## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Ratings:

296 pages5 hours

Today complex numbers have such widespread practical use--from electrical engineering to aeronautics--that few people would expect the story behind their derivation to be filled with adventure and enigma. In *An Imaginary Tale*, Paul Nahin tells the 2000-year-old history of one of mathematics' most elusive numbers, the square root of minus one, also known as *i*. He recreates the baffling mathematical problems that conjured it up, and the colorful characters who tried to solve them.

In 1878, when two brothers stole a mathematical papyrus from the ancient Egyptian burial site in the Valley of Kings, they led scholars to the earliest known occurrence of the square root of a negative number. The papyrus offered a specific numerical example of how to calculate the volume of a truncated square pyramid, which implied the need for *i*. In the first century, the mathematician-engineer Heron of Alexandria encountered *I *in a separate project, but fudged the arithmetic; medieval mathematicians stumbled upon the concept while grappling with the meaning of negative numbers, but dismissed their square roots as nonsense. By the time of Descartes, a theoretical use for these elusive square roots--now called "imaginary numbers"--was suspected, but efforts to solve them led to intense, bitter debates. The notorious *i* finally won acceptance and was put to use in complex analysis and theoretical physics in Napoleonic times.

Addressing readers with both a general and scholarly interest in mathematics, Nahin weaves into this narrative entertaining historical facts and mathematical discussions, including the application of complex numbers and functions to important problems, such as Kepler's laws of planetary motion and ac electrical circuits. This book can be read as an engaging history, almost a biography, of one of the most evasive and pervasive "numbers" in all of mathematics.

Some images inside the book are unavailable due to digital copyright restrictions.

Publisher: Princeton University PressReleased: Feb 22, 2010ISBN: 9781400833894Format: book

An Imaginary Tale

An Imaginary Tale

*Paul J. Nahin *

PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRESS

PRINCETON AND OXFORD

Copyright © 1998 by Princeton University Press

Published by Princeton University Press, 41 William Street,

Princeton, New Jersey 08540

In the United Kingdom: Princeton University Press, 6 Oxford Street,

Woodstock, Oxfordshire OX20 1TR

All Rights Reserved

First printing, 1998

First paperback printing, with new preface, 2007

First Princeton Science Library edition, 2010

New Princeton Science Library edition, 2016

Paperback ISBN: 978-0-691-16924-8

*The Library of Congress has cataloged the cloth edition of this book as follows *

Nahin, Paul J.

An imaginary tale : the story of [the square root of minus one] / Paul J. Nahin.

p. cm.

On t.p. [the square root of minus one]

appears as a radical over –1

.

Includes bibliographical references and indexes.

1. Numbers, Complex. I. Title.

QA255.N34 1998

ISBN 0-691-02795-1 (cloth : alk. paper)

515′.9—dc21 97-52082

British Library Cataloging-in-Publication Data is available

This book has been composed in Times Roman

Printed on acid-free paper. ∞

**press.princeton.edu **

Printed in the United States of America

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

DEDICATED TO MY MOTHER

*KATHERINE DOROTHY MARKFELDER *

AND TO THE MEMORY OF

MY FATHER

*PAUL GILBERT NAHIN *

(1916–1990)

*AN IMAGINARY TALE *has a very strong historical component to it, but that does not mean it is a mathematical lightweight. But don’t read too much into that either. It is *not *has long labored under a similar false story of unfathomable mystery. The French philosophical genius of the Enlightenment, Denis Diderot, wrote of mathematicians that they resemble those who gaze out from the tops of high mountains whose summits are lost in the clouds. Objects on the plain below have disappeared from view; they are left with only the spectacle of their own thoughts and the consciousness of the height to which they have risen and where perhaps it is not possible for everyone to follow and breathe [the thin air].

