Cut the knot: learn to enjoy mathematics
A math books store at a unique math study site. Learn to enjoy mathematics.
Google
Web CTK
Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents
Terms of use
Awards

Interactive Activities
CTK Exchange
CTK Insights - a blog

Games & Puzzles
What Is What
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Outline Mathematics
Make an Identity
Book Reviews
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
Visual Illusions
My Logo
Math Poll
Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Other Math sites
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Reciprocal links
Privacy Policy

Guest book
News sites

Recommend this site

Best sites for teachers
Sites for teachers
Sites for parents

Education & Parenting

Manifesto: what CTK is about Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

Among any two integers or real numbers one is larger, another smaller. But you can't compare two complex numbers.

We must be cautious with this kind of general statements. It's actually possible to define the relationship "<" between complex numbers. Let's agree that

  (a + ib) < (c + id),
provided either a < c or a = c and b < d.

This is what is called the lexicographic order. This is how words are ordered in dictionaries. This relation, exactly like in the case of integers or real numbers, exhibits the following properties:

 
No reflexivityIt's not true that x < x
No symmetryx < y does not imply y < x
TransitivityIf x < y and y < z then x < z

Also, since a real number x can be identified with the complex number x + i0, we immediately see that thus defined order conforms to the usual order of real numbers. Additionally, for real number, the relation "<" is related to the arithmetic operations "+" and "*". For example, if r < s and t < u then (r + t) < (s + u), where r, s, t, u are real numbers. The same is true for complex numbers as well. For example, (2 + 3i) < (3 + 4i) and (-1 + i) < (2 - 6i) imply (1 + 4i) < (5 - 2i) which is of course true.

Still it's not very useful. To see what the problem is let's turn to the multiplication. The following is true for real numbers:

(1) If a < b and 0 < c then ac < bc

Note that i may be written as 0 + i1 while 0 = 0 + i0. Therefore, by definition, 0 < i. Assume (1) holds for complex numbers and the lexicographic order. Obviously -1 < 1. Multiplying by i we get -i < i. Multiplying by i one more time produces -i2 < i2. By definition, this implies 1 < (-1) which is absurd.

The derivation is quite formal and does not use any particular properties of the lexicographic order. The crucial thing was that i satisfied the inequality 0 < i. Had we had i < 0 we would have gotten a contradiction in precisely the same way now applying 0 < (-i). The real problem stems from the sheer fact that i is somehow comparable to 0.

The law by which for any two numbers a and b, either a < b or b < a or a = b, is known as Trichotomy. Trichotomy holds for the usual order of real numbers. But, as we just saw, the order between complex numbers for which (1) holds, could not satisfy the law of trichotomy and vice versa. If the order between complex numbers is complete (i.e. satisfies the Trichotomy law) then (1) could not possibly hold.

Copyright © 1996-2008 Alexander Bogomolny

28702646Page copy protected against web site content infringement by Copyscape


Search:
Keywords:


Latest on CTK Exchange
Math
Posted by Laura
2 messages
06:56 AM, Apr-15-08

Divisibility rules - Jargon buste ...
Posted by Carolyn
2 messages
08:35 AM, Apr-04-08

drawing puzzle
Posted by martin gran
31 messages
06:53 PM, May-09-08

Distance to the horizon
Posted by Monty
3 messages
04:38 PM, May-08-08

Mistake on the page (an aside, Be ...
Posted by Max
4 messages
10:28 AM, Feb-28-08

Deriving functions based on diffe ...
Posted by ke_45
1 messages
12:47 PM, May-10-08

A typo in
Posted by alexwajn
1 messages
11:36 PM, Apr-19-08