This is what I want to use (but not sure if it makes sense) This is what I have and what makes mathematical sense to meĢ. Should I continue with my idea or should I be content with simply plotting ln y with x with a linear trendline to show this relationship? 1. I know that plotting the ln of y with x with a linear trendline makes sense, similar in the way that plotting non-logged y with x with a logarithmic trendline would make sense, but I'm kind of stumped as to justifying why using a logarithmic trendline on already-logged values of y makes sense (even though it makes for the best graph).
![excel trendline through origin excel trendline through origin](https://cdn.ablebits.com/_img-blog/trendline-types/power-trendline-excel.png)
But I'm wondering if this makes mathematical sense. MY QUESTION IS: On Excel, would plotting the ln of y against x, then adding the "Logarithmic Trendline" option make sense? The log trendline seems to fit my data the best (for obvious reasons), and I was planning to take the distance from each (x, y) to the trendline equation to have percentages showing by how much each additional recursion of x differs. and would like to do an additional test using the ln differences (which from my understanding also represents the %change for a given dataset). So far I've done several tests to prove this such as %change of y between each x, and distance from y-mean for each x, etc. Generally speaking, the higher the cloning the lower the variance. Clone Number (x) Population (y) Natural Log (ln y)
![excel trendline through origin excel trendline through origin](https://cdn.ablebits.com/_img-blog/trendline/extend-trendline-excel.png)
![excel trendline through origin excel trendline through origin](https://img.youtube.com/vi/0NYbQPcdxg8/0.jpg)
Excel trendline through origin simulator#
I am running trials with a population simulator, which produces various outputs (y), with the variance of these outputs being dependent on the number of clones (x) (recursions) the simulator has gone through.