What Is the Discrepancy in the Value of ii in Euler's Formula?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dr. Seafood
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Formula Value
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the value of ii in Euler's formula, highlighting the apparent discrepancy in its evaluation. While ii can be computed as e-π/2, the multivalued nature of the logarithm leads to infinitely many evaluations, suggesting ii lacks a unique value. Participants note that the exponential function is injective, implying distinct values for each evaluation of ii. However, the principal branch of the logarithm can be used to define a unique value for ii, resolving the discrepancy. Ultimately, the conversation emphasizes the importance of defining the principal branch to obtain a single value for complex exponentiation.
Dr. Seafood
Messages
120
Reaction score
0
To compute this, we’ll make use of Euler’s formula cis(x) = eix = cos(x) + i·sin(x):

ei(π/2) = cos(π/2) + i·sin(π/2) = i, and exponentiating by i we get
ii = (ei(π/2))i = ei·i(π/2) = e-π/2 ∈ ℝ.

But we also have cis(2πk + π/2) = i, k ∈ ℤ. Thus by the same logic, we get ii = e-(2πk + π/2) for k ∈ ℤ.

Infinitely many evaluations, so ii doesn't have a distinct/unique value? This seems like a discrepancy. I don't have any strong arguments, but I have this W|A computation telling me that ii is indeed distinct, since none of e-5π/2, e-9π/2, e-13π/2, etc are equal.

Also, since the exponential function from ℝ onto ℝ+ is certainly injective, each of these numbers e-(2πk + π/2) must be distinct. If ii is distinct, why is its value e-π/2 = 0.2078795... ?

Can anyone explain this?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Well, there's nothing surprising about that. xy is by definition ey log(x), and log is a multivalued function. Except for integer y, this always leads to multiple possible values of xy. One usually resolves this by the somewhat artificial dodge of using the principal branch of log y, defined by convention, (just as \sqrt{y} is taken to mean the positive square root of y, even though there is also a negative one).
 
That's true, in that case I'll accept that ii cannot be uniquely evaluated. But I've seen in other places (including on this forum) that ii has a distinct value. This is clearly untrue by the logic in the OP post. What's the discrepancy?
 
It does have a unique value -- if you choose the principal branch. (Which is to say, it has a unique value if you define it to.)
 
Indeed, the complex exponential is defined as

x^y=e^{yLog(x)}

The log is multivalued, so there will be an infinite number of possible x^y. But in many applications, we want a principal value of x^y. This is done by the formula

x^y=e^{yLog(x)}

But where the Log is now the principal branch and is single-valued. That is, we restricted the range of the Log such that it becomes single-valued.

This principal value of x^y pops up in many places, for example in the definition of the Riemann-zeta function:

\sum{\frac{1}{n^s}}

where the s can be complex.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Back
Top