Parametrizatrion of a Straight Line Segment in C - Simple Issue

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Line Straight line
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion revolves around the parametrization of a straight line segment in complex analysis, specifically addressing Example 1.22 from Mathews and Howell's "Complex Analysis for Mathematics and Engineering." The key issue is the manipulation of expressions to show that $$\gamma (t) = z(1 - t)$$, where $$\gamma (t) = z_1 + (z_0 - z_1) t$$. The confusion arises from interpreting $$z(1 - t)$$ as a function evaluated at $$1 - t$$ rather than a product. The clarification provided resolves the misunderstanding, confirming that $$z(1 - t)$$ indeed simplifies to the desired expression.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex functions and their parametrization.
  • Familiarity with algebraic manipulation of expressions.
  • Knowledge of the notation used in complex analysis.
  • Basic grasp of the concepts from Mathews and Howell's "Complex Analysis for Mathematics and Engineering."
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of parametrization in complex analysis.
  • Review algebraic manipulation techniques in mathematical expressions.
  • Explore the implications of function evaluation in complex functions.
  • Read further sections of Mathews and Howell's book for deeper insights into complex analysis.
USEFUL FOR

This discussion is beneficial for students and educators in mathematics, particularly those studying complex analysis, as well as anyone seeking to clarify the manipulation of expressions in mathematical functions.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Mathews and Howell's book: Complex Analysis for Mathematics and Engineering. I am currently reading Section 1.6 - "The Topology of Complex Numbers". I have a problem with an aspect of Example 1.22 on page 38. My problem is a simple one related to algebraic manipulation of a couple of expressions ...

Example 1.22 reads as follows:

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3747
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/3748

In the above M&H write:

" ... ... Clearly one parametrization for -C is

$$-C : \gamma (t) \ = \ z_1 + (z_0 - z_1) t, \ \ \ \text{ for } 0 \le t \le 1$$.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note that $$\gamma (t) \ = \ z ( 1 - t)$$, ... ... ... "

My problem is that I cannot show that $$\gamma (t) \ = \ z ( 1 - t)$$, which I suspect is a simple manipulation of symbols ...
Basically, we have

$$\gamma (t) \ = \ z_1 + (z_0 - z_1) t \ = \ z_1 + z_0 t - z_1 t $$ ... ... ... ... (1)But $$ z (1-t) \ = \ [ z_0 + (z_1 - z_0) t ] ( 1 - t ) $$

$$= z_0 + ( z_1 - z_0 ) t - z_0 t - ( z_1 - z_0 ) t^2$$ ... ... ... ... (2)Now I cannot see how further manipulation of the terms of (2) is going to give me the expression in (1) ... ... so how do we derive the equation $$\gamma (t) \ = \ z ( 1 - t)$$ ... ...

Hoping someone can help with this (apparently) simple issue ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
Basically, we have

$$\gamma (t) \ = \ z_1 + (z_0 - z_1) t \ = \ z_1 + z_0 t - z_1 t $$ ... ... ... ... (1)But $$ z (1-t) \ = \ [ z_0 + (z_1 - z_0) t ] ( 1 - t ) $$

$$= z_0 + ( z_1 - z_0 ) t - z_0 t - ( z_1 - z_0 ) t^2$$ ... ... ... ... (2)Now I cannot see how further manipulation of the terms of (2) is going to give me the expression in (1) ... ... so how do we derive the equation $$\gamma (t) \ = \ z ( 1 - t)$$ ... ...

Hoping someone can help with this (apparently) simple issue ...

Peter
In this calculation, $z(1-t)$ does not mean $z$ multiplied by $1-t$. It means the function $z$ evaluated at $1-t$. So if $z(t) = z_0 + (z_1 - z_0) t$ then $z(1-t) = z_0 + (z_1 - z_0) (1-t)$.
 
Opalg said:
In this calculation, $z(1-t)$ does not mean $z$ multiplied by $1-t$. It means the function $z$ evaluated at $1-t$. So if $z(t) = z_0 + (z_1 - z_0) t$ then $z(1-t) = z_0 + (z_1 - z_0) (1-t)$.
Oh, yes of course!

... ... brain fade on my part ... ... quite silly of me ... ...

Thanks for the help Opalg,

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K