ln(-1) = 0 ???!


by alba_ei
Tags: None
alba_ei
alba_ei is offline
#1
Mar6-07, 03:46 PM
P: 38
supposed that we have

[tex] \ln(-1) [/tex]

then
[tex] \frac{2}{2}\ln(-1) [/tex]

so

[tex] \frac{1}{2}\ln(-1)^2 [/tex]

this is equal to

[tex] \frac{1}{2}\ln(1) [/tex]

and if this is equal to 0 the we can say that

[tex] ln(-1) = 0 [/tex]

is this right , wrong, are there any explanations for this?
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Hyperbolic homogeneous polynomials, oh my!
Researchers help Boston Marathon organizers plan for 2014 race
'Math detective' analyzes odds for suspicious lottery wins
cristo
cristo is offline
#2
Mar6-07, 03:54 PM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,287
The rule of logarithms is a lnx=lnxa. In this case, a=1-- you cannot split it into a fraction and then only take the numerator!

If you look at the logarithm graph, you will see that the function is not defined for negative x.
morphism
morphism is offline
#3
Mar6-07, 03:54 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,020
It's wrong. ln(-1) is no longer a real number, so you can't treat it like one. This is like saying sqrt(-1) = (-1)1/2 = (-1)2/4 = ((-1)2)1/4 = 11/4 = 1.

morphism
morphism is offline
#4
Mar6-07, 04:01 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,020

ln(-1) = 0 ???!


Quote Quote by cristo View Post
The rule of logarithms is a lnx=lnxa. In this case, a=1-- you cannot split it into a fraction and then only take the numerator!
Actually, that step is perfectly valid in general - (a/a) ln(x) = 1/a ln(x^a), i.e. when everything is defined. Your next line explains why it's not valid here:
If you look at the logarithm graph, you will see that the function is not defined for negative x.
cristo
cristo is offline
#5
Mar6-07, 04:13 PM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,287
Quote Quote by morphism View Post
Actually, that step is perfectly valid in general
Course it is; sorry!
JustinLevy
JustinLevy is offline
#6
Mar6-07, 04:25 PM
P: 886
Quote Quote by cristo View Post
If you look at the logarithm graph, you will see that the function is not defined for negative x.
Really? Why can't one say that ln(-1)= i pi, for e^(i pi) = -1.
Or is there something wrong with that line of logic?
Semo727
Semo727 is offline
#7
Mar6-07, 05:22 PM
P: 26
logarithm is defined also for complex numbers.
ln(z)=ln(abs(z))+i*arg(z), where z is complex number, abs(z) is complex norm of complex number z, and arg(z) is its argument.
So if -1 is treated as complex number -1+0*i, expression ln(-1) gives sense, but the identity a*ln(z)=ln(z^a) is no longer true.
cristo
cristo is offline
#8
Mar6-07, 05:41 PM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,287
To satisfy the pedants, I shall re-phrase my above answer. The natural logarithm function, whose argument is a real number and to whom we can apply the standard laws of logarithms, is not defined for negative real numbers.
JonF
JonF is offline
#9
Mar6-07, 07:42 PM
P: 617
for complex z: Ln(z) = ln(|z|) + i*Arg(z)

so ln(-1) = ln(|-1|) + i*Arg(-1) = i*pi
morphism
morphism is offline
#10
Mar6-07, 08:27 PM
Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 2,020
Quote Quote by JonF View Post
for complex z: Ln(z) = |z| + i*Arg(z)

so ln(-1) = |-1| + i*Arg(-1) = 1 + i*pi
Really? If you were attempting to define the principal branch of Ln, then it ought to be Ln(z) = ln(|z|) + iArg(z), where ln is just the natural logarithm on the reals.

In this case, we have Ln(-1) = ln(|-1|) + iArg(z) = i*pi.
JonF
JonF is offline
#11
Mar6-07, 08:33 PM
P: 617
eh forgot the ln, fixed
HallsofIvy
HallsofIvy is online now
#12
Mar7-07, 07:08 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 38,895
Quote Quote by JustinLevy View Post
Really? Why can't one say that ln(-1)= i pi, for e^(i pi) = -1.
Or is there something wrong with that line of logic?
Cristo said, "for negative x". Since the complex numbers are not an ordered field, there are no "negative" complex numbers. Cristo was clearly talking about real numbers.
Gib Z
Gib Z is offline
#13
Mar8-07, 05:31 AM
HW Helper
Gib Z's Avatar
P: 3,353
[tex]\log_e -1 = i\pi + 2ki\pi, k\in \mathbb{Z}[/tex] Case Closed.
murshid_islam
murshid_islam is offline
#14
Mar8-07, 07:51 AM
P: 361
Quote Quote by Gib Z View Post
[tex]\log_e -1 = i\pi + 2ki\pi, k\in \mathbb{Z}[/tex] Case Closed.
is the logarithm of complex numbers defined for any other base except 'e'?
AlphaNumeric
AlphaNumeric is offline
#15
Mar9-07, 05:02 AM
P: 290
Yes, you can still change between various different bases for your logarithms in the same manner as you do for Real numbers.


Register to reply