Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 32

Thread: 1 = -1

  1. Top | #21
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,487
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,075
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by steve bank
    You appear to be arguing theory without knowing algebra and exponents.-1^3 = -1`*-1*-1 = -1.
    The first sentence is false, and it should be obvious that it is false. It may appear to you that that is so, because you believe that I'm saying something very different from what I'm saying. But that is not on me.

    The second sentence has the problem of lacking parentheses, but it is obviously true that (-1)^3=(-1)*(-1)*(-1)=-1 (well, it is obvious to me anyway).


    Quote Originally Posted by steve bank
    cube root (-27_^1/3 is -3. square root (-3)^1/2 is not defined.
    That is correct.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve bank
    This is fundamental to imaginary numbers. You can invoke theory as you please as long as you do not insist on rejecting the established well used rules of algebra, exponents, and complex numbers.
    Of course I reject nothing of the sort.


    Quote Originally Posted by steve bank
    Clarify, exactly what is it you are trying to prove or assert?
    I already have, and this seems pointless because you are failing to follow, but here goes again: There is no function f from a domain D into the complex numbers with the following properties:

    1. D contains the real line.
    2. For all nonnegative real x, f(x)=sqrt(x).
    3. For all x,y in D, f(xy)=f(x)f(y).
    4. For all x in D, (f(x))^2=x.

    This is the sort of function that would extend the usual sqrt function, defined for nonnegative reals, and keeping some nice properties used in SLD's proof.

    By the way, SLD's proof is actually a proof by contradiction that there is no such function. It's just that SLD (just for fun, because he understands it) reached the opposite conclusion, i.e., that 1=-1. I took this thread also to be for fun (hence, my first reply), but you made it contentious for some reason.

  2. Top | #22
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    15
    The proof violates the rules of complex numbers.

    You can not get 1=-1 by properly applying the rules of imaginary numbers any motr tjan you can get -1=1 by properly applying algebra. The proof is based on operations not defined for imaginary numbers.

    You argued -1^1/N is not valid for n = 1,3,5.... do you still?



    1. D contains the real line.
    2. For all nonnegative real x, f(x)=sqrt(x).
    3. For all x,y in D, f(xy)=f(x)f(y).
    4. For all x in D, (f(x))^2=x.
    The problem is 2. What is sqrt(x)? How is that defined? Based ion the definition of sqrt(x) why is it not defined for negative numbers?

    In 3 are you invoking composite functions for some reason?

    2 and 3 is just convoluted hand waving. That is derived and proven by the laws of exponents. [ab]^1/2 = [a]^1/2] * [b]^1/2.

    All's you have done is say in a roundabout way the square root of a positive real is a positive real, but we already know that. We know the square root of negative number has an imaginary solution. In algebra square root of a negative number is not an issue.

    So what is your point?

  3. Top | #23
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Buenos Aires
    Posts
    2,487
    Archived
    7,588
    Total Posts
    10,075
    Rep Power
    55
    Quote Originally Posted by steve bank
    The proof violates the rules of complex numbers.

    You can not get 1=-1 by properly applying the rules of imaginary numbers any motr tjan you can get -1=1 by properly applying algebra. The proof is based on operations not defined for imaginary numbers.
    It is of course a proof that the operation in question is not defined.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve bank
    You argued -1^1/N is not valid for n = 1,3,5.... do you still?
    I never did any of the sort.
    Quote Originally Posted by stever bank
    The problem is 2. What is sqrt(x)? How is that defined? Based ion the definition of sqrt(x) why is it not defined for negative numbers?
    It is the standard square root function, defined on the set of nonnegative real numbers.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve bank
    All's you have done is say in a roundabout way the square root of a positive real is a positive real, but we already know that.
    No, I did not say that (in a roundabout way or not). It is of course true, but I didn't think it was worth mentioning, so I did not say it.

    Quote Originally Posted by steve bank
    In 3 are you invoking composite functions for some reason?
    No.


