How Does Raising e^(2*pi*i) = 1 to the Power of 1/(2*pi*i) Work?

  • Thread starter Thread starter nameonascreen
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equation e^(2*pi*i) = 1 and the implications of raising it to the power of 1/(2*pi*i). It highlights that exponentiation rules for real numbers do not apply in the complex number plane, leading to different outcomes. Specifically, when raising 1 to this power, the result can yield multiple values due to the nature of logarithms in complex analysis. The logarithm of 1 in the complex plane can equal 2kπi for any integer k, resulting in various outputs like 1 and e. Understanding these complexities clarifies the apparent contradiction in the original statement.
nameonascreen
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I saw this the other day and I don't understand how complex numbers work well enough to disprove it:

e^(2*pi*i) = 1

e^(2*pi*i)^(1/(2*pi*i)) = 1^(1/(2*pi*i))

Then the left side equals e and the right side equals 1.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Perhaps you ought to learn enough about complex numbers so that you don't make a wild goose chase trying to disprove a provable true statement.

Your error lies in assuming that the rules for exponentiation that are valid for real numbers are valid for complex number.

They are not; rather, real number exponentiation is a special case of how exponentiation works in the complex number plane.
 
so e = 1 in a complex number plane?
 
No. What he is trying to say is that the rule for exponentiation \left(a^b\right)^c=a^{bc} is only valid when dealing with real numbers, a\geq 0. When you extend into the complex plane, this rule breaks down.
 
ok cool. thanks! so what really happens when you raise e^(2*pi*i) = 1 to the power of 1/(2*pi*i)?
 
nameonascreen said:
ok cool. thanks! so what really happens when you raise e^(2*pi*i) = 1 to the power of 1/(2*pi*i)?
Since 2\pi is irrational, there will be an infinite number of values. One of them, of course, will be 1.

In general, to find a^r for general complex numbers you use a^r= e^{ln(a^r)}= e^{r ln(a)}.

Here, because 1/(2\pi i)= -i/(2\pi) that would be
e^{-\frac{i}{2\pi}ln(1)}

Now, restricted to the real numbers, ln(1)= 0 so that would give e^0= 1. But in the complex numbers, ln(1)= 2k\pi i for any integer k.

That is,
1^{\frac{1}{2\pi i}}= e^{-\frac{i}{2\pi}2k\pi i}= e^k
for any integer k. Of course, k=0 gives 1, and k= 1 gives e, your two values.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
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...
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...
Back
Top