Algebraic Manipulation of Euler's Identity Leads to a Strange Result

amolv06
Messages
45
Reaction score
0
I was playing around with Euler's identity the other day. I came across something that seems contradictory to everything else I know, but I can't really explain it.

I started with

e^{i\pi} = -1.

I rewrote this as

ln[-1] = i\pi

Multiplying by a constant, we have

kln[-1] = ki\pi

and using log properties I arrived at

ln[-1^{k}] = ki\pi

Now if I set k equal to any even number, I have

ln[1] = 0 = ki\pi

This seems to imply that i\pi is 0, however it is not. Furthermore, any even value of k gives the same answer. Why is this?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
ln(-1) = (2/2)*ln(-1) = (1/2)*2*ln(-1) = (1/2)*ln(-1^2) = (1/2)*ln(1) = (1/2)*0 = 0

Therefore, ln(-1) = 0.

In order for properties of logs to work, you must be taking the log of a valid number. You can not take the log of a negative number, therefore, when you apply the properties of logs to something that is undefined, you get ludicrousness.
 
Last edited:
Thanks!
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top