When writing $$\arg(z^n) = n\arg(z) + 2πk$$ and letting $\arg$ denote the principal complex argument of $z$. Is $k$ generally an integer or is it that $0\lt k\lt n$ or $k=[\frac{1}{2}-\frac{n}{2\pi}\arg(z)]$ as some books suggest? Obviously, I don't understand any of this and would appreciate if someone explained this tricky situation.. Thanks in advance !

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ First things first: there is not one universally accepted definition of "principal" argument. For some it will lie in $(-\pi,\pi] $, for others in $[0, 2\pi)$. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud Mortier May 29 '18 at 22:50
  • $\begingroup$ We know that argument represents the angle in the complex plane. For any z , Arg is bounded by $0 \leq arg(z) < 2 \pi$ $\endgroup$ – Clark Makmur May 29 '18 at 22:51
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think it simply means $\;\arg z^n\equiv n \arg z \mod 2\pi$, and the value of $k$ is such that $n\arg z +2\pi k$ lies in the interval we've chosen for the principal argument. $\endgroup$ – Bernard May 29 '18 at 22:53

If $n$ is a non-negative integer, then $z^n=z \cdot z \cdot \; \cdots$ is well defined (analytic and entire) on all $\mathbb C$.
If $n$ is a negative integer, then $z^{n}=(1/z)^{|n|}$ and it is meromorphic, with only a pole of order $|n|$ at $z=0$.

In both cases,the argument (apart the $i2\pi$) is also well defined to be $\{n\arg(z)/(2\pi)\}(2\pi)=(n\arg(z))\mod{(2\pi)}$ where the brackets indicate the fractional part. That as much as $\arg(z)$ is defined.

The above if you define $0\le \arg(z) <2\pi$.
If instead, as rightly indicated in a comment, the definition is $-\pi < \arg(z) \le \pi$ (which is that adopted in all major CAS nowadays), in any case you shall reduce $n\arg(z)$ to fall therein.

If $n$ is instead rational, then it comes that you have to choice the branch: the example of $z^{1/2}=\pm \sqrt{z}$ is well known and I will not continue further (you can find a more authoritative explanation here).

  • $\begingroup$ I think you want to remove "except for $ z=0 $". $\endgroup$ – Arnaud Mortier May 31 '18 at 12:38
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnaudMortier: well , I put that to keep it valid for $n$ in all $\mathbb Z$. But your comment is accepted in making the statement more precise. $\endgroup$ – G Cab May 31 '18 at 14:10
  • $\begingroup$ Right. But then you can't say that a function is entire if it is not holomorphic on the whole of $\Bbb C $. $\endgroup$ – Arnaud Mortier May 31 '18 at 14:29
  • $\begingroup$ @ArnaudMortier: I tried an additional step towards precision (which in complex field is always necessary, you are right! thanks so much). Is that correct now ? or , since you are more expert , could you please amend it correctly or put as your own answer? $\endgroup$ – G Cab May 31 '18 at 15:47

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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