Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site pucc-i Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!CS-Mordred!Pucc-H:Pucc-I:ags From: ags@pucc-i (Seaman) Newsgroups: net.math Subject: Re: More on i**i Message-ID: <198@pucc-i> Date: Tue, 14-Feb-84 11:19:36 EST Article-I.D.: pucc-i.198 Posted: Tue Feb 14 11:19:36 1984 Date-Received: Fri, 17-Feb-84 03:50:43 EST References: <229@houem.UUCP> Organization: Purdue University Computing Center Lines: 28 The problem with this discussion is that people don't know the difference between singulars and plurals. It makes no sense to say: "The value of i**i is well defined. The values are..." ^^^^^ ^^^^^^ I never said that the VALUES of i**i are not well-defined. I said the VALUE of i**i is not well-defined. That statement is correct. Note that this differs from the situation with other functions that have universally recognized inverses. The real square root function is defined to take the positive branch -- hence sqrt(4) is +2 and not -2. There is no universally recognized inverse to the complex exponential function which is single-valued. No such inverse can be defined on the complex plane (excluding the origin) unless you are willing to put up with a jump discontinuity. -- Dave Seaman ..!pur-ee!pucc-i:ags "Against people who give vent to their loquacity by extraneous bombastic circumlocution."