Seemingly simple proof I can't seem to get

  • Thread starter mathlete
  • Start date
  • #1
148
0
I have:

Ae^(iax)+Be^(ibx)=Ce^(icx)

I have to show a=b=c and A+B=C but I can't... i've tried some standard tricks like squaring both sides, taking the derivative, then playing around with the equations but I can't get anything to stick. Any ideas?
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
It has to be true for all x, right? What about your favorite value of x?
 
  • #3
148
0
Hurkyl said:
It has to be true for all x, right? What about your favorite value of x?
Yes, sorry, for all x... and I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by my favorite value of x (x=0?)
 
  • #4
matt grime
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
9,395
3
There surely have to be some more restrictions than this, otherwise A+B=0=C, a=b=anything, and c is anything else not equal to a
 
  • #5
148
0
matt grime said:
There surely have to be some more restrictions than this, otherwise A+B=0=C, a=b=anything, and c is anything else not equal to a
Question word for word...

"Suppose Ae^(iax)+Be^(ibx)=Ce^(icx), for some nonzero constants A, B, C, a, b, c, and for all x. Prove that a=b=c and A+B=C"

Any ideas?
 
  • #6
The Euler Formula expansion is key.
 
  • #7
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
No it's not. You just have to use the fact it's true for all x.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by my favorite value of x (x=0?)
The equation is true for x=0, right? What does the equation look like when x=0?
 
Last edited:
  • #8
Hurkyl said:
No it's not. You just have to use the fact it's true for all x.


The equation is true for x=0, right? What does the equation look like when x=0?
Nevermind then... I was thinking if it had to be true for any given constant value of x that would be the way to go about it.
 
  • #9
Hurkyl
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
14,916
19
Actually, what do you mean by Euler's expansion? I was thinking e^(ix) = cos x + i sin x... though I don't remember if I've ever heard it named that.

If so, then this does give you a shortcut if you know the relevant theorems... but the same shortcut works directly for the problem at hand!
 

Related Threads on Seemingly simple proof I can't seem to get

Replies
3
Views
666
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
977
Replies
2
Views
633
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
383
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
Top