Proving De Moivre's Theorem for Negative Numbers?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on proving De Moivre's Theorem for negative integers. The theorem states that for a complex number expressed as \( z = r \text{cis} \theta \), the relationship \( z^n = r^n \text{cis}(n\theta) \) holds for positive integers \( n \). The challenge arises when attempting to extend this proof to negative integers, particularly in manipulating expressions like \( \frac{1}{r \text{cis} \theta} \) to demonstrate that \( \frac{1}{\text{cis} \theta} = \text{cis}(-\theta) \). The discussion concludes with a suggestion to utilize rectangular coordinates for complex numbers to facilitate the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of De Moivre's Theorem
  • Familiarity with complex numbers and their polar representation
  • Knowledge of complex number operations, specifically division and multiplication
  • Basic skills in mathematical induction
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of De Moivre's Theorem for positive integers
  • Learn how to convert complex numbers between polar and rectangular forms
  • Explore the properties of complex conjugates and their relation to division
  • Investigate mathematical induction techniques for negative integers
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying complex analysis, and anyone interested in the applications of De Moivre's Theorem in advanced mathematics.

NatFex
Messages
26
Reaction score
3
Or basically anything that isn't a positive integer.

So I can prove quite easily by induction that for any integer n>0, De Moivre's Theorem (below) holds.

If ##\DeclareMathOperator\cis{cis} z = r\cis\theta, z^n= r^n\cis(n\theta)##

My proof below:

Let P(n) be the statement ##z^n = r^n\cis(n\theta)##

Prove true for n = 1:
##z^1 = z = r\cis\theta = r^1\cis(1\theta)##

Assume true for n = k:
##z^k = r^k\cis(k\theta)##

Prove true for n = k + 1:
##z^{k+1} = z^k \times z\\
= r^k\cis(k\theta) * r\cis\theta\\
= r^{k+1}\cis(k\theta)\cis\theta\\
= r^{k+1}(\cos(k\theta) + i\sin(k\theta))((\cos\theta + i\sin\theta)\\
= r^{k+1}(\cos(k\theta)\cos\theta + \cos(k\theta)i\sin\theta + i\sin(k\theta)\cos\theta - \sin(k\theta)\sin\theta)##
then by compound angle identities
##= r^{k+1}(\cos(k\theta + \theta) + i\sin(k\theta + \theta))\\
= r^{k+1}\cis((k+1)\theta)##

However I struggle to do this with negatives. I tried the simple case of

##\frac{1}{r\cis\theta}## and from there, try to get to ##\frac{1}{r}\cis(-\theta)##, but I've only managed to do that by replacing the numerator of 1 with ##r\cis0##, which is equivalent, and then from there using De Moivre's Theorem to get an argument of ##-\theta##, which is... not very useful considering De Moivre's Theorem is what I'm trying to prove in the first place.

I just can't manipulate it into a form that would allow me to use compound angle identities like I could with positive numbers. Any ideas?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You can use $$z^{-n} = (z^n)^{-1}$$
 
What is the relation between ##\frac{1}{\cis \theta}## and ##\cis (-\theta)##?
 
Math_QED said:
You can use $$z^n = (z^n)^-1$$
Yeah, but I can't prove that that last step (raising the complex number to a power of -1) will make the angle/argument inside ##\cis## negative

Samy_A said:
What is the relation between ##\frac{1}{\cis \theta}## and ##\cis (-\theta)##?

I know that ##\frac{1}{r\cis\theta} = (r\cis\theta)^{-1}##, but -1 is outside the boundaries for n that I have proved in my first post :(

I know it works, I would just like to prove it.
 
What is $$1/z$$ equal to?
 
NatFex said:
Yeah, but I can't prove that that last step (raising the complex number to a power of -1) will make the angle/argument inside ##\cis## negative
So what?
Where in your proof for positive ##n## did it matter whether the angle is positive or negative?
NatFex said:
I know that ##\frac{1}{r\cis\theta} = (r\cis\theta)^{-1}##, but -1 is outside the boundaries for n that I have proved in my first post :(
You didn't answer the question: what is the relation between ##\frac{1}{\cis \theta}## and ##\cis (-\theta)##?
 
Math_QED said:
What is $$1/z$$ equal to?
##z^{-1}##, but my proof in the OP only works for positive integers. I'm trying to use -1 as a base case to write a proof for negative numbers, but for some reason I cannot work out how to apply a similar strategy (expand then use compound identities)

Samy_A said:
So what?
Where in your proof for positive ##n## did it matter whether the angle is positive or negative?

It doesn't matter if θ is positive or negative, what matters is its multiplier, which is n.

Samy_A said:
You didn't answer the question: what is the relation between ##\frac{1}{\cis \theta}## and ##\cis (-\theta)##?

Well... they are equal, but thus far my understanding of it is only intuitive, until I can prove it, which is what I'm asking for help with
 
NatFex said:
##z^{-1}##, but my proof in the OP only works for positive integers. I'm trying to use -1 as a base case to write a proof for negative numbers, but for some reason I cannot work out how to apply a similar strategy (expand then use compound identities)
It doesn't matter if θ is positive or negative, what matters is its multiplier, which is n.
Well... they are equal, but thus far my understanding of it is only intuitive, until I can prove it, which is what I'm asking for help with
Ok, so if ##z=a+ib##, where ##a, b## are real, how would you compute ##\frac{1}{z}=\frac{1}{a+ib}##?
Hint: multiply numerator and denominator by ##a-ib##.

Once you have proven that ##\frac{1}{\cis \theta}=\cis (-\theta)##, you can easily transform the formula with a negative ##n## into a formula with the positive ##-n##. And then you can use what you already have proven.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: NatFex
Samy_A said:
Ok, so if ##z=a+ib##, where ##a, b## are real, how would you compute ##\frac{1}{z}=\frac{1}{a+ib}##?
Hint: multiply numerator and denominator by ##a-ib##.

Once you have proven that ##\frac{1}{\cis \theta}=\cis (-\theta)##, you can easily transform the formula with a negative ##n## into a formula with the positive ##-n##. And then you can use what you already have proven.
Brilliant, just what I was looking for

I completely forgot about looking at the complex numbers in rectangular form instead, cheers!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
8K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 35 ·
2
Replies
35
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K