Question about exponents and i .

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter cragar
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Exponents
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the simplification and evaluation of the expression \( i^{i^{i \ldots}} \), which represents an infinite tower of the imaginary unit \( i \). Participants explore various mathematical approaches and identities related to complex exponentiation, particularly focusing on the implications of such infinite expressions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how to simplify the infinite tower \( i^{i^{i \ldots}} \).
  • Another participant proposes that \( i^{i^{i \ldots}} \) can be expressed as \( \lim_{n \to \infty} i^{(n i)} \) and evaluates \( i^{i} \) to be \( e^{-\pi/2} \), suggesting that the limit approaches 0.
  • A participant challenges the equality \( (a^b)^c = a^{(bc)} \) by providing a counterexample, indicating that exponentiation is not associative.
  • One participant discusses using Euler's identity to express \( i^{i} \) and explores the implications of applying this repeatedly, suggesting that the process may cycle back to \( i \) without converging to a fixed value.
  • Another participant mentions that if the limit exists, it would satisfy the equation \( iz = z \) and provides a formulation involving polar coordinates.
  • There is a reference to a Wikipedia page that discusses super-exponentiation and mentions the Lambert-W function, indicating that there is no proved extension for complex numbers.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of the limit and the validity of certain mathematical identities. There is no consensus on the simplification of the infinite tower or the existence of a definitive value.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of their approaches, including the dependence on definitions of exponentiation and the unresolved nature of the infinite limit. The discussion highlights the complexities involved in extending concepts of exponentiation to complex numbers.

cragar
Messages
2,546
Reaction score
3
how would I simplify or figure out [itex]i^{i^{i..}}[/itex]
this keep going an infinite tower of i's
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
(a^b)^c = a^(bc)

i^i^i^... = i^(i*i*i*...)
[tex]= \lim_{n→∞}i^{(n\,i)} = \lim_{n→∞}(i^{\,i})^{n}[/tex]
[tex]i^{\,i} = e^{-\pi/2}[/tex]
[tex]\lim_{n→∞}(i^{\,i})^{n} = \lim_{n→∞}\frac{1}{e^{n\pi/2}} = 0[/tex]
 
why does (a^b)^c equal a^(bc)
x^x^x does not equal x^(x^2)
 
cragar said:
how would I simplify or figure out [itex]i^{i^{i..}[/itex]
this keep going an infinite tower of i's

Hey cragar.

In terms of this I don't think you are going to get a closed-form solution but there is a way to go from say i^i using eulers identity.

To do this we use i^i = e^(i * ln(i)) = e^(itheta) where theta = ln(i). We use the principle branch for ln(i), which gives cos(ln(i)) + isin(ln(i)) = e^(-pi/2) = 0.207879576.

Another way is to use i^i = ((-1)^(1/2))^i = e^(1/2*i^2*pi) = e^(-pi/2), since i has principal argument of pi/2 (cos(pi/2) + isin(pi/2) = i).

Applying this again gives us (e^(-pi/2))^i = e^(-ipi/2) = cos(-pi/2) + isin(-pi/2) = -i. But now are back to the imaginary i in negative form!

I'm guessing (but you will have verify) that we will eventually get back to i after doing this process again (kind of like a spinor).

Because of this, the value in the infinite limit will not exist in the sense of something fixed and something that converges to a definitive value.
 
cragar said:
why does (a^b)^c equal a^(bc)
x^x^x does not equal x^(x^2)

(a^b)^c = a^(bc), but that is not what you have. You have a^(b^c), which is not equal to a^(bc). Exponentiation is not associative.

As for the actual limit, the result is apparently quoted on this wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-exponentiation#Extension_to_complex_bases

There is a formula for a number x raised to itself infinitely many times in terms of the Lambert-W function (which is also quoted on that page), but there does not appear to be a proved extension for complex numbers.
 
Last edited:
If the limit exists, it is a solution of iz = z.
Writing z = re:
r π cos(θ) = 2θ
r π sin(θ) = -2 ln(r)
The solution at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-e..._complex_bases does indeed satisfy these equations.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
math man said:
(a^b)^c = a^(bc)
This is true but cragar i talking about [itex]a^{b^c}[/itex]

i^i^i^... = i^(i*i*i*...)
[tex]= \lim_{n→∞}i^{(n\,i)} = \lim_{n→∞}(i^{\,i})^{n}[/tex]
[tex]i^{\,i} = e^{-\pi/2}[/tex]
[tex]\lim_{n→∞}(i^{\,i})^{n} = \lim_{n→∞}\frac{1}{e^{n\pi/2}} = 0[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K