- #1

- 16

- 0

Is this true:

[tex]e^{i(a+bx)}=cos(a+bx)+i sin(a+bx)[/tex] ?

Last edited by a moderator:

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter dave4000
- Start date

- #1

- 16

- 0

Is this true:

[tex]e^{i(a+bx)}=cos(a+bx)+i sin(a+bx)[/tex] ?

Last edited by a moderator:

- #2

chroot

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 10,226

- 36

- Warren

- #3

- 16

- 0

Thanks

- #4

- 4

- 0

So if you have the e^xi expression and set x = pi, this will equal -1. Adding 2Pi equals 1. So far so good? But here comes what I don't understand. 1 can also be written e^0, so using logarithms we say: e^i2Pi = e^0 -> i2Pi = 0, but this can't be true as i2Pi = 6,28i. I got one possible solution from my math teacher but it did not quite tell me how it could equal 0. Anyone care to give an explenation a shot?

- #5

- 492

- 0

e^x = e^y <=> x = y is true.

For complex numbers, it must be the case that

e^x = e^y <=> x = y is false.

This shouldn't be so surprising. For the real numbers, you can't say things like...

x^2 = y^2 <=> x = y

sin(x) = sin(y) <=> x = y

...

I suppose it's just an accident that you can't do that for the exponential function over complex numbers.

- #6

dx

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 2,011

- 18

My best guess would be that the exponential function is not a bijection over the complex numbers, while it is so over the real numbers. That is, for real numbers,

e^x = e^y <=> x = y is true.

You mean injection.

- #7

- 492

- 0

I tend to talk in terms of bijection or not bijection. I usually don't delve into things like injectivity and surjectivity. I think that the exponential is neither bijective nor injective over the complex numbers... then again, what do I know?

- #8

dx

Homework Helper

Gold Member

- 2,011

- 18

You said exp was a bijection over the reals which it isn't. It's an injection, but not a bijection.

- #9

- 1,838

- 7

- #10

- 662

- 1

For the less mathematically versed, this is a little like taking the square root of a number and having to remember that there are actually two roots (+/-). When you take the log of a complex number, there are (potentially) multiple correct results, so you have to specify which one you're choosing.

(At least, I think that's a correct statement; someone please correct me if it's not.)

- #11

- 492

- 0

Oops. You're right. I guess that's the price you pay when you get too used to using the general terminology too often.

- #12

- 24

- 1

Share: