Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site mcnc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!ulysses!burl!clyde!akgua!mcnc!akt
From: akt@mcnc.UUCP (Amit Thakur)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: References on i ** i, "principal logs"
Message-ID: <1966@mcnc.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Feb-84 04:04:48 EST
Article-I.D.: mcnc.1966
Posted: Wed Feb 22 04:04:48 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Feb-84 01:39:40 EST
References: <205@pucc-i>, <1960@mcnc.UUCP>, <1964@mcnc.UUCP>
Organization: Microelectronics Ctr. of NC; RTP, NC
Lines: 20


i sent out a retraction of my claim that ln(0)=0, but
apparently it got lost somewhere. basically, i said:

perhaps i need to go back and study my high school algebra.

i was taking real value of ln(1) (=0) and setting it equal to
the imaginary value of ln(1) (=+-2n*pi), from the logic that
if a=b and b=c, then a=c.  but then -1.414... = 2**(0.5) = 1.414,
but -1.414 <> 1.414. thus, 0 <> 2n*pi, for n <> 0.
thus, my argument for ln(0) was not valid.

what happened was that i stayed up till 4:30am reading news on
saturday night (my saturday nights are really fun, lemme tell ya!:-))
and then got up early sunday morning and posted the value of ln(0).

i hereby retract any and all silliness in my previous article.

akt at ...decvax!mcnc!akt