# Square root of i ? (and another math kweshun)

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [February 26, 2004, 8:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262 "2004-02-26T08:23:24Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 20\
**Page:** 3

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ackafool\_Upnhere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Ackafool\_Upnhere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ackafool_Upnhere)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/41 "2004-02-28T20:22:18Z")

</div>

OK, my head is spinning.

Malacandra, thanks for walking me thru the end of these equations. I eventually got there after I got over my fear of exponents 😉

Folks, this is all very freaky- Can anybody tell me how the constant e came to be a part of all this. To me, it must have took a great leap of imagination to go from x+iy to the polar notation, and how was it discovered that it was e^iΘ and not some other number?

In looking at logarithms of negative reals, I can now see somewhat of a connection, but it’s still not clear to me.

Thanks again for all the brain food.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Hari\_Seldon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/hari_seldon/32/5173_2.png) [@Hari\_Seldon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hari_Seldon)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 8:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/42 "2004-02-28T20:38:43Z")

</div>

> [@Achernar](#):
>
> I don’t think it’s that big of a problem. It’s not unlike the arcsine function on the real numbers. Sure, there are an infinite number of solutions to sin(x) = 0.4, but we still define arcsin(0.4) as the “primary” value.

But it is a problem. Say you take a circle in the complex plane that encloses the origin and you take the logarithm of each point on it, taking care that nearby points are on the same branch. When you come round to the your starting point, you will find that you do not get the logarithm you started with but one that differs by 2_pi_i. (If you go counter-clockwise around the circle, it will increase by that amount; in the other direction it will decrease.) If you do the same with the square root, it will change sign and if you do it twice you are back where you started from. This is what is meant when one says that the Riemann surface of the square root is two-sheeted, but that of the logarithm has infinitely many sheets.

To compound the problem, there is really no natural choice among the possible square roots of complex numbers as there for positive real numbers where you can specify that the square root sign stands for the positive square root. Complex numbers have no notion of positivity.

BTW, no one has ever proved that e + pi is even irrational, let alone transcedental, and I assume it is the same for i^i, whichever branch you take.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 9:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/43 "2004-02-28T21:02:28Z")

</div>

> [@RM Mentock](#):
>
> You have to be careful there. I know that is your point, but the equality doesn’t necessarily hold. It’s the same reason that we don’t say -2 = Sqrt(4), because we know that 2 = Sqrt(4) and if that first were true equality, that would imply -2 = 2, since they’d both be equal to the same “thing”.

Well…

It’s only an issue if i[sup]i[/sup] is a single-valued expression. It’s not, so there’s no real problem. i[sup]i[/sup] = exp(-[symbol]p[/symbol]/2), and i[sup]i[/sup] = exp(-3[symbol]p[/symbol]/2), but it doesn’t follow that exp(-[symbol]p[/symbol]/2) = exp(-3[symbol]p[/symbol]/2). Why not? Because i[sup]i[/sup] isn’t a single number.

It’s the same reason why you can’t just use the transitive property to show that if a sequence has two limits they must be the same. That relies on the assumption that the limit of a sequence is well-defined, which is what you’re trying to prove.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![ultrafilter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/3d9bf3/32.png) [@ultrafilter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ultrafilter)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 9:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/44 "2004-02-28T21:06:07Z")

</div>

> [@Ackafool Upnhere](#):
>
> Folks, this is all very freaky- Can anybody tell me how the constant e came to be a part of all this. To me, it must have took a great leap of imagination to go from x+iy to the polar notation, and how was it discovered that it was e^iΘ and not some other number?

It has to do with Taylor series. It should be easy to see on the trig circle that the point (r, [symbol]q[/symbol]) corresponds to the complex number rcos([symbol]q[/symbol]) + [symbol]i[/symbol]sin([symbol]q[/symbol]). If you expand the trig functions out as Taylor series and combine them, you get the same Taylor series as you would for re[sup][symbol]iq[/symbol][/sup].

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 9:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/45 "2004-02-28T21:12:36Z")

</div>

> [@ultrafilter](#):
>
> It’s only an issue if i[sup]i[/sup] is a single-valued expression. It’s not, so there’s no real problem. i[sup]i[/sup] = exp(-[symbol]p[/symbol]/2), and i[sup]i[/sup] = exp(-3[symbol]p[/symbol]/2), but it doesn’t follow that exp(-[symbol]p[/symbol]/2) = exp(-3[symbol]p[/symbol]/2). Why not? Because i[sup]i[/sup] isn’t a single number.