Well, in this book the air is almost always at sea-level pressure. Large chunks of this book can, in fact, be read and understood by a high school senior who has paid attention to his or her teachers in the standard fare of precollege courses. Still, it will be most accessible to the million or so who each year complete a college course in freshman calculus. It is not a textbook, but I do think it could be profitably read by students as a supplement to the more standard presentations of mathematics. I am an electrical engineer, not a mathematician, and the style of the writing reflects the difference. Indeed, I have taken advantage of my freedom from the usual dictates of textbook pedagogy—which in its worst form can be pedantic—to write in a casual and, I hope, entertaining style. But when I need to do an integral, let me assure you I have not fallen to my knees in dumbstruck horror. And neither should you. The power and beauty of complex numbers and functions, and the amazing story of their discovery, will amply repay any extension of concentration that the relatively harder parts may demand.

*Contents *

*Illustrations *

THE HARDCOVER EDITION of this book appeared in 1998, and for the eight long years since, I have had to go to bed every single night thinking about dumb typos, stupid missing minus signs, and embarrassingly awkward phrases. Each has been like a sliver of wood under a fingernail. None of them was life threatening, of course, but together they made my intellectual life less than perfect. For the first six months after the book first came out I’d wake up at night, muttering to myself much as the eccentric Victorian electrical physicist Oliver Heaviside had done when *he *was approaching his sixties: I must be getting as stupid as an owl.

Those were interesting times—the life of the elderly mathematics writer can be a stressful one.

But no more! Over the years readers have generously taken the time to send me their discoveries of my oversights, and with their lists in one hand and a red pen in the other, I have joyfully pulled those irritants out of this paperback edition. Probably not all of them, alas, but still, I do feel better (a feeling that will no doubt vanish upon receiving the next e-mail or letter telling me of one or more errors I have missed). Two long, detailed letters I received in 1999 from Professors Robert Burckel (Dept. of Mathematics, Kansas State University) and David Wunsch (Dept. of Electrical Engineering, University of Massachusetts at Lowell) were particularly helpful. Princeton University Press published the sequel to this book, *Doctor Euler’s Fabulous Formula*, earlier this year, and so the appearance so soon after of a corrected and updated edition of *An Imaginary Tale *is particularly gratifying. I thank my editor at Princeton, Vickie Kearn, for providing me this opportunity to revisit the book. Now, on to what’s changed in this edition besides corrected misprints.

Actually, and perhaps somewhat inconsistently, I’ll start by mentioning some things that haven’t changed. While I carefully read *everything *that readers sent me, and while I admit that the vast majority of what was sent to me ended up having a significant impact on the corrections to the book, there were a few exceptions. Let me give you just two examples of this. To start, one reader took me to task rather severely for declaring (on **p. 9) that del Ferro’s breakthrough idea that cracked the depressed cubic equation was of the magician class. No, no, no, said the reader (who claimed he was a professional mathematician), that was merely a good idea that lots of people could have had. Well, to that I can only say that nobody before del Ferro **

Familiarity breeds contempt

is a cliché precisely because it is *true*. In the same way, I think my critical reader is dead wrong about the depressed cubic, and so I have not changed a single word in the book’s discussion of del Ferro.

As a second example of an error that wasn’t,

a reader wrote to complain that in **figure 5.8 (the circuit diagram of a phase-shift oscillator) the voltage u is to the right of voltage v, but in the text I refer to the voltage u being to the left. This assertion stopped me dead in my tracks for a moment (I had confused left and right?—my Lord, I must be dumber than an owl!), until I realized he was looking at the resistor-capacitor feedback network in the circuit, despite the fact that in the text I specifically state I am talking about the voltages on the input/output terminals of the amplifier connected to that network. (Thank the Lord, I’m not dumber than an owl! Such are the little things that give pleasure to the mind of an old mathematics writer at midnight.) I say more about this circuit in just a bit. That same reader (who, by the way, is a professor of mathematics) also claimed to be completely bamboozled by my occasional use of the ∠ symbol, e.g., when I write r ∠ θ instead of re iθ to denote the vector of length r at angle θ to the positive real axis. I think he was exaggerating just a bit. I agree that ∠ is a nonstandard mathematical notation (electrical engineers, on the other hand, use it all the time), but I think mathematicians ought to seriously consider adopting it as well; it is such a natural notation, looking like the angle concept it represents. **

By far the greatest reader correspondence was generated by **for all integer n: the puzzle is, of course, that this statement is actually true only for the single case of n = 0. When I wrote box 3.3 my intention was simply to create some initial **

perplexationthat would then be cleared away by the reader himself after thinking about the discussion on the preceding page (box 3.2,

Raising a Complex Number to a Complex Power); and if not then, then later on by the material in section 6.9 (

Many-valued Functions). The key clue to what has happened in the

derivationof box 3.3 is the phrase about mathematical "operations that appear [my emphasis] to always be valid." But are all those operations in box 3.3 really valid?

