Thursday, 24 July 2014

exponentiation - Non-integer powers of negative numbers



Roots behave strangely over complex numbers. Given this, how do non-integer powers behave over negative numbers? More specifically:




  • Can we define fractional powers such as (2)1.5?

  • Can we define irrational powers (2)π?


Answer




As other posters have indicated, the problem is that the complex logarithm isn't well-defined on C. This is related to my comments in a recent question about the square root not being well-defined (since of course z=elogz2).



One point of view is that the complex exponential ez:CC does not really have domain C. Due to periodicity it really has domain C/2πiZ. So one way to define the complex logarithm is not as a function with range C, but as a function with range C/2πiZ. Thus for example log1=0,2πi,2πi,... and so forth.



So what are we doing when we don't do this? Well, let us suppose that for the time being we have decided that log1=0. This is how we get other values of the logarithm: using power series, we can define log(1+z) for any z with |z|<1. We can now pick any number in this circle and take a power series expansion about that number to get a different power series whose circle of convergence is somewhere else. And by repeatedly changing the center of our power series, we can compute different values of the logarithm. This is called analytic continuation, and typically it proceeds by choosing a (say, smooth) path from 1 to some other complex number and taking power series around different points in that path.



The problem you quickly run into is that the value of logz depends on the choice of path from 1 to z. For example, the path z=e2πit,0t1 is a path from 1 to 1, and if you analytically continue the logarithm on it you will get log1=2πi. And that is not what you wanted. (This is essentially the same as the contour integral of 1z along this contour.)



One way around this problem is to arbitrarily choose a ray from the origin and declare that you are not allowed to analytically continue the logarithm through this ray. This is called choosing a branch cut, and it is not canonical, so I don't like it.




There is another way to resolve this situation, which is to consider the Riemann surface (z,ez)C2 and to think of the logarithm as the projection to the first coordinate from this surface to C. So all the difficulties we have encountered above have been due to the fact that we have been trying to pretend that this projection has certain properties that it doesn't have. A closed path like z=e2πit in which the logarithm starts and ends with different values corresponds to a path on this surface which starts and ends at different points, so there is no contradiction. This was Riemann's original motivation for defining Riemann surfaces, and it is this particular Riemann surface that powers things like the residue theorem.


No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find lim without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...