Elementary algebra of complex variables problem

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem in elementary algebra of complex variables, specifically focusing on the condition that the real part of a complex number z is equal to zero.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of manipulating complex expressions, particularly through multiplication by conjugates. Questions arise regarding how certain forms of z can be interpreted as purely imaginary.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the problem, offering insights and corrections. Some guidance has been provided regarding the nature of the expressions involved, but there remains uncertainty about the proof that Re(z) equals zero.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the calculations and assumptions made in the problem, particularly concerning the interpretation of complex numbers and their properties.

jdinatale
Messages
153
Reaction score
0
I'm having difficulty deducing that Re z = 0.

w00r3b.jpg
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try multiplying the top and bottom by (1-w*).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You made a minor error in calculating the denominator when you canceled the ones.
 
Sorry for butting in, but although I can see where jdinatale went wrong in his last post, I still can't see how Re(z) can be proved to be zero.

Of course it's correct, but I can't quite see it.
 
oay said:
Sorry for butting in, but although I can see where jdinatale went wrong in his last post, I still can't see how Re(z) can be proved to be zero.

Of course it's correct, but I can't quite see it.

The calculation shows z is pure imaginary and that's still true after you make the correction. Doesn't that show Re(z)=0?
 
Dick said:
The calculation shows z is pure imaginary
How does it?

Sorry, I'm probably being very thick here and will live to regret it.

How does

[tex]z = (1 + \omega) / (1 - \omega)[/tex]
where [itex]\omega = e^{ik\pi/50}[/itex]

imply that [itex]z[/itex] is purely imaginary?

Like I say, I know it's correct to say so, but I'm lost on how to prove it - even after trying using the conjugate method as offered above.

It'll probably be a face-palm moment when I find out...
 
oay said:
How does it?

Sorry, I'm probably being very thick here and will live to regret it.

How does

[tex]z = (1 + \omega) / (1 - \omega)[/tex]
where [itex]\omega = e^{ik\pi/50}[/itex]

imply that [itex]z[/itex] is purely imaginary?

Like I say, I know it's correct to say so, but I'm lost on how to prove it - even after trying using the conjugate method as offered above.

It'll probably be a face-palm moment when I find out...

Look at what happens when jdinatale multiplies by (1+w*). The results has w-w* (which is pure imaginary) in the numerator and w+w* (which is pure real) in the denominator. What kind of a number is imaginary/real?
 
Dick said:
Look at what happens when jdinatale multiplies by (1+w*). The results has w-w* (which is pure imaginary) in the numerator and w+w* (which is pure real) in the denominator. What kind of a number is imaginary/real?
Ha-ha! I was right!

A complete face-palm...

Thanks for that. I blame my incompetence on my getting on a bit. :redface:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K