Brian Schroeder wrote:
> That is interesting enough. Anybody here would like to explain to me, why
> log_2 is harder than log_10 or ln. I just assumed that anything binary
> would be nice for computers.

It's neither harder nor easier, it's just not that useful. Base 2 
logarithms aren't really needed in most math and engineering. Even in 
computer science and information theory, where the base 2 log is an 
important analytical concept, it's rarely employed in precision 
calculations. Those are not the kind of problems you attack with 
numerical methods.

It takes a lot of care and skill to develop a math library; much more 
than naively coding power series expansions of transcendental functions. 
People tend to put that work where it's really needed.

The good news is that for most purposes in computer science,

log2(x) = ln(x) / ln(2)

is plenty precise. :-) Note that ln(2) is a constant.

Steve