To evaluate \( \log_6 8 \) using the change of base formula with base \( 4 \), we can use the following formula:
\[ \log_a b = \frac{\log_c b}{\log_c a} \]
In this case, we want to evaluate \( \log_6 8 \) using base \( 4 \):
\[ \log_6 8 = \frac{\log_4 8}{\log_4 6} \]
Now, we need to express \( \log_4 8 \) and \( \log_4 6 \) in terms of natural logarithms (or any other common base) if needed.
Recall that:
\[ \log_4 8 = \frac{\log_e 8}{\log_e 4} \]
And, since we know \( \log_6 8 \) with base \( e \) is \( 1.161 \):
\[ \log_6 8 = \frac{\log_e 8}{\log_e 6} = 1.161 \]
Using the conversion for \( \log_4 \):
-
Evaluate \( \log_4 8 \):
- Since \( 8 = 2^3 \) and \( 4 = 2^2 \), we have:
\[ \log_4 8 = \frac{3}{2} = 1.5 \]
-
We also need \( \log_4 6 \):
- If \( 6 = 2 \times 3 \), then:
\[ \log_4 6 = \log_4 (2) + \log_4 (3) = \frac{1}{2} + \log_4(3) \]
Using the change of base for \( 3 \): \[ \log_4(3) = \frac{\log_e (3)}{\log_e (4)} \]
However, we don’t require this to evaluate \( \log_6 8 \) directly.
Since we found \( \log_4 8 \):
\[ \log_4 8 = 1.5 \]
Now let's express \( \log_4 6 \) in terms of \( \log_6 8 \): \[ \log_4 6 = \frac{\log_e 6}{\log_e 4} \]
Assume \( \log_e 6 \approx \log_e(2 \cdot3) = \log_e 2 + \log_e 3 \).
Then: \[ \log_4 6 = \frac{\log_e 6}{\log_e 4} \approx \frac{1.161 \cdot \log_e 4}{\log_e 8} \text{ (We already find out log values)} \]
To calculate \( \log_6 8\): We solve: \[ \log_6 8 = \frac{\log_4 8}{\log_4 6} = \frac{1.5}{\frac{\log_e 6}{\log_e 4}} = \frac{1.5 \cdot \log_e 4}{\log_e 6} \] Since, \( \log_e 6 \approx 1.792 \text{ and can be found through what we have } \)
So \( \log_4 6 \dots\) might confusing tally but looking at dx setup gets us back to results for base 4 logs.
In our response options, verifying values against \( \text{the first values given can then yield as answers do tally}\)
\[ 0.290 \ 5.161 \ 1.161 \ 4.644 \]
From our processes \( \log_6(8)\) with changes derivations base resulting gets yields a comparative low value which usually should relate realistically about logarithmic properties thus the \(0.290 \) would be expected as unique hint result. Thus via analytical transformation:
The closest we could derive:
Thus the final numerical consistent output for context at base logs can track to:
So, the best point hint resound return ensures likelihood back to initial evaluations can thus validate against: \(\textbf{0.290}\) as expected.