Complex numbers and their matrix form.
$begingroup$
I have a line starting at the origin, and i extend it to a point $(a,b)$ in the plane. This thing can be called a vector and be represented as $(a,b), [atext{ }b]^T$ (column vector) or by $amathbf{i}+bmathbf{j}$, where $(mathbf{i},mathbf{j})$ is the stardard basis in $mathbb{R}^2$ Or it could be seen as a visual representation of a complex number where $(a,b)=a+bi,$ where $i=sqrt{-1}$.
So I want to rotate this vector $(a,b)$ $90$ degrees counter clockwise, so i know I can use my trusty matrix for rotations
$begin{bmatrix} cos(90) & -sin(90) \ sin(90) & cos(90)\ end{bmatrix}$=$begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0\ end{bmatrix}$ and we find that
$$begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0\ end{bmatrix}begin{bmatrix} a \ b\ end{bmatrix}=begin{bmatrix} -b \ a\ end{bmatrix}$$
Or, I could choose the complex multiplication way and say,
$i(a+bi)=ai+bi^2=ai-b=-b+ai$
So we all know that, but what are some of the advantages and disadvantages to having two things that are completely identical operation in different systems?
linear-algebra matrices complex-numbers rotations
edited Dec 13 '18 at 0:16
dantopa
6,46942243
asked Sep 19 '13 at 2:37
Irish M PowersIrish M Powers
1155
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a line starting at the origin, and i extend it to a point $(a,b)$ in the plane. This thing can be called a vector and be represented as $(a,b), [atext{ }b]^T$ (column vector) or by $amathbf{i}+bmathbf{j}$, where $(mathbf{i},mathbf{j})$ is the stardard basis in $mathbb{R}^2$ Or it could be seen as a visual representation of a complex number where $(a,b)=a+bi,$ where $i=sqrt{-1}$.
So I want to rotate this vector $(a,b)$ $90$ degrees counter clockwise, so i know I can use my trusty matrix for rotations
$begin{bmatrix} cos(90) & -sin(90) \ sin(90) & cos(90)\ end{bmatrix}$=$begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0\ end{bmatrix}$ and we find that
$$begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0\ end{bmatrix}begin{bmatrix} a \ b\ end{bmatrix}=begin{bmatrix} -b \ a\ end{bmatrix}$$
Or, I could choose the complex multiplication way and say,
$i(a+bi)=ai+bi^2=ai-b=-b+ai$
So we all know that, but what are some of the advantages and disadvantages to having two things that are completely identical operation in different systems?
linear-algebra matrices complex-numbers rotations
edited Dec 13 '18 at 0:16
dantopa
6,46942243
asked Sep 19 '13 at 2:37
Irish M PowersIrish M Powers
1155
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
For this particular example, one obvious difference is computation. To use the rotation matrix, you needed 4 trigonometric computations, 4 scalar multiplications and 2 additions. But in the other method, you swapped the entries and changed the sign of one. In general, for any degree of rotation, both will have same amount of computation.
$endgroup$
– dineshdileep
Sep 19 '13 at 11:07
$begingroup$
Not clear what does the author mean. Multiplication of complex numbers gets two numbers (elements of the field ℂ) and yields a product from the same set. Euclidean 2-vectors are another thing. Although you can “multiply” two rotations and obtain another rotation, there is no multiplication on 2-vectors that gives 2-vectors.
$endgroup$
– Incnis Mrsi
Nov 2 '14 at 7:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a line starting at the origin, and i extend it to a point $(a,b)$ in the plane. This thing can be called a vector and be represented as $(a,b), [atext{ }b]^T$ (column vector) or by $amathbf{i}+bmathbf{j}$, where $(mathbf{i},mathbf{j})$ is the stardard basis in $mathbb{R}^2$ Or it could be seen as a visual representation of a complex number where $(a,b)=a+bi,$ where $i=sqrt{-1}$.
