Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

$$\frac{3}{\ln{2}-12}$$ Is this form simplified enough?

There is a number '$12$' below the fraction line, do i need to transform the $\log$ more to make it simpler?

I wrote that in a college math exam

share|cite|improve this question
Simple enough for what? – Henning Makholm Sep 25 '12 at 14:01
Yeah,it seems like we can't make it simplier – user42625 Sep 25 '12 at 14:02
Whether it is simplified enough depends on what you are doing. If this is a homework answer, then it will depend on what your teacher expects, and what convensions have been set in class. If this is a part of your own research, then it depends on what additional manipulations you might need to make. It might be less ambiguous to ask if a simpler form can be found. – flodyninja Sep 25 '12 at 14:02
up vote 7 down vote accepted

The only complaint I can see is that it obscures the fact that it is negative, so one might prefer $\frac {-3}{12-\ln 2}$ but otherwise I don't see a simpler form. I guess you could go to $$\frac 3{\ln \frac 2{e^{12}}}= \frac 1{\ln \sqrt [3]{\frac 2{e^{12}}}}=\frac 1{\ln \frac{\sqrt [3] 2}{e^4}}$$ but I don't think this is progress.

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.