3
$\begingroup$

In Churchill's book on complex variables, the $n^{th}$ root of $e$ is defined to be $e^{1/n}$. A comment is made that in this respect $e$ is treated differently than the $n^{th}$ roots of other complex numbers (in the sense that there are typically n roots of the nth root of a number in complex analysis rather than just one as in the case of $e$).

I am curious why $e$ is treated so differently. Is there an obvious reason/motivation why?

Edit: The section from Churchill is,

As anticipated earlier, we define here the exponential function $e^z$ by writing $$ e^z = e^xe^{iy}\ \ \ \ \ \ (z = x + iy)\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ (1)$$ where Euler's formula $$ e^{iy} = \cos y + i\sin y$$ is used and $y$ is to be taken in radians. We see from this definition that $e^z$ reduces to the usual exponential function in calculus when $y=0$; and, following the convention used in calculus, we often write $\exp z$ for $e^z$.

Note that since the positive $n$th root $\sqrt[n]{e}$ of $e$ is assigned to $e^x$ when $x = 1/n$ ($n = 2,3,\ldots$), expression (1) tells us that the complex exponential function $e^z$ is also $\sqrt[n]{e}$ when $z = 1/n$ ($n = 2,3,\ldots$). This is an exception to the convention that would ordinarily require us to interpret $e^{1/n}$ as the set of $n$th roots of $e$.

  • 2
    Hmmm, that doesn't sound right. What page of Churchill's book are you looking at?2012-02-21
  • 1
    Apart from the Routine $\TeX$ edit, I have made vars "variables". Please do not make this place into a SMS chat. This is a dedicated forum for Math Q&A. Further, any signature or tagline for the posts is advised against, by the faq. So, I have removed it.2012-02-21
  • 0
    The constant $e$ actually *does* have $n$ distinct $n$-th roots, for all $n=1,2,3,\cdots$. The only number in all of $\mathbb{C}$ without such a property is $0$. I'm not familiar with Churchill - is your parenthetical your own understanding or something specifically stated by the author? Generally in complex analysis the function $z\to z^{1/n}$ is chosen with a particular [branch](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Branch_point#Branch_cuts) in mind rather than assumed multi-valued. // Could you transcribe the comment in full, if possible?2012-02-21
  • 0
    The only explanation I can think of is that $f(z)=z^{1/n}$ is taken multi-valued while $e^w$ is defined to be the exponential, given by the usual power series, and hence takes on only one value.2012-02-21
  • 0
    Thank you for the responses, which I'll have to digest. To answer Alvaro's question though, the comment is made in chapter 3, section 28, pg 87 (of 7th edition), where I quote:2012-02-21
  • 0
    @MattBrenneman: ... but no quote is visible to me. I'd like to see that quote. There doesn't seem to be anything in that section of the 2nd edition (which is what I have) that would fit your description.2012-02-21
  • 1
    @MattBrenneman and everyone else! I've added the passage in the book. Hopefully it's everything you mentioned, and if not please feel free to add (or emphasize) any other parts!2012-02-21

2 Answers 2