Content deleted Content added
Inverse of y = e<sup>x</sup>? |
|||
Line 119:
:::** feel free to kill it if you want. I used it simply as a spacer because things looked cluttered without it.
::: I think it's clearer without, but that's probably because I'm more acquanted with it's abscence. But then again, that's because it usually is absent. If, by itself, it's affect is purely a conditioned effect, then I would argue that it's omission is more clear, simply because it's one less symbol. -[[User:Kevin_baas|kb]]
== Inverse of y = e<sup>x</sup>? ==
Isn't the inverse of y = e<sup>x</sup> y = ln(x) and not x = ln(y)?
| |||