So I want to rotate this vector $(a,b)$ $90$ degrees counter clockwise, so i know I can use my trusty matrix for rotations
$begin{bmatrix} cos(90) & -sin(90) \ sin(90) & cos(90)\ end{bmatrix}$=$begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0\ end{bmatrix}$ and we find that
$$begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0\ end{bmatrix}begin{bmatrix} a \ b\ end{bmatrix}=begin{bmatrix} -b \ a\ end{bmatrix}$$
Or, I could choose the complex multiplication way and say,
$i(a+bi)=ai+bi^2=ai-b=-b+ai$
So we all know that, but what are some of the advantages and disadvantages to having two things that are completely identical operation in different systems?
linear-algebra matrices complex-numbers rotations
edited Dec 13 '18 at 0:16
dantopa
6,46942243
asked Sep 19 '13 at 2:37
Irish M PowersIrish M Powers
1155
$endgroup$
I have a line starting at the origin, and i extend it to a point $(a,b)$ in the plane. This thing can be called a vector and be represented as $(a,b), [atext{ }b]^T$ (column vector) or by $amathbf{i}+bmathbf{j}$, where $(mathbf{i},mathbf{j})$ is the stardard basis in $mathbb{R}^2$ Or it could be seen as a visual representation of a complex number where $(a,b)=a+bi,$ where $i=sqrt{-1}$.
So I want to rotate this vector $(a,b)$ $90$ degrees counter clockwise, so i know I can use my trusty matrix for rotations
$begin{bmatrix} cos(90) & -sin(90) \ sin(90) & cos(90)\ end{bmatrix}$=$begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0\ end{bmatrix}$ and we find that
$$begin{bmatrix} 0 & -1 \ 1 & 0\ end{bmatrix}begin{bmatrix} a \ b\ end{bmatrix}=begin{bmatrix} -b \ a\ end{bmatrix}$$
Or, I could choose the complex multiplication way and say,
$i(a+bi)=ai+bi^2=ai-b=-b+ai$
So we all know that, but what are some of the advantages and disadvantages to having two things that are completely identical operation in different systems?
linear-algebra matrices complex-numbers rotations
linear-algebra matrices complex-numbers rotations
edited Dec 13 '18 at 0:16
dantopa
6,46942243
asked Sep 19 '13 at 2:37
Irish M PowersIrish M Powers
1155
edited Dec 13 '18 at 0:16
dantopa
6,46942243
asked Sep 19 '13 at 2:37
Irish M PowersIrish M Powers
1155
edited Dec 13 '18 at 0:16
dantopa
6,46942243
edited Dec 13 '18 at 0:16
dantopa
6,46942243
edited Dec 13 '18 at 0:16
dantopa
6,46942243
6,46942243
asked Sep 19 '13 at 2:37
Irish M PowersIrish M Powers
1155
asked Sep 19 '13 at 2:37
Irish M PowersIrish M Powers
1155
asked Sep 19 '13 at 2:37
Irish M PowersIrish M Powers
1155
1155
$begingroup$
For this particular example, one obvious difference is computation. To use the rotation matrix, you needed 4 trigonometric computations, 4 scalar multiplications and 2 additions. But in the other method, you swapped the entries and changed the sign of one. In general, for any degree of rotation, both will have same amount of computation.
$endgroup$
– dineshdileep
Sep 19 '13 at 11:07
$begingroup$
Not clear what does the author mean. Multiplication of complex numbers gets two numbers (elements of the field ℂ) and yields a product from the same set. Euclidean 2-vectors are another thing. Although you can “multiply” two rotations and obtain another rotation, there is no multiplication on 2-vectors that gives 2-vectors.
$endgroup$
– Incnis Mrsi
Nov 2 '14 at 7:09
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For this particular example, one obvious difference is computation. To use the rotation matrix, you needed 4 trigonometric computations, 4 scalar multiplications and 2 additions. But in the other method, you swapped the entries and changed the sign of one. In general, for any degree of rotation, both will have same amount of computation.
$endgroup$
– dineshdileep
Sep 19 '13 at 11:07
$begingroup$
Not clear what does the author mean. Multiplication of complex numbers gets two numbers (elements of the field ℂ) and yields a product from the same set. Euclidean 2-vectors are another thing. Although you can “multiply” two rotations and obtain another rotation, there is no multiplication on 2-vectors that gives 2-vectors.
$endgroup$
– Incnis Mrsi
Nov 2 '14 at 7:09
$begingroup$
For this particular example, one obvious difference is computation. To use the rotation matrix, you needed 4 trigonometric computations, 4 scalar multiplications and 2 additions. But in the other method, you swapped the entries and changed the sign of one. In general, for any degree of rotation, both will have same amount of computation.
