Why does OP, answered in post #3, elicit so much pretentious blah-blah?
Is it possible some people can’t recognize it as a topic in elementary complex variables? An introduction can be found in most elementary calculus texts.
Enough.
If you can't recognize that you have only a cursory understanding of the topic then recognize it when others with a more sophisticated understanding of it tell you so. Everything that Plato, Deveno, and Halls have said in this thread is correct.
You are the one saying things like
which is utterly incorrect. Just out of curiosity... who do you think "created" the complex number system? I'm pretty sure the existence of the complex number system long predates our universe and arguably has conceptually existed forever.In the complex number system, c1/n is very well defined. That's why the complex number system was created.
For the answer, see post#3.
Since there seems to be some confusion about what i is, from
Imaginary number - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i^{2}=-1.
The fact that irrelevant posts are (may be) correct is totally irrelevant. 2+2=4 is correct but not relevant to this thread, pardon the advanced logic. I assume there are people with good memories who can regurgitate irrelevant information from texts with varying starting points that others are not familiar with.
Why do you quote both of my sentences and then refer to "them" as utterly incorrect, when you obviously only mean the second one? Quite sneaky.
Alright, the complex number system was originally created to deal with (-1)^{1/2}. c^{1/n} is a stretch and a little off-the-cuff. My apologies.