# Complex Number equivalencyWatch

Announcements
#1
Hey guys,

I've got a question about a complex number involving it's modulus and conjugate:

let

Show that

I've been manipulating both sides for a while and can't quite get them to work out to each other.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?
0
5 years ago
#2
(Original post by nugiboy)
Hey guys,

I've got a question about a complex number involving it's modulus and conjugate:

let

Show that

I've been manipulating both sides for a while and can't quite get them to work out to each other.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?
No idea if this is rigorous enough/ the kind of thing you're looking for but let .
1
5 years ago
#3
(Original post by nugiboy)
Hey guys,

I've got a question about a complex number involving it's modulus and conjugate:

let

Show that

I've been manipulating both sides for a while and can't quite get them to work out to each other.

Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Can you start from and do anything with that?
1
#4
(Original post by brianeverit)
Can you start from and do anything with that?
Wow that made it easier than I thought!

So starting with the given equivalence:

Is that suitably thorough in your opinion?
0
5 years ago
#5
(Original post by nugiboy)
Wow that made it easier than I thought!

So starting with the given equivalence:

Is that suitably thorough in your opinion?
It's the right argument, but in the wrong direction - you just need to reverse all these steps so you end up proving the relation you're given
0
5 years ago
#6
(Original post by nugiboy)
Wow that made it easier than I thought!

So starting with the given equivalence:

Is that suitably thorough in your opinion?
You can't prove an equivalence by assuming it's true and then deriving something true. As davros says, just write the steps backwards and you have a decent argument.
1
#7
(Original post by davros)
It's the right argument, but in the wrong direction - you just need to reverse all these steps so you end up proving the relation you're given
Ok sweet I've got it then - without using the end of the relation given.

Can you explain why it is not suitable to prove that the given relation is equivalent using the whole relation?
0
5 years ago
#8
(Original post by nugiboy)
Ok sweet I've got it then - without using the end of the relation given.

Can you explain why it is not suitable to prove that the given relation is equivalent using the whole relation?
If you're asked to prove something, you cannot assume that thing to begin with and use it in your proof - you need to start with something else and use that to derive the required statement.

Of course, we don't actually know what you're allowed to assume - you could have derived the answer using the x+iy form for z or by using the exponential form for z
0
5 years ago
#9
(Original post by nugiboy)
Ok sweet I've got it then - without using the end of the relation given.

Can you explain why it is not suitable to prove that the given relation is equivalent using the whole relation?
You can only prove something true by starting from something you KNOW to be true and finishing up with the thing you are trying to prove.
To prove that something is not true, a standard method is to assume that it is and show that that assumption leads to a contradiction, i.e. to something that is obviously NOT true.
0
X

new posts
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### University open days

• Arts University Bournemouth
Art and Design Foundation Diploma Further education
Sat, 25 May '19
• SOAS University of London
Wed, 29 May '19
• University of Exeter
Thu, 30 May '19

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### How did your AQA GCSE Physics Paper 1 go?

Loved the paper - Feeling positive (423)
30.28%
The paper was reasonable (551)
39.44%
Not feeling great about that exam... (239)
17.11%
It was TERRIBLE (184)
13.17%