Solving a Basic Math Contradiction

  • Thread starter Thread starter Aeneas
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Contradiction
AI Thread Summary
Raising -3 to the power of 1/2 results in an imaginary number, as it represents the square root of -3, which is not real. Conversely, raising -3 to the power of 2/4 simplifies to the fourth root of +9, yielding a real number. The discussion highlights that the laws of exponents do not apply uniformly to complex numbers as they do to real numbers. A point of contention arises regarding the requirement for the exponents to be mutually prime, with some arguing that this condition is unnecessary for basic exponent rules. The conversation ultimately emphasizes the complexity and potential contradictions when dealing with different forms of exponentiation.
Aeneas
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Could someone please sort out this contradiction which must come from some very basic error - but where and which error? If you raise -3 to the power of 1/2, this gives the square root of -3 which has no real value, but if you raise it to the power of 2/4, you are finding the fourth root of -3 squared, which is the fourth root of +9 which is real. What is wrong here?

Thanks in anticipation.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Roughly speaking, the "laws of exponents" do not apply to complex numbers in the same way they apply to real numbers. But certainly look at the link Diffy mentioned.
 
Thanks for that, but I do no fully follow the replies in the link. One reply says that when you write p^{a/b}, a and b must be mutually prime. The demonstration that p^{a/b}= \sqrt<b>{p^{a}}</b>seems to work whether they are or not.

e.g. p^{a_{1}/b} X p^{a_{2}/b} ...X p^{a_{b}/b} = p^{ab/b}= p^{a}.

Thus p^{a/b} = \sqrt<b>{p^{a}}</b>. Where is the requirement there that they should be mutually prime? Or is it that the requirement is created by the need not to get into the contradiction?
 
Last edited:
Aeneas said:
Thanks for that, but I do no fully follow the replies in the link. One reply says that when you write p^{a/b}, a and b must be mutually prime.

I am not sure where that person was going with that reply. Certainly one can compute an answer for 64^{2/6}.
I think that what he was getting at is that you are in tricky waters when you start using equalities. For example 64^{2/6} and 64^{1/3} aren't necessarily equal. Consider the polynomials that these two expressions are solutions to, Sqrt(x^6) = 64 and x^3 = 64. For the first wouldn't you say the answer is 4 or -4? and for the second there is only one answer 4. Therefore how could you say the two statements are equal?
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top