For example, we learn in high-school algebra that if *z *is *real *then

and

.

If *z *is *complex*, however, then (a) is still true (indeed, I use it in **box 3.2 when calculating (1 + i)(1+i)) but (b) may not be. To illustrate the problems we can run into with (b), suppose that we start with Euler’s famous identity eiπ + 1 = 0, i.e., with eiπ = −1. Squaring both sides gives ei2π = 1, and then using (b) says ln(e²πi) = ln(1), i.e, that 2πi = 0. I think we’d all agree that isn’t right! This is, of course, the same sort of quandry we have in box 3.3. The resolution comes when we realize that 1 isn’t just ei²π, but rather is the infinity of values ei²πn, where n is any positive or negative integer, as well as zero and one. What we really should write, then, is not ei²π = 1 but rather ei²πn = 1, which, when we use (b), gives ln(ei²πn) = ln(1) = i2πn. That is, what we have actually derived is that ln(1) is a complex quantity that, more precisely, is a pure imaginary, i.e., ln(1) has a zero real part. We learn in high-school algebra about the zero real part (ln(1) = 0 in high school), but the complete answer is that ln(1) has an imaginary part, too, which, while it can be zero, can also be non-zero (for n = ± 1, ± 2, …) as well. **

You’ll find the explanation to the puzzle of **box 3.3 in the new appendix D at the end of this book, but if you’re a new reader, you’ll have a lot more fun if you try to figure it out for yourself before looking there. **

The discussion in **section 5.1 on Kasner’s problem also provoked a number of letters from disbelieving readers. One, an MIT professor, wrote to say Kasner’s example clobbered my intuition and that I have decided that Kasner’s example is bogus. Now Kasner did indeed have a reputation for possessing a wicked sense of humor (he was the originator, for example, of the amusing names of **

In **section 5.6 I state that the phase-shift feedback oscillator circuit in figure 5.8 was the basis for the first product manufactured by today’s multibillion-dollar corporate giant Hewlett-Packard. Stanford University electrical engineering professor Gene Franklin wrote in 2004 to correct me. As he put it, You are close but no cigar. The oscillator circuit that inspired the first HP product (the HP-200A audio oscillator) was actually what electrical engineers call a Wien Bridge oscillator, about which you can find more (if interested) in any undergraduate book on electronics. Or, if you prefer getting your information from the horse’s mouth, look up the 1939 Stanford thesis for the Engineers degree (an everything but the dissertation Ph.D.) in which William Hewlett (1913–2001) describes his circuit. My thanks, then, to Professor Franklin—as a graduate of Stanford’s EE program myself, I should have checked my story with more care. But rest assured that all of the complex-valued math used to analyze the phase-shift oscillator in section 5.6 is okay! And, as mentioned earlier, the voltage labels in figure 5.8 are okay, too. **

I did, however, receive a number of letters from readers almost *pleading *for a derivation of the third-order differential equation that I claim (on **p. 139) describes the oscillator’s resistor-capacitor feedback network. You’ll find a derivation in the new appendix E at the end of the book. I have to admit that to do this myself, I had to unleash the awesome power of the Laplace transform (otherwise I, too, get hopelessly lost in all the algebra); but in appendix E I present a brief explanation of the transform, and so I think even if you’ve never seen it before you’ll be able to follow the calculations. The appearance of the Laplace transform in the paperback edition of this book is appropriate, since the transform’s proper mathematical foundation is in complex function theory. The elementary use I make of it in appendix E avoids the complex details, but still, I really should have said more about the transform in the book’s original epilog (section 7.8), beyond that of the throwaway line near the bottom of page 222. Appendix E helps correct that deficiency. Mathematicians and engineers alike use the Laplace transform routinely to solve many important differential equations. **

