A long time ago, back in February of 2008, when Mathmonsoon had just begun, I discovered an identity that expresses the logarithm with any base (other than -1, 1 or 0) of any number (excluding 0). I was excited because I had always been curious about how my TI-84 calculator and Mathematica are able to spit out logs of negative numbers: for example, they can calculate the log of -4 as some number π+ππ, which turns out to be approximately 1.38629+ 3.14159π. (Note: In the calculations below, if a log has an unspeciο¬ed base, assume I am talking about the natural log: base π.) , where ππππ§ (π¦) is Hereβs the formula: ππππ (βπ) = ππππ (π) + πππ(πππ (ππππ(π))) πππ(π) ππ§ the log base π§ of π¦ and πππ (π§) = π = πππ (π§)+ππ ππ(π§). Not only is it unusually long and strange-looking, but it doesnβt really seem correct. We can reduce it quite a bit: ο¬rst, note that πππ (ππππ(π)) = ππππππ(π) , so πππ(πππ (ππππ(π))) = πππππ(π). Then we are left with ππππ (βπ) = ππππ (π) + πππππ(π) . Moving the πππ(π) logs base π to the same side we have ππππ (β1) = need to notice that ππππ (β1) = with
ππ πππ(π)
=
πππππ(π) , πππ(π)
ππ πππ(π)
since π
ππ πππ(π)
πππππ(π) . πππ(π) ππ
=π
To continue, we
= β1, so we are left
or πππ(π)2 = πππ(π), which clearly isnβt always true.
There are two things that are really weird about this. First, I have no idea where the formula came from. Iβve been messing around with Eulerβs formula in every way possible to recreate it, but have come up with nothing but some other cool derivations. The other weird thing is that there is a very simple way to determine the log of a negative number: say we want to ο¬nd the value of πππ(π§). Then write π§ = ππππ so that πππ(π§) = πππ(π) + ππ. All you need to do now is ο¬nd π, which will simply be the angle between the β π₯ and π¦ components of the π§ in the complex β plane. As πan example, ππ πππ( 3 + π) = πππ(2) + 6 because in this case, 3 + π = 2πππ 6 , which you can check yourself. Since we can now take the log of any complex number base π, it is easy to take the log base anything else using the change of base . formula, ππππΌ (π½) = πππ(πΌ) πππ(π½) Despite my misguided explorations, Iβll go over a few of the cool results I came across. Start with πππ = πππ (π) + ππ ππ(π). Then, inverting both sides 1 gives πβππ = (πππ (π) + ππ ππ(π))β1 = πππ (π)+ππ ππ(π) . Multilpying the fraction by πππ (π)βππ ππ(π) πππ (π)βππ ππ(π)
πππ (π)βππ ππ(π) gives ππ = πππ (π) 2 +π ππ(π)2 = πππ (π) β ππ ππ(π). Then, noticing that ππ πππ (π) β ππ ππ(π) = π β 2ππ ππ(π), we have πβππ = πππ β 2ππ ππ(π), and solving ππ βππ for π ππ(π) gives π ππ(π) = π βπ , which is a nice analytic continuation of 2π
1
the π ππ function. I have used this formula in the past, but never derived it for myself. (The πππ and π‘ππ functions come about from the same method.) Another funky calculation that came out of this was the exact value of π , which actually turns out to be a real number! We begin with ππ = πππππ(π) . β = ππ2 = πππ( β1) = We know that πππ = β1 so that πππ(β1) = ππ, or πππ(β1) 2 ππ π πππ(π), so that πππ(π) = ππ2 . Then the exact value of ππ is ππ 2 = πβ 2 . We π π can use this to get the value of things like πβπ = π 2 or (ππ )π = (πβ 2 )π = ππ πβ 2 = πππ (β π2 ) + ππ ππ(β π2 ) = βπ; but why stop there? What other insane calculations can we come up with?! Well, if (ππ )π = βπ then ((ππ )π )π = (βπ)π = π π π 2 , and (((ππ )π )π )π ) = (π 2 )π = πππ ( π2 ) + ππ ππ( π2 ) = π, and we have reached a periodic point. And thatβs pretty sweet: just as ππ is periodic with period 4, (ππ = ππ+4 ), the power tower of πβs has period 5. π
ππ
There is another simpler identity that I was able to derive: βπ = π1+ πππ(π) . In the real numbers, ππ₯ = βπ has no solutions for π (aside from π = 0) with π₯ given; we can see this by manipulating to obtain ππ₯ + π = 0, or π(ππ₯β1 + 1) = 0, and ππ₯β1 = β1 clearly has no real solutions. However, the above formula gives us the complex power we can raise any number to to obtain its negative. And it is derived very simply: start with Eulerβs identity, πππππ(π) ππππ = β1, power, to obtain π πππ = β1. Then, raise both sides to the πππ(π) πππ(π) ππ
ππ
or (ππππ(π) ) πππ(π) = β1. Since ππππ(π) = π, we have that π πππ(π) = β1, and ππ multiplying both sides by π we are left with βπ = π πππ(π) +1 . For example, ππ 2 πππ(2) = β2, a strange result. As usual, I canβt imagine any of these have practical applications; regardless, itβs nice to wrap up an old idea.
2