• Xavienth
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    edit-2
    2 months ago

    Therefore i¹⁰ = ln(-1)¹⁰/pi¹⁰ = -1

    This is true but does not follow from the preceding steps, specifically finding it to be equal to -1. You can obviously find it from i²=-1 but they didn’t show that. I think they tried to equivocate this expression with the answer for e which you can’t do, it doesn’t follow because e and i¹⁰ = ln(-1)¹⁰/pi¹⁰ are different expressions and without external proof, could have different values.

    • Dalvoron@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 month ago

      If we know the values of ln(-1)¹⁰ and pi¹⁰ we hypothetically could calculate their divided result as -1 instead of using strict logic, but it is missing a few steps. Moreover logs of negative numbers just end up with an imaginary component anyway so there isn’t really any progress to be made on that front. Typing ln(-1)¹⁰ into my scientific calculator just yields i¹⁰pi¹⁰, (I’m guessing stored rather than calculated? Maybe calculated with built in Euler) so the result of division is just i¹⁰ anyway and we’re back where we started.

      • Xavienth
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        1 month ago

        You can find the value of ln(-1)¹⁰ by examining the definition of ln(x): the result z satisfies eᶻ=x. For x=-1, that means the z that satisfies eᶻ=-1. Then we know z from euler’s identity. Raise to the 10, and there’s our answer. And like you pointed out, it’s not a particularly helpful answer.