Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Imaginary logarithm

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Complex logarithm.. alphaChimp ^laudare 23:37, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Imaginary logarithm

Dubious, most likely OR. The proof relies on properties of the logarithm which are not valid for arbitrary (i.e., which are not positive real) arguments. There are different possibilities extending the logarithm, one common being leaving the logarithm for non-positive reals undefined (so that the domain is an open part of C). If one uses this branch of the logarithm, the formula is on one hand trivial, but on the other hand pretty useless. I strongly doubt it is mentioned like this in any renowned textbook. gwaihir 16:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete or Merge to Complex logarithm (which could use a lot of work itself). This whole line of reasoning boils down to the statement "Using Euler's identity, it is known that ln( − 1) = iπ," which is really a choice of branch, as the nom says. Staecker 17:49, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong delete. Nothing here we should keep. (And not only does complex logarithm need work, it should be merged with natural logarithm.) --KSmrq^T 19:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  Redirect to complex logarithm. Can't … stand … peer … pressure … Argh! (Well, I could; but since "imaginary logarithm" may be something an unsuspecting reader requests, redirection is a better choice.) --KSmrq^T 00:04, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• Delete This is only one of the infinity of values of the complex logarithm (which should be mentioned in Natural logarithm, but not included in toto ;->, that's what {{see main}} is for. ) Septentrionalis 22:46, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

  I will join the consensus to redirect; the article history is harmless. Septentrionalis 15:12, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

• redirect to Complex logarithm. Term seems a natural enough one for some one to search for. As we seem to be discussing the fate of Complex logarithm as well I'm weekly in favor of keeping them as seperate articles per Septentrionalis. --Salix alba (talk) 22:57, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
• redirect to Complex logarithm already. (I thought I commented here, already. It seems that I didn't.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 02:05, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to Complex logarithm. Does one need an AfD to do that? Byrgenwulf 08:59, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It is unclear whether this term actually exists, cf. [1], [2].--gwaihir 09:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Comment: Actually, your links convinced me that the term does exist and was used historically by mathematical greats such as Johann Bernoulli and William Rowan Hamilton (cf Hamilton's report from link#1 and Stillwell's book from link #2). In fact, even Euler used it in at least two papers [3] [4]. I would say it is definitely a legitimate historical term. The fact that Internet searches can even find this I think is compelling. For example, Google Scholar wouldn't find many references to very old papers.--C S (Talk) 11:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, I think, it would be "logarithm of an imaginary number"; but it is a plausible search term, and hence a redirect to the article about logarithms of complex numbers is called for. Byrgenwulf 10:03, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, it is neither the logarithm of an imaginary number, nor a logarithm which is itself an imaginary number.--gwaihir 10:15, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

You're dead right - I had forgotten what the article was about...I was thinking it was talking about scenarios like "log(3i)". Byrgenwulf 10:27, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Redirect because of the problems with the article and also because it is another name for "complex logarithm", albeit now obsolete. Like fluxion or fluent (mathematics), there may be some value in having an article on the historical and philosophical significance of the term, but that's not what the current article is about. --C S (Talk) 11:00, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
  • • Comment:Perhaps the title should be changed to 'logarithm of a negative number'? --Carifio24 16:56, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to complex logarithm Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 20:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to complex logarithm —Mets501 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect to complex logarithm -- although that article should be expanded I just finished expanding it to discuss branch cuts, so as to avoid the confusion that lead to this article. linas 16:59, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per all above. Paul August ☎ 02:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
• Redirect per everyone else as well. --Slgr@ndson (page - messages - contribs) 15:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.