To Mathematicians

To Mathematicians

Posers and Puzzles

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.

R

Joined
30 Oct 05
Moves
3072
17 Jul 06
1 edit

Why does the natural log of -1 equal Pi(i)? Neither my calculus nor my physics teacher knew the answer to this (I don't know it either, that's why I'm posting the question).

X
Cancerous Bus Crash

p^2.sin(phi)

Joined
06 Sep 04
Moves
25076
17 Jul 06

This relationship is normally stated as e^i*pi = -1.

You can find a good basic explanation here:
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/epii.html

R

Joined
30 Oct 05
Moves
3072
17 Jul 06

Thanks a lot. I kind of was expecting you to be there with the answer.

S

Joined
20 Feb 06
Moves
8407
17 Jul 06
6 edits

Originally posted by Ramiri15
Why does the natural log of -1 equal Pi(i)? Neither my calculus nor my physics teacher knew the answer to this (I don't know it either, that's why I'm posting the question).
The real exponential function is a map from the set of real numbers to the set of positive real numbers

x maps to e^x

and it has an inverse, called the logarithm

x maps to log(x).

The exponential function is defined by a power series

e^x = sum from k=0 to infinity of x^k/k!

and this also makes sense for complex numbers z instead of x. So we have z going to e^z.

The question now is does this new "complex" exponential function admit an inverse that extends the real logarithm mentioned above.

Well, actually it does. Let's call this new complex logarithm log(z). One has to be careful with what z values we put in (the "domain" of the function -- it has to be restricted in some way -- see below). For us we shall simply define

log(z) = log(|z|) + i*arg(z)

for non-zero complex numbers z, and insist that, say, the argument arg(z) lies between -pi/2 and 3*pi/2. This is what I meant by restricting the domain -- we're excluding the negative imaginary axis. We have chosen this definition simply because it *is* an inverse for e^z, and extends the original real log(x). The reason for cutting out the negative imaginary axis is because if we didn't the log(z) function would jump suddenly as we went across it (the imaginary part suddenly changes from -pi/2 to 3*pi/2) and this is a bad thing -- we like our functions to be continuous.

There are of course many other inverses -- add on fixed multiples of 2*pi*i to the above formula. These other inverses are called "branches" of the logarithm.

If we plug in z=-1 into the definition for log(z) above we get

log(-1) = log(1) + i*pi

so that's i*pi, as you wanted. Another eg. would be z=1+i with

log(1+i) = log(root(2)) + i*pi/4 = log(2)/2 + i*pi/4.

Keeps

Shanghai

Joined
16 Feb 06
Moves
131182
17 Jul 06

Originally posted by XanthosNZ
This relationship is normally stated as e^i*pi = -1.

You can find a good basic explanation here:
http://www.math.toronto.edu/mathnet/questionCorner/epii.html
i like the form e^i*pi+1=0 as it includes pi, e, i, 1 and 0. 5 very important constants

T

London

Joined
04 Jun 06
Moves
929
17 Jul 06

Originally posted by deriver69
i like the form e^i*pi+1=0 as it includes pi, e, i, 1 and 0. 5 very important constants
I knew a mathematics professor who sported a baseball cap that displayed the formula that way around. "The five most important numbers in mathematics" he said.

a

Joined
11 Jun 06
Moves
3516
17 Jul 06

i'm pretty sure the definition of e = lim (n->inf.) (1+1/n)^n
the formula e^x = x^k/k! is the taylor expansion of e^x around 0.

S

Joined
20 Feb 06
Moves
8407
18 Jul 06
2 edits

Originally posted by aginis
i'm pretty sure the definition of e = lim (n->inf.) (1+1/n)^n
the formula e^x = x^k/k! is the taylor expansion of e^x around 0.
Well, you can do it either way, and then prove the other result.

It's much cleaner (and easier) to define everything via power series though (exp(x), sin(x), cos(x) etc.) because they have a good theory (infinitely differentiable, multiply them etc.). I mean you know that the differential equation exp'=exp holds true immediately from the power series. You can then easily prove exp(x+y)=exp(x)exp(y) etc etc...

I prefer to think of the (1+x/n)^n limit as a curiosity - it's less useful.

G

Joined
22 May 06
Moves
2855
18 Jul 06

OK now tell me why 1!=1, but 0! also =1. I just never got it.

Keeps

Shanghai

Joined
16 Feb 06
Moves
131182
18 Jul 06

One answer is because it works, but if you think of factorials as being the number of ways of arranging that many objects, there is only one way of arranging zero objects.

S

Joined
20 Feb 06
Moves
8407
18 Jul 06

Originally posted by GinRose
OK now tell me why 1!=1, but 0! also =1. I just never got it.
It's just for convenience.

Like for example you'd like the formula

(n choose r) = n! / (r! * (n-r)!)

to make sense when r=0 or r=n.

g
Wayward Soul

Your Blackened Sky

Joined
12 Mar 02
Moves
15128
19 Jul 06

Originally posted by GinRose
OK now tell me why 1!=1, but 0! also =1. I just never got it.
the formula for factorial is n!=(n-1)!*n by definition.

1!=1 (obviously)

solving formula for 1!,
1!=(1-1)!*1
1!=0!*1=1

=>0!=1

we can also use the gamma function to show it,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamma_function

but that's kinda complicated...

Keeps

Shanghai

Joined
16 Feb 06
Moves
131182
19 Jul 06

In essence 0! is a special case. Maths works far better if 0!=1. The "because it is" answer occasionally has to be used in maths.

P
Upward Spiral

Halfway

Joined
02 Aug 04
Moves
8702
19 Jul 06

Originally posted by deriver69
In essence 0! is a special case. Maths works far better if 0!=1. The "because it is" answer occasionally has to be used in maths.
It's exactly the same as x^0=1. An empty product equals 1.

B
Non-Subscriber

RHP IQ

Joined
17 Mar 05
Moves
1345
19 Jul 06

(0!+0!+0!+0!+0!)!