Sign up ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have seen people look at log (several digit number) and rattle off the first couple of digits.

I can get the value for small values (aka the popular or easy to know roots), but is there a formula. Similar to how to tell if a number is divisible by an integer.

I have read this and this but could some one explain why it works?

share|cite|improve this question
To answer the title: Check the CRC Handbook or use a slide rule. –  JeffE Apr 22 '12 at 17:02
The first link is simply using the basic rules for logarithms - the log of a product is equal to the sum of the logs (working in base 10). As an example, take $log(3025) = log(3.025 \times 10^3)=log(3.025)+log(10^3) = log (3.025)+3 \approx 3.48$ (using that $log(3)$ is 0.48). The power of 10 was chosen because $log(3)$ was known. –  Mark Bennet Apr 22 '12 at 17:06

4 Answers 4

up vote 19 down vote accepted

The idea of the first article is to rewrite any positive number $x$ as : $$\tag{1}x=m\cdot 10^{\,e}$$ with $m$ the 'mantissa' : a real number between $1$ and $10$ (excluded)
and $\,e\,$ the 'exponent' (or "power of ten") which is a signed integer.

From this we have $\;\tag{2}\log_{10}(x)= e+\log_{10}(m)$

(to keep notations short I'll write $\,\log(x)\,$ for $\,\log_{10}(x)\,$ and use $\,\ln(x)$ for the 'natural' logarithm)

Since the mantissa is between $1$ and $10$ the idea is to memorize the first logarithms (here I'll use up to $5$ digits, you may use fewer or more digits if you prefer) :

$$ \begin{array} {ll} m & \log\,m\\ 1 & 0\\ 2 & 0.30103\\ 3 & 0.47712\\ 4 & 0.60206\\ 5 & 0.69897\\ 6 & 0.77815\\ 7 & 0.84510\\ 8 & 0.90309\\ 9 & 0.95424\\ \end{array} $$

This seems to be much work but these values (except $\log(7)$) are not independent :

  • $\log(2^n)=n\,\log(2)\;$ so that $\;\log(4)=2\log(2),\;\log(8)=3\log(2),\cdots$
  • more generally $\;\log(a\cdot b)=\log(a)+\log(b)\;$ so that the table could be rewritten (using $\,1=\log(10)=\log(2)+\log(5)$) :

$$ \begin{array} {lll} m & \log\,m\\ 1 & 0\\ 2 & 0.30103 &\log(2)\\ 3 & 0.47712 &\log(3)\\ 4 & 0.60206 &2\,\log(2)\\ 5 & 0.69897 &1-\log(2)\\ 6 & 0.77815 &\log(2)+\log(3)\\ 7 & 0.84510 &\log(7)\\ 8 & 0.90309 &3\,\log(2)\\ 9 & 0.95424 &2\,\log(3)\\ \end{array} $$

The table may thus be rebuilt with just three values (two if $\,\log(7)\,$ is omitted)!

One should memorize too $\;\ln(10) \approx 2.3026\,$ and its multiplicative inverse $\;\dfrac{1}{\ln(10)}=\dfrac{\ln(e)}{\ln(10)}=\log(e)\approx \dfrac 1{2.3026}\approx 0.4343$.

The classical expansion $\;\ln(1+x)\approx x\;$ will be rewritten as :
$$\tag{3}\log(1+x)=\frac{\ln(1+x)}{\ln(10)}\approx 0.4343\cdot x$$ (with $x$ replaced by $\;x-\dfrac{x^2}2+\dfrac{x^3}3-\cdots\,$ if needed)

