Re:What's the Deal with Euler's Identity?
by JohnKemeny on Friday December 05, 2025 @04:36AM
(#46158999)
Is your argument that complex powers isn't anything?
Re:What's the Deal with Euler's Identity?
by xinu2020 on Friday December 05, 2025 @04:51AM
(#46159146)
Their argument is that ln(z) where z is a complex number is a multi-valued function, so the statement "Explore why i^i is real number" could be misinterpreted as i^i = a single well-defined real value.
Re:What's the Deal with Euler's Identity?
by JohnKemeny on Friday December 05, 2025 @05:33AM
(#46159432)
Yes, but it seems strange to claim that i^i isn't anything. That just completely ignores what's interesting, namely that i(π/2 + 2πk) is real for all k ∈ Z.
Re:What's the Deal with Euler's Identity?
by ogogmad on Friday December 05, 2025 @12:17PM
(#46164241)
In maths, an expression only ever equals a single number. You can't say i^i = e^(-pi/2) and then also say that i^i = e^(3 pi / 2), because if i^i equals two things, then those two things are also equal to each other, and then we get that e^(-pi/2) = e^(3 pi / 2), which is wrong.
Riemann surfaces are the only way to fix this. And they're not even that hard to understand, but I'm not sure if you do.
Stop making people confused.
Re:What's the Deal with Euler's Identity?
by ogogmad on Friday December 05, 2025 @12:41PM
(#46164562)
Apologies if this is pedantic but "multi-valued function" is not a thing. The function doesn't have multiple values here. Saying "multi-valued function" is not just a way of misleading people about what's really happening, but it's almost the perfect way to stop people from finding out. Do people who say "multi-valued function" know what's really happening? Do you know what a Riemann surface is?
Re:What's the Deal with Euler's Identity?
by ogogmad on Friday December 05, 2025 @12:07PM
(#46164087)
A complex number raised to a complex number is arguably meaningless. What's inarguable is that it can lead to a big misunderstanding. What makes sense instead is a point on a helix raised to a complex number. A helix ≠ the complex numbers. Anyone who doesn't know about Riemann surfaces should stop talking about this topic.
I suppose that by pure convention, "w=e" is understood as denoting a single unique point on the helix. But extending that convention to w=i starts to look like a recipe for confusion.