What's the deal with imaginary numbers?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter LHarriger
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Numbers
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the properties and implications of imaginary numbers, particularly focusing on the mathematical operations involving the square root of negative numbers and the complexities of exponentiation in the context of complex numbers. Participants explore the nuances of these concepts, including the ambiguity of square roots and the implications of using principal branches in complex analysis.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over the manipulation of imaginary numbers, particularly the step involving the square root of -1 and its implications for exponentiation.
  • Several participants note the ambiguity of the square root function, emphasizing that \(\sqrt{1} = \pm 1\) and the need to be explicit about this when performing calculations.
  • There is a discussion about the differences in exponentiation for complex numbers compared to real numbers, with references to the definition involving logarithms and arguments.
  • One participant mentions the concept of branch cuts in complex analysis and how they affect the interpretation of exponentiation.
  • Another participant argues that the notation used by the original poster is not standard and clarifies that \(\sqrt{-1}\) refers specifically to a primitive square root.
  • Some participants discuss the multi-valued nature of complex exponentiation and how this can lead to confusion when trying to apply single-valued functions to multivalued contexts.
  • There is a mention of a historical perspective on the introduction of the symbol "i" to avoid common mistakes in calculations involving square roots of negative numbers.
  • One participant points out that the product rule for surds does not apply when both surds are negative square roots.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the ambiguity of square roots and the complexities of exponentiation in the context of complex numbers. However, there are competing views regarding the interpretation of notation and the implications of using principal branches, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of square roots and the interpretation of complex exponentiation, which may vary among participants. The discussion also highlights unresolved mathematical steps related to the properties of multi-valued functions.

LHarriger
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
Imaninary numbers, i=1 ??!

Ok, this is driving me crazy:
[itex]i^{2}=-1[/itex]
no problem here, but
[itex]i^{2}=\left(\sqrt{-1}\right)^{2}=\sqrt{(-1)^{2}}=\sqrt{1}=1[/itex]
oops...
I know that the error has to be in this step:
[itex]\left(\sqrt{-1}\right)^{2}=\sqrt{(-1)^{2}}[/itex]
(works fine for positive numbers)
and I am pretty sure it has something to do with principle roots.
However, I just can't figure out a clean argument for what exactly is wrong.
Please help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The square root is ambiguous, ie, [itex]\sqrt{1}=\pm 1[/tex], and you need to be explicit about this ambiguity when using it or you'll make mistakes like that one.[/itex]
 
Last edited:
StatusX said:
The square root is ambiguous, ie, [itex]\sqrt{1}=\pm 1[/tex], and you need to be explicit about this ambiguity when using it or you'll make mistakes like that one.[/itex]
[itex] Actually, [itex]\sqrt{1}=1[/tex]. However the square roots of 1 are [itex]\pm 1[/tex].<br /> <br /> The problem is that exponentiation for complex numbers differs than that for real numbers. In fact, if a and b are complex numbers, then we define:<br /> [tex]a^b = e^{b (\log |a| + i\arg(a))}[/tex],<br /> where [itex]\arg(a)[/itex] is chosen to lie in [itex](-\pi, \pi][/itex]. (Read up on branch cuts.)<br /> <br /> From this it follows that [itex](a^b)^c = (a^c)^b[/itex] isn't necessarily true.[/itex][/itex][/itex]
 
Last edited:
Thank you Morphism!
I recall learning complex exponentiation and branch cuts from my undergraduate complex analysis that I took 3 years ago. I was just too rusty to be able to put it too work on my own to solve this problem.
 
morphism said:
Actually, [itex]\sqrt{1}=1[/tex]. However the square roots of 1 are [itex]\pm 1[/tex].[/itex][/itex]
[itex][itex] <br /> That notation isn't standard, and couldn't have been what the OP was using since he wrote [tex]\sqrt{-1}[/tex].<br /> <br /> <blockquote data-attributes="" data-quote="" data-source="" class="bbCodeBlock bbCodeBlock--expandable bbCodeBlock--quote js-expandWatch"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-content"> <div class="bbCodeBlock-expandContent js-expandContent "> The problem is that exponentiation for complex numbers differs than that for real numbers. In fact, if a and b are complex numbers, then we define:<br /> [tex]a^b = e^{b (\log |a| + i\arg(a))}[/tex],<br /> where [itex]\arg(a)[/itex] is chosen to lie in [itex](-\pi, \pi][/itex]. (Read up on branch cuts.)<br /> <br /> From this it follows that [itex](a^b)^c = (a^c)^b[/itex] isn't necessarily true. </div> </div> </blockquote><br /> Again, this is just one of many possible conventions. The important point is that for a rational number p/q (in lowest terms) and a complex number z, there are q complex numbers which all have equal claim to the name z<sup>p/q</sup>. And for irrational numbers, there are infinitely many. Complex exponentiaion is simply not a single valued function. <br /> <br /> And [itex](a^b)^c = (a^c)^b[/itex] is still true, in the sense that for any [itex]a^b[/itex] and [itex]a^c[/itex] (remember, they're multivalued) there are choices of [itex](a^b)^c[/itex] and [itex](a^c)^b[/itex] so that equality holds, and so that both are equal to some [itex]a^{bc}[/itex]. The problem only comes up when you artificially try to make the function single valued.[/itex][/itex]
 
Last edited:
StatusX said:
That notation isn't standard, and couldn't have been what the OP was using since he wrote [tex]\sqrt{-1}[/tex].

sqrt(-1) is a standard symbol: it means a primitive square root of -1, it does not mean both primitive square roots of -1, and of course there is no algebraic distinction between either.

Technically single valued function is a pleonasm - a function is single valued by definition. There is, perhaps, an inconsistent usage of the word function, here. However it would be better to stay away from these topics lest it confuse the reader. Incidentally, in my experience there are not q complex numbers with an equal claim to being z^{1/q}: that symbol is normally fixed at meaning the principal branch of the q'th root. This is not an artificial definition.
 
Last edited:
I'm not arguing that it's not convenient for many purposes to use a principal branch for multivalued functions, I'm just saying that the issue in the OPs question is more closely concerned with the multi-valuedness of the functions, not with the properties of a specific branch.
 
L Harringer: I know that the error has to be in this step:
[itex]\left(\sqrt{-1}\right)^{2}=\sqrt{(-1)^{2}}[/itex]

(works fine for positive numbers)
and I am pretty sure it has something to do with principle roots.
However, I just can't figure out a clean argument for what exactly is wrong.

I heard one reason when taking algebra: the symbol "i" was invented to prevent such a mistake as:

[tex]\sqrt{-1}\sqrt{-1} =\sqrt{1}[/tex]

I can't vouch for that, but take it for what its worth.
 
Last edited:
robert Ihnot said:
L Harringer: I know that the error has to be in this step:
[itex]\left(\sqrt{-1}\right)^{2}=\sqrt{(-1)^{2}}[/itex]

(works fine for positive numbers)
That's where the error is. The product rule for surds does not work if both surds are negative square roots.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K