For real \(x\), \(ix\) is purely imaginary and hence it doesn't make sense for it to tend to a value / object which is an element of the extended real number system.

A more accepted / technically correct terminology would be,

@Guilherme Naziozeno
–
Yeah, I had given it much thought earlier. I was also thinking about complex infinity when I first posted that comment. But complex infinity is mostly used to denote a complex value with infinite magnitude but undefined argument.

But in this case, the argument is defined and is \(\dfrac{\pi}2\) (considering the limit is to positive infinity).

@Tanishq Varshney
–
Prasun here: Nope, \( i^{4\pi} = (i^4)^\pi = 1^\pi = 1\) is not a valid step as we're dealing with complex numbers so we can't split the exponents as we please. You should do this instead: let \(x = i^{4\pi} \) then \(\ln(x) = 4\pi \ln(i) = 4\pi \cdot \ln(e^{i \pi/2}) = 2\pi^2 i \) or \( x = e^{i \cdot 2\pi^2} = \cos(2\pi^2) + i \sin(2\pi^2)\approx 0.6297 + 0.7769i \).

@Pi Han Goh
–
The main thing that I'd have said (I forgot to reply earlier) is that \((a^b)^c=(a^c)^b=a^{bc}\) doesn't necessarily hold when some of \(a,b,c\) are non-reals.

I had seen a post on MSE regarding this once where an answer explained why the "general rules of exponentiation" doesn't hold when complex numbers are thrown into the mix. I was trying to find that post before I could reply him but it seems you already cleared it up. Thanks!

Also, I'm wondering when did I get to Malaysia?!
–
Prasun Biswas
·
2 years, 2 months ago

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestFor real \(x\), \(ix\) is purely imaginary and hence it doesn't make sense for it to tend to a value / object which is an element of the extended real number system.

A more accepted / technically correct terminology would be,

\[\lim_{x\to\infty}(ix)=i\infty\]

W|A verification – Prasun Biswas · 2 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

reference . – Guilherme Naziozeno · 2 years, 2 months ago

What about \( \large \tilde{\infty} \) ?Log in to reply

But in this case, the argument is defined and is \(\dfrac{\pi}2\) (considering the limit is to positive infinity).

W|A verification.

Hence, the term "complex infinity" wouldn't be applicable here, in my opinion. – Prasun Biswas · 2 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

– Tanishq Varshney · 2 years, 2 months ago

hello prasun , i wanted ask u one more thing is \(i^{4 \pi}=1\)Log in to reply

See this note to spot such pitfalls. – Pi Han Goh · 2 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

I had seen a post on MSE regarding this once where an answer explained why the "general rules of exponentiation" doesn't hold when complex numbers are thrown into the mix. I was trying to find that post before I could reply him but it seems you already cleared it up. Thanks!

Also, I'm wondering when did I get to Malaysia?! – Prasun Biswas · 2 years, 2 months ago

Log in to reply

– Mahimn Bhatt · 2 years, 2 months ago

No. Apply de-moivre's theorem you will get to know.Log in to reply