I'm having (another) thick moment (complex numbers)

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between the cosine function and complex numbers, specifically the expression cos(x) = (1/2)(e^{ix} + e^{-ix}). Participants clarify that this equation holds true when x is a real number, making cos(x) a real number as well. The complex conjugate of cos(x) is indeed equal to cos(x) since the conjugate of any real number is itself. Additionally, the validity of Euler's formula is emphasized, confirming that the expression for cos(x) applies to both real and complex values of x. Understanding these concepts is crucial for correctly applying complex numbers in mathematical contexts.
Brewer
Messages
203
Reaction score
0
This is a question that's stumping both myself, and my friends who are on maths degrees!

So...

cos(x) can be written as \frac{1}{2}(e^{ix}+e^{-ix}) correct?

so does that make its conjugate \frac{1}{2}(e^{-ix}+e^{ix}), i.e. cos(x) again? or does the switching of the sign go in front of the e? Its been a long time since I used complex numbers, so I (and my friends) are a little rusty! Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Brewer
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You are assuming that e^{iz} and e^{-iz} are conjugates of each other. This is only true if z is pure real.

If z=x+iy, (x,y)\in\mathbb R\times \mathbb R), then e^{iz}=e^{-y}e^{ix} and e^{-iz}=e^{y}e^{-ix}. Taking the conjugates, e^{iz^\ast}=e^{-y}e^{-ix} \ne e^{-iz} and e^{-iz^\ast}=e^{y}e^{ix} \ne e^{iz}.
 
Last edited:
Brewer said:
This is a question that's stumping both myself, and my friends who are on maths degrees!

So...

cos(x) can be written as \frac{1}{2}(e^{ix}+e^{-ix}) correct?

so does that make its conjugate \frac{1}{2}(e^{-ix}+e^{ix}), i.e. cos(x) again? or does the switching of the sign go in front of the e? Its been a long time since I used complex numbers, so I (and my friends) are a little rusty! Any help would be appreciated.

Thanks

Brewer
In order that your equation \frac{1}{2}(e^{ix}+e^{-ix}) be correct, x must be a real number and then cos(x) is a real number. Is the complex conjugate of cos(x) equal to cos(x)? Of course it is: the complex conjugate of any real number is itself!
 
You are assuming that [math]e^{ix}[/math] and [math]e^{-ix}[/math] are conjugates of each other. This is only true if [math]x[/math] is pure real.

Well in the example I'm doing this is the case.
 
HallsofIvy said:
In order that your equation \frac{1}{2}(e^{ix}+e^{-ix}) be correct, x must be a real number and then cos(x) is a real number. Is the complex conjugate of cos(x) equal to cos(x)? Of course it is: the complex conjugate of any real number is itself!
Good that makes me feel better, as that's the reasoning I came up with, and the other thought was conceived by 2 maths students!
 
HallsofIvy said:
In order that your equation \frac{1}{2}(e^{ix}+e^{-ix}) be correct, x must be a real number ...

Halls, you should know better!

The equation \cos(x) = \frac{1}{2}(e^{ix}+e^{-ix}) follows directly from Euler's formula, e^{ix} = \cos(x) + i\sin(x), which is valid for all real and complex x. Thus the given expression for \cos(x) is valid for all real and complex x.
 
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