Strange real numbers requiring use of complex numbers to exist

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of real numbers that can only be expressed in exact form using complex numbers. Participants explore whether certain real roots of polynomials necessitate complex expressions for their exact representation, touching on concepts from algebra and geometry.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question if a real number can only be expressed using complex numbers, citing specific polynomial roots as examples.
  • Others argue that complex numbers are not necessary to describe real numbers, suggesting that any complex algebra can be represented using real geometrical operations.
  • A participant proposes that it may be possible to create expressions that evaluate to a real number using complex numbers, but cannot be expressed solely with real numbers and surds.
  • Another participant mentions that while cubic equations can have real solutions, the intermediate steps in Cardano's formula may involve complex numbers, which eventually cancel out.
  • Some participants provide alternative expressions for the roots that do not involve complex numbers, raising questions about the nature of these representations.
  • There is a discussion about the role of transcendental functions and whether the original numbers can be expressed without them or without using imaginary units.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on whether real numbers exist that can only be expressed using complex numbers. Multiple competing views remain, with some asserting that such numbers do not exist while others suggest the possibility.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes references to specific mathematical concepts such as Cardano's cubic formula and de Moivre's theorem, which may introduce limitations based on the assumptions and definitions used by participants.

daniel.e2718
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
I couldn't really think of a good title for this question, lol.

Is it possible that a real number exists that can only be expressed in exact form when that form must includes complex numbers?

For example, the equation

2 \, x^{3} - 6 \, x^{2} + 2 = 0

has the following roots

x_1 = -\frac{1}{2} \, {\left(\frac{1}{2} i \, \sqrt{3} +<br /> \frac{1}{2}\right)}^{\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)} {\left(i \, \sqrt{3} +<br /> 1\right)} - \frac{-i \, \sqrt{3} + 1}{2 \, {\left(\frac{1}{2} i \,<br /> \sqrt{3} + \frac{1}{2}\right)}^{\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)}} + 1

x_2 = -\frac{1}{2} \, {\left(-i \, \sqrt{3} + 1\right)} {\left(\frac{1}{2}<br /> i \, \sqrt{3} + \frac{1}{2}\right)}^{\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)} - \frac{i<br /> \, \sqrt{3} + 1}{2 \, {\left(\frac{1}{2} i \, \sqrt{3} +<br /> \frac{1}{2}\right)}^{\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)}} + 1

x_3 = {\left(\frac{1}{2} i \, \sqrt{3} +<br /> \frac{1}{2}\right)}^{\left(\frac{1}{3}\right)} +<br /> \frac{1}{{\left(\frac{1}{2} i \, \sqrt{3} +<br /> \frac{1}{2}\right)}^{\frac{1}{3}}} + 1

which have numerical approximations of

x_1 \approx 0.65270364

x_2 \approx -0.53208889

x_3 \approx 2.8793852

When I run these through Sage's simplify_full() command (five times, even), they just become single fractions.

Is this a CAS simplification thing or are there real numbers that simply cannot exist without complex numbers?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
But you just expressed those numbers in a form without complex numbers.

Anyway, I don't think such numbers exist, since any complex algebra can be replaced with geometrical operations in polar space, involving just real numbers.
 
It's entirely possible for a polynomial with coefficients in the reals to have one or more complex roots, but this probably isn't what you're asking. The simple answer is that it's not necessary to reference the complex numbers in order to describe or obtain the reals; the complex numbers are what is known as an extension of the real number field, created for reasons that have to do largely with polynomials (at least, as far as mathematicians are concerned).
 
The interesting question was the one at the start of the OP:
Is it possible that a real number exists that can only be expressed in exact form [by using] complex numbers?
That is, can there be an expression using rationals, surds and complex numbers that evaluates to a real but cannot be expressed using only real rationals and surds?
I suspect the answer is yes. You could take any such complex expression, whether or not it evaluates to a real, and add its complex conjugate (by changing i to -i everywhere) to produce one that does evaluate to a real.
I took the specific case here of (1+i√3) and wrote it as (a+b√3+ic+id√3)3. It looked like it might be possible to show that a, b, c and d cannot all be rational.
 
Hello daniel.e2718 !

The roots written without any complex term :
x1 = 1-2cos(4pi/9)
x2 = 1-2cos(2pi/9)
x3 = 1-2cos(pi/9)
 
Just to be clear, real numbers "exist" irrespective of any way of writing them. However, it is true that there exist cubic equations, having real solutions, such that if you use Cardano's cubic formula, which involves taking square roots and then cube roots, you can wind up with complex numbers in the intermediate calculations- the imaginary parts then eventually cancelling out. It was this discovery that led to complex numbers being accepted as "numbers".
(I almost wrote "as real numbers"!)
 
JJacquelin said:
Hello daniel.e2718 !

The roots written without any complex term :
x1 = 1-2cos(4pi/9)
x2 = 1-2cos(2pi/9)
x3 = 1-2cos(pi/9)

Ahh this. I didn't think about that at all. Then again, de Moivre's formula...

But also, cosine is a transcendental function. None of the exact numbers in my original post had infinite series.

Is it possible to express the above numbers in an exact form without using transcendental functions or using an imaginary unit? Or transcendental numbers like pi.

This is interesting :o
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K