Register to reply

Ln(-1) = 0 ?!

by alba_ei
Tags: None
Share this thread:
alba_ei
#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
Heat distributions help researchers to understand curved space
Professor quantifies how 'one thing leads to another'
Team announces construction of a formal computer-verified proof of the Kepler conjecture
cristo
#2
Mar6-07, 03:54 PM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,316
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
#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
#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
#5
Mar6-07, 04:13 PM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,316
Quote Quote by morphism View Post
Actually, that step is perfectly valid in general
Course it is; sorry!
JustinLevy
#6
Mar6-07, 04:25 PM
P: 894
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
#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
#8
Mar6-07, 05:41 PM
Mentor
cristo's Avatar
P: 8,316
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
#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
#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
#11
Mar6-07, 08:33 PM
P: 617
eh forgot the ln, fixed
HallsofIvy
#12
Mar7-07, 07:08 AM
Math
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
Thanks
PF Gold
P: 39,564
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
#13
Mar8-07, 05:31 AM
HW Helper
Gib Z's Avatar
P: 3,348
[tex]\log_e -1 = i\pi + 2ki\pi, k\in \mathbb{Z}[/tex] Case Closed.
murshid_islam
#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
#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