Understanding the Euler Formula and its Application in Complex Analysis

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter EternusVia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the Euler formula and its implications in complex analysis, specifically focusing on the expression \( e^z \) where \( z = x + iy \). Participants explore the properties of the magnitude of \( e^z \) and the relationship between real and imaginary components in the context of complex numbers.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the statement from Rudin regarding \( |e^z| = e^x \) and questions the validity of their own graphical interpretation of \( e^z \).
  • Another participant corrects the misunderstanding, clarifying that \( e^{x+iy} = e^x e^{iy} \) and that the magnitude \( |e^{x+iy}| \) does not equal \( \sqrt{(e^x)^2 + (e^{iy})^2} \).
  • A participant acknowledges their mistake and seeks clarification on how to derive \( |e^z| = e^x \).
  • Another participant suggests that the original poster should refer to their textbook or online resources for guidance, emphasizing self-discovery.
  • One participant successfully derives \( |e^z| = e^x \) using properties of magnitudes and complex conjugates, referencing Rudin's work.
  • Another participant agrees with the derivation but suggests a more straightforward approach using the properties of \( e^{iy} \) on the unit circle.
  • A later reply introduces the Euler formula \( e^{it} = \cos(t) + i \sin(t) \) and discusses its series expansion, reinforcing the relationship between the exponential function and trigonometric functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the derivation of \( |e^z| = e^x \) through different approaches, but there is no consensus on the initial misunderstanding regarding the graphical representation of \( e^z \). The discussion reflects a mix of agreement on the final expression while also highlighting initial confusion and differing methods of understanding.

Contextual Notes

Some participants reference specific properties of complex numbers and their magnitudes, but the discussion does not resolve all uncertainties regarding the graphical interpretation of complex exponentials.

EternusVia
Messages
92
Reaction score
10
Rudin makes the following statement in his Real and Complex Analysis, page 3:

If z = x + iy, x and y are real, then ez = exeiy. Hence |ez| = ex.

I don't understand what's happening here. If I draw ez on coordinate axes with imaginary numbers on the y-axis and real numbers on the x-axis, I get |ez| = √((ex)2 + (eiy)2. Does this equal ex somehow?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
EternusVia said:
Rudin makes the following statement in his Real and Complex Analysis, page 3:

If z = x + iy, x and y are real, then ez = exeiy. Hence |ez| = ex.

I don't understand what's happening here. If I draw ez on coordinate axes with imaginary numbers on the y-axis and real numbers on the x-axis, I get |ez| = √((ex)2 + (eiy)2. Does this equal ex somehow?

No, you do NOT get what you claim when you plot the points correctly in the ##(x,y)-##plane. In fact, ##e^{x+iy} = e^x e^{iy} \neq e^x + i|e^{iy}|,## so ##|e^{x+iy}| \neq \sqrt{(e^x)^2 + (e^{iy})^2}.## Anyway, ##(e^{iy})^2## need not be a positive real number---it could be negative or imaginary.
 
Ray Vickson said:
No, you do NOT get what you claim when you plot the points correctly in the ##(x,y)-##plane. In fact, ##e^{x+iy} = e^x e^{iy} \neq e^x + i|e^{iy}|,## so ##|e^{x+iy}| \neq \sqrt{(e^x)^2 + (e^{iy})^2}.## Anyway, ##(e^{iy})^2## need not be a positive real number---it could be negative or imaginary.

You're right. I definitely made a mistake there. So how do we deduce ##| e^z | = e^x##?
 
Last edited:
EternusVia said:
You're right. I definitely made a mistake there. So how do we deduce ##| e^z | = e^x##?

PF rules do not allow me to tell you that. You must do it on your own.

What does your textbook say? Is there any relevant material in your course notes? Have you looked on-line?
 
Moved thread, since this seems to be more of a conceptual question than a homework question.
 
Ray Vickson said:
PF rules do not allow me to tell you that. You must do it on your own.

What does your textbook say? Is there any relevant material in your course notes? Have you looked on-line?

I'm trying to work through some of Rudin's book on my own, so no course notes. But I think I might have something.

Rudin says that ##|e^{it}|^2 = e^{it} * e^{-it} = e^0 = 1## and we have ##|e^{it}| = 1##. Applying this procedure to ##|e^z|## we have

##|e^z|^2 = e^z * \bar{ e^z } = e^{x + iy} * e^{x - iy} = e^{2x}## and thus ##|e^z| = e^x##.

Does that work?
 
Looks OK to me, but I think you can do it with less work. eit represents a point on the unit circle in the complex plane, so |eit| = 1.

##|e^z| = |e^{x + iy}| = |e^x||e^{iy}| = |e^x| = e^x##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: EternusVia
Mark44 said:
Looks OK to me, but I think you can do it with less work. eit represents a point on the unit circle in the complex plane, so |eit| = 1.

##|e^z| = |e^{x + iy}| = |e^x||e^{iy}| = |e^x| = e^x##

Ah! Of course. Thank you.
 
EternusVia said:
Ah! Of course. Thank you.

Also: look at the famous Euler formula: ##e^{it} = \cos(t) + i \, \sin(t)## for any real ##t##. One easy way to see this is to look at the series expansion. By definition, for any quantity ##w## we have
[tex]e^w = 1 + w + \frac{1}{2!} w^2 + \frac{1}{3!} w^3 + \cdots + \frac{1}{n!} w^n + \cdots.[/tex]
Apply this to ##w = i t## (where ##t## is real), and separate out the real and imaginary parts, to get
[tex]e^{it} = 1 + it + \frac{1}{2!} (it)^2 + \frac{1}{3!} (it)^3 + \frac{1}{4!} (it)^4 + \frac{1}{5!} (it)^5 + \cdots \\<br /> = \left( 1 - \frac{1}{2!} t^2 + \frac{1}{4!} t^4 - \cdots \right) + i \left( t - \frac{1}{3!} t^3 + \frac{1}{5!} t^5 - \cdots \right) \\<br /> = \cos(t) + i \, \sin(t)[/tex]

Note that ##|e^{it}|^2 = \cos^2(t) + \sin^2(t) = 1## for any real ##t##.

See, eg., http://mathworld.wolfram.com/EulerFormula.html
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: EternusVia

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K