Proving Equivalence Relation: z~w $\in$ $\mathbb{C}$

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a specific relation defined on complex numbers is an equivalence relation. The relation is defined as z~w if and only if the quotient z/w is a real number, with z and w being non-zero complex numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the properties of the relation, particularly focusing on reflexivity, symmetry, and transitivity. The original poster attempts to demonstrate transitivity by manipulating the expressions involving complex numbers and their conjugates. Others raise questions about the implications of real numbers and their inverses in this context.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and guidance on how to approach the proof. There is an exploration of the relationship between real numbers and their multiplicative inverses, indicating a productive line of reasoning without reaching a definitive conclusion.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the assumption that z and w are non-zero complex numbers, which is crucial for the validity of the operations being discussed.

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
I'm having a bit of difficulty in showing the following is an equivalence relation:

z~w iff \frac{z}{w} \in \mathbb{R} \forall z,w \in \mathbb{C}*=\mathbb{C} \backslash \{0\]

clearly z~z is ok as 1 is real

then i considered \frac{z}{y} \in \mathbb{R} and tried to show y divided by z is real. i decided to multiply through by \frac{\bar{y}}{\bar{y}} to get \frac{z \bar{y}}{|y|^2} \in \mathbb{R}
then clearly z \bar{y} \in \mathbb{R}
and dividing by |z|^2 we get \frac{\bar{y}}{\bar{z}} \in \mathbb{R}
but now what?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
1) If a number w is real, what does that tell you about the inverse w^{-1}? (remember: w * w^{-1} = 1)

2) For the final step, use the fact that you can write a fraction as: \frac{a}{b} = \frac{a}{c}\frac{c}{b}
 
(z/w)(w/z)= 1. Therefore, w/z is the multiplicative inverse of z/w. But z/w is real so its multiplicative inverse is ...
 
erm.. just w/z?
 
Yes, but what I was looking for is "since z/w is real, its multiplicative inverse, w/z, is real". That was what xepema meant.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K