I was just playing around with complex numbers and I came up with something that I found really intriguing, but very bizarre and puzzling.
Note: I am just having fun, so, please do not take the following very seriously..But sure, please tell me in the comments whether it is correct or not.
My first goal was to find the value of ii. I tackled this in the following way:
Let,
x=ii
Now,
i=ei2π
Substituting this value of i,
x=(ei2π)i
⇒x=ei22π
x=e−2π
⇒ii=0.2078
After having found this value, I took it one step further (towards insanity!)
What is the value of iii…′x′times, where there are ′x′ iotas.
Let f(x)=iii…′x′times
Then,
f(x)=if(x−1)
Taking ln on both sides,
lnf(x)=f(x−1)⋅lni
Note: I know lni doesn't exist, but as I said : just having fun.
Differentiate on both sides wrt x,
f(x)1f′(x)=f′(x−1)lni
Assuming f(x) is differentiable over all x,
Take x→∞lim on both sides.
limx→∞f(x)1x→∞limf′(x)=x→∞limf′(x−1)lni
If x→∞limf′(x)=L, then x→∞limf′(x−1)=L
Thus,
limx→∞f(x)1=lni
⇒x→∞limf(x)=lni1
Therefore,
iii…=lni1=iπ2
I know this may be terribly wrong, but I was just bored of studying, and decided to do all this crazy stuff just for fun.
Anyways, please be nice in the comments and tell me what you think.!
#ComplexNumbers
#ImaginaryNumbers
#Euler'sFormula(ComplexNumbers)
#JustForFun
#IHaveBeenWondering
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Discovered the following later on :
In the process, we did the following,
f(x)=if(x−1)
lnf(x)=f(x−1)lni
Take x→∞lim on both sides,
ln(x→∞limf(x))=lni×x→∞limf(x−1)
We found out in the end that,
x→∞limf(x)=x→∞limf(x−1)=lni1
Substituting this value,
ln(lni1)=lni×(lni1)
−ln(lni)=1
ln(lni)=−1
Now, Im sure I am crazy!
Log in to reply
Well magnitude of 1/logi isn't 1 but i^i^i.... should have magnitude 1 right
Log in to reply
But i^i^i should be (e-^minus pi/2)^i which is -i. Magnitude is 1, if you take modulus.
Log in to reply
Log in to reply
But searching google for ln(ln(I)) gives 0.451582705 + 1.57079633 i And so does Wolfram Alpha...
Log in to reply
Yes, indeed. There must be some flaw in my crazy proof. I dont know.
Not offencive but I think that assuming the limit exists is wrong
Log in to reply
Maybe. I wasn't offended. I expected corrections..This was purely for fun.
Log in to reply
f(x) is not exactly a function in x i.e., as a variable. It is rather somewhat a parameter which denotes the number of iotas. Though the value of \f(x) depends upon x, it is ultimately a constant. Moreover, x can assume only distinct values, the natural numbers. Therefore, is not continuous in that sense.
I think that when you differentiated the function caused the anomaly.To put my view in a better way, f(x) is somewhat like floor function. It accepts different values of x and returns some constant values. Also the floor function is derivable only in specific domains and always returns zero as the value of the function in a way independent of x.
Similarly here, I'm quite certain that when you cancelled the limits, you made the error there by cancelling zero on either side of the equation.
Try it without differentiating, then mostly the anomaly will not rise.
Log in to reply
Consider f(x)=x2. Differentiating, we get f′(x)=2x. Now, f(x) can be written as x+x+x+…+ x times . Differentiating term-wise, we have 1+1+1+…+ x times =x.
The problem is, in writing f(x)=x+x+x+…+ x times, we assume x to be an integer!
Similar to what's going on here.
Log in to reply
It may be a bit surprising that ii has an infinite number of real values. Recall that eiθ=ei(θ+2πn) for any integer n. Thus, we have that ii=(ei2π+2iπn)i=e−2π+2πn for any integer n.
Log in to reply
The problem with complex numbers. They don't exist. :D
AWESOME! That's kind of how my brain works, go off on some crazy tangent, and usually create a problem. :D
Log in to reply
Great minds think alike. :D
it's close, but the Lambert W function is defined as satisfying the equation
z=W(z)eW(z)
so that in solving the equation for this infinite tower function
z=iz
it works out that
z=(W(2iπ))(π2i)
and that first term isn't quite 1, but is some complex number. This problem was already answered in the mid 1800s.
x was originally defined as an integer. How come x is differentiable over x
You can't differentiate the function because it is discrete: x must be a positive integer.
i think gud work out really gud for you
Which is (-2i/pi)
In breaking rules we discover newer better rules. This was fun. I have for too long been a non serious mathematician to come in meaningfully but I can tell you that I loved this post.
Such craziness was in fact the default way we used to prep for IIT JEE. And that was in a different era when coaching was optional ( and it was a suboptimal approach too if you chose not to take it!)
Anyways long story short , Dirac did mathematical craziness like this that led to the concept of antimatter.
And your jottings here reminded me of pretty similar jottings lying somewhere in my old notebooks!
Also a fellow fanboy of Euler and specifically of Euler's formula! :)
can you tell me i^i^i^i^.................infinity = ? if every one is having fun, why not i?