Is there an explanation for why i^i is a real number?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jameson
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical proof that \(i^i\) is a real number, utilizing Euler's formula \(e^{ix} = \cos(x) + i\sin(x)\). By substituting \(x = \frac{\pi}{2}\), it is established that \(i = e^{i\frac{\pi}{2}}\). Consequently, \(i^i\) can be expressed as \(e^{-\frac{\pi}{2}}\), confirming its status as a real number. The conversation also touches on the multi-valued nature of complex logarithms and the geometric interpretation of complex exponentiation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Euler's formula and complex exponentiation
  • Familiarity with complex logarithms and their multi-valued nature
  • Basic knowledge of limits and derivatives in complex analysis
  • Graphical interpretation of complex functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of complex logarithms and their branches
  • Learn about the geometric interpretation of complex functions
  • Explore the applications of Euler's formula in complex analysis
  • Investigate the behavior of complex exponentials and their derivatives
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of complex analysis, and anyone interested in the properties of complex numbers and their applications in mathematical proofs.

Jameson
Insights Author
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,533
Reaction score
13
This is something that I've pondered for a while and I can't see a logical explanation for. I'll go ahead and demonstrate that it is in fact a real number before you guys think I haven't done my homework. :-p
Starting with the Euler formula:

(1) e^{ix}=\cos(x)+i\sin(x),

and using \frac{\pi}{2} for x, it follows that

(2) i=e^{i\frac{\pi}{2}}.

Now using that identity, i^i can be expressed as:

(3) i^i=(e^{i\frac{\pi}{2}})^i

which is equivalent to:

(4) e^{i^2\frac{\pi}{2}}=e^{-\frac{\pi}{2}}.

This was all borrowed from Mathworld's site, thanks to them. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/i.html"

Now, can anyone provide an analytic explanation for this? I admit I haven't taken a course on complex analysis, so my skills with complex numbers are limited, but any insight would be appreciated.

Many thanks,
Jameson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
eix = cos(x) + isin(x), not sin(x) + icos(x). I assume that's a typo because your equation (2) is correct. In general, zz' takes on many values, but you can choose a principal branch. By definition:

zz' = ez'log(z)

where log(z) = log|z| + iarg(z) by definition. The expression above has multiple values because log(z) does, and log(z) has multiple values because arg(z) does (arg(z) is b + 2k(pi) for every integer k). Choose arg(z) between 0 and 2(pi), then you fix a value for log, and hence for zz'. Working through the definitions, we get:

ii = eilog(i) = ei(log|i| + iarg(i)) = ei(i(pi)/2) = e-pi/2

which is what you have. Now what sort of analytic explanation are you looking for other than the fact that it follows from definition? The exponential function is defined by:

e^z = \sum _{n=0} ^{\infty} \frac{z^n}{n!}

very similar to what it is for real numbers. Also, defining the derivative of a complex function in a way identical to how you define it for real functions:

f'(z) = \lim _{h \to 0} \frac{f(z+h) - f(z)}{h}

the exponential function is also the solution, f, to the IVP:

f'(z) = f(z),\ f(0) = 1

like it is for reals. This should give you a good reason as to why the complex exponential is defined as it is. log is defined such that elog(z) = z, as you'd want, and zz' is defined such that zz' = ez'log(z) as you'd want. So all these definitions are very natural. And a consequence of these definitions is that ii is real. Does that make sense?
 
Also, maybe you can graph f(z) = zi and f(z) = iz for z purely imaginary, z purely real, |z| = 1, Im(z) = k for some fixed real k, Re(z) = k for some fixed real k. Maybe this will give you a sense of why ii fits in where it does.
 
geometrically, e^iz squashes the top half of the complex plane down into the infinite horizontal strip between the x-axis and y = -1, and extends the lower half of the complex plane down below y = -1, so that the whole former plane lies in the lower half plane.

then it rotates the lower half plane 90degrees cc, so that it becomes the right half plane.

then it roitates the right half plane around and around the origin, so that the vertical line x = 1 goesa orund the unit circle, and lines between x = 0 and x=1 go around concentric smaller circles, and vertical olines to the right of x = 1 go around larger concentric circles.

thus you see that all orginally horizontal lines in the upper half complex plane, such as y = pi/2, where i pi/2 lies, wind around the origin on circles.

thus some points on these lines such as i pi/2, muct cross the x axis, as these circles go around and around the origin.

i pi/2 is one of these points, so e^i[i pi/2] = [e^{i pi/2}]^i = i^i winds up on the real axis.
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
892
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
677
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
653