Can you explain me how these equations were obtained?

  • Thread starter Thread starter whuzzwhuzz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Explain
AI Thread Summary
The equations ln(-2) = ln(2) + (1+2k)*pi*i and ln(16) = ln(16) + 2m*pi*i are derived from the properties of complex logarithms, where the logarithm is a multivalued function. The derivation involves expressing negative and positive numbers in terms of their polar forms, incorporating the exponential function's periodicity. Specifically, ln(-2) is expressed using the identity ln(2*e^(2k+1)pi*i), while ln(16) incorporates the term ln(16*e^(2mpi)). The periodic nature of the complex logarithm introduces the 2pi n term, allowing for multiple solutions based on the integer n. Understanding these equations requires recognizing the relationship between the modulus and phase of complex numbers.
whuzzwhuzz
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Those equations are obtained by applying the "[URL identity[/URL] of the complex numbers:

\ln{(-2)}

= \ln{(2\cdot{}e^{(2k+1)\pi{}i})}

= \ln{(2)} + \ln{(e^{(2k+1)\pi{}i})}

= \ln{(2)} + (2k+1)\pi{}i

Where k = 0, 1, 2, ...


The second one is:

\ln{(16)}

= \ln{(16\cdot{}e^{2\pi{}mi})}

= \ln{(16)} + \ln{(e^{2\pi{}mi})}

= \ln{(16)} + 2\pi{}mi

Where m = 0, 1, 2, ...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
jjmontero9 said:
Those equations are obtained by applying the "[URL identity[/URL] of the complex numbers:

\ln{(-2)}

= \ln{(2\cdot{}e^{(2k+1)\pi{}i})}

= \ln{(2)} + \ln{(e^{(2k+1)\pi{}i})}

= \ln{(2)} + (2k+1)\pi{}i

Where k = 0, 1, 2, ...The second one is:

\ln{(16)}

= \ln{(16\cdot{}e^{2\pi{}mi})}

= \ln{(16)} + \ln{(e^{2\pi{}mi})}

= \ln{(16)} + 2\pi{}mi

Where m = 0, 1, 2, ...

To clarify this a bit, when dealing with complex numbers the logarithm is a multivalued function, so you must choose a "branch" of the function that is single valued. However, all branches are related to each other by multiples of 2\pi. If \log(z), for complex numbers z, is the complex logarithm function (which is always base e), you can relate it to the real valued logarithm, ln(x), and the phase of the number z. In polar coordinates, z = r\exp(i\theta), where r is the modulus of the complex number (and is purely real) and \theta is the phase. Then, we may write

\log(z) = \log(re^{i\theta}) = \ln r + \log(e^{i\theta}) = \ln r + i(\theta + 2n\pi)
where n is an integer.

The 2\pi n term is there for the same reasons as when solving an equation like y = \sin(\theta). You get \theta = \arcsin y + 2n\pi, because sin is 2\pi periodic. Similarly, the complex exponential function is 2i\pi periodic, so when taking the inverse you get this 2\pi i n term added on:

e^{i\theta} = e^{i\theta + 2n\pi i}.

In the example cited, \theta was zero, but no branch of the complex logarithm was chosen, so there are infinitely many solutions, one for each integer n.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thank you both both of you guys. Both helped me understand the question and the topic. Thank you again. :)
 
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...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
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