Tranformations from z to w plane
Maths and statistics discussion, revision, exam and homework help.
-
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 269
Tranformations from z to w planeNeed a bit of help with this please.
From z = x + iy to w = u + iv, transformation T given by w = 1/z. Show that the image, under T, of the line with equation x = 1/2 in the Z plane is a circle C in the w plane. Find equation of C.
I can't get to first base here. I can do the ones where |z| = 2, or if you have a circle in the Z plane, but I cannot formulate the x = 1/2 - the only thing I can try to do is think about making up the perpendicular bisector to simuklate the locus, such that |z| = |z +1|, but not sure if that helps or not? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Location: Linton Travel Tavern
- Posts: 7,204
Re: Tranformations from z to w planeletting x = 1/2
you get w = 1/( 1/2 + iy ) now multiply top & bottom by the conjugate of the bottom...
rearrange to get
2/(4y2 + 1) - 4iy/(4y2 + 1) **
now choose some sensible values for y and plot them... you should be able to find the centre and radius of the circle. Then go back and show that the u + vi from ** fit the formula for the circle you have found. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 5,512
Re: Tranformations from z to w plane(Original post by Charries)
Thanks - a little tough - I was hoping I might be able to show something that actually looked like a circle! (at least to me)
Sub in
, them multiply top and bottom by the conjugate.
You will get,
We know
Equate the real parts, and you should get the equation of circle.
Sorry for showing too much working. -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 5,512
Re: Tranformations from z to w planeIsn't my way better?(Original post by mikelbird)
I hope this helps.... -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 5,512
Re: Tranformations from z to w planeNext steps in my method are,(Original post by mikelbird)
I would say its the same...eliminating between the variables is the only really complicated part and both of us would have to do it..
Equate real parts,
I think that your method is quite complex. -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Location: Gloucestershire
- Posts: 197
Re: Tranformations from z to w planeActually , on second thoughts...it can very much depend on the question....sometimes its easier your way...sometimes mine...!!(Original post by raheem94)
Isn't my way better? -
- Reputation:
- TSR Demigod
- Posts: 5,512
Re: Tranformations from z to w plane(Original post by Charries)
... follow up question.
What if y = 2x + 1 instead - how woud that mapping work?
The above is taken from one of my previous post in this thread.
Equate the real and imaginary parts,
Insert it in the equation
Now simplify it and you will get an equation of a circle. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 269
Re: Tranformations from z to w planeOk - I have done a few questions like this and everything is going well, but come across this one. w = 16/z, where |z-4|=4.
Gone through the usual method, converted the thing to a circle in cartesian co-ordinates and get some awful mess of a squared number once I compare real and imaginary parts and substiture for x and y into (what I get) as (u-4)^2 + v^2 = 16.
Any further clues? -
- Reputation:
- Respected Member
- Location: Gloucestershire
- Posts: 197
Re: Tranformations from z to w planeNice one...and there is a geometric aspect to this...that last equation before the end is telling you that the locus of the point z is such that it is always equidistant from the point 0 and the point 4 i.e. it is the perpendicular bisector of the two points.
Anyone like to guess (without calculation) what locus is |z| +|z-4| = 6 ?? -
- Reputation:
- Peer Of The TSR Realm
- Posts: 1,576
Re: Tranformations from z to w planeThanks.(Original post by mikelbird)
Anyone like to guess (without calculation) what locus is |z| +|z-4| = 6 ??
Anyone who knows the construction using two pins and a piece of string will know what it is. -
- Reputation:
- Thread Starter
- Exalted Member
- Posts: 269
Re: Tranformations from z to w planeThat's brilliant - thank you.
In this mark scheme, have they just got rid of the i because it's a factor of both, and they can pull it out into another modulus and say it's 1. I can see why mod of i squared would be 1 and can be ignored, but I am not convinced why they can do it for i?