No, it doesn’t follow because you are not using the equals sign as an equals sign. That was my point.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@Jabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jabba)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 9:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/46 "2004-02-28T21:33:18Z")

</div>

> [@Hari Seldon](#):
>
> BTW, no one has ever proved that e + pi is even irrational, let alone transcedental, and I assume it is the same for i^i, whichever branch you take.

That e[sup][symbol]p[/symbol]/2[/sup] is transcendental is an immediate consequence of the Gelfond-Schneider Theorem.

You are correct about e + [symbol]p[/symbol], though there is an amusing proof that at least one of e + [symbol]p[/symbol] and e[symbol]p[/symbol] is transcendental.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![erislover](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/71e660/32.png) [@erislover](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/erislover)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/47 "2004-02-28T22:52:28Z")

</div>

Amusing? 😃

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jabba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b5e925/32.png) [@Jabba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jabba)\
**Post date:** [February 28, 2004, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/48 "2004-02-28T23:36:55Z")

</div>

Well, it amused me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\
**Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/49 "2004-02-29T17:09:44Z")

</div>

> [@Hari Seldon](#):
>
> One point that should be made is that all this talk about logs of negative numbers and arc sines of numbers larger than 1 have to be taken with a grain of salt. Just as i (like any non-zero number) has two square roots, any number has infinitely many logarithms! The fact that e^2_pi_i = 1 implies that you can add an arbutrary integer multiple of 2_pi_i to any logarithm. Sure log (-1) = pi_i, but it also equals -pi_i and 3_pi_i and -7_pi_i and …

This just shows that even the Argand Plane runs aground eventually. The logarithm does have a well-defined value when the domain is an appropriate Riemann surface.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\
**Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/50 "2004-02-29T17:22:04Z")

</div>

> [@DarrenS](#):
>
> Now _that_ is freaky - I never knew that. How can one rationalize (pun unavoidable) that?

Just think about the definition for a bit (here there be TeX):

a^b = e^{\ln(a^b)} = e^{b\ln(a)}

Now from Euler we know e^{i \pi\over 2} = i, so \ln(i) = i {\pi\over 2}. Plugging in i for both a and b above we get

i^i = e^{i \ln(i)} = e^{i^2 {\pi\over 2}} = e^{-\pi\over 2}

Simple, really

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\
**Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/51 "2004-02-29T17:22:23Z")

</div>

> [@DarrenS](#):
>
> Now _that_ is freaky - I never knew that. How can one rationalize (pun unavoidable) that?

Just think about the definition for a bit (here there be TeX):

a^b = e^{\ln(a^b)} = e^{b\ln(a)}

Now from Euler we know e^{i \pi\over 2} = i, so \ln(i) = i {\pi\over 2}. Plugging in i for both a and b above we get

i^i = e^{i \ln(i)} = e^{i^2 {\pi\over 2}} = e^{-\pi\over 2}

Simple, really.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Malacandra](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Malacandra](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Malacandra)\
**Post date:** [February 29, 2004, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/52 "2004-02-29T21:50:59Z")

</div>

Before anybody asks, I got way out of my depth several posts ago, so there’ll be no more helpful explanations from old **Mal** 🆒

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Ackafool\_Upnhere](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/22d042/32.png) [@Ackafool\_Upnhere](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ackafool_Upnhere)\
**Post date:** [March 1, 2004, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/53 "2004-03-01T02:13:27Z")

</div>

Taylor series

Riemann surface

Gelfond-Schneider

Argand plane

I want my Mommy…

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2004, 6:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/54 "2004-09-09T06:49:02Z")

</div>

> [@Achernar](#):
>
> One other thing I’ve always liked is that **i[sup]i[/sup]** is real. (It’s equal to exp(-pi/2), or 0.2089796.)

0.20 **78** 796 BTW

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2004, 6:57am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/55 "2004-09-09T06:57:25Z")

</div>

> [@RM Mentock](#):
>
> 0.20 **78** 796 BTW

Or even 0.207879576350762. Pikers!

