1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Series/Function Proof (Complex Numbers)

  1. Jan 25, 2007 #1
    Problem: (I dont have latex/mathtype for this sorry in advance)

    Let n,k both be in the Natural Numbers

    n does not divide k (I have already completed the case when it does)

    Show that the series:

    1 + e^i(2pik/n) + e^i(4pik/n) + .... + e^i[(2n-2)pik/n) = 0

    Using eulers formula e^ix = cos(x) + isin(x) I used to prove that the above series ='s n if n divides k. I'm having some trouble starting on if n does not divide k. I was wondering if any of you could point me in the right direction as to were to look. I've done a few examples (n=2) etc and shown that it will equal 0 for all odd k (as n cannot divide k) in such a case, though I'm not totally sure I should be using an induction argument for higher cases of n. (didnt use n=1 since it divides all k).

    I'm thinking the proof ties into roots of unity since you can use cos(2pi/n) + isin(2pi/n) to construct the n-th roots of unity. Anyways, thanks for any help you can provide :smile:
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 25, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So, you just want to sum the series

    [tex]1 + \zeta + \zeta^2 + \zeta^3 + \cdots + \zeta^{n-1},[/tex]

    where [itex]\zeta[/itex] is an n-th root of unity?
  4. Jan 25, 2007 #3
    Yes, except each term is to the power k in the natural numbers as well. I have to show that for all k such that n does not divide k the series ='s 0 and for n dividing k it equals n. I have shown the latter and looking for help on the prior.

    I'm reading my book and it seems that the I must show that if n does not divide k then the arguments are just shifts of 2pi from the principal arguments between (-pi, pi]. Does this seem like a good way to tackle the problem? Only problem with this I forsee is that even if I show that if n does not divide k then every root of unity is summed together if I can just show that it must be 0 in this case. I'll think about it more.

    Edit: I just realized this forum is not for homework, if you could move this thread I would appreciate it. I misread the labels obviously. Sorry for the mishap. (This is a homework problem)
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2007
  5. Jan 25, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    [tex]\zeta = e^{2 \pi i k / n}[/tex]

    is a perfectly good n-th root of unity.

    I don't follow the approach you suggest. I guess I'm confused about what you mean by "principal arguments". Arguments of what? And why are they shifts of 2 pi?

    I do think you're overthinking the problem, though.
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2007
  6. Jan 25, 2007 #5
    Well, I understand that no matter what natural number you multiply it will end up being a n-th root of unity. The problem I'm having is when you add each root of unity, how do I know they are going to sum to zero? When n divides k each term becomes the root of unity 1 and therefore the sum ='s n. But if n does not divide k the series becomes a summation over different (maybe even every) root of unity which I must prove to sum to zero.

    Arguments are just reference to the angle of the root of unity. Usually the principal arguments are in the interval (-pi,pi] though obviously you can add 2pi and still have the same argument. I'm thinking by showing that if n divides k then each n-th root of unity is distinct with arguments shifted by some integer K*2pi and by summing all possible n-th roots of unity you get 0.

    Overall, I'm a little lost on how to start the proof which may be the reason for my overthinking possible ways of approaching a method of showing the sum to be 0.
  7. Jan 25, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    It is true that the terms in this sequence consist of all of the (n / gcd(k, n))-th roots of unity, each repeated gcd(k, n) times. That's actually a rather useful fact to know. But that's by far the hard way.

    Maybe it will help if you forget for a moment that you're trying to prove the sum is zero, and forget whatever context in which this question arose.

    Think of this question as an exercise unto itself: what is the sum of

    [tex]1 + \zeta + \zeta^2 + \zeta^3 + \cdots + \zeta^{n-1}?[/tex]
    Last edited: Jan 25, 2007
  8. Jan 28, 2007 #7
    K, I proved the sum of the roots of unity are 0.

    namely, the roots of unity are roots of x^n -1 = 0 and the sum of every root is equal to b/-a = 0/-1 = 0. (Polynomial theorem I made a lemma).

    Thus the sum of the above is 0 since those are the roots of unity.

    I'm still having trouble taking that case into the case where each root is to the k power.

    0th root + 1st*k root + 2nd*k root....
    0th root + 1st*k root (mod n) + 2nd*k root (mod n)....
    was how I was trying to do it, since by powering each term by k you simply change the order in steps of k instead of 1. I found that this doesnt actually hit every root though, since for example k = 6, n = 10

    You have the sum:

    0th root + 6th root + 2th root + 8th root + 4th root + 0th root...

    Thus I'm still unsure how to prove the overall problem, though I think i'm closer :P.
  9. Jan 28, 2007 #8


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That sum is a geometric series.
  10. Jan 29, 2007 #9
    Thanks for the help, the geometric series gives far greater insight in the mechanics of the problem from a rigorous proof standpoint.

    The problem can be seen as a geometric series of the k-th(mod n) root of unity from 0 to n-1. So the limit is:

    0/(1-e^(2piK/n) hince equals 0 assuming n does not divide k. If n does divides k then the limit is 0 as proved prior and the above is undefined.

    Thanks again Hurkyl, I dont think I would have noticed the geometric series representation as I was more focused on the graphic obviousness when dealing with roots of unity that their sum must go to 0 even with steps of k.
    Last edited: Jan 29, 2007
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Series/Function Proof (Complex Numbers)