How Does Rotating a Complex Integral Prove an Inequality?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the proof of the inequality involving complex integrals, specifically how rotating a complex integral can demonstrate the relationship between the integral of a complex-valued function and the integral of its absolute value. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and technical explanations related to complex analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents the inequality \(\left | \int_a^b f(t) dt \right | \le \int_a^b | f(t) | dt\) and describes a method involving the real part of a rotated complex integral.
  • Another participant defines \(z=\int_a^b f(t)dt\) and relates it to its argument \(\theta\), expressing \(z\) in polar form as \(Re^{i \theta}\), where \(R=|z|\).
  • A later reply explains that multiplying a complex number by \(e^{i \theta}\) corresponds to rotating it in the complex plane, suggesting that this rotation aligns the number with the real axis, which is a clever approach to the proof.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the validity of the approach involving rotation in the complex plane, but there is some uncertainty regarding the specific steps that lead to the reduction to the modulus.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions about the transition from the expression involving \(\theta\) to the absolute value, indicating potential missing assumptions or steps in the proof.

Zorba
Messages
76
Reaction score
0
To proove the inequality:

[tex]\left | \int_a^b f(t) dt \right | \le \int_a^b | f(t) | dt[/tex]

for complex valued [tex]f[/tex], use the following:

[tex]\textrm{Re}\left [ e^{-\iota\theta}\int_a^b f(t) dt\right ] = \int_a^b \textrm{Re}[e^{-\iota\theta}f(t)] dt \le \int_a^b | f(t) | dt[/tex]

and then if we set:

[tex]\theta = \textrm{arg}\int_a^b f(t) dt[/tex]

the expression on the left reduces to the absolute value [tex]\square[/tex]So the last part, where he says that it reduces to the modulus by using that substitution of theta, I don't get it... how does that reduce to the modulus? :smile:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let [tex]z=\int_a^b f(t)dt[/tex]

Let [tex]\theta=arg(z)[/tex]

Then we can write [tex]z=Re^{i \theta}[/tex] where [tex]R=|z|[/tex]

Now look at [tex]e^{-i \theta} z = e^{-i \theta} R e^{i \theta} = R = |z|[/tex]
 
Excellent, thanks for the quick reply. :smile:
 
To give a bit more of an exposition, you can think of multiplying a complex number by [tex]e^{i \theta}[/tex] as being the same thing as rotating it in the complex plane by an angle of [tex]\theta[/tex]. In this case what they did was rotate the number so that it lined up with the real axis

It's pretty clever; I've never seen this proof done like this before
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
947
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K