i i
By Mark Woodward (P1738) on Friday,
December 17, 1999 - 11:35 am :
Please could somebody tell me if the following workings are
correct, or if I am using properties that don't hold for complex
numbers.
If
:
Raising both sides to power
:
By law of indices:
This is a bit strange since the LHS represents a real
number.
Is this right or have I gone completely wrong?!
By Dan Goodman (Dfmg2) on Friday,
December 17, 1999 - 12:33 pm :
This is right, there's only one other thing to say, and
that is that this is not the only value for
.
for all integers
. Therefore
for all integers
. In general, when you do things like raising complex
numbers to the power of other complex numbers, you get an infinite number of
values. You might like to try to think about how you work out
and why this leads to an infinite number of values. (Hint: take logs). If you
can't do this, post again and I'll fill in the details.
By Mark Woodward (P1738) on Tuesday,
January 11, 2000 - 09:52 am :
I've tried to work out (a+ib)(c+id) , but cannot
get a completely real solution - I can only get parts of it to be
real. Please help me!
By Dan Goodman (Dfmg2) on Tuesday,
January 11, 2000 - 08:10 pm :
Oops, I think I may have misled you, you don't always get a
real solution,
is special in that respect. In fact, if you have the
form for
you could probably find the condition for it to be
real reasonably easily. Here's another hint, let
and
, then
we want to work out
, we know that
for real
,
and this is also true for complex
,
. Now we need to work out what
is, well, if you write
as
then clearly
. In other words,
where
is the angle of
. Do you want to try to finish this off or
shall I finish it up?
By Mark Woodward (P1738) on Thursday,
January 13, 2000 - 01:55 pm :
I hope this is what you were thinking of.
So therefore
Aaaagh!
This gives the special case when
and
of
By Dan Goodman (Dfmg2) on Thursday,
January 13, 2000 - 06:22 pm :
That's right, but you didn't put in the bit about multiple
values of
. When you find the angle
there are two
problems. First of all, this only gives the correct angle in two quadrants as
, which is why we define the function
to be the
correct angle in all 4 quadrants. Secondly, there are an infinite number of
possible values for the angle,
for any
. If you now put
this into the equation you will find more special cases where it is real.
Another slight simplification is
.
So, expanding out we get:
. If we
put the imaginary part of this expression equal to 0, we get
So, when this holds, it will be real. So one condition we could write for the
thing to be real is. There are two integers,
and
such that:
If you're still interested, see if you can simplify this condition into
something nicer. By the way, another good special case when it is real is
when
,
.
It may seem strange that there isn't a unique value of
, and
it is. A function like
which has this property can be split into
what are called branches, each different value of
is a different branch.
What you can do is take what is called the "principal branch", this is denoted
and is the one where the angle is in the interval
.
This specifies a unique value of
.