| Desmond
Jacelon |
Is there any difference, in terms of definition, between ex and exp(x)? |
||
| Matthew
Buckley |
Nope, there is no difference at all - just two ways of writing the same thing! |
||
| Ian
Short |
By convention they denote the same thing, although strictly the former is a multi-valued function and the latter is single-valued (for complex numbers). For complex numbers define, For not equal to 0 define (any integer ). So if then has many values. Take for the convention. Ian |
||
| Desmond
Jacelon |
Thanks. One question though: is the definition of wz purely arbitrary? Desmond |
||
| Philip
Ellison |
can be seen to be equal to by considering the power series expansions of , and . However, this assumes that the expansion of is valid for complex numbers, which at A-level we are simply told is acceptable, but which I vaguely recall reading somewhere is simply a matter of definition, i.e. we define as . |
||
| Alex Miller
Alex |
as Philip said, ![]() -Alex Miller |
||
| William
Hall |
The above is all true, but the definition of is altogether more subtle. We define by where we are taking logarithms to the base . There are several things we have to consider here: 1) What it means to take the natural logarithm of a complex number - if we write (where is real and is the argument of ), then we may write that , 2) Note how we have to be careful with this, because the above complex logarithm is multivalued (i.e. since , then we could add any multiple of to ). Hence we restrict the argument of to be within some range of width (i.e. encompassing all of the complex plane), but such that there is no overlap, i.e. we may let (for example) Such a restriction of the argument of is known as a branch cut (in fact, the above branch is known as the principal branch). Another possibility would be . The whole point of this is to prevent the function being multivalued (i.e. the function is well defined). However, the range of which we choose is purely arbitrary; in fact, different branches define different functions. However, it is relatively easy to show that this definition coincides with the (obviously single value) for integer (in this case, the branch cut, since a change in the argument by does not change , as ). Bill |