Proving Trig Identities with Complex Numbers

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving trigonometric identities using complex numbers, specifically the identities cos(2θ) = cos²(θ) - sin²(θ) and sin(2θ) = 2sin(θ)cos(θ). Participants explore the evaluation of the complex number z = e^(iθ) and its implications for these identities.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss different methods of evaluating z², with some expressing confusion about the manipulations involved. Questions arise regarding the necessity of using the exponential definition of complex numbers and the interpretation of squaring complex expressions.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants questioning their approaches and clarifying the steps involved in using de Moivre's theorem. Some guidance has been offered regarding equating real and imaginary parts of complex numbers, but no consensus has been reached on the validity of the approaches taken.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of ambiguity in notation and expressions, particularly concerning the use of LaTeX formatting. Participants also express uncertainty about whether their methods require prior knowledge of the identities they are attempting to prove.

Oblio
Messages
398
Reaction score
0
Consider the complex number z=e[tex]_{i\theta}[/tex] = cos[tex]\theta[/tex]+isin[tex]\theta.[/tex] By evaluating z[tex]^{2}[/tex] two different ways, prove the trig identities cos2[tex]\theta[/tex] = cos[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] - sin[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] and sin2[tex]\theta[/tex] = 2sin[tex]\theta[/tex]cos[tex]\theta[/tex].

A question about the approach to this question:
How do you guys approach the task of 'evaluating' something, when told to do so, like here.
I find myself doing random manipulations without knowledge of whether the road I'm on is even close to the correct path or not.
Evaluate seems like such a general instruction...

Anyways,
If I square z I get;
z[tex]^{2}[/tex] = cos[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex] + i[tex]^{2}[/tex]sin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex]

z[tex]^{2}[/tex] = cos[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex] - sin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex]

If I sub z[tex]^{2}[/tex] back in I get 0 so that's wrong.

Is the use of the 'e definition' necessary for this? I kind of want to see how I ought to be approaching this 'evaluation'.

Thanks, as always
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Oblio said:
If I square z I get;
z[tex]^{2}[/tex] = cos[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex] + i[tex]^{2}[/tex]sin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex]
How??

If [tex]z = \cos{\theta}+\imath\sin{\theta}[/tex], then [tex]z^2 = \left(\cos{\theta}+\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2 \neq \cos^2{\theta}+\imath^2\sin^2{\theta}[/tex].

Square that. Then use the other way of evaluating a complex number raised to some power, i.e., de Moiver's formula. Equate the two.
 
Last edited:
Am I allowed to do this?

isin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex]

=-sin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex] ?
 
Oblio said:
isin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex]
The way you have written is quite ambiguous. But if you mean [tex]\left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2[/tex], then it is equal to [tex]-\sin^2{\theta}[/tex].

P.S. You need not enclose each term of LaTeX code within 'tex' tags. It is enough if you do it for each line of code. Example: Enclosing this - \left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2 - within tex tags will produce [tex]\left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2[/tex]. :smile:
 
neutrino said:
The way you have written is quite ambiguous. But if you mean [tex]\left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2[/tex], then it is equal to [tex]-\sin^2{\theta}[/tex].

P.S. You need not enclose each term of LaTeX code within 'tex' tags. It is enough if you do it for each line of code. Example: Enclosing this - \left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2 - within tex tags will produce [tex]\left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2[/tex]. :smile:

lol thanks!
It just does that when I click the latex icon each time.. your saying you write it all out manually?
 
I'm still stuck with:

z[tex]^{2}[/tex] = cos[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] + 2isin[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] - sin[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex]

You'll see I still did it the long way if you quote:P
 
Oblio said:
lol thanks!
It just does that when I click the latex icon each time.. your saying you write it all out manually?

While I mostly do it manually(click n' latex is only a recent feature), I'm not asking you to do it manually.

When I click on any icon, what I get is that piece of code (say, \frac{}{} for fraction) within tex codes. The cursor is still within the those tags, so when I click on another icon, only its code is printed within the same set of tags. When I want to do a new line, I move the cursor outside the first set of tex tags.
 
Oblio said:
I'm still stuck with:
z[tex]^{2}[/tex] = cos[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] + 2isin[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] - sin[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex]

Shouldn't it be [tex]\cos^2{\theta} + 2\imath\cos{\theta}\sin{\theta} - \sin^2{\theta}[/tex]?
 
neutrino said:
Shouldn't it be [tex]\cos^2{\theta} + 2\imath\cos{\theta}\sin{\theta} - \sin^2{\theta}[/tex]?


yeah, sorry. Typo
 
  • #10
Did you also find the other expression using de Moivre's theorem/formula?
 
  • #11
oh i equate the 2 just for one of the two I am looking for? I thought that was for the other equation
 
  • #12
What do you get when you equate the two?
 
  • #13
neutrino said:
Shouldn't it be [tex]\cos^2{\theta} + 2\imath\cos{\theta}\sin{\theta} - \sin^2{\theta}[/tex]?

I've gotten to

cos2[tex]\theta[/tex]=cos2[tex]\theta[/tex]-isin2[tex]\theta[/tex]+2isin[tex]\thetacos\theta[/tex]
 
  • #14
im realizing now that's wrong isn't it..
 
  • #15
Oblio said:
I've gotten to

cos2[tex]\theta[/tex]=cos2[tex]\theta[/tex]-isin2[tex]\theta[/tex]+2isin[tex]\thetacos\theta[/tex]

When is a + ib = c + id? (a,b,c,d are real)
 
  • #16
whennn...
a=c, b=d?
 
  • #17
Right.

So when you equate cos(2t) + isin(2t) and cos^2(t) + 2isin(t)cos(t) - sin^2(t)...?

(using 't' instead of theta.)
 
  • #18
well if i use what I am trying to prove,
cos(2t) = cos^2(t)-sin^2(t)
and sin(2t) = 2sintcost
 
  • #19
but doesn't this method require that which I am proving, to prove it?
 
  • #20
Oblio said:
well if i use what I am trying to prove,
cos(2t) = cos^2(t)-sin^2(t)
and sin(2t) = 2sintcost

Oblio said:
but doesn't this method require that which I am proving, to prove it?

No. You're just equating the real and imaginary parts of the complex numbers. All you're using is the definition of equality of two complex numbers. (a = c, b = d)
 
  • #21
neutrino said:
No. You're just equating the real and imaginary parts of the complex numbers. All you're using is the definition of equality of two complex numbers. (a = c, b = d)


So is it a valid proof to say that

cos2t +isin2t = cos^2(t) + 2isintcost - sin^2(t)

cos2t must = cos^2(t)-sin^2(t)
sin2t=2sintcost ?
 
  • #22
They must be equal since the corresponding real and imaginary components are equal.

I think writing the RHS as (cos^2(t) - sin^2(t)) + i(2sin(t)cos(t)) will make things familiar to you.
 
  • #23
Ok.

If the i's cancel leaving:
cos2t + sin2t = cos^2(t) - sin^2(t) + 2sin(t)cos(t)

There are all real parts. You don't think I'll need to prove the two RHS pieces?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
5K