it for me, although that would probably take up a very great deal of space and be an extremely laborious task for the person doing it ... so I'm content to ask for just an outline of doing it, or for some 'signposts' as to how to do it - maybe someone knows some text on this kind of thing that they would recommend.










      share|cite|improve this question













      I've been strongly drawn recently to the matter of the fundamental definition of the exponential function, & how it connects with its properties such as the exponential of a sum being the product of the exponentials, and it's being the eigenfunction of simple differentiation, etc. I've seen various posts inwhich clarification or demonstration or proof of such matters as how such & such a property proceeds from its definition as $$e^zequivlim_{krightarrowinfty}left(1+frac{z}{k}right)^k .$$ I'm looking at how there is a web of interconnected theorems about this; and I am trying to spin the web as a whole. This is not necessary for proving some particular item to be proven - a path along some one thread or sequence of threads is sufficient for that; but I think the matter becomes 'unified', and by reason of that actually simplified, when the web is perceived as an entirety. This is why I bother with things like combinatorial demonstrations of how the terms in a binomial expansion evolve towards the terms in a Taylor series as some parameter tends to ∞, when the matter at hand is actually susceptible of a simpler proof by taking the logarithm of both sides ... & other seeming redundancies.



      To this end, another 'thread' I am looking at is that of showing that the coefficients in the Taylor series for $ln(1+z)$ actually are a consequence of the requirement that the logarithm of a product be the sum of the logarithms, and ... if not quite a combinatorial derivation of them from that requirement, at least a reverse- (or sideways-) engineering equivalent of it - the combinatorially showing that if the coefficients be plugged into the Taylor series, then the property follows



      Taking the approach that $$(1+x)(1+y) = 1+x+y+xy ,$$ plugging $z=x+y+xy$ into the series for $ln(1+z)$ and hoping that all non-fully-homogeneous terms cancel out, leaving sum of the series for $ln(1+x)$ & that for $ln(1+y)$, we are left with proving that



      $$sum_{k=1}^inftyleft((-1)^k(k-1)!×sum_{pinℕ_0,qinℕ_0,rinℕ_0,p+q+r=k}frac{x^{p+r}y^{q+r}}{p!q!r!}right)$$$$=$$$$sum_{k=1}^infty(-1)^kfrac{x^k+y^k}{k} .$$



      The inner sum of the LHS of this quite appalling-looking theorem is the trinomial expansion of $(x+y+xy)^k$ for arbitrary $k$, & the outer sum is simply the logarithm Taylor series expansion (with its $k$ in the denominator 'absorbed' into the combinatorial $k!$ in the numerator of the inner sum) . This theorem can be quite easily verified by 'brute force' - simply doing the expansions at the first (very!) few terms; but the labour of it escalates extremely rapidly. An algebraic manipulation package would no-doubt verify it at a good few more terms; but what I am looking-for is a showing of the fully general case: but I do not myself have the combinatorial toolage for accomplishing this.



      So I am asking whether anyone can show me an outline of what to do ... or even actually do it for me, although that would probably take up a very great deal of space and be an extremely laborious task for the person doing it ... so I'm content to ask for just an outline of doing it, or for some 'signposts' as to how to do it - maybe someone knows some text on this kind of thing that they would recommend.







      combinatorics logarithms taylor-expansion exponential-function






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Dec 1 at 18:02









      AmbretteOrrisey

      56710




      56710






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          0














          Maybe it's not too bad actually. What what needs to be shown reduces to is that $$forall min ℕ_1&nin ℕ_1 $$$$sum_{pin ℕ_0,qin ℕ_0,rin ℕ_0,p+r=m,q+r=n}frac{(-1)^{p+q+r}(p+q+r-1)!}{p!q!r!} =0 ,$$ whence that



          $$sum_{r=0}^{min(m,n)}frac{(-1)^{m+n-r}(m+n-r-1)!}{(m-r)!(n-r)!r!} =0 .$$



          And this can be essentialised yet further: basically it's tantamount to saying that the sum of the alternating (in sign) sequence of binomial numbers of degree $n$, which is unweighted well known to be zero, is also zero when weighted by any sequence of consecutive Pochhammer numbers of degree $n-1$. If this be proven, then my combinatorial proof of the at-the-outset-mentioned property of logarithms is upheld.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I haven't proven it, but I've tested numerically using spreadsheets, & it appears to be true. I'm sure it could be quite easily proven. Those slick little tricks that are used for proving identities comprising binomial coefficients and agglomerates of factorials similar to them seem so obvious once you've seen them. But this one isn't any off-the-shelf identity that I recognise. But it's stooden-up to the numetical test by spreadsheet at every m & n I've putten into it so far. But no doubt doing that is anathema & hebdelugma amongst august & purist mathematicians!
            – AmbretteOrrisey
            Dec 1 at 20:35










