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:
Use the emojis to react to an explanation, whether you're congratulating a job well done , or just really confused .
Ask specific questions about the challenge or the steps in somebody's explanation. Well-posed questions can add a lot to the discussion, but posting "I don't understand!" doesn't help anyone.
Try to contribute something new to the discussion, whether it is an extension, generalization or other idea related to the challenge.
Stay on topic — we're all here to learn more about math and science, not to hear about your favorite get-rich-quick scheme or current world events.
Markdown
Appears as
*italics* or _italics_
italics
**bold** or __bold__
bold
- bulleted - list
bulleted
list
1. numbered 2. list
numbered
list
Note: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctly
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
# I indented these lines
# 4 spaces, and now they show
# up as a code block.
print "hello world"
Math
Appears as
Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.
2 \times 3
2×3
2^{34}
234
a_{i-1}
ai−1
\frac{2}{3}
32
\sqrt{2}
2
\sum_{i=1}^3
∑i=13
\sin \theta
sinθ
\boxed{123}
123
Comments
From one point of view, you didn't. It is impossible to define the logarithm continuously on the whole complex plane. Basically we have to have
lnz=ln∣z∣+iArg(z)z=0
and the problem lies in the fact that Arg(z) is not continuously well-defined on the whole complex plane, or even on the complex plane with 0 removed.
A choice of convention is called for. The standard definition, or "principal branch", of the logarithm would restrict its definition to the cut plane of the complex numbers with the negative real axis removed, so that ∣z∣>0 and −π<Arg(z)<π throughout. Then the above definition works fine, and has the advantage that the logarithm of positive real numbers coincides with the normal definition for positive reals. This definition of the logarithm is analytic on its cut plane.
However, you could choose a branch of the logarithm which was defined on the complex plane with the positive imaginary axis removed, with the assumed convention for Argument being such that
2π<Arg(z)<25π
throughout the region. In this case, the value of ln1 would indeed be 2πi. This definition of logarithm would also be analytic in its cut plane.
It is simply a matter of convention and a wish for consistency that makes us choose the first definition of the logarithm whenever possible.
It's possible to go a bit better than this -- in fact, this gets to the heart of why complex numbers are so awesome.
Instead of restricting ourselves to the complex plane, and introducing an artificial discontinuity, we can imagine the domain of logz to potentially be some surface other than a plane. But it has to have the property that the function varies smoothly over the extent of the surface.
(As an aside, we can also do this with f(z)=1/z. That function naturally tends to have a sphere for the domain - with the south pole being 0 and the north pole being ±inf). The function maps the sphere onto an upsidedown copy of the sphere.
If we consider taking a little circle around the point z=0, and evaluating the log function at each point, we will find that once we complete the circle we don't get back to where we started.
Specifically, consider loge(0.1)i, loge(0.2)i, ...., until we get up to loge(2π)i=2πi. We went around 0 in a circle but we now find ourselves in a different place.
In other words, taking a curved path that turns through 2π radians, if we integrate along that path we actually don't get 0 as we would for a real function of two variables; we get 2πi.
So we can think of the "full" domain of logz to be like a spiral staircase, with the central pillar at z=0. If we take this as the domain then the function is smooth everywhere, except for a finite number of discontinuities - in fact, just z=0 in this case.
Here's a visualization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Riemannsurfacelog.jpg
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
From one point of view, you didn't. It is impossible to define the logarithm continuously on the whole complex plane. Basically we have to have lnz=ln∣z∣+iArg(z)z=0 and the problem lies in the fact that Arg(z) is not continuously well-defined on the whole complex plane, or even on the complex plane with 0 removed.
A choice of convention is called for. The standard definition, or "principal branch", of the logarithm would restrict its definition to the cut plane of the complex numbers with the negative real axis removed, so that ∣z∣>0 and −π<Arg(z)<π throughout. Then the above definition works fine, and has the advantage that the logarithm of positive real numbers coincides with the normal definition for positive reals. This definition of the logarithm is analytic on its cut plane.
However, you could choose a branch of the logarithm which was defined on the complex plane with the positive imaginary axis removed, with the assumed convention for Argument being such that 2π<Arg(z)<25π throughout the region. In this case, the value of ln1 would indeed be 2πi. This definition of logarithm would also be analytic in its cut plane.
It is simply a matter of convention and a wish for consistency that makes us choose the first definition of the logarithm whenever possible.
Log in to reply
It's possible to go a bit better than this -- in fact, this gets to the heart of why complex numbers are so awesome.
Instead of restricting ourselves to the complex plane, and introducing an artificial discontinuity, we can imagine the domain of logz to potentially be some surface other than a plane. But it has to have the property that the function varies smoothly over the extent of the surface.
(As an aside, we can also do this with f(z)=1/z. That function naturally tends to have a sphere for the domain - with the south pole being 0 and the north pole being ±inf). The function maps the sphere onto an upsidedown copy of the sphere.
If we consider taking a little circle around the point z=0, and evaluating the log function at each point, we will find that once we complete the circle we don't get back to where we started.
Specifically, consider loge(0.1)i, loge(0.2)i, ...., until we get up to loge(2π)i=2πi. We went around 0 in a circle but we now find ourselves in a different place.
In other words, taking a curved path that turns through 2π radians, if we integrate along that path we actually don't get 0 as we would for a real function of two variables; we get 2πi.
So we can think of the "full" domain of logz to be like a spiral staircase, with the central pillar at z=0. If we take this as the domain then the function is smooth everywhere, except for a finite number of discontinuities - in fact, just z=0 in this case.
Here's a visualization: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Riemannsurfacelog.jpg
Nice post Mark H.! Thank you.
ℑ(Santa Claus)=Santa Claus
Log in to reply
Ho ho ho, Of course, since x+iy=y⇒x=y=0 for real x,y, if Santa Claus were equal to his imaginary part, he would be 0, so real, and not imaginary.
its like saying e^{0}=e^{2i(pi)} means 2i(pi)=0 or i=0