How Do You Correctly Multiply Complex Numbers to Verify Roots?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on correctly multiplying complex numbers to verify the roots of the quadratic equation x² + 3x + 7. The roots are identified as x = -3/2 + (i√19)/2 and x = -3/2 - (i√19)/2. The user initially attempts to evaluate x² using distribution and substitution of i² = -1, leading to errors in simplification. Ultimately, the correct approach involves careful application of the multiplication definition of complex numbers, ensuring that coefficients of i are accurately identified and handled.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex numbers and their representation (a + bi)
  • Familiarity with the multiplication definition of complex numbers (a + bi)(c + di) = (ac - bd) + (bc + ad)i
  • Knowledge of quadratic equations and their roots
  • Ability to manipulate algebraic expressions and apply substitutions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of complex numbers, focusing on their addition and multiplication
  • Learn how to derive roots of quadratic equations using the quadratic formula
  • Practice simplifying expressions involving complex numbers and the imaginary unit i
  • Explore the geometric interpretation of complex numbers on the complex plane
USEFUL FOR

Students learning complex numbers, educators teaching algebra, and anyone involved in solving quadratic equations and verifying their roots using complex arithmetic.

Square1
Messages
143
Reaction score
1
I have solved the roots of a quadratic equation and want to "test" them by putting them back in for x. I am having a problem with the x^2 term. Of the two roots, I'm only trying so far the positive square root case. I am trying to avoid writing all my work out since that would be hell and I also think would not be easy to read.

To evaluate x^2 where x = -2/3 + i√19, I first try the "from the ground up" method of just distributing, and eventually make a substitution of -1 for i^2. After making that substitution, I end up subtracting the term that had the i^2, from (9/4). After simplifying, I have (-5/2) + (-3i√19)/2

The second way I try to evaluate x^2 term is by using the multiplication definition of complex numbers (a + bi)(c + di) = (ac - bd) + (bc + ad)i . I find that (ac - bd) results in (9/4) - (19i^2)/4 and when I change i^2 to -1, now the terms are being added! Then when I add the (bc + ad)i part, I finally end up with (14/2) + (-3i√19)/2 .

Could someone point out the mistake here then? :S
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I am new to complex numbers so don't assume anything with me. I read somewhere on wiki that it is sometimes relevant for a +bi when b is negative to keep b itself negative as supposed to write as a - bi ? I don't really remember about it much though, but just throwing it out there.
 
Square1 said:
I have solved the roots of a quadratic equation and want to "test" them by putting them back in for x. I am having a problem with the x^2 term. Of the two roots, I'm only trying so far the positive square root case. I am trying to avoid writing all my work out since that would be hell and I also think would not be easy to read.
If we can't see what you did, how can we provide help?
Square1 said:
To evaluate x^2 where x = -2/3 + i√19, I first try the "from the ground up" method of just distributing, and eventually make a substitution of -1 for i^2. After making that substitution, I end up subtracting the term that had the i^2, from (9/4). After simplifying, I have (-5/2) + (-3i√19)/2
This is incorrect. Since you didn't show your work, I have no way to point out where you went wrong.
Square1 said:
The second way I try to evaluate x^2 term is by using the multiplication definition of complex numbers (a + bi)(c + di) = (ac - bd) + (bc + ad)i . I find that (ac - bd) results in (9/4) - (19i^2)/4 and when I change i^2 to -1, now the terms are being added!
You have mistake here, as well, in both calculations.

a = c = -2/3, and b = d = √19. Note that b and d are the coefficients of i. They do not include i.

ac - bd = 4/9 - 19


Square1 said:
Then when I add the (bc + ad)i part, I finally end up with (14/2) + (-3i√19)/2 .

Could someone point out the mistake here then? :S

What do you get for bc + ad? That is the coefficient of i in the product.
 
Ok i made some big mistakes in writing this firstly. Yikes. Need to start again...

The roots of x^2 + 3x + 7 are x = -3/2 + (i√19)/2 and x = -3/2 - (i√19)/2

x^2 when x = -3/2 + (i√19)/2
= (-3 + i√19)/(2) x (-3 + i√19)/(2)
= (9/4 - (3i√19)/4 - (3i√19)/4 - 19/4) switching i^2 with -1
=(-10/4 - (6i√19)/4)
=(-5/2 - (3i√19)/2)Now plugging in terms with the definition...
( (9/4 - (19i^2)/4) + ( (-3i√19)/4 - (3i√19)/4 ) )
= ( (9 + 19)/4 + (-6i√19)/4 )
= 28/4 - (6i√19)/4
=14/2 - (3i√19)/4
 
Try this: (a+b)^2 = a^2 + 2ab + b^2
((-3/2) + i*SQRT(19)/2)^2 = (-3/2)^2 + 2(3/2)(i*SQRT(19)/2) + (19/4)*i^2)
= 9/4 + (-1)*(19/4) + (3/2)(i*SQRT(19)/2
= (9-19)/4 + (3/4)*SQRT(19)*i
= -5/2 + 3i*SQRT(19)/4

You have to be careful handling - signs and i^2 in the same expression, or you might inadvertently make a mistake.
 
OK i think I got it now.
I had the right idea with my distributive method and it brings me to right answer. When it comes to just plugging in the needed values "using the definition", it boiled down to what mark mentioned; that being to exclude i from term b and d.

Thanks
 
I am studying the mathematical formalism behind non-commutative geometry approach to quantum gravity. I was reading about Hopf algebras and their Drinfeld twist with a specific example of the Moyal-Weyl twist defined as F=exp(-iλ/2θ^(μν)∂_μ⊗∂_ν) where λ is a constant parametar and θ antisymmetric constant tensor. {∂_μ} is the basis of the tangent vector space over the underlying spacetime Now, from my understanding the enveloping algebra which appears in the definition of the Hopf algebra...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
970
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K