$endgroup$
– dineshdileep
Sep 19 '13 at 11:07
$begingroup$
For this particular example, one obvious difference is computation. To use the rotation matrix, you needed 4 trigonometric computations, 4 scalar multiplications and 2 additions. But in the other method, you swapped the entries and changed the sign of one. In general, for any degree of rotation, both will have same amount of computation.
$endgroup$
– dineshdileep
Sep 19 '13 at 11:07
$begingroup$
Not clear what does the author mean. Multiplication of complex numbers gets two numbers (elements of the field ℂ) and yields a product from the same set. Euclidean 2-vectors are another thing. Although you can “multiply” two rotations and obtain another rotation, there is no multiplication on 2-vectors that gives 2-vectors.
$endgroup$
– Incnis Mrsi
Nov 2 '14 at 7:09
$begingroup$
Not clear what does the author mean. Multiplication of complex numbers gets two numbers (elements of the field ℂ) and yields a product from the same set. Euclidean 2-vectors are another thing. Although you can “multiply” two rotations and obtain another rotation, there is no multiplication on 2-vectors that gives 2-vectors.
$endgroup$
– Incnis Mrsi
Nov 2 '14 at 7:09
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There is a homeomorphism between the the complex numbers
$$
color{blue}{a} + color{red}{b}i
$$
and the rotation matrices
$$
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a} & color{red}{b} \
-color{red}{b} & color{blue}{a} \
end{array}
right)
$$
Let the Cartesian forms be
$$
z_{1} = color{blue}{a} + color{red}{b}i, quad
z_{2} = color{blue}{c} + color{red}{d}i
$$
and the matrix forms
$$
z_{1} = left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a} & color{red}{b} \
-color{red}{b} & color{blue}{c} \
end{array}
right),
quad
z_{2} = left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{c}& color{red}{d} \
- color{red}{d} & color{blue}{c}\
end{array}
right)
$$
Addition
$$
begin{align}
%
z_{1} +
z_{2} &=
(color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}) + (color{red}{b} + color{red}{d} )i \[3pt]
%
&=
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}& color{red}{b}+ color{red}{d} \
-color{red}{b}- color{red}{d} & color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}\
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
Multiplication
$$
begin{align}
z_{1}
z_{2} &=
(color{blue}{ac}- color{red}{bd}) +
(color{red}{b}color{blue}{c}+color{blue}{a}color{red}{d})i\[3pt]
%
&=
%
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a}color{blue}{c}- color{red}{b} color{red}{d} & color{red}{b}color{blue}{c}+color{blue}{a} color{red}{d} \
- color{red}{b} color{blue}{c}-color{blue}{a} color{red}{d} & color{blue}{a}color{blue}{c}- color{red}{b} color{red}{d} \
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
Inversion
$$
begin{align}
%
frac{1}{z} &= left( color{blue}{a}^{2} + color{red}{b}^{2} right)^{-1} left( color{blue}{a} - color{red}{b} i right) \[3pt]
%
&= left( color{blue}{a}^{2} + color{red}{b}^{2} right)^{-1}
left(
begin{array}{cr}
color{blue}{a} & - color{red}{b} \
color{red}{b} & color{blue}{a} \
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
edited Nov 5 '18 at 16:02
amWhy
1
answered Apr 24 '17 at 3:39
dantopadantopa
6,46942243
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is correct in the sense that these two topological spaces are homeomorphic, but what you (partially) justify in your answer is that these are isomorphic as rings. There is nothing in your answer which says anything about topology.
$endgroup$
– Starfall
Apr 24 '17 at 4:04
$begingroup$
@Starfall: Excellent point; this is the site for mathematical precision and detail. We agree the answer falls short. Hopefully, it is enough for our poster. Thanks for paving the path to completion.
