G’day Kalid,
I like your explanations - very much actually, and I enjoyed the read - thanks for that!
There is just one thing that I do not get, and it seems to me to be central to the whole issue.
Your explanation flubbed one very important point - Why is the complex magnitude fixed when raising real numbers to purely imaginary powers?
Your explanation of purely imaginary powers reads, in part: “Surprisingly, this does not change our length …This is something I want to tackle another day”.
It is also very surprising to me, and it seems to me to be the key to understanding complex numbers intuitively.
Let me restate what I am after in my own words:
“What is an intuitive way of saying that ANY real number (say 2) raised to ANY purely imaginary power, say 2i, MUST lie on a perfect circle, centred at the origin, on the complex plane?”
Your article has focused on the real number, e, raised to different, purely imaginary exponents, like (i x pi/2), and (i), and (i x 2 x pi) etc. Fair enough. But if I use ANY other real number instead of e, like 2, or 2 million, and raise them to the same imaginary exponents, then they ALSO lie (at different places) on the SAME UNIT CIRCLE on the complex plane! Wow! Intuitively, why must this be the case?
Of course our starting point must be that any number raised to the zero exponent, including (i x zero), must be the real number 1, plus I also accept, intuitively that a purely imaginary exponent will rotate just like any complex multiplication.
But here is the crux: what stops the resulting magnitude from increasing from away from 1, (or decreasing below 1) to create a spiral on the complex plane?
It ‘feels’ like the action of purely imaginary exponents is on a fixed-length ‘rod’ of length 1 tied to the origin, but I lack any intuition for why the rod’s length cannot vary as it rotates. I understand intuitively why it starts at 1, and why it rotates around the origin, but the surprising part is that it does not ever move away from or towards the origin in a kind of spiral, instead of the perfect circle.
The standard explanations I have found seem to prefer Euler’s proof using the power series expansion for e: relating it to the power series expansions for sine and cosine. For my taste, a power series is not ‘intuitive’ - it’s hard for me to get a good ‘intuitive meaning’ derived from a sum of the infinitely differentiated functions. Possibly you agree?
Can you please help me here? Why is the action of raising to purely imaginary powers a ‘rod-like’ rotation around the origin? Why is it, intuitively, that the magnitude cannot be anything but 1, regardless of the real number we choose, or the real number we multiply by i to raise the exponent?
My current thinking is that it must relate to the subtle difference between multiplication and exponentiation. These closely related concepts are not the same, and the ‘special nature’ of exponentiation somehow forces a fixed magnitude when using purely imaginary powers. Not much to go on so far!
I sincerely appreciate your input on this problem.
For complete disclosure - I am an old Electrical Engineer, and all this maths stuff I have been doing for years. I have been trained to apply the rules, but in some cases I just behave like a robot instead of using my intuition, and your article has inspired me to fill in the gaps in my intuition.
Many thanks in anticipation.