What Determines the Angle of a Complex Number in Polar Form?

Click For Summary
The angle of the complex number cn, defined as sin(nπ/2)/nπ, is determined by its real and imaginary components. For even n, cn equals 0, resulting in an angle of 0 degrees. For n values of 3, 7, 11, etc., cn equals -1, giving an angle of 180 degrees. The discussion highlights the complexities of representing negative real numbers in polar form, where a non-zero angle is necessary. This leads to challenges in functions like logarithms and square roots due to discontinuities in angle representation.
carlodelmundo
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
Hi all.

Suppose I am looking for the following quantity: \sphericalangle cn, where cn = \frac{sin(\frac{nπ}{2})}{nπ}. cn is a complex number.

According to the book, "Signals and Systems" by Edward Kamen 2nd. Ed., \sphericalangle cn = π for n = 3, 7, 11 ... , and cn = 0, for all other n.

The angle of a complex number is defined by arctan(b/a), where b is the imaginary component of the complex number, and a is the real component. In this case, there is no imaginary component (b).

Using the Euler Formula: e^{iθ} = cos (θ) + jsin(θ), I can derive the relation of sin(θ) to an exponential, but I feel this is going backwards.

Any hints/insights is appreciated.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I figured it out. This is a complex number with only a real part. e.g.:

cn = \frac{sin(\frac{nπ}{2})}{nπ}

For even n, note that cn is equal to 0. The angle of a zero complex number is 0.

For n = 1, 5, 9, ..., c = a + bj, a is 1, b is 0. arctan(0/1) is 0 degrees.

For n = 3, 7, 11, ..., c = a + bj, a is -1, b is 0. 180 - arctan(0/1) is 180 degrees.
 
indeed, with complex numbers, the end-points of the unit semi-circle lie on the real axis. one feels intutively, that real numbers should correspond to "angle 0".

but if one regards a complex number in polar form, then the radius (norm, modulus) is positive, so to get the negative real numbers we need a non-zero angle (pi).

this peculiarity of the complex numbers, messes up things like the logarithm function and the square root function. for example, a square root should be a "half-angle formula".

but if our angle is near 2pi, our angle is also near 0, and we're going to have a "jump" (discontinuity) when taking square roots.

so complex numbers solve one problem (we can take more square roots), but give us another (we can't make square roots be near each other, for angles near each other on different sides of some "bad" angle).

if only the exponential wasn't periodic in i, right?
 
Good morning I have been refreshing my memory about Leibniz differentiation of integrals and found some useful videos from digital-university.org on YouTube. Although the audio quality is poor and the speaker proceeds a bit slowly, the explanations and processes are clear. However, it seems that one video in the Leibniz rule series is missing. While the videos are still present on YouTube, the referring website no longer exists but is preserved on the internet archive...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K