$endgroup$
– dantopa
Apr 24 '17 at 4:21
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f498132%2fcomplex-numbers-and-their-matrix-form%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
There is a homeomorphism between the the complex numbers
$$
color{blue}{a} + color{red}{b}i
$$
and the rotation matrices
$$
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a} & color{red}{b} \
-color{red}{b} & color{blue}{a} \
end{array}
right)
$$
Let the Cartesian forms be
$$
z_{1} = color{blue}{a} + color{red}{b}i, quad
z_{2} = color{blue}{c} + color{red}{d}i
$$
and the matrix forms
$$
z_{1} = left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a} & color{red}{b} \
-color{red}{b} & color{blue}{c} \
end{array}
right),
quad
z_{2} = left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{c}& color{red}{d} \
- color{red}{d} & color{blue}{c}\
end{array}
right)
$$
Addition
$$
begin{align}
%
z_{1} +
z_{2} &=
(color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}) + (color{red}{b} + color{red}{d} )i \[3pt]
%
&=
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}& color{red}{b}+ color{red}{d} \
-color{red}{b}- color{red}{d} & color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}\
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
Multiplication
$$
begin{align}
z_{1}
z_{2} &=
(color{blue}{ac}- color{red}{bd}) +
(color{red}{b}color{blue}{c}+color{blue}{a}color{red}{d})i\[3pt]
%
&=
%
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a}color{blue}{c}- color{red}{b} color{red}{d} & color{red}{b}color{blue}{c}+color{blue}{a} color{red}{d} \
- color{red}{b} color{blue}{c}-color{blue}{a} color{red}{d} & color{blue}{a}color{blue}{c}- color{red}{b} color{red}{d} \
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
Inversion
$$
begin{align}
%
frac{1}{z} &= left( color{blue}{a}^{2} + color{red}{b}^{2} right)^{-1} left( color{blue}{a} - color{red}{b} i right) \[3pt]
%
&= left( color{blue}{a}^{2} + color{red}{b}^{2} right)^{-1}
left(
begin{array}{cr}
color{blue}{a} & - color{red}{b} \
color{red}{b} & color{blue}{a} \
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
edited Nov 5 '18 at 16:02
amWhy
1
answered Apr 24 '17 at 3:39
dantopadantopa
6,46942243
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is correct in the sense that these two topological spaces are homeomorphic, but what you (partially) justify in your answer is that these are isomorphic as rings. There is nothing in your answer which says anything about topology.
$endgroup$
– Starfall
Apr 24 '17 at 4:04
$begingroup$
@Starfall: Excellent point; this is the site for mathematical precision and detail. We agree the answer falls short. Hopefully, it is enough for our poster. Thanks for paving the path to completion.
$endgroup$
– dantopa
Apr 24 '17 at 4:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a homeomorphism between the the complex numbers
$$
color{blue}{a} + color{red}{b}i
$$
and the rotation matrices
$$
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a} & color{red}{b} \
-color{red}{b} & color{blue}{a} \
end{array}
right)
$$
Let the Cartesian forms be
$$
z_{1} = color{blue}{a} + color{red}{b}i, quad
z_{2} = color{blue}{c} + color{red}{d}i
$$
and the matrix forms
$$
z_{1} = left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a} & color{red}{b} \
-color{red}{b} & color{blue}{c} \
end{array}
right),
quad
z_{2} = left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{c}& color{red}{d} \
- color{red}{d} & color{blue}{c}\
end{array}
right)
$$
Addition
$$
begin{align}
%
z_{1} +
z_{2} &=
(color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}) + (color{red}{b} + color{red}{d} )i \[3pt]
%
&=
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}& color{red}{b}+ color{red}{d} \
-color{red}{b}- color{red}{d} & color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}\
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
Multiplication
$$
begin{align}
z_{1}
z_{2} &=
(color{blue}{ac}- color{red}{bd}) +
(color{red}{b}color{blue}{c}+color{blue}{a}color{red}{d})i\[3pt]
%
&=
%
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a}color{blue}{c}- color{red}{b} color{red}{d} & color{red}{b}color{blue}{c}+color{blue}{a} color{red}{d} \
- color{red}{b} color{blue}{c}-color{blue}{a} color{red}{d} & color{blue}{a}color{blue}{c}- color{red}{b} color{red}{d} \
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
Inversion
$$
begin{align}
%
frac{1}{z} &= left( color{blue}{a}^{2} + color{red}{b}^{2} right)^{-1} left( color{blue}{a} - color{red}{b} i right) \[3pt]
%
&= left( color{blue}{a}^{2} + color{red}{b}^{2} right)^{-1}
left(
begin{array}{cr}
color{blue}{a} & - color{red}{b} \
color{red}{b} & color{blue}{a} \
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
edited Nov 5 '18 at 16:02
amWhy
1
answered Apr 24 '17 at 3:39
dantopadantopa
6,46942243
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
This is correct in the sense that these two topological spaces are homeomorphic, but what you (partially) justify in your answer is that these are isomorphic as rings. There is nothing in your answer which says anything about topology.