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![RM\_Mentock](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e274bd/32.png) [@RM\_Mentock](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RM_Mentock)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2004, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/56 "2004-09-09T07:04:31Z")

</div>

my microsoft calculator returned 0.20787957635076190854695561983498 but I didn’t trust it

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![David\_Simmons](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/9de053/32.png) [@David\_Simmons](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/David_Simmons)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2004, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/57 "2004-09-09T07:05:48Z")

</div>

> [@RM Mentock](#):
>
> my microsoft calculator returned 0.20787957635076190854695561983498 but I didn’t trust it

Uncle.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Mathochist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/c89c15/32.png) [@Mathochist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mathochist)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2004, 7:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/58 "2004-09-09T07:43:10Z")

</div>

> [@RM Mentock](#):
>
> my microsoft calculator returned 0.20787957635076190854695561983498 but I didn’t trust it

1. 

20787957635076190854695561983497877003387784163176  
96080751358830554198772854821397886002778654260353  
40521773307235021808190619730374663986999911263178  
64120573171777952006743376649542246381929737430538  
70376005189066303304970051900555620047586620529435  
18344318434550274797453447699347141723832308152714  
81800760921074192047151878353489584821890186029582  
33129566295207082340956769636374203945143939418386  
19010808208977717517050043481764547517145298943411  
34142017562215488095419920914735851528567953452697  
63049937295772948259970284775240324808207770291871  
97217538347520860864858753477865546983832553679013  
83517221186415195959120390444802266967367943596502  
05584360295696065582494313369401729524289610861619  
82499904513569005736405110266439137351740627907496  
88490122755719177620377303584528775757603495038129  
91539865873765359168640051599889710637990616086300  
30990136457094981381438036640348913456287571677992  
63377000749589344423980292093268230632524978561696  
93490834025947248477168094655354769168600552152102

Go on. Whip 'em out. Mathematica will take _all_ y’all 🆒

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Bryan\_Ekers](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bryan_ekers/32/183_2.png) [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2004, 8:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/59 "2004-09-09T08:21:48Z")

</div>

When you start on the path,  
To understand some math,  
You’ll find it’s quite tempting to cry.  
The concepts are hard,  
And common sense marred,  
And little is easy as pi.

You can study lambda,  
If you find that you haveta,  
Though actu’lly, I find it makes me numb.  
I never can see,  
Just to what degree,  
This knowledge will increase my freedom.

If anything’s crueler,  
Than a lecture on Euler,  
I’ve yet to take its full measure.  
I’ll put my boot on,  
If you hit me with Newton,  
And stamp to display my displeasure.

The type-one error,  
I’ve made, to be fairer,  
Can be said to be of my own choosing.  
But if I fail to reject,  
That which makes me deject,  
I feel myself forced to start boozing.

Now we’re discussing _i_,  
And I feel like I’m gonna die,  
You say it’s pure imagination?  
I’m not astute enough,  
Or nearly acute enough,  
To get past my misinterpretation.

It might be better,  
To contemplate theta,  
After a serious round of drinking.  
I’ll consider a colostomy,  
Before discussing isosceles,  
For it all makes my brain feel like shrinking.

If one is a failure,  
For not getting “scalar”,  
I’ll just take my “F” now, and thank you.  
Squaring the circle,  
Is nerd-work for Urkel,  
Don’t force me, I might have to shank you.

I’ll just have to draw the line,  
If you mention Mersenne primes,  
Or try to advance your pet theorem.  
I live in the moment,  
And not by exponents,  
And numbers too big make me fear 'em.

If you say I’ve no focus,  
And certainly no locus,  
I’ll ignore your harsh persecution.  
I’ll go fishing somewhere,  
And my catch I’ll not share,  
There will be no Poisson distribution.

But if you’re quite ragering,  
And cite Pascal’s wagering,  
And say it’s best to know math than not,  
I’ll just smile and nod,  
While eating my cod,  
And your lecture will soon be forgot.

-Bryan Ekers, 2004

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Desmostylus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c57346/32.png) [@Desmostylus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Desmostylus)\
**Post date:** [September 9, 2004, 10:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262/60 "2004-09-09T10:36:07Z")

</div>

> [@David Simmons](#):
>
> Uncle.

Don’t give up so easily. **RM Mentock** had been working on that answer for more than six months. It wasn’t until your post that he thought of using a _calculator_. 😉

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262.md?page=2)

[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/square-root-of-i-and-another-math-kweshun/231262.md?page=4)