Why Does the Equation 1 = -1 Seem Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter sparkster
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Error
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the flawed reasoning that leads to the incorrect conclusion that 1 equals -1 through manipulation of square roots. The error arises from improperly applying the property of square roots to complex numbers, particularly in the step involving the division of square roots of negative and positive values. It is highlighted that the equation sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1) does not hold true in the context of complex numbers. The inconsistency is resolved by noting that when dealing with square roots, especially in polar form, one must consistently choose the correct branch of the square root. This illustrates the importance of understanding the properties of complex numbers in mathematical operations.
sparkster
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
I've tried and tried and I cannot find the error in the reasoning below. It's probably something simple and I'll feel like an idiot when someone explains it.
i = i
sqrt(-1) = sqrt(-1)
sqrt(1/-1) = sqrt (-1/1)
sqrt(1)/sqrt(-1) = sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1)
sqrt(1) * sqrt(1) = sqrt(-1) * sqrt(-1)
[sqrt(1)]^2 = [sqrt(-1)]^2
1 = -1

Does it have something to do with sqrt(-1/1) = sqrt(-1)/sqrt(1)? Does complex numbers not obey this property?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
doesnt [sqrt(a)]^2 = |a| ? maybe that's just in the reals
 
Last edited:
\frac{\sqrt{1}}{\sqrt{-1}} pretty much sums up what's wrong with the train of thought. This is a good reason why when you divide a real number by an imaginary number that you must first multiply by the conjugate on the numerator and denominator. I can't nail down a good reason other than that.

I should note that this inconsitency does not exist if you do the division with sqrt(1) and sqrt(-1) in polar form.
 
square rooting is 1 to 2, so you need to pick a choice of square root. You've not done so consitently.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top