$endgroup$
– Starfall
Apr 24 '17 at 4:04
$begingroup$
@Starfall: Excellent point; this is the site for mathematical precision and detail. We agree the answer falls short. Hopefully, it is enough for our poster. Thanks for paving the path to completion.
$endgroup$
– dantopa
Apr 24 '17 at 4:21
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a homeomorphism between the the complex numbers
$$
color{blue}{a} + color{red}{b}i
$$
and the rotation matrices
$$
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a} & color{red}{b} \
-color{red}{b} & color{blue}{a} \
end{array}
right)
$$
Let the Cartesian forms be
$$
z_{1} = color{blue}{a} + color{red}{b}i, quad
z_{2} = color{blue}{c} + color{red}{d}i
$$
and the matrix forms
$$
z_{1} = left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a} & color{red}{b} \
-color{red}{b} & color{blue}{c} \
end{array}
right),
quad
z_{2} = left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{c}& color{red}{d} \
- color{red}{d} & color{blue}{c}\
end{array}
right)
$$
Addition
$$
begin{align}
%
z_{1} +
z_{2} &=
(color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}) + (color{red}{b} + color{red}{d} )i \[3pt]
%
&=
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}& color{red}{b}+ color{red}{d} \
-color{red}{b}- color{red}{d} & color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}\
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
Multiplication
$$
begin{align}
z_{1}
z_{2} &=
(color{blue}{ac}- color{red}{bd}) +
(color{red}{b}color{blue}{c}+color{blue}{a}color{red}{d})i\[3pt]
%
&=
%
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a}color{blue}{c}- color{red}{b} color{red}{d} & color{red}{b}color{blue}{c}+color{blue}{a} color{red}{d} \
- color{red}{b} color{blue}{c}-color{blue}{a} color{red}{d} & color{blue}{a}color{blue}{c}- color{red}{b} color{red}{d} \
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
Inversion
$$
begin{align}
%
frac{1}{z} &= left( color{blue}{a}^{2} + color{red}{b}^{2} right)^{-1} left( color{blue}{a} - color{red}{b} i right) \[3pt]
%
&= left( color{blue}{a}^{2} + color{red}{b}^{2} right)^{-1}
left(
begin{array}{cr}
color{blue}{a} & - color{red}{b} \
color{red}{b} & color{blue}{a} \
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
edited Nov 5 '18 at 16:02
amWhy
1
answered Apr 24 '17 at 3:39
dantopadantopa
6,46942243
$endgroup$
There is a homeomorphism between the the complex numbers
$$
color{blue}{a} + color{red}{b}i
$$
and the rotation matrices
$$
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a} & color{red}{b} \
-color{red}{b} & color{blue}{a} \
end{array}
right)
$$
Let the Cartesian forms be
$$
z_{1} = color{blue}{a} + color{red}{b}i, quad
z_{2} = color{blue}{c} + color{red}{d}i
$$
and the matrix forms
$$
z_{1} = left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a} & color{red}{b} \
-color{red}{b} & color{blue}{c} \
end{array}
right),
quad
z_{2} = left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{c}& color{red}{d} \
- color{red}{d} & color{blue}{c}\
end{array}
right)
$$
Addition
$$
begin{align}
%
z_{1} +
z_{2} &=
(color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}) + (color{red}{b} + color{red}{d} )i \[3pt]
%
&=
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}& color{red}{b}+ color{red}{d} \
-color{red}{b}- color{red}{d} & color{blue}{a}+color{blue}{c}\
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
Multiplication
$$
begin{align}
z_{1}
z_{2} &=
(color{blue}{ac}- color{red}{bd}) +
(color{red}{b}color{blue}{c}+color{blue}{a}color{red}{d})i\[3pt]
%
&=
%
left(
begin{array}{rc}
color{blue}{a}color{blue}{c}- color{red}{b} color{red}{d} & color{red}{b}color{blue}{c}+color{blue}{a} color{red}{d} \
- color{red}{b} color{blue}{c}-color{blue}{a} color{red}{d} & color{blue}{a}color{blue}{c}- color{red}{b} color{red}{d} \
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