          • Your identity is equivalent (via the substitution $k := m+n-r$) to Exercise 4 on UMN Fall 2017 Math 4990 homework set #4. I learnt it from Peter Scholze, who came up with it doing the exact same thing as you. (The proofs given at the two URLs are different.)
            – darij grinberg
            Dec 2 at 6:17













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021631%2fcombinatorial-proof-that-the-logarithm-of-a-product-is-the-sum-of-the-logarithms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          0














          Maybe it's not too bad actually. What what needs to be shown reduces to is that $$forall min ℕ_1&nin ℕ_1 $$$$sum_{pin ℕ_0,qin ℕ_0,rin ℕ_0,p+r=m,q+r=n}frac{(-1)^{p+q+r}(p+q+r-1)!}{p!q!r!} =0 ,$$ whence that



          $$sum_{r=0}^{min(m,n)}frac{(-1)^{m+n-r}(m+n-r-1)!}{(m-r)!(n-r)!r!} =0 .$$



          And this can be essentialised yet further: basically it's tantamount to saying that the sum of the alternating (in sign) sequence of binomial numbers of degree $n$, which is unweighted well known to be zero, is also zero when weighted by any sequence of consecutive Pochhammer numbers of degree $n-1$. If this be proven, then my combinatorial proof of the at-the-outset-mentioned property of logarithms is upheld.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I haven't proven it, but I've tested numerically using spreadsheets, & it appears to be true. I'm sure it could be quite easily proven. Those slick little tricks that are used for proving identities comprising binomial coefficients and agglomerates of factorials similar to them seem so obvious once you've seen them. But this one isn't any off-the-shelf identity that I recognise. But it's stooden-up to the numetical test by spreadsheet at every m & n I've putten into it so far. But no doubt doing that is anathema & hebdelugma amongst august & purist mathematicians!
            – AmbretteOrrisey
            Dec 1 at 20:35










          • Your identity is equivalent (via the substitution $k := m+n-r$) to Exercise 4 on UMN Fall 2017 Math 4990 homework set #4. I learnt it from Peter Scholze, who came up with it doing the exact same thing as you. (The proofs given at the two URLs are different.)
            – darij grinberg
            Dec 2 at 6:17


















          0














          Maybe it's not too bad actually. What what needs to be shown reduces to is that $$forall min ℕ_1&nin ℕ_1 $$$$sum_{pin ℕ_0,qin ℕ_0,rin ℕ_0,p+r=m,q+r=n}frac{(-1)^{p+q+r}(p+q+r-1)!}{p!q!r!} =0 ,$$ whence that



          $$sum_{r=0}^{min(m,n)}frac{(-1)^{m+n-r}(m+n-r-1)!}{(m-r)!(n-r)!r!} =0 .$$



          And this can be essentialised yet further: basically it's tantamount to saying that the sum of the alternating (in sign) sequence of binomial numbers of degree $n$, which is unweighted well known to be zero, is also zero when weighted by any sequence of consecutive Pochhammer numbers of degree $n-1$. If this be proven, then my combinatorial proof of the at-the-outset-mentioned property of logarithms is upheld.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I haven't proven it, but I've tested numerically using spreadsheets, & it appears to be true. I'm sure it could be quite easily proven. Those slick little tricks that are used for proving identities comprising binomial coefficients and agglomerates of factorials similar to them seem so obvious once you've seen them. But this one isn't any off-the-shelf identity that I recognise. But it's stooden-up to the numetical test by spreadsheet at every m & n I've putten into it so far. But no doubt doing that is anathema & hebdelugma amongst august & purist mathematicians!
            – AmbretteOrrisey
            Dec 1 at 20:35










          • Your identity is equivalent (via the substitution $k := m+n-r$) to Exercise 4 on UMN Fall 2017 Math 4990 homework set #4. I learnt it from Peter Scholze, who came up with it doing the exact same thing as you. (The proofs given at the two URLs are different.)
            – darij grinberg
            Dec 2 at 6:17
















          0












          0








          0






          Maybe it's not too bad actually. What what needs to be shown reduces to is that $$forall min ℕ_1&nin ℕ_1 $$$$sum_{pin ℕ_0,qin ℕ_0,rin ℕ_0,p+r=m,q+r=n}frac{(-1)^{p+q+r}(p+q+r-1)!}{p!q!r!} =0 ,$$ whence that



          $$sum_{r=0}^{min(m,n)}frac{(-1)^{m+n-r}(m+n-r-1)!}{(m-r)!(n-r)!r!} =0 .$$



          And this can be essentialised yet further: basically it's tantamount to saying that the sum of the alternating (in sign) sequence of binomial numbers of degree $n$, which is unweighted well known to be zero, is also zero when weighted by any sequence of consecutive Pochhammer numbers of degree $n-1$. If this be proven, then my combinatorial proof of the at-the-outset-mentioned property of logarithms is upheld.






