- #1
hbweb500
- 41
- 1
I am studying complex variables with Brown and Churchill. In it, they define the principal value of [tex]z^c[/tex], with both variables complex, to be [tex] e^{c\; \text{Log }z} [/tex], where [tex]\text{Log}[/tex] is the principle value branch of the complex logarithm.
Now, suppose [tex] z = i [/tex] and [tex] c = 3 [/tex]. We know that [tex] \text{Arg } i = \frac{\pi}{2} [/tex], so [tex] z^c = i^3 = e^{3 \pi / 2} [/tex]. But is this really the principal value? Why don't we say [tex] e^{- \pi/2} [/tex] is the principal value?
I ask because it seems like that is what the textbook does in one of its examples: it calculates
[tex]z^c[/tex] to be something with an angle outside of [tex]-\pi < \theta \leq \pi [/tex], and just reduces it without explanation.
So, when finding the principle value of [tex]z^c[/tex] after we have done the calculation, or is simply using the principle value branch logarithm enough?
Now, suppose [tex] z = i [/tex] and [tex] c = 3 [/tex]. We know that [tex] \text{Arg } i = \frac{\pi}{2} [/tex], so [tex] z^c = i^3 = e^{3 \pi / 2} [/tex]. But is this really the principal value? Why don't we say [tex] e^{- \pi/2} [/tex] is the principal value?
I ask because it seems like that is what the textbook does in one of its examples: it calculates
[tex]z^c[/tex] to be something with an angle outside of [tex]-\pi < \theta \leq \pi [/tex], and just reduces it without explanation.
So, when finding the principle value of [tex]z^c[/tex] after we have done the calculation, or is simply using the principle value branch logarithm enough?