# Euler's Formula (Complex Analysis) Problem

Watch
Announcements
#1
e=1

For what values of § does this hold?

I'm not actually looking for the solution to the problem - I know that you just write cos§ + isin§ = 1 and then equate Re and Im, giving you §=2k(pi) for any integer k.
But the first thing I did when I saw this problem was to take the natural logarithm of both sides, giving i§=0, so §=0. Where did all the other solutions go? Is there something insufficient about taking the natural log of both sides, or maybe ln(1) has more than one value in complex numbers?
Basically, why does the method of taking logarithms not work?
0
5 years ago
#2
Yeah, the complex logarithm (i.e. the inverse of the complex exponential function) is multi-valued.
0
5 years ago
#3
As StrangeBanana says, the logarithm does not behave so nicely on C.

For an example;

So the multivalued-ness is just a result of the fact that an argument for a complex number is not unique. Though there is the notion of a principal argument, . Use this argument above, and you get what's called the principal logarithm. It's important to remember that the principle logarithm is still only one possible value, but the most sensible to pick in some sense. Forgetting this will mean solutions will hide from you.
0
#4
(Original post by FireGarden)
As StrangeBanana says, the logarithm does not behave so nicely on C.

For an example;

So the multivalued-ness is just a result of the fact that an argument for a complex number is not unique. Though there is the notion of a principal argument, . Use this argument above, and you get what's called the principal logarithm. It's important to remember that the principle logarithm is still only one possible value, but the most sensible to pick in some sense. Forgetting this will mean solutions will hide from you.
So are you saying that ln(1) is multi-valued as long as nonreal values are allowed?
0
5 years ago
#5
(Original post by PrimeLime)
So are you saying that ln(1) is multi-valued as long as nonreal values are allowed?
Exactly. You can do it.. .

If only real values are allowed, you get just log(1) (=0) uniquely.

Edit: Perhaps it would be good to try and prove that where Log = complex log and log = real log.
1
#6
(Original post by FireGarden)
Exactly. You can do it.. .

If only real values are allowed, you get just log(1) (=0) uniquely.

Edit: Perhaps it would be good to try and prove that where Log = complex log and log = real log.
However, I'm still struggling to understand why ln(e^i0)=2ni(pi)? Surely e^i0 would just be evaluated as 1 first?
Oh and if you don't mind, how do you manage to type maths symbols like that?
0
5 years ago
#7
(Original post by PrimeLime)
However, I'm still struggling to understand why ln(e^i0)=2ni(pi)? Surely e^i0 would just be evaluated as 1 first?
An issue with the complex numbers (but also with other number systems) is that we can't write numbers uniquely.

In , we can write They all represent the same number, which is obvious if you look on an Argand diagram. So when you want to evaluate Log, well.. which of those presentations of the number do you choose? 1 is the "principal" choice as it's the number with a principal argument, but this is really not much more than a fudge to make a certain choice the standard one. Putting all presentations on even footing, we get different results for each presentation, and we can't choose any one over another - so it's just multivalued (and so not really a function.. but people work around this in various ways. One such way is to use the principal value!).

I said similar things happen in other number systems. I'm sure you're aware 1=0.9999... . More exotic-looking things happen in finite fields, like in (the field on 5 elements), you'll get 3=-2.

Oh and if you don't mind, how do you manage to type maths symbols like that?
It's called LaTeX (lay-tek. The 'X' is supposed to be a greek chi). TSR has tags , [te x] and then the end tag [/te x] (without the spaces of course) which then interpret the code inside and re-typesets it as mathematics. If you look at people's posts like you can when you quote somebody, the code will appear.

The usual ways of writing maths still works. x^2+y^2=r^2 becomes . But some things are different. TSR has a guide to latex here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/LaTex
0
5 years ago
#8
As others have stated taking logarithms of a complex number is not as easy in . The formula for working out where is a complex number is derived like this.

is any such that . Since we can write for some real numbers

so .

Also we can write . (Think of any number on an argand diagram and it should be clear why this is true.)

And therefore so and for some integer (this is where we can get infinitely many values for the log because we can just keep adding 2pi and it is equivalent.)

Hence and we get the result that which has been stated above I believe.

