본문으로 바로 이동 / Skip to content

PROOF 14

Prove.

i² = −1 is a definition

On the complex numbers ℂ.

A way to read this proof

First separate what is assumed from what is to be proved. At each step, ask which definition or earlier result permits the move. If it is unclear, return to that premise rather than skipping to the conclusion.

Definition D1

ℂ is the set of all pairs (a, b) of reals, with two operations defined as follows.

Proof.

(1)(a, b) + (c, d) = (a + c, b + d)convention
(2)(a, b) × (c, d) = (ac − bd, ad + bc)convention
(3)Identify (a, 0) with the real number a, and write (0, 1) as i.convention
(4)Then (a, b) = a + bi.(1), (2), (3)

∎

Lemma L1

For all a, a × 0 = 0

Proof.

(1)0 + 0 = 0A5
(2)a(0 + 0) = a × 0(1), E
(3)a×0 + a×0 = a×0(2), A1
(4)a×0 + a×0 = a×0 + 0(3), A5
(5)a × 0 = 0(4), A7

∎

Lemma L2

For all a, b, a(−b) = −(ab)

Proof.

(1)ab + a(−b) = a(b + (−b))A1
(2)      = a × 0A6
(3)      = 0L1
(4)The inverse of ab is unique, so a(−b) = −(ab).(3), A6

∎

Lemma L3

Under the multiplication of D1, i × i = −1

Proof.

(1)(0,1) × (0,1) = (0×0 − 1×1, 0×1 + 1×0)D1
(2)0 × 0 = 0 and 0 × 1 = 1 × 0 = 0L1, A3
(3)1 × 1 = 1A4
(4)Therefore (0,1) × (0,1) = (0 + (−1), 0) = (−1, 0)(1), (2), (3), A5
(5)(−1, 0) is the real number −1 and (0,1) is i, so i × i = −1.(4), D1

∎

Lemma L4

If distributivity, associativity, and commutativity are to hold and i × i = −1 is required, the multiplication rule of D1 is the only one.

Proof.

(1)(a + bi)(c + di) = a(c + di) + (bi)(c + di)A1
(2) = ac + a(di) + (bi)c + (bi)(di)A1
(3) = ac + (ad)i + (bc)i + (bd)(i × i)A2, A3
(4)(bd)(i × i) = (bd)(−1) = −(bd)L3, L2, A4
(5) = (ac − bd) + (ad + bc)i(3), (4), A1
(6)This is the same as the multiplication rule of D1.(5), D1

∎

Theorem T1

No real number x satisfies x² = −1.

Proof.

(1)0 < 1A11
(2)Adding −1 to both sides, −1 < 0.(1), A8, A6, A5
(3)Suppose there is an x with x² = −1.assumption
(4)If x = 0 then x² = 0, and by (2), 0 ≠ −1, so x ≠ 0.L1, (2), A10
(5)If 0 < x, then 0 = 0 × x < x × x, so 0 < x².A9, L1, A3
(6)If x < 0, adding −x to both sides gives 0 < −x.A8, A6, A5
(7)From x < 0 and 0 < −x, x(−x) < 0 × (−x) = 0.(6), A9, L1, A3
(8)x(−x) = −(x × x), so −x² < 0.(7), L2
(9)Adding x² to both sides, 0 < x².(8), A8, A6, A5
(10)x is nonzero, so (5) or (9) applies. Either way, 0 < x².A10, (4), (5), (9)
(11)But x² = −1 and −1 < 0.(3), (2)
(12)0 < x² and x² < 0 cannot stand together.A10, (10), (11)
(13)No such x exists.(12)

∎

Corollary C

ℂ has no order satisfying A8–A11.

Proof.

(1)Suppose ℂ has such an order.assumption
(2)T1 uses only the axioms of an ordered field, so it holds in every field carrying an order.T1, L1, L2
(3)Therefore in ℂ too, x² = −1 has no solution.(1), (2)
(4)But i is an element of ℂ and i × i = −1.L3
(5)Contradiction. No such order exists.(3), (4)

∎

Remark

Can A10 be removed from this proof?

Check whether what blocks i is the four operations or the order. Remove trichotomy and see which lines lose their justification.