2

My "proof" would be as follows:

ε2 = 0
ln 0 = ln ε2
ln x2 = 2 ln x
ln 0 = 2 ln ε

(a=b=ε) isn't really necessary.

 ln 0 = ln ab
ln ab = ln a + ln b

If ln(0) is always undefined, then it implies ln(ε) must be as well, right? (Or the sum ln(a)+ln(b) is undefined, which technically leaves room for defined ln(a) and ln(b) without defined addition, whatever that means.)

I think I know from the definition of exp(xε) that ln(ε) should be undefined. My confusion comes from the fact that there are all different definitions of multiplication that have implications for the addition of exponents, e.g. exp(i+j) ≠ exp(j+i) in quaternions. So... couldn't there be all different definitions of addition and its identities? Is exp necessarily nonzero no matter how you define zero?

I tried to work with c := ln(0); exp(c) = 0 but I couldn't really reason about its properties.

John P
  • 145
  • You could have the logarithm of one of the zero divisors undefined. – Oscar Lanzi Mar 10 '22 at 21:26
  • 1
    With or without zero divisors, assuming the product-to-sum property requires $$\ln0=\ln(0\cdot c)=\ln0+\ln c$$ for all $c$. If $\ln x$ is a single-valued function, and if its range admits additive inverses, then $\ln c=0$ for all $c$; since that includes $c=0$, you've successfully defined $\ln 0$, but the result is boring. If $\ln x$ is multi-valued (as w/the complex logarithm), then $\ln c$ is "equivalent" to $0$ for all $c$; I'm not entirely sure what "equivalent" means in an abstract context, but everything being equivalent to the same thing probably doesn't make for an interesting function – Blue Mar 10 '22 at 21:59
  • I'd like to know more about that abstract equivalence you're talking about if anyone knows more. I'm still trying to wrap my mind around it, but I think I can imagine numbers that are effectively identities of an operation but are not identically equal to one another, even if the operation is addition. Tentatively, try i and j: both are effectively sqrt(-1) but not identically, you won't have ij=-1 and so on. Now i-sqrt(-1) and j-sqrt(-1) are effectively 0. I could also see "tags", e.g. x?y = floor(x/y) + T(x%y) that are conserved. – John P Mar 10 '22 at 22:44
  • I'll accept your answer if you post it, I think it answers the question and what I'm going on about is better suited for a separate question. Hell if I know how to phrase it though. – John P Mar 10 '22 at 22:46
  • @Blue why do you postulate that the product-to-sum property should be universal? – Anixx Nov 05 '23 at 03:55
  • @Anixx: "why do you postulate that the product-to-sum property should be universal?" I don't postulate this. I simply note that the property (combined with others) makes defining $\ln 0$ problematic. Contrari-wise, defining $\ln 0$ requires breaking the product-to-sum property (and/or others) ... which is fine with me. – Blue Nov 05 '23 at 07:30

1 Answers1

1

The property $\ln x^a=a\ln x$ is not universal: for instance, if $x=-1, a=2$, we have $\ln (-1)^2=\ln 1=0\ne 2\ln(-1)=2i\pi$

You definitely can extend real numbers with $\ln 0$. Notice though that this will not be a real number.

One way of doing so is via divergent integrals or germs.

Let us denote it as $\lambda=\ln 0$ and sum up some of its properties.

  • If we define $\ln x=\int_1^x \frac1t dt$, which is the generalization of logarithmic function, we can represent $\lambda$ as divergent integral: $\lambda=-\int_0^1 \frac1t dt$.

  • The Maclaurin series of the function $\ln (x+1)$ at $x=-1$ is the Harmonic series with negative sign, thus, we can represent $\lambda=-\sum_{k=1}^\infty \frac1k$. Since the Harmonic series has the regularized value of $\gamma$ (Euler-Mascheroni constant), the regularized value (finite part) of $\lambda$ is $-\gamma$.

