What's wrong with this proof of sin(i)=0?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Prem1998
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the value of sin(i) and the implications of using complex numbers in trigonometric identities. Participants explore the validity of applying real number properties to complex numbers, particularly in the context of Euler's formula and the definitions of sine and cosine for complex arguments.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a proof using Euler's formula, leading to the conclusion that cos(i) = 1/e and sin(i) = 0, questioning the validity of these results.
  • Another participant argues that complex numbers cannot be treated as real numbers, emphasizing that properties proven for real numbers do not automatically apply to complex numbers.
  • A later reply clarifies that the correct values for cos(i) and sin(i) are cosh(1) and i sinh(1), respectively, and provides a detailed breakdown of the mathematical steps involved.
  • Some participants express confusion about the physical meaning of sine and cosine for complex arguments, questioning whether these values have any practical application or are merely mathematical constructs.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the interpretation of sine and cosine for complex numbers. There is disagreement regarding the application of real number properties to complex numbers, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the physical significance of these complex trigonometric functions.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of sine and cosine for complex arguments, and the unresolved nature of the physical implications of these mathematical results.

Prem1998
Messages
148
Reaction score
13
We have,
e^(ix)=cosx+isinx
So, e^(i*i)=cosi+isini
Or e^-1=cosi+isini
Or 1/e + 0*i= cosi+isini
So, cosi=1/e and sini=0
But that's not the value of sin(i) that I found on the internet. These values are not even satisfying cos^2(x)+sin^2(x)=1.
What did I miss?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Prem1998 said:
We have,
e^(ix)=cosx+isinx
So, e^(i*i)=cosi+isini
Or e^-1=cosi+isini
Or 1/e + 0*i= cosi+isini
So, cosi=1/e and sini=0
But that's not the value of sin(i) that I found on the internet. These values are not even satisfying cos^2(x)+sin^2(x)=1.
What did I miss?
e^-1=cosi+isini
1/e + 0*i= cosi+isini

On the left, you have the real and imaginary parts of ##e^{-1}##.
So, you should find the real and imaginary parts on the right-hand side.
Since ##\cos(i)=\cosh 1## and ##\sin(i)=i\sinh(1)##
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=cos(i)
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sin(i)
we have:
##\begin{align*}
1/e + 0i
&= \cosh 1+i (i\sinh 1)\\
&= \cosh 1-\sinh 1\\
&= \frac{e^1+e^{-1}}{2}-\frac{e^1-e^{-1}}{2}\\
&= e^{-1}
\end{align*}##
 
This is ok

We have,
e^(ix)=cosx+isinx
So, e^(i*i)=cosi+isini
Or e^-1=cosi+isini
Or 1/e + 0*i= cosi+isini

This is false
So, cosi=1/e and sini=0

in fact
cosi=cosh1
isini=sinh1
which are both real

But that's not the value of sin(i) that I found on the internet. These values are not even satisfying cos^2(x)+sin^2(x)=1.
What did I miss?

what value did you find? The correct values I gave above satisfy cos^2(x)+sin^2(x)=1.
 
lurflurf said:
This is ok

We have,
e^(ix)=cosx+isinx
So, e^(i*i)=cosi+isini
Or e^-1=cosi+isini
Or 1/e + 0*i= cosi+isini

This is false
So, cosi=1/e and sini=0

in fact
cosi=cosh1
isini=sinh1
which are both real

But that's not the value of sin(i) that I found on the internet. These values are not even satisfying cos^2(x)+sin^2(x)=1.
What did I miss?

what value did you find? The correct values I gave above satisfy cos^2(x)+sin^2(x)=1.
So, the problem was when I compared both sides considering cosi and sini to be real, right?
One more thing, does the sine of complex numbers have any physical meaning? Just like how the sine of real numbers represents the y-co-ordinate of the point that we reach on a unit circle by rotating through that angle. Do they mean anything or are they just useless numbers obtained by plugging in complex numbers in the tailer series?
 
Prem1998 said:
So, the problem was when I compared both sides considering cosi and sini to be real, right?
Right. Cosine and sine are complex in general - only for real arguments they are real.

I'm not aware of physical applications of complex arguments for the sine. Damped oscillations can be described with a complex period in the exponential, but converting that to a sine and cosine does not really help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 66 ·
3
Replies
66
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K