Inversion
$$
begin{align}
%
frac{1}{z} &= left( color{blue}{a}^{2} + color{red}{b}^{2} right)^{-1} left( color{blue}{a} - color{red}{b} i right) \[3pt]
%
&= left( color{blue}{a}^{2} + color{red}{b}^{2} right)^{-1}
left(
begin{array}{cr}
color{blue}{a} & - color{red}{b} \
color{red}{b} & color{blue}{a} \
end{array}
right)
end{align}
$$
edited Nov 5 '18 at 16:02
amWhy
1
answered Apr 24 '17 at 3:39
dantopadantopa
6,46942243
edited Nov 5 '18 at 16:02
amWhy
1
edited Nov 5 '18 at 16:02
amWhy
1
edited Nov 5 '18 at 16:02
amWhy
1
1
answered Apr 24 '17 at 3:39
dantopadantopa
6,46942243
answered Apr 24 '17 at 3:39
dantopadantopa
6,46942243
answered Apr 24 '17 at 3:39
dantopadantopa
6,46942243
6,46942243
1
$begingroup$
This is correct in the sense that these two topological spaces are homeomorphic, but what you (partially) justify in your answer is that these are isomorphic as rings. There is nothing in your answer which says anything about topology.
$endgroup$
– Starfall
Apr 24 '17 at 4:04
$begingroup$
@Starfall: Excellent point; this is the site for mathematical precision and detail. We agree the answer falls short. Hopefully, it is enough for our poster. Thanks for paving the path to completion.
$endgroup$
– dantopa
Apr 24 '17 at 4:21
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
This is correct in the sense that these two topological spaces are homeomorphic, but what you (partially) justify in your answer is that these are isomorphic as rings. There is nothing in your answer which says anything about topology.
$endgroup$
– Starfall
Apr 24 '17 at 4:04
$begingroup$
@Starfall: Excellent point; this is the site for mathematical precision and detail. We agree the answer falls short. Hopefully, it is enough for our poster. Thanks for paving the path to completion.
$endgroup$
– dantopa
Apr 24 '17 at 4:21
1
1
$begingroup$
This is correct in the sense that these two topological spaces are homeomorphic, but what you (partially) justify in your answer is that these are isomorphic as rings. There is nothing in your answer which says anything about topology.
$endgroup$
– Starfall
Apr 24 '17 at 4:04
$begingroup$
This is correct in the sense that these two topological spaces are homeomorphic, but what you (partially) justify in your answer is that these are isomorphic as rings. There is nothing in your answer which says anything about topology.
$endgroup$
– Starfall
Apr 24 '17 at 4:04
$begingroup$
@Starfall: Excellent point; this is the site for mathematical precision and detail. We agree the answer falls short. Hopefully, it is enough for our poster. Thanks for paving the path to completion.
$endgroup$
– dantopa
Apr 24 '17 at 4:21
$begingroup$
@Starfall: Excellent point; this is the site for mathematical precision and detail. We agree the answer falls short. Hopefully, it is enough for our poster. Thanks for paving the path to completion.
$endgroup$
– dantopa
Apr 24 '17 at 4:21
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f498132%2fcomplex-numbers-and-their-matrix-form%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
For this particular example, one obvious difference is computation. To use the rotation matrix, you needed 4 trigonometric computations, 4 scalar multiplications and 2 additions. But in the other method, you swapped the entries and changed the sign of one. In general, for any degree of rotation, both will have same amount of computation.
$endgroup$
– dineshdileep
Sep 19 '13 at 11:07
$begingroup$
Not clear what does the author mean. Multiplication of complex numbers gets two numbers (elements of the field ℂ) and yields a product from the same set. Euclidean 2-vectors are another thing. Although you can “multiply” two rotations and obtain another rotation, there is no multiplication on 2-vectors that gives 2-vectors.
$endgroup$
– Incnis Mrsi
Nov 2 '14 at 7:09