We know that \(e^{i\pi} = -1 \). So, \(\ln(-1) = i\pi \). Well, \(\ln(1) = 0\). So, I guess we can write \[\ln(-1) + \ln(-1) = \ln(-1\cdot -1) = \ln(1) = 0\]. But \[\ln(-1) + \ln(-1) = i\pi + i\pi = 2i\pi \]

What's the falacy?

No vote yet

1 vote

×

Problem Loading...

Note Loading...

Set Loading...

Easy Math Editor

`*italics*`

or`_italics_`

italics`**bold**`

or`__bold__`

boldNote: you must add a full line of space before and after lists for them to show up correctlyparagraph 1

paragraph 2

`[example link](https://brilliant.org)`

`> This is a quote`

Remember to wrap math in \( ... \) or \[ ... \] to ensure proper formatting.`2 \times 3`

`2^{34}`

`a_{i-1}`

`\frac{2}{3}`

`\sqrt{2}`

`\sum_{i=1}^3`

`\sin \theta`

`\boxed{123}`

## Comments

Sort by:

TopNewestthe identity you used is applicable for numbers belonging to the set (0,infinity) only

Log in to reply

May be because the properties of ln is applicable only for numbers within its domain..

Log in to reply

I thought the same. Thanks!

Log in to reply