I see. At first, I thought that the properties belonging to the ln(x) required the use of "e" to be demonstrated... I don't know why... thats not what actually happened...
But it sure is a curious fact that logarithms were used prior to the discovery of exponentials.

Hi Rafael, yes, to my understanding (and in a weird math trivia), logartihms were in use before exponents:

As noted by Howard Eves, "One of the anomalies in the history of mathematics is the fact that logarithms were discovered before exponents were in use."[9] Carl B. Boyer wrote, "Euler was among the first to treat logarithms as exponents, in the manner now so familiar."[10]

From https://en.wikipedia.org/wi...

First of all, I want to thank you for taking your time to answer my question kalid.
I read that "e" was discovered later in history. That ended up confusing me even more because people began using natural logarithms before actually knowing the Neperian number. It seems to me that they only knew lnx as the integral of 1/x until then. And then, only after finding out what e actually was and found the inverse function of f(x) = e^x (which is lnx) they saw the similarities between the graphics of lnx and integral of 1/x (and realized they were the same thing). Is this how it happened or is it nonsense? I apologize if I confused you.

Hi Rafael, check out https://betterexplained.com... for the relationship to 1/x.

Surprisingly, the natural log was discovered before e.