-5
$\begingroup$

It makes little reason to speak about $0^x$ and $\log_0 x$ on the set of real numbers, but in matrices, it seems, the expressions coincide, for instance,

$0^ \left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \\ \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \\ \end{array} \right)=\left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{2} & -\frac{1}{2} \\ -\frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \\ \end{array} \right)=\log_0 \left( \begin{array}{cc} \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \\ \frac{1}{2} & \frac{1}{2} \\ \end{array} \right),$

where $0$ is meant to be zero matrix. Since all hypercomplex numbers can be represented in matrix form, logarithm with base zero makes sense there as well, and its equivalence to the powers of zero still holds. For instance, in split-complex numbers we have

$0^{1/2+j/2}=1/2-j/2= \log_0 (1/2+j/2),$

$0^{1/2-j/2}=1/2+j/2= \log_0 (1/2-j/2).$

As such, I wonder, whether it would be sensible to claim $\log_0 x=0^x$ in all other contexts? Is there some proof or expansion that would show this is the case?

I asked a similar question on math.stackexchange but was heavily downvoted and the question was closed because, as some users claimed "logarithm with zero base has no sense".

$\endgroup$
12
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ What are your definitions of $\log_0 x$ and $0^x$ for matrices $x$? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 3, 2021 at 12:26
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Real numbers can be viewed as $1\times1$ matrices, so surely you can't prove more about general matrices than about real numbers. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Oct 3, 2021 at 16:15
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ Such a question should include a definition. Something more than MatrixFunction in Mathematica. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 3, 2021 at 18:13
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Re, you say "It makes little sense to speak about $0^x$ and $\log_0 x$ on the set of real numbers, but in matrices, it seems, the expressions coincide". That seemed to be saying that you could do something with general matrices that you couldn't do with real numbers. $\endgroup$
    – LSpice
    Commented Oct 3, 2021 at 18:22
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ From $0^5 = 0$ we get $\log_0 0 = 5$. This tells us nothing about $\log_0 5$. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 3, 2021 at 18:59

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Experimenting with Maple, it seems Maple's definition of $0^A$, where $A$ is a square matrix, will be:

$\bullet\;$If $A$ is diagonalizable, Say $A = Q^{-1} D Q$ with $D = \operatorname{diag}(a_1,\dots,a_n)$, then $$ 0^D = \operatorname{diag}\big(0^{a_1},\dots,0^{a_n}\big)\\ 0^A = Q^{-1} 0^D Q $$ Here $0^x = 0$ if $\operatorname{Re}(x) > 0$ and $0^0 = 1$. Some others like $0^{-1}$ and $0^i$ are undefined.

$\bullet\;$ If $A$ is not diagonalizable, then $0^A$ is undefined. For example $0^A$ is undefined if $$ A = \begin{bmatrix}0 & 1\\ 0 & 0\end{bmatrix} , $$ even though it is a zero divisor. [Hidden reason: $0^x$ is not differentiable at $x=0$.]


I did not get Maple to do anything with $\log_0 A$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, not all zero divisors give values. For instance, $0^{j/2+1/2}=1/2-j/2$, but $0^{j/2-1/2}$ is undefined (infinite). $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Commented Oct 3, 2021 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ Try $\log_b A$ and then insert $b=0$. $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Commented Oct 3, 2021 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ By the way, what happens if to invert the exponentiation operation? It not it symmetric? $\endgroup$
    – Anixx
    Commented Oct 3, 2021 at 20:36

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .