Show the roots of unity add up to zero.

  • Thread starter Thread starter zheng89120
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Roots Unity Zero
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that the sum of the roots of unity, expressed as \(\Sigma^{n}_{k=1} w^k = 0\), holds true when there are at least two phasors or exponentials involved. Participants noted that the proof requires a clear understanding of complex analysis and the properties of roots of unity, specifically that \(w^n = 1\) for \(1 \leq k \leq n\). The proof by induction approach was suggested, emphasizing the importance of clearly stating the induction hypothesis.

PREREQUISITES
  • Complex analysis fundamentals
  • Understanding of roots of unity
  • Proof by induction technique
  • Basic properties of exponential functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of roots of unity in detail
  • Learn about proof by induction with examples
  • Explore complex analysis applications in summation proofs
  • Investigate the geometric interpretation of phasors
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, educators, and anyone interested in complex analysis and the properties of roots of unity.

zheng89120
Messages
139
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Prove that [itex]\Sigma[/itex][itex]^{n}_{k=1}[/itex] wk = 0

and there has to be at least two phasors/exponentials

Homework Equations



complex analysis

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried writing out the sigma on the first line.

Then I tried writing the same thing with n+1 on the second line.

Then I tried to divide the first exponential of the n+1 line by the first exponential of the first line, called A.

Then I divided the bottom by A, which should factor to get the first line as a factor, but could still not get the first line from the n+1, second line.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
zheng89120 said:

Homework Statement



Prove that [itex]\Sigma[/itex][itex]^{n}_{k=1}[/itex] wk = 0

and there has to be at least two phasors/exponentials

Homework Equations



complex analysis

The Attempt at a Solution



I tried writing out the sigma on the first line.

Then I tried writing the same thing with n+1 on the second line.

Then I tried to divide the first exponential of the n+1 line by the first exponential of the first line, called A.

Then I divided the bottom by A, which should factor to get the first line as a factor, but could still not get the first line from the n+1, second line.

It seems that you are trying to do a proof by induction, but you didn't state that very clearly. At least, that's what I think you were doing.

One thing that you are forgetting is that the things you are adding are roots of unity. In your original summation, (wk)n = 1, for 1 <= k <= n.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K