What is the issue with equivalent statements and complex numbers?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Andante
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Equivalent
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding equivalent mathematical statements, particularly when involving complex numbers. The initial premise is that multiplying a number by 1 should yield equivalent results across various operations, but this breaks down with complex numbers like i^4. Participants clarify that while the square root of 25 is conventionally defined as 5, both 5 and -5 are valid square roots, highlighting the distinction between real and complex numbers. The crux of the issue lies in the nature of functions applied to complex numbers, which can yield multiple valid outputs, unlike their real counterparts. Ultimately, the rules of mathematics do apply, but the interpretation and handling of complex numbers require careful consideration due to their unique properties.
Andante
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've been having a little "problem" with the concept of equivalent mathematical statements. As far as I can tell, normally in algebra any given number multiplied by 1 (1n) and the given number (n) are equal, and therefore anything function you perform on (1n) can also be done to (n) with the exact same results. However, I have stumbled across a case where this does not seem to be true, and my algebra teacher won't even deal with the question because she says "we haven't begun to deal with imaginary numbers yet" (apparently implying that because the rest of the class doesn't even know they exist, I shouldn't even be thinking about them until she introduces them to the class )

Okay, so the issue she won't address is this:

1. If you multiply a number by 1, it has the exact same value as the number itself.

--So, 25 and 25(1) are the exact same thing.

2. Therefore, if you perform any given operation on these two equivalent statements, the answer should be the same.

--So, the square root of 25 and the square root of 25(1) are both 5.

3. Therefore, in theory you should be able to multiply a number by something that is EQUIVALENT to 1, and the number should still equal (1n) and (n).

--So, 25(i^4) and 25(1) and (25) all have the exact same value. [Where i is an imaginary number and i^4= (i^2)(i^2)=(-1)(-1)=1]

4. Therefore #2 should still hold true. But it doesn't seem to in this case:

--The square roots of 25 and 25(1) are both 5, but the square root of 25(i^4) is 5(i^2) or 5(-1) or -5.

My problem: As far as I understand, (or have been led to understand), the basic rules of mathematics are supposed to apply universally...at least within algebra. Identity statements should always remain identity statements, no matter what you do to the two equivalent statements. That is what we have always been taught in school, ever since kindergarten. So what I'm wondering is this: do the rules really NOT always apply, and we've been lied to all along, or do they actually still apply in this case and I'm just not seeing how?

And if the rules DON'T apply, then why is mathematics dealt with as "truth" when the truths it relies upon are not universal?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Andante said:
--The square roots of 25 and 25(1) are both 5, but the square root of 25(i^4) is 5(i^2) or 5(-1) or -5.

The square roots of 25 are 5 and -5...I'm not sure where you're getting the idea the the square root of 25 is only 5.

Perhaps you're confused by the fact that \sqrt{25}=5 and \sqrt{25}\neq 5, but that's just because \sqrt{x} is defined as the positive square root. That doesn't mean -5 is not a square root; it's just the negative one.
 
Your problem seems to be

i^4 =i^0 \quad /()^{\frac{1}{2}}
i^2 \neq i^0

Well, the thing is that one has to be more careful when dealing with complex numbers, and specially with complex functions. In any case
(i^4) ^{\frac{1}{2}}^=1

That's because when dealing with complex numbers, a^b is defined in terms of complex exponential and logarithm.

Anyway, rest assured, for when you have

A=B
and you apply a function f() to the above equation, since f is a function you can be sure that:
f(A)=f(B)

Provided that you know f is a well defined function.
 
Last edited:
Andante said:
--The square roots of 25 and 25(1) are both 5, but the square root of 25(i^4) is 5(i^2) or 5(-1) or -5.
The problem you face arises from a property of the field of complex numbers which differs from the real numbers.

The number \sqrt{x} is a number whose square is equal to x. However, there are two such numbers: one positive and one negative. If you want f(x)=\sqrt x to be a function you have to choose which square root to take. When dealing with real numbers we always take the positive one, but that's just a convention.

When dealing with complex numbers, you cannot order them like real numbers and so there is no such thing as a positive or a negative complex number. Therefore we cannot choose which solution to take when taking the square root of a complex number, there are always 2 solutions. (It is sometimes said that f(z)=\sqrt z is a 2-valued function).

So there is no such thing as the square root. And a square root of 25i^4 is indeed -5. The other one of course is 5.
 
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...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
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