MHB A complex number problem that has been vexing me....

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that for three distinct complex numbers \( z_1, z_2, z_3 \) with equal magnitudes, the condition that \( z_1 + z_2 z_3, z_2 + z_1 z_3, z_3 + z_1 z_2 \) are all real leads to the conclusion that \( z_1 z_2 z_3 = 1 \). The initial approach involved expressing the complex numbers in polar form and equating imaginary parts to derive relationships between their angles. A key insight was recognizing that if \( \cos(2\theta_1 + \theta_3) = \cos(2\theta_2 + \theta_3) \), it implies either the angles are equal or related by a negative reflection, ultimately leading to the conclusion that \( \theta_1 + \theta_2 + \theta_3 = k\pi \). The discussion emphasizes that the proof can be refined to avoid any perceived "fudging," and a geometric proof is suggested as a potential alternative. The thread concludes with an acknowledgment of the collaborative effort to clarify the proof.
MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
Recently, on another forum, the following problem was posted:

Given three distinct complex numbers:

$\displaystyle z_1,z_2,z_3$

where:

$\displaystyle |z_1|=|z_2|=|z_3|\ne0$

and:

$\displaystyle z_1+z_2z_3,z_2+z_1z_3,z_3+z_1z_2$

are all real, then prove:

$\displaystyle z_1z_2z_3=1$

I began with:

$\displaystyle z_1=re^{\theta_1 i}$

$\displaystyle z_2=re^{\theta_2 i}$

$\displaystyle z_3=re^{\theta_3 i}$

where $\displaystyle 0\le\theta_n<2\pi$

For the 3 expression that are real, I equated the imaginary parts to zero, which gives:

$\displaystyle \sin(\theta_1)+r\sin(\theta_2+\theta_3)=0$

$\displaystyle \sin(\theta_2)+r\sin(\theta_1+\theta_3)=0$

$\displaystyle \sin(\theta_3)+r\sin(\theta_1+\theta_2)=0$

I next solved the first two equations for r, and equated, to find:

$\displaystyle \sin(\theta_1)\sin(\theta_1+\theta_3)=\sin(\theta_2)\sin(\theta_2+\theta_3)$

Using a product-to-sum identity, this implies:

$\displaystyle \cos(2\theta_1+\theta_3)=\cos(2\theta_2+\theta_3)$

Given that the angles $\displaystyle \theta_n$ must be distinct, I used:

$\displaystyle \cos(2\theta_1+\theta_3)=\cos(2\theta_2+\theta_3-4\pi)$

From which I obtained:

$\displaystyle \theta_1+\theta_2+\theta_3=2\pi$

However, I was told by someone whose judgement is extremely sound that I was "fudging" here.

Would it also be "fudging" to redefine the angles with:

$\displaystyle -\pi\le\theta_n<\pi$

and then use:

$\displaystyle \cos(2\theta_1+\theta_3)=\cos(-2\theta_2-\theta_3)$

to obtain:

$\displaystyle \theta_1+\theta_2+\theta_3=0$

I admit, this seems to merely be the same "fudge" I used before.(Rofl)

Can anyone offer a hint or nudge in the right direction?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
MarkFL said:
Recently, on another forum, the following problem was posted:

Given three distinct complex numbers:

$\displaystyle z_1,z_2,z_3$

where:

$\displaystyle |z_1|=|z_2|=|z_3|\ne0$

and:

$\displaystyle z_1+z_2z_3,z_2+z_1z_3,z_3+z_1z_2$

are all real, then prove:

$\displaystyle z_1z_2z_3=1$

I began with:

$\displaystyle z_1=re^{\theta_1 i}$

$\displaystyle z_2=re^{\theta_2 i}$

$\displaystyle z_3=re^{\theta_3 i}$

where $\displaystyle 0\le\theta_n<2\pi$

For the 3 expression that are real, I equated the imaginary parts to zero, which gives:

$\displaystyle \sin(\theta_1)+r\sin(\theta_2+\theta_3)=0$

$\displaystyle \sin(\theta_2)+r\sin(\theta_1+\theta_3)=0$

$\displaystyle \sin(\theta_3)+r\sin(\theta_1+\theta_2)=0$

I next solved the first two equations for r, and equated, to find:

$\displaystyle \sin(\theta_1)\sin(\theta_1+\theta_3)=\sin(\theta_2)\sin(\theta_2+\theta_3)$

Using a product-to-sum identity, this implies:

$\displaystyle \cos(2\theta_1+\theta_3)=\cos(2\theta_2+\theta_3)$
Up to that point, your argument is completely watertight. To avoid the fudge in what follows, continue like this.

First, given $\phi, \ \psi$ with $\cos\phi=\cos\psi$, it must be true that either $\psi=\phi+2k\pi$ or $\psi=-\phi+2k\pi$ (for some integer $k$). Applying that to the equation $\cos(2\theta_1+\theta_3)=\cos(2\theta_2+\theta_3)$, you see that either $2\theta_1+\theta_3 = 2\theta_2+\theta_3 + 2k\pi$ or $2\theta_1+\theta_3 = -(2\theta_2+\theta_3) + 2k\pi$. But the first of those alternatives implies that $\theta_1 = \theta_2$, which is not allowed. Therefore the second alternative holds, from which you get $\theta_1 + \theta_2 + \theta_3 = k\pi.$

If you then go back to the equation $\sin(\theta_1)+r\sin(\theta_2+\theta_3)=0$, you can deduce that $k$ must be an even number (otherwise both terms on the left side of that equation would have the same sign). Consequently $\sin(\theta_2+\theta_3) = -\sin\theta_1$, from which it follows that $r=1$. From there it is easy to see that $z_1z_2z_3 = 1.$

I would say that your proof is essentially sound and that the fudge is easily removable. I would prefer to see a more geometric proof of this result, but I don't have any idea of how that might go.
 
Thank you! :cool:

I did actually consider:

$\displaystyle \theta_1+\theta_2+\theta_3=k\pi$

but I never thought to use one of the 3 equations arising from the conditions on the 3 given expressions being real to show that k must be even. (Smile)

When I fix my argument, I will give you credit for the suggested fix!
 
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...
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...

Similar threads

Back
Top