In **section 6.3 I overlooked an important reference that appeared the year before this book was published: Mark McKinzie and Curtis Tuckey, Hidden Lemmas in Euler’s Summation of the Reciprocals of the Squares, Archive for History of Exact Sciences 51 (1997): 29–57. **

The book’s discussion in **section 6.4 on the Riemann hypothesis, the most famous unsolved problem in mathematics (and almost certainly among the deepest of all problems in the history of mathematics), needs to be updated. I write on page 154 that all of the first 1.5 × 10⁹ complex zeros of the zeta function have been verified by computer calculation to, without exception, lie on the so-called critical line z = ½ + ib. As of October 2004 that heroic achievement had been far surpassed; it is now known that all of the first 10¹³ (yes, the first ten trillion) complex zeros of ζ(z) are on the critical line. Riemann himself calculated just the first three (making a slight error in the value of b for the third zero) before conjecturing that all the complex zeros are on the critical line. Modern computers can process many millions of zeros in a single day, and, as a measure of how explosive has been the growth over the last fifty years of the business of locating the zeros, as recently as 1958—the year I graduated from high school—fewer than the first 36,000 zeros had been verified to be on the critical line. Even my little, not-so-new laptop computer can do in mere minutes what it would have taken an enormous expenditure of effort by Riemann to do. The plot in figure P.1, for example, shows the absolute value of ζ(z) for z = ½ + ib as b varies from 0 to 27, and you immediately see that |ζ (z)| = 0 (and so ζ(z) = 0) at three points (b = 14.13, 21.02, and 25.01, which are the imaginary parts of Riemann’s first three zeros). **

Figure P. 1. The First Three Non-Trivial Zeros of the Riemann Zeta Function.

I must admit that my personal effort in creating **figure P.1 amounted to simply writing a few lines of MATLAB code; then, while I exhausted myself making a hot cup of coffee (even with that elementary task my microwave actually did all the work!), my laptop computer evaluated |ζ(z)| at each of 2,000 evenly spaced values of b over the interval 0 to 27 and produced figure P.1 in about a minute. (What do you think Riemann could have done with such a gadget?) Of course, these computer calculations mean nothing to the pure mathematician. The discovery of even just one complex root off of the critical line would be instantly fatal to the Riemann hypothesis. And there is nothing in known mathematics that says that might not actually be the case. As one scholar of the zeta function, H. M. Edwards, has written, **

…unless some basic cause is operating which has eluded mathematicians for 110 years [142 years now, as I write], occasional [complex] roots off the [critical] line are altogether possible.¹ That is, despite the known chain of trillions of consecutive zeros on the critical line, Riemann might have simply been wrong with his conjecture. As Edwards goes on to write,

Riemann’s insight was stupendous, but it was not supernatural, and what seemed ‘probable’ to him in 1859 might seem less so today.²

By the way, now that I’ve mentioned the critical line, here’s another pretty little calculation for you to try your hand at (one reader wrote to complain that the book, despite not being either a textbook or a puzzle book, didn’t have enough problems to challenge him). After you have read through the material on the gamma function and Euler’s famous reflection formula for the gamma function (**sections 6.12 and 6.13), see if you can show that the absolute value of the gamma function on the critical line is **

You can find a solution in the new **appendix F at the very end of the book, but don’t peek until you’ve given it a good try. (You’ll find that keeping in mind the concept of the conjugate of a complex quantity will help.) Calculating the value of ζ( z) on the critical line is vastly more difficult; indeed, the best that has been done, so far, is to find upper bounds on the value of |ζ(½ + ib)| as a function of b.³ **

Up to this point, my little math errors have gone unmentioned; I have quietly made each correction to a wrong sign, a wrong exponent, etc., and then passed on in silence to the next. In **section 6.7, however, the letters from Professors **

You've reached the end of this preview. Sign up to read more!

Page 1 of 1

Close Dialog## Are you sure?

This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?

Loading