I Is there a typo in the formula for dividing complex numbers?

Drakkith
Mentor
Messages
23,175
Reaction score
7,625
Quick question. While going over complex numbers in my book, I think I came across a typo and I wanted to be sure I had the right information. In the paragraph going over dividing complex numbers, my book has:
##|\frac{z_1}{z_2}|=|\frac{z_1}{z_2}|##

That's obviously true. Should that be ##|\frac{z_1}{z_2}|=\frac{|z_1|}{|z_2|}## instead?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You're reading the Schaum's Outline on Complex Numbers! I saw that too!

Yes that is a typo!

Its easy to prove using Euler's notation for complex numbers: ##z = r e^{i \theta}##
 
  • Like
Likes Drakkith
jedishrfu said:
You're reading the Schaum's Outline on Complex Numbers! I saw that too!

Actually I'm reading Kreyszig, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 10th Edition.

jedishrfu said:
Yes that is a typo!

Its easy to prove using Euler's notation for complex numbers: ##z = r e^{i \theta}##

Thanks, Jedi!
 
Drakkith said:
Actually I'm reading Kreyszig, Advanced Engineering Mathematics, 10th Edition.
I have the 3rd edition of this book, which doesn't have this typo.
You might find it interesting that I paid $14.95 for the book, but that was in 1972...
 
  • Like
Likes jedishrfu
Mark44 said:
I have the 3rd edition of this book, which doesn't have this typo.
You might find it interesting that I paid $14.95 for the book, but that was in 1972...

I'm using an online version that came packaged with a code for the program we use for receiving and submitting our homework. Apparently the physical textbook that also came with the package either isn't the same textbook, or it's an edited/shortened version, as it doesn't even have the chapter on complex numbers in it. The physical book has chapters 1-8 that appear to follow the online version, but complex numbers are in chapter 13 in the online book, which is where the error is at. Had I known that I was getting shafted I would have purchased the code and the full book separately from each other.
 
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top