Undergrad Proof of i-th Root of i: Analytic Connection?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Gear300
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Imaginary
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the i-th root of i, expressed as \( i^{1/i} = e^{\frac{\pi}{2}} \). Participants confirm the algebraic validity of this expression, noting its derivation from the exponential form of complex numbers. They explore the potential for an analytic connection through power series, particularly Laurent series, while emphasizing that the proof is grounded in established mathematical principles rather than being ad hoc. The conversation highlights the robustness of using polar coordinates in complex exponentiation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex numbers and their exponential forms
  • Familiarity with algebraic manipulation of exponents
  • Knowledge of power series, specifically Laurent series
  • Basic principles of quantum mechanics related to mathematical proofs
NEXT STEPS
  • Research the properties of complex exponentiation in detail
  • Study the applications of Laurent series in complex analysis
  • Explore the implications of complex powers in quantum mechanics
  • Learn about the geometric interpretation of complex numbers and their powers
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students of complex analysis who are interested in the properties of complex exponentiation and its applications in various fields, including quantum mechanics.

Gear300
Messages
1,209
Reaction score
9
TL;DR
imaginary algebra
I saw a proof in which they came up with the ith root of i through the typical algebra.
$$
i^{1/i} = i^{-i} = e^{i\frac{\pi}{2} \cdot -i} = e^{\frac{\pi}{2}} ~.
$$
But it seems the proof is entirely algebraic, so we have no grounds for thinking it works anywhere. The only exception might be an analytic connection with power series, like a Laurent series. Is there such a connection, or is this as ad hoc as it seems?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Gear300 said:
TL;DR Summary: imaginary algebra

I saw a proof in which they came up with the ith root of i through the typical algebra.
$$
i^{1/i} = i^{-i} = e^{i\frac{\pi}{2} \cdot -i} = e^{\frac{\pi}{2}} ~.
$$
But it seems the proof is entirely algebraic, so we have no grounds for thinking it works anywhere. The only exception might be an analytic connection with power series, like a Laurent series. Is there such a connection, or is this as ad hoc as it seems?
It's pretty straightforward.
##i = e^{i\pi/2} \Rightarrow i^{-i} = (e^{i\pi/2})^{-i} = e^{(i\pi/2) \cdot (-i)} = e^{\pi/2}##
 
Mark44 said:
It's pretty straightforward.
##i = e^{i\pi/2} \Rightarrow i^{-i} = (e^{i\pi/2})^{-i} = e^{(i\pi/2) \cdot (-i)} = e^{\pi/2}##
So it's fine doing this sort of thing in a quantum mechanics equation?
 
Gear300 said:
TL;DR Summary: imaginary algebra

I saw a proof in which they came up with the ith root of i through the typical algebra.
$$
i^{1/i} = i^{-i} = e^{i\frac{\pi}{2} \cdot -i} = e^{\frac{\pi}{2}} ~.
$$
But it seems the proof is entirely algebraic, so we have no grounds for thinking it works anywhere. The only exception might be an analytic connection with power series, like a Laurent series. Is there such a connection, or is this as ad hoc as it seems?
Of course, this isn't unique.
##i^{1/i} = \left ( e^{i \pi / 2} \right )^{1/i} = \left ( e^{i \pi / 2 + 2 k \pi i } \right )^{1/i} = e^{\pi /2 + 2 k \pi}##
where k is any integer, so

##i^{1/i} = e^{5 \pi / 2}##
just as well.

-Dan
 
Gear300 said:
So it's fine doing this sort of thing in a quantum mechanics equation?
Why not? This is mathematics.
 
topsquark said:
Of course, this isn't unique.
##i^{1/i} = \left ( e^{i \pi / 2} \right )^{1/i} = \left ( e^{i \pi / 2 + 2 k \pi i } \right )^{1/i} = e^{\pi /2 + 2 k \pi}##
where k is any integer, so

##i^{1/i} = e^{5 \pi / 2}##
just as well.

-Dan

Mark44 said:
Why not? This is mathematics.
True enough. I guess it doesn't work unless it works.
 
Far from "ad hoc"; these are basic properties of exponents and polar coordinates are the best way to deal with powers in the complex plane.
I admit that I have no geometric image of numbers to complex powers, but I have to accept it because so much of it works out perfectly for real powers.
 
Gear300 said:
True enough. I guess it doesn't work unless it works.
I know that ##i ^i \approx 0.2##, which is quite funny.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K