Jump to content

Menu

imaginary numbers: what am I missing


Recommended Posts

From dd13:

 

i^2 = -1

i = sqrt(-1)

i^2 = i*i = sqrt(-1) * sqrt(-1) = sqrt([-1]*[-1]) = sqrt(1) = 1

 

That is, the product of the square root of negative 1 and square root of negative 1 is the square root of the product (-1)*(-1) which is the square root of 1.  So i^2 = 1.  

 

I know I'm missing something here.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are forgetting that square roots do NOT apply to negative numbers. Its for all integers a, such a >= 0.

From dd13:

 

i^2 = -1

i = sqrt(-1)

i^2 = i*i = sqrt(-1) * sqrt(-1) = sqrt([-1]*[-1]) = sqrt(1) = 1

 

That is, the product of the square root of negative 1 and square root of negative 1 is the square root of the product (-1)*(-1) which is the square root of 1.  So i^2 = 1.  

 

I know I'm missing something here.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, to be even more pedantic.  :)  (this is a classic problem in introductory abstract algebra)

 

If you consider sqrt(-1) = i as a point in the complex plane (0, 1i), then, yes, you can do a square root of a negative number.  It is defined and completely valid.

 

However, square roots are not always distributive in the complex plane.  That is, sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) <> sqrt(-1 * -1).  That property holds for real numbers, but not for complex numbers with a nonreal component.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, to be even more pedantic.  :)  (this is a classic problem in introductory abstract algebra)

 

If you consider sqrt(-1) = i as a point in the complex plane (0, 1i), then, yes, you can do a square root of a negative number.  It is defined and completely valid.

 

However, square roots are not always distributive in the complex plane.  That is, sqrt(-1)*sqrt(-1) <> sqrt(-1 * -1).  That property holds for real numbers, but not for complex numbers with a nonreal component.

 

And thank you, sir.  This does in fact help to clarify.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And thank you, sir.  This does in fact help to clarify.

 

Not a problem.  For some reason, many texts treat complex numbers as a funny extension of the reals, when they are in fact 2-dimensional, and have an unusual definition of multiplication [ (a,b)*(c,d) = (ac-bd, ad+bc) ].  I really wish the textbooks would be clearer...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...