Proving the Inequality for Complex Numbers: A Challenge in n Dimensions

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving an inequality involving sums of complex numbers, specifically focusing on the relationship between the real parts of these sums and their magnitudes. The original poster presents a challenge related to n complex numbers and seeks to establish the inequality |\Sigma_{i=1}^nRe(u_i\bar{v_i})| \le |\Sigma_{i=1}^nu_i\bar{v_i}|.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various approaches to the problem, including examining the case when n=1 and considering the implications for larger n. There are suggestions to express complex numbers in terms of their real and imaginary components, and to apply the triangle inequality. Some participants explore the square of the magnitude of complex sums as a potential method for proving the inequality.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with several participants providing hints and suggestions for approaching the problem. There is a focus on manipulating the expressions involving real and imaginary parts of complex numbers, and some participants express uncertainty about the implications of their findings. No consensus has been reached yet.

Contextual Notes

Participants note potential issues with notation, particularly regarding the use of indices for complex numbers, and there is a mention of the complexity that arises when extending the problem from n=1 to larger n.

bobby2k
Messages
126
Reaction score
2

Homework Statement


Hello

Assume that we have n complex numbers u: u_1,u_2,...,u_n, and n complex numbers v:v_1,v_2,...v_n

I would like to prove that:
|\Sigma_{i=1}^nRe(u_i\bar{v_i})| \le |\Sigma_{i=1}^nu_i\bar{v_i}|

I guess this can be written simpler:
|\Sigma_{i=1}^nRe(z_i)| \le |\Sigma_{i=1}^n z_i|

Homework Equations


The Attempt at a Solution


If n=1. I know that this obviously must hold. But When n is bigger than 1, I am not so sure how to show that it holds. It becomes quit messy, I tried moving the absolute value inside the sum, but id didn't work.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I suggest writing each ##z## (you omitted the index by the way) in terms of its real and imaginary components.
 
Last edited:
Hint:

\textrm{Re}(z+w) = \textrm{Re}(z) + \textrm{Re}(w)
 
By the way, when working with complex numbers, you should probably use some other letter for your index instead of ##i##, which is already reserved for ##\sqrt{-1}##. Unless you are one of those strange people who use ##j## for that purpose. :smile:
 
I got this:

|\Sigma z_j|=|\Sigma Re(z_j)+i*Im(z_j)|=|\Sigma Re(z_j)+i*\Sigma Im(z_j)|

Now I would use the triangle inequality if I did not have the i. But I can still say that there is always so that the absolute value of the real part of a complex number must be less than the absolute value of the total number?

so I get

\ge |\Sigma Re(z_j)|?
 
Consider working with the square of the magnitude. ##|a + ib|^2 = ?##
 
jbunniii said:
Consider working with the square of the magnitude. ##|a + ib|^2 = ?##

Do you mean that I should write c=|\Sigma z_j|, a=\Sigma Re(z_j), b=\Sigma Im(z_j)
So then I get c=|a+bi|, squaring I get c^2=|a+ib|^2=a^2+b^2, then I get:

|\Sigma z_j|^2 = (\Sigma Re(z_j))^2+(\Sigma Im(z_j))^2, and since all are positive we must have that:

|\Sigma z_j| \ge |\Sigma Re(z_j)|
 
bobby2k said:
Do you mean that I should write c=|\Sigma z_j|, a=\Sigma Re(z_j), b=\Sigma Im(z_j)
So then I get c=|a+bi|, squaring I get c^2=|a+ib|^2=a^2+b^2, then I get:

|\Sigma z_j|^2 = (\Sigma Re(z_j))^2+(\Sigma Im(z_j))^2, and since all are positive we must have that:

|\Sigma z_j| \ge |\Sigma Re(z_j)|
Yes, the key is that ##a^2 + b^2 \geq a^2##, so taking square roots of each side, we get ##\sqrt{a^2 + b^2} \geq \sqrt{a^2}##. The LHS of this inequality is ##|a + ib|## and the RHS is ##|a|##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person
Thank you for your help!
 

Similar threads

Replies
34
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K