Let's apply all this to recover the (unfortunately lost...) value of $\,\log(7)\,$ using only $\;\log(2),\log(3),\log(e)$. One method is to use $\;\log(7)=\dfrac{\log(7^2)}2\;$ and :

\begin{align} \log(49)&=\log\left(50\;\left(1-\frac 1{50}\right)\right)\\ &=\log\left(\frac{100}2\right)+\log\left(1-\frac 1{50}\right)\\ &\approx\log(100)-\log(2)-0.4343\left(\frac 1{50}+\frac 1{2\cdot50^2}\right)\\ &\approx 2-\log(2)-\frac{0.8686}{100}\left(1+\frac 1{100}\right)\\ &\approx 2-0.30103-0.00877\\ &\approx 1.69020 \end{align}

Dividing by $2$ will indeed give the wished $0.84510$. Without the $\dfrac{x^2}2$ term we would get $\,0.84514$ : also not that bad! $$-$$

Let's further practice and compute $\log(29012)$ as in your article : $\log(29012)=\log(2.9012\cdot 10^4)=4+\log(2.9012)$

In first approximation we have $\;\log(2.9012) \approx \log(3) \approx 0.477\;$ and deduce that $\log(29012)\approx 4+0.477 \approx 4.477$.

we have $\;2.9012\approx 3\cdot 0.9671 \approx 3\cdot (1-0.0329)\;$ so that \begin{align} \log(2.9012)&\approx \log(3)+\log(1-0.0329)\\ &\approx 0.47712-0.434\cdot 0.033\\ &\approx 0.47712-0.0143\\ &\approx 0.4628 \end{align}

and we got $\;\log(29012)\approx 4.4628\,$ not so far from the exact $4.4625776\cdots$

It is important to understand that the table of logarithms allows too the reverse computation that is to compute $10^{\,x}$.

Of course $10^{\,\log(2)}=2$ so that for example $10^{\,0.3}$ will be just a bit smaller than $2$.

For additional precision and for $x\ll 1$ let's write the useful $\displaystyle 10^x=e^{x\ln(10)}\approx 1+\ln(10)x\;$ or $$\tag{4}10^{\,x}\approx 1+2.3026\cdot x$$

To compute $10^{\,x}$ decompose $x$ in its integer part $i$ and fractional part $f$ then $10^{\,i+f}=10^{\,i}\cdot 10^{\,f}$ : the mantissa of this result $10^{\,f}$ will be found using the table and $i$ will of course be the exponent.

After that all applications may follow : compute $a^b$ for any positive real $a$ and real $b$ using $\,\log(a^b)=b\,\log(a)\;$ so that

Computing the $n$-th root of a positive real number will just be the special case $\;b=\dfrac 1n$.

Example $\sqrt[5]{1212}$ : \begin{align} 1212&\approx 3\cdot 4\cdot 100\cdot 1.01\\ \log(1212)&\approx 2+\log(3)+\log(4)+0.4343/100\\ \dfrac{\log(1212)}{5}&\approx \frac{2+0.47712+0.60206+0.00434}5\\ \approx 0.6167 \end{align} The answer (approximatively $10^{\,0.6167}$) will thus be a little over $4$.

More exactly $\,0.61670=0.60206+0.01464\,$ and since $\,10^{0.01464}\approx 1+2.3\cdot 0.0146 \approx 1.0336\;$ an approximate result will be $4\cdot 1.0336$ that is : $$\sqrt[5]{1212}\approx 4.134$$ while the exact result is $4.1371429\cdots$.

Many methods may be used to get more precision :

  • from $1212=1200\cdot 1.01$ expand the logarithm (and/or the power of $10$) to second order as done for $\log(7)$
  • compose (+ -) different exact values of logarithms to get values near the searched one (example $\,1.33\approx \dfrac 43$ and thus $\;\log(1.33)\approx \log(4)-\log(3)$)
  • memorize values nearer to $1$ : $\log(1.1)\approx 0.041393,\ \log(1.2)=\log(\frac{3\cdot4}{10})\approx 0.07918$ and so on (you should nearly 'recognize' $\log(1.01)= 0.004321$... (see $\log(e)$) and won't need to memorize $\log(1.001)$)
  • $\cdots$

