Is There a Complex Number Equal to Its Own Exponential?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether there exists a complex number that is equal to its own exponential. Participants explore the mathematical implications of this question, including the use of the Lambert W function and various equations related to complex numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the equation z = ln(z) as a starting point for exploring the problem.
  • Another participant claims that the equation exp(z) = z has a solution given by z = -W(-1), where W denotes the Lambert W function.
  • A later reply provides a numerical approximation for W(-1) and questions its validity in the context of the original problem.
  • One participant reflects on the transformation of the equation z = exp(z) into a form involving the Lambert W function, indicating a potential path to a solution.
  • Another participant corrects themselves, affirming that z = -W(-1) is indeed the answer after initially expressing doubt.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the solution involving the Lambert W function, with some uncertainty regarding the calculations and interpretations of the results. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the existence of a complex number equal to its own exponential.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion, including potential calculation errors and assumptions about the properties of the Lambert W function that are not fully explored. The participants do not reach a consensus on the correctness of the proposed solutions.

SebastianG
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello, everybody!

I'm a Maths/Physics student at Ecuador. Sorry if my English sucks, i'll try to do my best... Some fellow Physics buddy asked me if there was a way to fin a complex number that would be equal to its exponential... it is a very simple question to understand, but not to easy to prove or disprove (at least not for me, and I've tried it for a day).

So, this is what I got:

z = Ln (z)

and we would have to solve these equations:

ln r = rcos O
O = rsen O

that would be hard to solve algebraically, I guess... I wouldn't want a numeric aproach, so maybe there is a more ellegant way to find an example of disprove the hypothesis. (I already tried Taylor expansions)

Well, please try to give some ideas on the subject.

Have a good one!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It looks harmless enough, but it's not.

It looks harmless enough, but it's not.

The equation [tex]exp(z)=z[/tex] has a solution given by [tex]z=-W(-1)[/tex] and, if you put [tex]z=x+iy[/tex], then the solution is [tex]\left\{\begin{array}{cc}x=-iy-W(-1)\\y=y\end{array}\right.[/tex].

Where [tex]W(\cdot)[/tex] is the Lambert W function; for an excellent reference, see

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LambertW-Function.html
 
hmmm...

Hmmm ... Matlab gave me this answer: W(-1) = -0.3181... + i 1.3372...

Which doesn't seem to work. Maybe I made a calculation mistake (because I only typed it once on a computer at my school, and wrote the result), but it seems to make sense, since you can work z = exp (z) to

z = exp (z)
z*exp(-z) = 1
(-z)*exp(-z) = -1

Which indicates that W(-1) should be the value for Z (on the complex form of the Lambert-W function, which I assumed was W(z)*exp[W(z)] = F(z) )

Anyway, this function has been quite a discovery for me! I'll see if I can find an answer, you can still give me some more ideas.
 
oops

Nevermind... just a silly mistake...

Z = - W(-1) is the answer.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K