Square Root of Complex Numbers

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the formula for finding square roots of complex numbers, specifically z = a + bi. The formula presented is derived from equations relating the real and imaginary parts of the complex number. Participants explore how to derive this formula and inquire about analogous formulas for n-th roots in non-polar form. Additionally, the conversation touches on the geometric interpretation of complex multiplication and the use of polar coordinates for finding roots. The exchange emphasizes the mathematical foundations and transformations involved in working with complex numbers.
littleHilbert
Messages
55
Reaction score
0
Hi! I've got a question.
There is a nice formula for finding square roots of arbitrary complex numbers z=a+bi:

\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}(\epsilon\sqrt{|z|+a}+i\sqrt{|z|-a}) where
epsilon:=sing(b) if b≠0 or epsilon:=1 if b=0.

I've just looked it up and it's nice to use it to find complex roots of quadratic equations with complex coefficients.

Where does it come from? I mean, squaring shows that it's true but how can one derive it from other facts? Is there a similar formula for n-th roots (not in polar form but analogous to that above)? Any info, links?
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
LittileHilbrt;

Let y=c+id, where y^2=z.

Then; c^2-d^2+2i c*d=a+ib.

As a result; a=c^2-d^2 (eq1) and b=2c*d (eq2).

Therefore, from eq1 and eq2; c^2 = a + (b/c)^2/4 (eq3);

Solving eq3 in c^2, we get c^2={a+sqr(a^2+b^2)}^.5 /2

Therefore, c=(+/-) sqr({a+mod(z)}/2) (eq4 ),
{the other solution is rejected as c must be real}.

Then; z^1/2 = (+/-) y = (+/-) [c + id] = (+/-) [c+id] = (+/-) [sqr({a+mod(z)})+i sign(b)* sqr({[mod(z)]^2 –a^2} / {a+mod(z)})]/sqr(2)
= (+/-) [ sqr( a+mod(z) ) + i sign(b) * sqr({mod(z)–a} ] / sqr(2)
= (+/-) [sign(b) * sqr( a+mod(z) ) + i sqr({mod(z)–a} ] / [sqr(2)* sign(b)]
====> (+/-) [sign(b) * sqr( a+mod(z) ) + i sqr({mod(z)–a} ] / [sqr(2)]

Solving these equaitons when b=0 will need some modifications. By the way, when b is zero, z is real.

Amr Morsi.
 
It can probably be derived with few identities and Demoivre's theorem.
 
You could always convert the number to e^(x + iy) form, divide x and y by 2, convert back to normal form. I think that should work.
 
littleHilbert said:
Where does it come from? I mean, squaring shows that it's true but how can one derive it from other facts? Is there a similar formula for n-th roots (not in polar form but analogous to that above)? Any info, links?
littleHilbert,

When you multiply by a complex number, you are rotating the other number
by the angle the complex number makes with the x-axis.

For example, multiplication by "i" makes a rotation of 90 degrees. Therefore
a multiplication by the square of "i" makes a rotation of 180 degrees or -1.
Hence "i" is the square root of -1.

If you want the "n-th root" of a number; express it in polar form, and
divide the angle by "n". You will get the polar expression for the n-th
root. Use trigonometric identities to transform back into the non-polar
form in terms of the components of the original complex number.
Normalize appropriately if the modulus of the number is not unity.

That's how the formula you cite above is derived.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
 
the question is..take the identity:

(\sqrt (-2)+1)(\sqrt (-2)-1)=-2 and expand it by a continuous fraction..what would we get..
 
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...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Back
Top