Wishing you much fun discovering yourself other tricks,

share|cite|improve this answer
thanks, this is a great answer. –  yiyi Apr 23 '12 at 5:36
@MaoYiyi: Thanks for that, you are welcome! –  Raymond Manzoni Apr 23 '12 at 6:08
can i mail Raymond Manzoni in person. i am new here, and i have 1 reputition. i however need help –  oluwatola imoleayo May 4 '12 at 0:04
There was a suggested edit of this answer by this user:, which I rejected. –  Aryabhata May 4 '12 at 0:11
Thanks for the information @Aryabhata ! –  Raymond Manzoni May 4 '12 at 1:23

One can get very good approximations by using

$$\frac 1 2 \log \left|\frac{1+x}{1-x}\right| =x+\frac {x^3} 3+ \frac {x^5}5+\cdots$$

Say you want to get $\log 3$. Then take $x=1/2$. Then you get

$$\log 3 \approx 2\left( \frac 1 2 +\frac 1 {24} + \frac 1 {140} \right)=1.0976190\dots$$

The real value is $\log 3 = 1.098612289\dots$

Take another term to get

$\log 3 \approx 1.098065476\dots$.

Note that this particular series has the advantage that for $x < 1$ (which is where it works) you get "exponentially increasing" approximations.

share|cite|improve this answer
One can get slightly more bang for the buck with Padé approximants. As already shown by Peter, using the $\mathrm{artanh}$ series is a great idea (due to the oddness of $\mathrm{artanh}$), but comparing $$x+\frac{x^3}{3}+\frac{x^5}{5}+\frac{x^7}{7}$$ and $$\frac{x-\frac{11 x^3}{21}}{1-\frac{6 x^2}{7}+\frac{3 x^4}{35}}$$ for $x=1/2$, the Padé approximant has a slight edge over the series... –  Guess who it is. Apr 23 '12 at 16:35
@J.M. I know what the Padé approximants are, but yet I'm not used to either calculating or using them. Thanks for that. –  Pedro Tamaroff Apr 23 '12 at 17:41

This can be done by recourse to Taylor series. For $ln(x)$ centered at 1, i.e. where $0 < x \leq 2$: $$ \ln(x)= \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{(x-1)^n}{n}= (x-1) - \frac{1}{2}(x-1)^2 + \frac{1}{3}(x-1)^3 + \frac{1}{4}(x-1)^4 + \cdot\cdot\cdot\ $$

share|cite|improve this answer
Unfortunately, this is a pretty miserable way to do calculations, except in the situation where you have a number that is close enough to 1 that you only need 1 or 2 terms. –  Hurkyl Apr 22 '12 at 17:21
The related series $\ln x = \ln a + \frac{x-a}{a} - \frac{(x-a)^2}{2a^2} + \ldots$ for $0<x\leq 2a$ is also not very useful in this regard. –  user26872 Apr 23 '12 at 0:34
@oenamen and you too, Kaleb. Thanks for those equations. Always good to build up one's equation notebook. –  yiyi Apr 23 '12 at 5:38
@MaoYiyi: Glad to help. To see how bad this approach is try approximating $\log_{10} 3025$. It's only useful if $(x-a)/a$ is small. –  user26872 Apr 23 '12 at 5:52
@oenamen Yes, I got that after trying a few. Just wanted to know how they did it. Don't worry, I'll still use my ti –  yiyi Apr 27 '12 at 10:30

A curve can be approximated with line segments.

If $4 \le x \lt 5$, then $\log(x) \approx 0.1(x+2)$. For example, $\log(4.1) \approx 0.61$, $\log(4.2) \approx 0.62$, $\log(4.3) \approx 0.63$, ..., $\log(4.9) \approx 0.69$.

If $7 \le x \lt 10$, then $\log(x) \approx 0.1(x/2 + 5)$. For example, $\log(7.2) \approx 0.1(7.2/2 + 5) \approx 0.86$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.