(Note: I have a lot of cube-root related emails to reply to today. I
promise that I will get to everyone, eventually.)

The phenomenon which Michel Paul has spoken of is extremely
interesting. The way I would address the perplexed (or perhaps,
intrigued) student---provided that they know what complex numbers
are---is to say:

If I ask for the cube root of 8, there are three numbers z in the
complex plane such that z^3 = 8.
Specifically, they are
z = 2cos(0) + i2sin(0) = 2 + 0i = 2
z = 2cos(120) + i2sin(120) = -1 + i sqrt(3)
z = 2cos(240) + i2sin(240) = -1 - i sqrt(3)

However, of these three, the first is real, and so normally that's
"the one we want" (at least, usually.)

If I ask for the cube root of -8, there are three numbers z in the
complex plane such that z^3 = -8.
Specifically, they are
z = -2cos(0) - i2sin(0) = -2 - 0i = -2
z = -2cos(120) - i2sin(120) = 1 - i sqrt(3)
z = -2cos(240) - i2sin(240) = 1 + i sqrt(3)

Again, of these three, the first is real, and so normally that's "the
one we want" (at least, usually.)

Now it is noteworthy that I can get all three with solve( x^3 == 8, x
) or solve( x^3 == -8, x ).

However, I think asking nth_real_root( -8, 3 ) to return -2 is no more
exotic than asking nth_real_root( 8, 3 ) to return 2.

Does this make sense?
---Greg

p.s. I'm not sure how to address it with students who are not exposed
to the complex numbers yet. Perhaps I'd say, well...

(2)(2)(2) = 8 so we write cuberoot(8) = 2

(-2)(-2)(-2) = -8 so we write cuberoot(-8) = -2


On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 3:35 PM, michel paul <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alpha shows the domain of y = x^(1/3) to be non-negative. However, it shows
> the domain of y = cube root of x to be all reals.
>
> Most high school texts present a cube root function whose domain is all
> reals. A few years ago this became an issue in an Alg 2 class. I was having
> the students find domains and ranges of functions, and a student pointed out
> that Alpha contradicted our text and wondered why. This turned into a
> discussion of 'what is the cube root of -1?'
>
> Both Google calc and GeoGebra evaluate (-1)^(1/3) as -1. Alpha gives the
> complex expression.
>
> Both Mathematica and Sage leave (-1)^(1/3) unevaluated unless you ask for
> the numeric approximation.
>
> I find it interesting that Alpha and Mathematica give different evaluations
> for (-1)^(1/3).
>
> And then, Alpha evaluates cube root of -1 as -1!
>
> Also note the different uses of the radical sign. In the cases of 'cube
> root' there's an extra little hook on the radical that is not present for
> '^(1/3)'.
>
> This is very interesting. I think there are some issues here pertinent to
> our secondary curriculum. We tell the kids about the Fundamental Theorem of
> Algebra, but then as they go into Analysis and Calculus, we pretend it
> doesn't exist. All attention gets focused on the reals.
>
> - Michel
>
>
> On Fri, Jun 20, 2014 at 12:47 PM, 'Gerald Smith' via sage-edu
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> Guys, please keep in mind that exponentials of negative bases are not
>> really functions.  They give a mix of real and multivalued complex results.
>> You cannot treat  x^(1/3) as a synonym for cuberoot (x) if x,0. The latter
>> is a well defined function and the former is not.  Perhaps this might be a
>> good reason to introduce a new function cuberoot(x) and evaluate it (using
>> for example Newton''s Formula).
>> Cheers,
>> MathBear
>> P.S. If you let the independent variable be the exponent and have a
>> negative base, then for any interval of x however short, the function will
>> flip flop infinitely often between real and multivalued complex results. The
>> output is completely discontinuous and very messy. Just try graphing it!
>> There is a good reason why exponential finctions of a real variable are
>> restricted to positive bases.
>>
>>
>> On Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:39 AM, David Smith <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> I could live with nthroot -- but is cuberoot (or curt or cbrt) so
>> different from sqrt?  Anyway, it would be nice to have functions that
>> resemble ones students see routinely without generating error messages.  I'm
>> very much aware of the difficulties involved in reaching that goal, and I'll
>> be patient.
>>
>> Still waiting for a solution on arcsec, as well.  There the issue is
>> primarily plotting, although "integral" fails, even with a proper domain.
>> numerical_integral works as it should.
>>
>> In the great scheme of things, these are certainly peripheral issues --
>> and they wouldn't be issues at all if textbook authors didn't feel obliged
>> to drag in every function they know about.  As author, I'll guilty of that
>> too (fear of the adoption committee), but in my defense, we only do these
>> things in exercises.
>>
>> On Wednesday, June 18, 2014 8:48:36 PM UTC-4, kcrisman wrote:
>>
>> Just to chime in, as someone who has dealt with this question a lot
>> (though, perhaps ironically, never in a classroom situation):
>>
>> I would be very against a "cuberoot" function, but an "nthroot" function
>> where it was really clear what input was allowed could fly.  I appreciate
>> Greg's rationale.  Note however - what is the 0.1 power? Is that the same as
>> the 1/10 power?  This is a tricky floating point question to interpret.
>>
>> I don't think that the slowdown would be too bad since it would primarily
>> be for pedagogical purposes for plotting.
>>
>> David, I don't know how this would work with integrals, though - we'd have
>> to see if Maxima had something equivalent.  Perhaps it could do a temporary
>> set of the Maxima domain to real somehow, if that is what allows Maxima to
>> do the "right thing" in this context, I don't know.
>>
>> Thanks for fighting the good fight on trying to resolve this once and for
>> all!
>> - kcrisman
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "sage-edu" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-edu.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>>
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "sage-edu" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to [email protected].
>> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-edu.
>> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>
>
>
>
> --
> ===================================
> "What I cannot create, I do not understand."
>
> - Richard Feynman
> ===================================
> "Computer science is the new mathematics."
>
> - Dr. Christos Papadimitriou
> ===================================
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "sage-edu" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/sage-edu/0vGw_Pd6v_Y/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> [email protected].
> To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-edu.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"sage-edu" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/sage-edu.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to