B Mistake in my complex exponentiation: where?

nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
243
I am sure I am overlooking something elementary, but playing around with exponentiation (this is not an assignment), I seem to be making a mistake somewhere. Please don't send me a link for a more compact way of getting the correct result; I wish to know what my particular mistake is.

Suppose r,s∈ℂ, r= exp(a+bi) = ea+bi, and s=c+di, so that
rs =exp((a+bi)(c+di)) = exp((ac-bd)+(ad+bc)i).
(I am not using "r" as length.)

So far, very straightforward, but the problem comes in the interpretation that this result has a length exp(ac-bd) and angle (ad+bc) Radians.

What bothers me about this is that since r = (exp(a +(b+n2π)i) for n∈ℤ, the above result would come out with a length of
exp(ac-(b+n2π)d) = exp(ac-bd- 2ndπ)
and an angle of (ad+(b+n2π)c)=(ad+ bc+2ncπ):

this means that (with a few exceptions) the length will not be the same as the first result, and the angle will not be equivalent to the first result. But I would imagine that rs should have a unique (modulo an angle of 2nπ) result, no?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • Like
Likes nomadreid
Thank you, Jonathan Scott. More interesting than I thought it would be. This encourages me to investigate (from the brief mention in the Wiki article) the possibility of defining rs, for r∈ℂ, as a function on a Riemann surface. My mistakes lead me into interesting avenues.
 
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