To rewrite the equation \(36 = 729\) as a logarithmic equation, we need to express it in the form \( \log_b(a) = c \), which means \( b^c = a \).
However, the numbers in your question seem to be misplaced, as \( 36 \neq 729 \).
Instead, if we consider \( 729 = 36^x \) for some \( x \), we can write it logarithmically.
For instance, if \( 36 = 6^2 \) and \( 729 = 9^3 = (3^2)^3 = 3^6 \), we could equate the exponential forms (if they were equal) but as they do not hold true, let’s find the specific logarithmic format from bases of numbers relating them:
Given \( 729 = 6^3 \) we can use: \[ \log_6(729) = 3 \]
So correctly, you could express it in an option like: \[ \log_{6}(729) = 3 \]
Thus rearranging with the closest correct idea, from the option would be:
- log6729=3 (assuming a correctly structured equation).
If you're specifically looking for \( 729 = 36^x \rightarrow x = \log_{36}(729) \) also holds true but should clarify context.
Please confirm the original equation or if you want a different base to base conversion restructuring!