✔ 最佳答案
This contradictory result is due to the misunderstanding of the definition of natural logarithm for complex numbers.
Note that for natural logarithm of a complex number z, it is no longer a single-valued function, but a multi-valued function instead.
For any non-zero complex number z, the natural logarithm of z, denoted by Log(z), is the inverse of exponential function, i.e., e^[Log(z)] = z.
Note that by Euler formula, z = re^[i(2nπ + θ)], where r and θ are real numbers with r positive, and n integer.
Therefore e^[Log(z)] = re^[i(2nπ + θ)] = e^[ln(r) + i(2nπ + θ)], i.e., Log(z) = ln(r) + i(2nπ + θ), here ln denotes the natural logarithm for positive numbers.
This leads to the following definition for natural logarithm of complex numbers:
The natural logarithm of a non-zero complex number z, denoted by Log(z), is defined by
Log(z) = ln(|z|) + i[2nπ + arg(z)],
where |z| and arg(z) denote the modulus and the principal value of argument of z respectively.
Here comes back to your original problem.
From e^(2πi) = 1, taking natural logarithm on both sides,
ln[e^(2πi)] = 2nπi = ln(1), which no longer shows contradiction.