MHB Complex Conjugates/Proof by Induction

  • Thread starter Thread starter gucci1
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Complex Induction
gucci1
Messages
12
Reaction score
0
So I am having a bit of trouble with a proof by induction that I need to write. The problem is to prove that the conjugate of the product g1 * ... * gm equals the product of the conjugates of g1 ... gm. This is for g1 ... gm complex numbers.

I have proven this for m = 2, by simple calculation of the conjugates. Now I need to prove that if this is true for m = n then it is true for m = n + 1.

I appreciate any help you can offer, thank you.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
gucci said:
So I am having a bit of trouble with a proof by induction that I need to write. The problem is to prove that the conjugate of the product g1 * ... * gm equals the product of the conjugates of g1 ... gm. This is for g1 ... gm complex numbers.

I have proven this for m = 2, by simple calculation of the conjugates. Now I need to prove that if this is true for m = n then it is true for m = n + 1.

I appreciate any help you can offer, thank you.

If you showed that $\overline{g_1g_2}=\overline{g_1}\cdot \overline{g_2}$, and then assume that $\overline{g_1g_2\cdots g_n} = \overline{g_1}\cdot\overline{g_2}\cdots \overline{g_n}$, then it follows that
\[\overline{g_1g_2\cdots g_ng_{n+1}} = \overline{(g_1g_2\cdots g_n) g_{n+1}}\]
Let's define $g_1g_2\cdots g_n=z$. Then we're left with $\overline{z g_{n+1}}$, and we know from the $m=2$ case that this is the same as $\overline{z}\cdot\overline{g_{n+1}}$. Now rewrite this as $\overline{g_1g_2\cdots g_n}\cdot \overline{g_{n+1}}$ and apply the inductive hypothesis to finish the problem.

Does this make sense?
 
Thanks so much man, that really cleared it up for me!
 
Thread 'How to define a vector field?'
Hello! In one book I saw that function ##V## of 3 variables ##V_x, V_y, V_z## (vector field in 3D) can be decomposed in a Taylor series without higher-order terms (partial derivative of second power and higher) at point ##(0,0,0)## such way: I think so: higher-order terms can be neglected because partial derivative of second power and higher are equal to 0. Is this true? And how to define vector field correctly for this case? (In the book I found nothing and my attempt was wrong...

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
773
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K