e=e1=e2πi2πi=(e2πi)12πi=(1)12πi=1
What's wrong with this proof? I'm guessing that the flaw is involved with the 3rd equal sign, where e2πi2πi=(e2πi)12πi. But what is the specific rule that's being broken? More importantly, what is the rule I need to follow generally in complex analysis to make sure this kind of thing doesn't happen?
Answer
This is like saying:
−1=(−1)1=((−1)2)1/2=11/2=1
The problem is that complex xy is actually tricky.
If we want xy to be a single-valued function, then you lose the property (xy)z=xyz.
If we allow xy to be multi-valued, then −1 and 1 are both values of 11/2, and e and 1 are both values of 112πi. But that doesn't mean that −1=1 or e=1.
In generally, if x is a non-zero complex number, the only time there is a single value for xy is when y is an integer.
When y=p/q is a rational number, with p,q relatively prime, then there are q distinct possible values for xy.
For any other y, there are infinitely many possible values of xy. In particular, there are infinitely many values for 112πi, and they are all ek for some integer k.
With the multivalued view you only get that every value of xyz is a value of (xy)z. The opposite is not true, in general. Similarly, every value of xy+z is a value of xyxz, but not visa versa.
No comments:
Post a Comment