Complex conjugate of a complicated function

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the concept of complex conjugates, explaining that for a complex number z = x + iy, the conjugate is z* = x - iy. It also addresses the conjugate of complex functions, stating that for f(z) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y), the conjugate is f(z)* = u(x,y) - iv(x,y). A specific example involving complex numbers around a circle illustrates that the conjugate can be expressed as z* = exp(-iΘ) - i. The conversation raises a question about whether this method applies to more complicated functions, suggesting that converting to the form a + ib might be necessary. However, it concludes that there are cases, such as (1/z)* = 1/(z*), where the conjugate can be determined without breaking down into real and imaginary parts.
BomboshMan
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I know if we have a complex number z written as z = x +iy , with a and real, the complex conjugate is z* = x - iy. Also if we write a complex function f(z) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y), with u and v real valued, then similarly the complex conjugate of this function is f(z)* = u(x,y) - iv(x,y).

And if we have some complex numbers around a circle like z = i + exp(iΘ) then the conjugate of these numbers is z* = exp(-iΘ) - i.

It always seems like the way to conjugate something complex is to literally just 'put a minus in front of the i's ' ...but is this always the case?

Surely if we had some complicated function like g(x + iy) = [sin(x+iy) + iexp(cos(x-y))]^(-1) , we couldn't just replace the i's with (-i)'s? Seems like we'd have to convert the above to the form a + ib first.

If not - if it really is that elegant - is there a proof or something that it works in every case?

Thanks,

Matt
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
BomboshMan said:
Surely if we had some complicated function like g(x + iy) = [sin(x+iy) + iexp(cos(x-y))]^(-1) , we couldn't just replace the i's with (-i)'s?
Right.

Seems like we'd have to convert the above to the form a + ib first.
Not always.

As an example, (1/z)* = 1/(z*), you don't have to calculate real and imaginary parts of 1/z here.
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K