Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In Quaternion mathematics, normally $$i ^ {2} = j ^ {2} = k ^ {2} = i*j*k = {-1}$$

But I am looking at a different type of Formula where $$i ^ {j ^ k} = {-1} $$

(edit again, since somehow this remains elusive to explain...)

With functions, $f$ and all permutations of the subset variables $N$:

Where $i$ is used in cases of non-real $f(x)=N$

Where $i ^ j$ is used in cases of non-real $f(x,y)=N$

Where $i ^ {j ^ k}$ is used in cases of non-real $f(x,y,z) = N$

This of course must obey other permutations of $x$, $y$, and $z$ such as:

Where $k ^ i$ is used in cases of non-real $f(z,x) = N$; etc...


I have given a bit more thought about this, and since $x$, $y$ and $z$ are possibly inter-changable depending on the orientation in real space, consider the possibility:

$i ^ {j ^ k} = j ^ {k ^ i} = k ^ {i ^ j} = -1$

Would be an "exponential-type ring".


What are some important fundamental differences (or formulae) I should be looking at in how i, j and k compare? (more importantly is the second formula even possible?)


Consider in the second example a hypothetical anti-DeSitter space, where the real spatial directions X, Y, and Z are real components, and i, j and k are imaginary spatial directions that associate to each one.

$i^2 = -1$; for $x$

$j^2 = -1$; for $y$

$k^2 = -1$; for $z$

Because, I am looking at a different approach to Riemann Tensors, my approach is to use exponentiation, rather than multiply. I am hoping someone that has experience with this type of thing can point out glaring flaws in this type of approach, and apologies in advance if I have errors in the reasoning here, its been some time since I've worked out anything this complex.

I have further details here here and here regarding my problem.


What values are possible or valid for $a$, $b$, and $c$:

$(ai)^{(bj)^{(ck)}} = -1$

if $i^2 = j^2 = k^2 = -1$

share|improve this question

closed as unclear what you're asking by Jonas Meyer, kjetil b halvorsen, user91500, Yiorgos S. Smyrlis, Giuseppe Negro May 4 at 9:10

Please clarify your specific problem or add additional details to highlight exactly what you need. As it's currently written, it’s hard to tell exactly what you're asking. See the How to Ask page for help clarifying this question. If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

What is the motivation for this formula? At first glance, it seems rather arbitrary... –  Rahul Sep 30 '10 at 0:44
@rahul its a programming project idea I have that needs the math from the second formula. –  Talvi Watia Sep 30 '10 at 0:54
@Talvi Watia: It is not possible to make any sense of your 2nd formula until you specify the meaning of the terms - most esp $i^{j^k}$, since exponentiation is not a ring operation. –  Bill Dubuque Sep 30 '10 at 1:36
@Talvi: in a ring, you have addition and you have multiplication. In general, if $R$ is a ring, and $a,b\in R$, "$a^b$" may have no meaning. (For instance, in the real numbers we do not have a ready meaning for $a^b$ when $a$ is negative and $b$ is not an integer). The only "exponentiation" that you get "for free" in a ring is exponentiation with nonnegative integer exponents, because they are really just abbreviations for repeated multiplications. So... what do you mean by $j^k$, and what do you mean by $i^{j^k}$ in this ring? –  Arturo Magidin Sep 30 '10 at 3:11
@Talvi: I have no idea what "in cases of nonreal $f(x)=N$" means. What is $f$? What is $N$? I don't think your new edits clarify or explain the meaning of $i^{j^k}$; at least, not for me. –  Arturo Magidin Sep 30 '10 at 6:46

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

This may be a complete stupid thing, for which I'll lose some hundred points of reputation, but here it is.

I don't understand anything at all about your functionss $f$ "and all permutations of the subset variables N...", nor the rest of your question. But I think that expressions like

$$ i^{j^k} \ , \qquad j^{k^i} \ , \qquad \text{and}\qquad k^{i^j} $$

could make sense. However, they don't seem to be equal to $-1$.

Let's remember how we define $x^y$ for real numbers $x, y$, $x>0$. We put

$$ x^y = e^{y\log x} \ , $$

don't we? After choosing a determination for the complex logarithm, we define also

$$ i^z = e^{z \log i }\ . $$

So we need to compute $\log i$. For this we can rely on Euler's formula, which, for a real number $\theta$, says:

$$ e^{i\theta} = \cos\theta + i \sin\theta \ . $$

If we ask a complex number $z = x + iy$ to be a logarithm for $i$, we must have

$$ i = e^z = e^{x + iy} = e^x e^{iy} = e^x (\cos y + i \sin y) \ . $$

This means that

$$ 0 = e^x \cos y \qquad \text{and} \qquad 1 = e^x\sin y \ . $$

So we may take $y = \frac{\pi}{2}$ and then $x= 0$. Hence a logarithm for $i$ is $\log i = i\frac{\pi}{2}$ and

$$ i^z = e^{zi\frac{\pi}{2}} \ . $$

So far so good: what about quaternions? Well, we don't need to define exponentials and logarithms for them, but just notice that Euler's formula only needs two things to be true: (a) the Taylor series for $\exp z$, $\cos z$ and $\sin z$ and (b) "something", called $i$, that can be added with real numbers and itself, multyplied by real numbers and such that $i^2 = -1$. Right? Okay. So, for the same reasons as for $i$, we may take

$$ \log i = i\frac{\pi}{2} \ , \qquad \log j = j\frac{\pi}{2} \ , \qquad \text{and} \qquad \log k = k\frac{\pi}{2} \ . $$

Now, we can compute $j^k$:

$$ j^k = e^{k\log j} = e^{k j\frac{\pi}{2}} = e^{-i \frac{\pi}{2}} = \cos \left( \frac{-\pi}{2} \right) +i \sin \left( \frac{-\pi}{2} \right) = -i \ . $$


$$ i^{j^k} = i^{-i} = e^{-i \log i} = e^{-i i \frac{\pi}{2}} = e^{\frac{\pi}{2}} \ . $$

share|improve this answer
Why is $j^k=e^{k\log j}$ rather than $e^{(\log j)k}? –  Robin Chapman Sep 30 '10 at 17:59
@Robin. Good point. Since quaternions' product isn't commutative order matters. Hmmmm. Let's try the dishonest way: could we simply say "by definition"? –  a.r. Sep 30 '10 at 18:10
+1 great answer. but I think it breaks at $e^{(log j)k}$ -> $e^{-i(\pi \over 2)}$ since i, j, k are not necessarily commutative. In the simple case, they are, but the complex They may not be a ring. Ironically, $e^{\pi \over 2}$ is the correct answer! (the threshold limit of the Planck constant to the Yang-Mills gap.) –  Talvi Watia Sep 30 '10 at 22:45
To explain further, the $i^{j^k}=-1$ must balance with the sum of the real value $e^{\pi \over 2}$ for quark tensors to exist correctly through what is seen through observation. perhaps the $=-1$ is misleading as it is a charge, not a distance. –  Talvi Watia Sep 30 '10 at 22:53
@Robin Chapman: Is $e^{(\log j) k}$ the standard definition of quaternion exponentiation $j^k$? If so, could you explain why it is preferred over $e^{k \log j}$? –  Rahul Oct 1 '10 at 4:50

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.