  • Since $\lim_{n\to\infty}\left(\sum_{k=1}^n \frac1k-\int_1^n \frac1tdt\right)=\gamma$, we can also represent $\lambda=-\int_1^\infty \frac1t dt-\gamma$. It also will tell us that $\int_0^\infty \frac1tdt=-2\lambda-\gamma$. Thus, $\lambda$ is the germ at infinity of the function $-\ln x - \gamma$.

  • We can find other integral representations of this constant: $\int_0^\infty \frac{1-e^{-t}}{t} dt$, $\int_0^\infty \frac{dt}{t + t^2}$, and others.

  • Since we can take logarithm of zero, we also can take logarithms of zero divisors in split-complex numbers: $\ln \left(\frac{a j}{2}+\frac{a}{2}\right)=\frac{j}{2} (\ln a-\lambda)+\frac{1}{2} (\ln a+\lambda)$

  • In dual numbers the value of $\varepsilon^\varepsilon$ is usually undefined. But due to the general formula $f(\varepsilon)=f(0)+\varepsilon f'(0)$ and the fact that $(x^x)'=x^x (\ln x+1)$, we can derive $\varepsilon^\varepsilon=1+\varepsilon(1+\lambda)$, which shows a surprising role played by this constant in dual numbers.

  • Since $-\lambda-\gamma=\int_1^\infty \frac1t dt$ corresponds to the germ of the function $\ln x$ at infinity, the germ of the function $f(x)=x$ at infinity, often denoted as $\omega$ is $e^{-\lambda-\gamma}$.

  • Via Laplace transforms we can see that $\omega=\int_0^\infty dx=\int_0^\infty\frac1{x^2}dx$, so the germ of function $\frac1x$ at zero (from the positive side) is also $\omega$.

  • As such, we can write down the expression $\ln \varepsilon=\lambda-\varepsilon \omega=\lambda-\varepsilon e^{-\lambda-\gamma}=\ln 0-\varepsilon e^{-\ln 0-\gamma}$.

Anixx
  • 9,119
  • Why not just $\ln(\epsilon)=\lambda+\epsilon \ln’(0)=\lambda+\epsilon \lim\limits_{x\to0}\frac1x$ which would be undefined or $\pm\infty$ or complex infinity? – Тyma Gaidash Nov 05 '23 at 13:22
  • @ТymaGaidash the germ of the function $\frac 1x$ at zero is exactly $\omega$ because $\int_0^\infty \frac1{x^2}dx=\int_0^\infty dx$. This can be seen from Laplace transform and also from the theory of hyperfunctions. – Anixx Nov 05 '23 at 13:26
  • @ТymaGaidash https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4556508/classify-infinities/4556566#4556566 – Anixx Nov 05 '23 at 13:27
  • @ТymaGaidash basically, from Urs Graf's theory of hyperfunctions, $\underset{x\to 0^+}{\operatorname{germ}} \frac1{x^n}=\frac{i^{n-1}\pi\overline{\delta}^{(n-1)}(0)}{(n-1)!}$ and from the table of Fourier transforms, $\underset{x\to\infty}{\operatorname{germ}}x^n=i^{n-1}\pi n\tilde{\delta}^{(n-1)}(0)$. Here $\tilde{\delta}$ should be understood in the sense of $\tilde{\delta}(f(x))=\delta(f(x))|f'(x)|$, but in the context where the argument of the delta distribution is the free variable, they coincide. – Anixx Nov 05 '23 at 13:53
  • @ТymaGaidash hence, at $n=1$ we have $\underset{x\to 0^+}{\operatorname{germ}} \frac1{x}=\underset{x\to\infty}{\operatorname{germ}}x$ – Anixx Nov 05 '23 at 13:58
  • @ТymaGaidash by the way, also, $\ln \varepsilon=\lambda+\frac{\pi}{2}\operatorname{sign}\varepsilon$ becaue $\operatorname{sign}\varepsilon=\frac2\pi \varepsilon \omega$ https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4300905/a-controversy-regarding-the-generalization-of-the-sign-function-to-dual-numbers – Anixx Nov 05 '23 at 14:15