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