Thursday, 18 July 2019

complex analysis - Why do we negate the imaginary part when conjugating?



For z=x+iyC we all know the definition for the "conjugate" of z, ˉz=xiy. Geometrically this is the reflection of z across the y axis.




My question is: couldn't we have defined z_=x+iy instead? (this is the reflection across the x axis) Is there anything wrong with it?



I agree that the formula |z|2=zˉz looks better than |z|2=zz_, but are there any more serious problems?


Answer



No, the nice thing about conjugation is that it is an automorphism: ¯zw=ˉzˉw and ¯z+w=ˉz+ˉw.



At heart, what conjugacy shows you is that, while i and i are different complex numbers, they have exactly the same behavior. That's not surprising, because we define i so that i2=1, but then (i)2=1. How do we distinguish these two square roots? What if we defined the complex numbers as a+bi+cj where i+j=0 and i2=j2=1? Then which would be the "primary" square root of 1? There is really no way to tell. With positive real numbers, we can always pick the positive square root, but we can't define "positive" in the complex numbers. This yields a duality in the complex numbers, represented by conjugation.


No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find limhrightarrow0fracsin(ha)h

How to find lim without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...