Geometric Arguments for Z1-Z2 in Complex Plane

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ed Quanta
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Geometric
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on providing geometric arguments for the expressions involving complex numbers. The expression |z-4i| + |z+4i|=10 defines an ellipse with foci at 4i and -4i, as it represents the set of points where the sum of distances to these foci is constant. For the expression |z-1|=|z+i|, it describes a line through the origin with a slope of -1, as it indicates that the distances from z to the points 1 and -i are equal, forming a perpendicular bisector. Participants debate the rigor of geometric versus algebraic arguments, emphasizing the importance of clear definitions and the validity of using distance interpretations. The conversation highlights the necessity of understanding both geometric and algebraic perspectives in complex analysis.
Ed Quanta
Messages
296
Reaction score
0
I am told that |z1-z2| is the distance between two points z1 and z2 in the complex plane. I have to give a geometric argument that

a) |z-4i| + |z+4i|=10 represents an ellipse whose foci are (0, and positive or negative 4)

b)|z-1|=|z+i| represents the line through the origin whose slope is -1

Now my question is what exactly is a geometric argument, and what is sufficient in showing what I am told to show?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Rewrite the given expression using the language where |z1 - z2| is replaced by the words, "the distance between z1 and z2."

a) Compare the statement this generates with the geometrical definition of an ellipse.

b) Recall the locus that is found to be a perpendicular bisector.
 
alternatively use the fact that (rather than hand waving arguments) |z|= sqrt(x**2+y**2) where z=x+iy is a complex number, x,y real.
 
matt grime said:
alternatively use the fact that (rather than hand waving arguments) |z|= sqrt(x**2+y**2) where z=x+iy is a complex number, x,y real.

|z+4i| + |z-4i| = 10 means that the locus of z is the set of points each of whose sum of distances from two fixed points (4i, -4i) is a constant (=10). Is this not just the same as showing that (x,y) satisfy (x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2 = 1. I don't see how it is any less rigorous, and definitely disagree with your description of it as hand waving. tell me where I'm wrong.
 
when you get round to demonstrating that circles and straight lines are sent to circles and straight lines under mobius transformations you'll appreciate the necessity of the algebraic arguments, though i will agree hand waving is too dismissive.
 
From the way the original question was phrased: "give a geometric argument that

a) |z-4i| + |z+4i|=10 represents an ellipse whose foci are (0, and positive or negative 4)"

it's clear (to me, anyway!) that Gokul43201's idea: |z-4i|+ |z+4i|= 10 means that the total distance from z to 4i and -4i is 10: precisely the definition of ellipse, is the intended solution.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top