Understanding Polar Coordinates and the exponential function

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding the relationship between polar coordinates, the exponential function, and Euler's formula. Participants clarify that the definition of z=reiθ arises from the conversion of polar coordinates to Cartesian coordinates, where x=r cos(θ) and y=r sin(θ). The connection between trigonometric functions and the exponential function is explored, particularly through the Maclaurin series, which shows how e^(ix) equals cos(x) + i sin(x). It is emphasized that any reasonable definition of the complex exponential will relate to trigonometric functions, and the derivation of Euler's formula is linked to this relationship. The conversation highlights the foundational concepts in complex analysis and their interconnections.
jaredogden
Messages
77
Reaction score
0
I'm reviewing math material for the EIT exam, I'm going over math concepts that should be pretty basic but I feel like there are gaps in my understanding. I understand how we can use rectangular coordinates and complex numbers to find a point on the complex plane. It would follow logically from trig that the rectangular coordinates

z=x+iy
that
z=r(cos(θ)+isin(θ)) being that x=cos(θ) and y=sin(θ)

I also know the definition z=re however why is this definition true? Can anyone explain it to me?

In addition to this it can easily be assumed that since z=re and z=r(cos(θ)+isin(θ)) that e=(cos(θ)+isin(θ)) giving us Euler's formula. My next question comes from exactly that.

How is it that trig functions relate to the exponential function is this just something to accept or is there more underlying causes? Did Euler come up with his equation from the addition of the Maclaurin series of e, sin, and cos; or did he figure this out some other way?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
z=r(cos(θ)+isin(θ)) being that x=cos(θ) and y=sin(θ)
There is a factor of "r" missing for x and y.

I also know the definition z=re however why is this definition true? Can anyone explain it to me?
What do you mean "why is this definition true"? Definitions are true because they are defined to be so, but I don't see any definition here.

You don't need a specific formula for the complex exponential function, you can prove the Euler formula and the Wikipedia page should give you an idea how.
 
mfb said:
There is a factor of "r" missing for x and y.
Sorry I forgot the r.

mfb said:
What do you mean "why is this definition true"? Definitions are true because they are defined to be so, but I don't see any definition here.

I mean how did someone figure out that z=re? Was that realized first so then it led to Euler's formula e = cos(θ)+isin(θ) or was z=re realized from Euler's forumla?
 
a=5
b=7
How did I figure this out? I did not. I just defined a and b to be 5 and 7.
In a similar way, for an arbitrary z, you can define r and θ such that they are real and re=z. The Euler formula allows to prove this.
 
It is obvious as the defining relation of an exponential function if

exp(x+y)=exp(x)*exp(y)

and circular functions satisfy

cos(a+b)+i*sin(a+b)=(cos(a)+i*sin(a)*(cos(b)+i*sin(b))

and are therefore exponential.

Euler did manipulate the Maclaurin series. The important thing is any reasonable definition of the complex exponential will relate to trigonometric functions. Any supposed derivation just reveals that fact.
 
Last edited:
jaredogden said:
Sorry I forgot the r.
I mean how did someone figure out that z=re? Was that realized first so then it led to Euler's formula e = cos(θ)+isin(θ) or was z=re realized from Euler's forumla?
Use power series. The McLaurin series for ex is
e^x= 1+ x+ \frac{x^2}{2}+ \frac{x^3}{3!}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot+ \frac{x^n}{n!}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot

Now, replace x with ix:
e^{ix}= 1+ ix+ \frac{(ix)^2}{2}+ \frac{(ix)^3}{3!}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot+ \frac{(ix)^n}{n!}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot
Now, it is easy to see that i2= -1, i3= -i, i4= 1, etc. s0
e^{ix}= 1+ ix- \frac{x^2}{2}- i\frac{x^3}{3!}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot+ i^n\frac{x^n}{n!}
and, separating real and imaginary parts,
e^{ix}= \left(1- \frac{x^2}{2}+ \frac{x^4}{4!}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot\right)+ i\left(x- \frac{x^3}{3!}+ \cdot\cdot\cdot\right)
which are just the McLaurin series for cos(x) and sin(x):
e^{ix}= cos(x)+ i sin(x)

We then have ez= ex+ iy= exeiy= ex(cos(y)+ i sin(y)).

Of course, the fact that z= x+ iy= r(cos(\theta)+ i sin(\theta)) comes immediately from conversion of polar coordinates to Cartesian coordinates: x= r cos(\theta), y= r sin(\theta).
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top