Does the value of $(-37)^{1/33}$ exist? I am very much confused with this. In desmos it is giving a real value whereas on the other hand in Wolfram Alpha it is giving an imaginary value. So, please give me the right answer? I want to know who is correct? Wolfram Alpha or Desmos? In desmos the value is showing $-1.115$.
-
7There are $33$ complex numbers which satisfy $z^{33}=-37$. Exactly one of them is real. – Mark Oct 27 '23 at 17:16
-
1Wolfram Alpha gives the value considering it as a complex number, with the standard definition of n-root for complex numbers. Desmos does the same but considering it as real number. – Rafa Budría Oct 27 '23 at 17:20
-
Too much reliance on software! And a better statement would be "is there a real value of this" or "what are the complex values of this and are any real". As noted, there are 33 distinct complex values, one of them is (approx) $-1.115+0i$ as a complex number and at $(-1,0)$ in the plane, then the other 32 are equally spread around the unit circle with no others landing on the $x$-axis. – AlgTop1854 Oct 27 '23 at 17:26
-
If you want to use software it is important to know the assumptions it makes and how it answers questions like this! If Wolfram Alpha gave a single imaginary answer, what was it? – AlgTop1854 Oct 27 '23 at 17:29
-
1Does this answer your question? cubic root of negative numbers – José Carlos Santos Oct 27 '23 at 17:31
-
You can check the answer on Wolfram Alpha.@AlgTop1854 – Kartik Ghosh Oct 27 '23 at 17:34
-
The answer was $(37)^{1/33}×cos(\pi/33)+i((-37)^{1/33}×sin(\pi/33))$@AlgTop1854 – Kartik Ghosh Oct 27 '23 at 17:37
-
Can anyone explain me whether$(-1)^{1/(2n+1)}$ is $-1$ or the answer can be defined in terms of complex numbers? – Kartik Ghosh Oct 27 '23 at 17:41
-
Can you prove that among the 33 complex values one value will be $-1.115+0i$?@AlgTop1854. Yes it's correct that there will be total 33 complex values which will satisfy it. – Kartik Ghosh Oct 27 '23 at 17:46
-
When you study complex numbers, you may learn this interesting fact about $n$th roots. – GEdgar Oct 27 '23 at 18:00
-
Wolram Alpha assumes you want the "principle root" which is a complex root with a nonzero imaginary part. Just below the input box you can see an option to "use the real-valued root instead" which gives the same answer as desmos, ie approx 1.115... or exactly $-(37)^{(1/33)}$ – KDP Oct 27 '23 at 20:06
-
@KDP, where you can see an option to "use the real-valued root instead" just below the input box? Please send a screenshot of that. I can't find it out. – Kartik Ghosh Oct 28 '23 at 06:10
-
@Kartik WolframAlpha screenshot. Tested in Chrome and MS Edge https://i.stack.imgur.com/hqKzP.jpg – KDP Oct 28 '23 at 07:33
-
@Kartik, Wolfram link with real-valued root pre-selected https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%28-37%29%5E%281%2F33%29&assumption=%22%5E%22+-%3E+%22Real%22 – KDP Oct 28 '23 at 15:40
-
@Kartik. Actually, if you scroll right down on the Wolfram page, it lists all 33 roots. – KDP Oct 29 '23 at 05:00
1 Answers
I think this is a good question. Suppose you have a number (I'm being deliberately vague) satisfying $x = (-37)^{1/33}$. Using your exponent rules, this means $x^{33} = -37$, or equivalently $x^{33}+37 = 0$. This is a polynomial with degree $33$.
The fundamental theorem of algebra says that any polynomial of degree $d\geq 1$ has a root that is a complex number. It turns out that $x^{33} + 37$ will actually have $33$ many complex solutions. Let's find them!
You say that Desmos gives a real solution of $x \approx -1.115$. Let's call this root $\sqrt[33]{-37}$, the real 33rd root of $-37$. This is a valid solution. It turns out that every real number has real odd power roots (cube roots, fifth roots, etc.) This follows from the intermediate value theorem. Let's find the other 32 roots.
Suppose there was a number $\zeta\neq 1$ so that $\zeta^{33} = 1$. Then if I took $$(\zeta\sqrt[33]{-37})^{33} = (\zeta^{33})(\sqrt[33]{-37}^{33}) = (1)(-37) = -37$$ so $\zeta\sqrt[33]{-37}$ is another 33rd root of $-37$. Cool! In fact, we can take any power of $\zeta$ and the same calculation will hold (exercise for the OP!). Now let's unravel what's happening with $\zeta$.
We have $\zeta^{33} = 1$, so $\zeta^{33} - 1 = 0$. This is another polynomial (of degree $33$) having $\zeta$ as a root. It also has $1$ as a root, and it has $31$ more roots (all of the form $\zeta^k$ for $k = 2,\dots,32$; check that these are in fact also 33rd roots of $1$). These are the so-called $33$rd roots of unity (unity just means $1$).
Finally, if you are familiar with trigonometry or complex exponentials, you can show that one possible value for $\zeta$ is $e^{2\pi i/33}$ which is the same as $\cos(2\pi/33) + i\sin(2\pi/33)$. If you accept that $e^{2\pi i} = 1$ (Euler's identity), then it should be clear that $e^{2\pi i/33}$ is a $33$rd root of $1$. If you know De Moivre's formula, then you should show that $\cos(2\pi/33) + i\sin(2\pi/33)$ is also a $33$rd root of unity.
To wrap up my answer, this means that there are $33$ possible answers to $(-37)^{1/33}$ (or better $x^{33} + 37 = 0$), namely \begin{align*} x &= \zeta^k\sqrt[33]{-37} \\ &= (e^{2\pi i(k)}/33)\sqrt[33]{-37} \\ &= (\cos(2\pi j/33) + i\sin(2\pi k)/33)\sqrt[33]{-37},\;\;\;\text{for}\;\;\;k = 0,\dots,32. \end{align*}For some practice, see if you can explicitly write (without De Moivre or Euler's identity) the second, third, and fourth roots of $1$. If this is easy, try the sixth and eights roots as well.
Ultimately, this means that Desmos and Wolfram|Alpha are giving different correct answers (because there are more than one). As the other comments say, it is important to understand the limitations of your software, but I do not disparage the software at all. Using it and finding its limitations can be an excellent learning tool.

- 1,493
-
Thank you very much @Nico and to all for helping me out with this question. – Kartik Ghosh Oct 27 '23 at 18:49
-
2There are $33$ roots counting multiplicity. It might be worth adding a note to the effect that in this case there are no multiple roots. – hardmath Oct 27 '23 at 21:06
-
Thanks hardmath! I was going to add that somewhere but couldn't find a nice place without making it too confusing. But yes, for future readers, beware of the "up to multiplicity" part of the fundamental theorem of algebra. – Nico Oct 28 '23 at 01:39