          share|cite|improve this answer














          Maybe it's not too bad actually. What what needs to be shown reduces to is that $$forall min ℕ_1&nin ℕ_1 $$$$sum_{pin ℕ_0,qin ℕ_0,rin ℕ_0,p+r=m,q+r=n}frac{(-1)^{p+q+r}(p+q+r-1)!}{p!q!r!} =0 ,$$ whence that



          $$sum_{r=0}^{min(m,n)}frac{(-1)^{m+n-r}(m+n-r-1)!}{(m-r)!(n-r)!r!} =0 .$$



          And this can be essentialised yet further: basically it's tantamount to saying that the sum of the alternating (in sign) sequence of binomial numbers of degree $n$, which is unweighted well known to be zero, is also zero when weighted by any sequence of consecutive Pochhammer numbers of degree $n-1$. If this be proven, then my combinatorial proof of the at-the-outset-mentioned property of logarithms is upheld.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Dec 2 at 6:12

























          answered Dec 1 at 18:59









          AmbretteOrrisey

          56710




          56710












          • I haven't proven it, but I've tested numerically using spreadsheets, & it appears to be true. I'm sure it could be quite easily proven. Those slick little tricks that are used for proving identities comprising binomial coefficients and agglomerates of factorials similar to them seem so obvious once you've seen them. But this one isn't any off-the-shelf identity that I recognise. But it's stooden-up to the numetical test by spreadsheet at every m & n I've putten into it so far. But no doubt doing that is anathema & hebdelugma amongst august & purist mathematicians!
            – AmbretteOrrisey
            Dec 1 at 20:35










          • Your identity is equivalent (via the substitution $k := m+n-r$) to Exercise 4 on UMN Fall 2017 Math 4990 homework set #4. I learnt it from Peter Scholze, who came up with it doing the exact same thing as you. (The proofs given at the two URLs are different.)
            – darij grinberg
            Dec 2 at 6:17




















          • I haven't proven it, but I've tested numerically using spreadsheets, & it appears to be true. I'm sure it could be quite easily proven. Those slick little tricks that are used for proving identities comprising binomial coefficients and agglomerates of factorials similar to them seem so obvious once you've seen them. But this one isn't any off-the-shelf identity that I recognise. But it's stooden-up to the numetical test by spreadsheet at every m & n I've putten into it so far. But no doubt doing that is anathema & hebdelugma amongst august & purist mathematicians!
            – AmbretteOrrisey
            Dec 1 at 20:35










          • Your identity is equivalent (via the substitution $k := m+n-r$) to Exercise 4 on UMN Fall 2017 Math 4990 homework set #4. I learnt it from Peter Scholze, who came up with it doing the exact same thing as you. (The proofs given at the two URLs are different.)
            – darij grinberg
            Dec 2 at 6:17


















          I haven't proven it, but I've tested numerically using spreadsheets, & it appears to be true. I'm sure it could be quite easily proven. Those slick little tricks that are used for proving identities comprising binomial coefficients and agglomerates of factorials similar to them seem so obvious once you've seen them. But this one isn't any off-the-shelf identity that I recognise. But it's stooden-up to the numetical test by spreadsheet at every m & n I've putten into it so far. But no doubt doing that is anathema & hebdelugma amongst august & purist mathematicians!
          – AmbretteOrrisey
          Dec 1 at 20:35




          I haven't proven it, but I've tested numerically using spreadsheets, & it appears to be true. I'm sure it could be quite easily proven. Those slick little tricks that are used for proving identities comprising binomial coefficients and agglomerates of factorials similar to them seem so obvious once you've seen them. But this one isn't any off-the-shelf identity that I recognise. But it's stooden-up to the numetical test by spreadsheet at every m & n I've putten into it so far. But no doubt doing that is anathema & hebdelugma amongst august & purist mathematicians!
          – AmbretteOrrisey
          Dec 1 at 20:35












          Your identity is equivalent (via the substitution $k := m+n-r$) to Exercise 4 on UMN Fall 2017 Math 4990 homework set #4. I learnt it from Peter Scholze, who came up with it doing the exact same thing as you. (The proofs given at the two URLs are different.)
          – darij grinberg
          Dec 2 at 6:17






          Your identity is equivalent (via the substitution $k := m+n-r$) to Exercise 4 on UMN Fall 2017 Math 4990 homework set #4. I learnt it from Peter Scholze, who came up with it doing the exact same thing as you. (The proofs given at the two URLs are different.)
          – darij grinberg
          Dec 2 at 6:17




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





          Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


          Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021631%2fcombinatorial-proof-that-the-logarithm-of-a-product-is-the-sum-of-the-logarithms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Berounka

          Sphinx de Gizeh

          Different font size/position of beamer's navigation symbols template's content depending on regular/plain...