Also it is worth noting that with a capital L takes the principal argument for .

Hopefully this makes some sense to you. I only just learned this recently so typing it up helps me understand as well .

Something interesting is that you can actually evaluate logs of negative numbers using this formula.

For example

(Original post by PrimeLime)
...
1
#9
(Original post by FireGarden)
An issue with the complex numbers (but also with other number systems) is that we can't write numbers uniquely.

In , we can write They all represent the same number, which is obvious if you look on an Argand diagram. So when you want to evaluate Log, well.. which of those presentations of the number do you choose? 1 is the "principal" choice as it's the number with a principal argument, but this is really not much more than a fudge to make a certain choice the standard one. Putting all presentations on even footing, we get different results for each presentation, and we can't choose any one over another - so it's just multivalued (and so not really a function.. but people work around this in various ways. One such way is to use the principal value!).

I said similar things happen in other number systems. I'm sure you're aware 1=0.9999... . More exotic-looking things happen in finite fields, like in (the field on 5 elements), you'll get 3=-2.

It's called LaTeX (lay-tek. The 'X' is supposed to be a greek chi). TSR has tags , [te x] and then the end tag [/te x] (without the spaces of course) which then interpret the code inside and re-typesets it as mathematics. If you look at people's posts like you can when you quote somebody, the code will appear.

The usual ways of writing maths still works. x^2+y^2=r^2 becomes . But some things are different. TSR has a guide to latex here: http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/wiki/LaTex
Ok, thanks for your help .
You seem to know a lot of maths; are you an undergraduate now and if so, are you studying maths?
0
#10
(Original post by poorform)
As others have stated taking logarithms of a complex number is not as easy in . The formula for working out where is a complex number is derived like this.

is any such that . Since we can write for some real numbers

so .

Also we can write . (Think of any number on an argand diagram and it should be clear why this is true.)

And therefore so and for some integer (this is where we can get infinitely many values for the log because we can just keep adding 2pi and it is equivalent.)

Hence and we get the result that which has been stated above I believe.

Also it is worth noting that with a capital L takes the principal argument for .

Hopefully this makes some sense to you. I only just learned this recently so typing it up helps me understand as well .

Something interesting is that you can actually evaluate logs of negative numbers using this formula.

For example
This was very helpful, thanks to both of you .
I'm definitely going to take complex analysis as one of my modules at uni now .
0
5 years ago
#11
(Original post by PrimeLime)
Ok, thanks for your help .
You are very welcome.

You seem to know a lot of maths; are you an undergraduate now and if so, are you studying maths?
I'm a postgraduate masters student in mathematics. It doesn't feel like I know that much! Most of what people often ask here I'm far too rusty with to be much help (ugh, trig identites.. not the most memorable things), or sometimes its stuff I never studied much because I find them really dull (for example, I'd be useless at BMO because Euclidean geometry, number theory and combinatorics etc. are precisely the things I never cared/learned about..). I'm mostly interested in modern algebra, with bits of analysis and topology thrown in there.
0
5 years ago
#12
(Original post by PrimeLime)
This was very helpful, thanks to both of you .
I'm definitely going to take complex analysis as one of my modules at uni now .
No problem.
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### Should there be a new university admissions system that ditches predicted grades?

No, I think predicted grades should still be used to make offers (514)
33.64%
Yes, I like the idea of applying to uni after I received my grades (PQA) (633)
41.43%
Yes, I like the idea of receiving offers only after I receive my grades (PQO) (312)
20.42%
I think there is a better option than the ones suggested (let us know in the thread!) (69)
4.52%
{"found_math": false, "script_math_tex": 0, "script_math_asciimath": 0, "math_annotations": 0, "math_alttext": 0, "mathml": 0, "mathjax_tag": 0, "mathjax_inline_tex": 0, "mathjax_display_tex": 0, "mathjax_asciimath": 0, "img_math": 0, "codecogs_latex": 0, "wp_latex": 0, "mimetex.cgi": 0, "/images/math/codecogs": 0, "mathtex.cgi": 0, "katex": 0, "math-container": 0, "wp-katex-eq": 0, "align": 0, "equation": 0, "x-ck12": 0, "texerror": 0}