What is the Formula for Multiplying Complex Numbers in Polar Form?

AI Thread Summary
To multiply complex numbers in polar form, convert each expression to its exponential form using Euler's formula. The general approach involves simplifying each component and then multiplying them together. The final result can be expressed as z = e^(4xi) * e^(2yi), which simplifies to z = e^((4x + 2y)i). This leads to the conclusion that z can also be represented as z = cos(4x + 2y) + i sin(4x + 2y). Understanding this formula is essential for working with complex numbers in polar coordinates.
Joza
Messages
139
Reaction score
0
IS there a formula for:

z=(Cosx +iSinx)^4 (Cosy + iSiny)^2 ??
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You mean a way to simplify it? Just change each expression in ( ) to its corresponding exponential form.
 
This doesn't make any sense: one of x and y has to represent the real part scalar and the other the imaginary part scalar. The expression you have there implies that neither x nor y are scalars and hence aren't axial values.
 
Last edited:
Well I just put them in instead of the actual values...I'm just looking for the general way.

So do I simplify each and then multiply them or something?
 
If so, have you tried, as daveb suggestedz=(\cos x +i\sin x)^{4} * (\cos y + i\sin y)^{2}

z = e^{4xi} * e^{2yi}

z = e^{(4x + 2y)i}

z = \cos (4x + 2y) + i \sin (4x + 2y)
 
Last edited:
I have only ever seen the last line there before, but that's actually what I thought it was. It's one of those rules.

Cheers guys!
 
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...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
15
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top