    Quote Originally Posted by steve bank
    So what is your point?
    Sorry, I have dedicated a considerable amount of time to explain that, but you continue to attribute to me claims and arguments not related to what I said, and continue to raise objections to things that are not related to what I said, so I'm afraid I'm giving up.

  4. Top | #24
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    15
    A proof that the square root of a real negative number is not possible.

    p1. The square root-of a number y equal to the square root of x is y such that y multiplied times it self equals x.
    p22. For y a real square root of a real negative number, y multiplied by y must be negative.
    p3. For a real number +y , y*y is positive.
    p4. For a real number -y , y*y is positive.
    c Therefore no real number solution exists for the square root of a negative real number.

    The square root of a real number is limited to positive reals because a solution to the square root of negative number using reals does not exist. It is not because it is theoretically defined as such.

    Anyone who uses algebra would not see the square root of a real number limited to positive reals, they would understand imaginary numbers. If it were limited to positive reals it would not have much value in engineering.

    Take a look at the Quadratic Equation which provides the roots, real and imaginary, of a 2nd order polynomial. Widely used in engineering. General solutions to roots of a polynomial of any order involve both real and imaginary roots.

    So when you say sqr(x) is limited to positive reals because it is defined that way it has no merit. You can define it that way in the context of same application, but not globally.I still do not see the point you are trying to make.

  5. Top | #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Bible Belt, USA
    Posts
    909
    Archived
    2,467
    Total Posts
    3,376
    Rep Power
    65
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    1 = -1

    Proof:

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

    QED!

    Prove me wrong!
    The controversy over the existence of the Zenneck wave was due to this sign error. As others have noted, the square root operator must be considered a multi-valued function as soon as negative numbers are added into the mix. (The fact that the term "multl-valued function" gives some mathematicians conniptions gives this electrical engineer a certain sort of perverse pleasure.)

  6. Top | #26
    Elder Contributor
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Located 100 miles east of A in America
    Posts
    26,904
    Archived
    42,473
    Total Posts
    69,377
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    1 = -1

    Proof:

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

    QED!

    Prove me wrong!
    I'm late to the party, but shouldn't: -1j = i2 (using j for imaginary notation)

  7. Top | #27
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    15
    And there I was thinking that for once I had the last word on a thread.

  8. Top | #28
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    9,307
    Archived
    17,741
    Total Posts
    27,048
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by Artemus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    1 = -1

    Proof:

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

    QED!

    Prove me wrong!
    The controversy over the existence of the Zenneck wave was due to this sign error. As others have noted, the square root operator must be considered a multi-valued function as soon as negative numbers are added into the mix. (The fact that the term "multl-valued function" gives some mathematicians conniptions gives this electrical engineer a certain sort of perverse pleasure.)
    *heart palpatations* It's a relation. *breathing in and out*

  9. Top | #29
    Veteran Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Birmingham, Alabama
    Posts
    2,022
    Archived
    4,109
    Total Posts
    6,131
    Rep Power
    74
    Quote Originally Posted by Don2 (Don1 Revised) View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Artemus View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by SLD View Post
    1 = -1

    Proof:

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

    QED!

    Prove me wrong!
    The controversy over the existence of the Zenneck wave was due to this sign error. As others have noted, the square root operator must be considered a multi-valued function as soon as negative numbers are added into the mix. (The fact that the term "multl-valued function" gives some mathematicians conniptions gives this electrical engineer a certain sort of perverse pleasure.)
    *heart palpatations* It's a relation. *breathing in and out*
    It seems to me to be simply the last equals sign in the proof. Artemus is right. The square root of 1 is not 1, but either 1 or -1. That’s all we need to know to show the logical flaw.

    But there is something more to this issue. 1 can still be equal to -1 depending on the topological space one finds oneself. Rotate a vector (1,0) through 2 pi. Should come back to (1,0). But on a Möbius strip it’s (-1,0). (Basically) Topology rules!

    SLD

  10. Top | #30
    Contributor
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Location
    seattle
    Posts
    5,769
    Rep Power
    15
    Topology is beyond me. Are you saying in topology 1 can algebraically equal -1? Or are you talking about vectors and direction, analogues to unit vectors?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •