Taylor Series: Can't quite work it out

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the application of Taylor series to derive a formula involving complex numbers and their conjugates. A user struggles to manipulate the equation z* = -iR + R^2/(z-iR) into the form suggested by their lecturer, which includes a Taylor series expansion. Participants suggest factoring and simplifying the expression, with one providing a corrected approach that involves manipulating the terms to clarify the placement of the imaginary unit 'i'. The conversation highlights the challenges of working with complex expansions and the importance of careful algebraic manipulation. Overall, the thread emphasizes the collaborative effort to resolve confusion around Taylor series applications in complex analysis.
wizard147
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi Guys,

Looking at some notes i have on conformal mapping and I have the following

where z is complex and z* denotes its conjugate, R is a real number


z* = -iR + R^2/(z-iR)

and my lecturer says that using the taylor series we get,

z* = -iR + iR(1+ z/iR + ...)

I've been trying for ages but I can't get this, I'm probably doing something stupid.

Anybody point me in the right direction? I'm getting confused with all these expansions!

I'm doing the following:

z* = -iR + R^2/z(1-iR/z)

and using the formula (1-x)^-1 = 1 + x^2 + x^3 (reference to wiki)

but it's not quite working! Hope you can help

C
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
hi wizard147! :smile:

(try using the X2 button just above the Reply box :wink:)
wizard147 said:
z* = -iR + R2/(z-iR)

and my lecturer says that using the taylor series we get,

z* = -iR + iR(1+ z/iR + ...)

you just have to fiddle around with it a little :wink:

z* = -iR + R2/(z-iR)

= -iR + R/(z/R - i)

= -iR + iR/(z/iR - 1) …​

hmm, there's a sign wrong somewhere :redface:
 
Hi Tim,

Thanks, I think when you factored out your i, and then multiplied top and bottom by i you would get

-iR + iR/(1-z/iR)

I could be wrong though! lol
 
yup! …

i think i got confused about whether the last "i" was on the top or the bottom of iR/z/iR ! :biggrin:

thanks! :smile:
 
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