Complex conjugate an independent variable?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of complex conjugates as independent variables in mathematical contexts, particularly in differentiation and integration. Participants explore the implications of treating \( z \) and \( z^* \) as independent, the intuition behind this approach, and the formalities of integration over complex spaces.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that while \( z \) and \( z^* \) are not independent in a strict sense, they can be treated as linearly independent for the purposes of differentiation.
  • There is a request for intuitive insight into why differentiating with respect to \( z \) and \( z^* \) works effectively, despite the apparent dependency.
  • Concerns are raised regarding the interpretation of integration over \( z \) and \( z^* \) as potentially representing integration over the entire complex space, especially when no boundaries are specified.
  • A participant provides a mathematical definition for the partial derivatives with respect to \( z \) and \( z^* \), highlighting their roles in complex functions.
  • Another participant confirms that the expression \( dzd\bar{z} \) represents an area element in complex integration, linking it to the usual area element in Cartesian coordinates.
  • Questions arise about the meaning of the wedge product in the context of differential forms, with participants providing explanations and clarifications.
  • There is a discussion about the sign of the wedge product depending on the degrees of the differential forms involved, indicating a nuanced understanding of the mathematical operations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the independence of \( z \) and \( z^* \), with some asserting their linear independence while others emphasize their dependency. The interpretation of integration over complex spaces also remains a point of contention, with no consensus reached on the implications of the integration boundaries.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on the assumptions regarding the independence of variables and the specific conditions under which the integration is performed. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of mathematical concepts without resolving these differences.

Chen
Messages
976
Reaction score
1
It's very commong to use z and z* as two independent variables, differentiating with respect to one while keeping the other constant. Can you please give me some intuitive insight into this method, and why it works so well? Because every time I see this my first thought is that z and z* are NOT independent, there is a very clear transformation from one to the other...

Thanks,
Chen
 
Physics news on Phys.org
And also, when I see an integration being done over both z and z*, with the integrals being one-dimensional (as far as I can tell, no boundaries are given), am I to understand that this is simply a formal way to say that the integration is done over the whole complex space?
 
To give a concrete example to my last question, take a look here, at the second identity:
http://www.pact.cpes.sussex.ac.uk/~markh/Teaching/RQF3/node22.html
(this is actually exactly what I'm dealing with)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Chen said:
It's very commong to use z and z* as two independent variables, differentiating with respect to one while keeping the other constant. Can you please give me some intuitive insight into this method, and why it works so well? Because every time I see this my first thought is that z and z* are NOT independent, there is a very clear

Indeed, z and \bar{z} are not independent, but they are linear independent. The partial derivatives \partial /\partial z and \partial /\partial\bar{z} measures the orientation-preservering and orientation-reversing parts of a complex function. They can be defined as

\frac{\partial f}{\partial z} = \lim_{r\rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{f(z+re^{it})-f(z)}{re^{it}}dt

\frac{\partial f}{\partial\bar{z}} = \lim_{r\rightarrow 0}\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\frac{f(z+re^{it})-f(z)}{re^{-it}}dt
 
Chen said:
And also, when I see an integration being done over both z and z*, with the integrals being one-dimensional (as far as I can tell, no boundaries are given), am I to understand that this is simply a formal way to say that the integration is done over the whole complex space?

Yes. dzd\bar{z} is nothing but -2i times the usual area element. The calculation goes like this:

dzd\bar{z} = dz\wedge d\bar{z} = (dx+idy)\wedge(dx-idy) = dx\wedge dx -2i\, dx\wedge dy + dy\wedge dy = -2i\, dx\wedge dy = -2i\, dxdy[/itex]
 
Hmm, pardon my ignorance, but what does that wedge stand for?

Thank you
 
It is anticommutative multiplication, a\wedge b = -b\wedge a. It is usually called exterior product.
 
not necessarily, the sign depends on the degrees of the differential forms, it's positive if it deg(da)*deg(db)=even and else is minus.
 
It depends on how you think about it. Sure, we have

a\wedge (b\wedge c) = (b\wedge c)\wedge a

But that is only because

a\wedge b\wedge c = -b\wedge a\wedge c = b\wedge c\wedge a

The reason to have commuting higher order forms is that such an operation is composed of an even number of anticommuting operations on one-forms.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K