I was working through the prime number theorem proof and the following questions arose.
1.) Is $f_1=f_2-\mathcal{O}(x)$ equivalent to $f_1=f_2+\mathcal{O}(x)$ for any two functions $f_1$ and $f_2$.
2.) If I can show that $\log(f_1) = \mathcal{O}(x)$, then $f_1 = e^{\mathcal{O}(x)} = \mathcal{O}(e^x)$
The first seems true because the definition of Big O puts the function in absolute value brackets. i.e. $$f(x) = \mathcal{O}(g(x))$$ If and only if $$ \vert f(x)\vert \leq M g(x) \text{ } \{ x\geq x_o \forall_x, M \in \mathbb{R^+}\}$$ The second is the one I am having a harder time coming to a conclusion about.
The first property is true: $$f_1=f_2-\mathcal{O}(x)$$ just means $f_2-f_1=\mathcal{O}(x)$, that is, $|f_2-f_1|\le Mx$ "eventually", whereas if $$f_1=f_2+\mathcal{O}(x)$$ then $f_1-f_2=\mathcal{O}(x)$, in other words, $|f_1-f_2|\le Mx$ "eventually".
Since there's an absolute value like you pointed out, they're different.
As for the second property, take Fabio's $e^{2x}=e^{\mathcal{O}(x)}$, and $e^{2x}\neq \mathcal{O}(e^x)$ as a counterexample.