Absolute value of imaginary numbers?

This is a discussion on Absolute value of imaginary numbers? within the A Brief History of Cprogramming.com forums, part of the Community Boards category; Hi, Here's something that stumped my pre-calculus teacher. Supposedly, the absolute value of an imaginary number such as 4 + ...

  1. #1
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545

    Absolute value of imaginary numbers?

    Hi,
    Here's something that stumped my pre-calculus teacher.
    Supposedly, the absolute value of an imaginary number such as 4 + 3i is found by throwing away the i and using the pythagorean theorem on it. i.e. sqrt( 4^2 + 3^2 ) = 5

    So according to that formula, if you have 3 numbers:
    x = 4 + 3i
    y = 3 + 4i
    z = 0 + 5i

    Then,
    | x | = | y | = | z | = 5

    But if that is true, then the following should also be true, but it isn't:

    Code:
         x^2        =       y^2        =  z^2
      (4 + 3i)^2    =    (3 + 4i)^2    =  (5i)^2
    (16 + 24i - 9)  =  (9 + 24i - 16)  =  (-25)
       7 + 24i      !=     -7 + 24i    !=  -25
    Part of the reason why I think that the formula is invalid is because they ignore the i which is part of the number.
    The only "proof" that I've seen is graphical, but since they are dealing with imaginary numbers, how can they know that the imaginary number line is perpendicular to the real number line, or that the points on the imaginary number line have the same spacing as real numbers or even if it has a linear progression? If we knew the properties of imaginary numbers, they wouldn't be very imaginary.

  2. #2
    and the Hat of Guessing tabstop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    14,185
    I can think of no earthly reason why anyone would think that |x| = |y| implies that x^2 = y^2. All it implies is that x*xbar = y*ybar (where xbar is the complex conjugate of x).

    And yes, if you interpret imaginary numbers in the graphical way of radius+angle, what x^2 does is square the distance and double the angle. So your three x^2, y^2 and z^2 are all still of the same lengths, but the angles are (still) not the same.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    India
    Posts
    515
    An imaginary number can be considered as a vector, and a vector has magnitude as well as direction. You are going wrong in the first step itself. When you say |x| = |y|, it doesn't imply that x^2 = y^2 simply because the absolute value has no direction, it is a scalar and x^2 is a vector.
    Code:
    >+++++++++[<++++++++>-]<.>+++++++[<++++>-]<+.+++++++..+++.[-]>++++++++[<++++>-] <.>+++++++++++[<++++++++>-]<-.--------.+++.------.--------.[-]>++++++++[<++++>- ]<+.[-]++++++++++.

  4. #4
    Registered User Stonehambey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kent, UK
    Posts
    118
    Quote Originally Posted by tabstop
    I can think of no earthly reason why anyone would think that |x| = |y| implies that x^2 = y^2.
    lol, well I can think of one: a somewhat hazy understanding of complex numbers. Illustrated below (not that it's a bad thing)

    Quote Originally Posted by cpjust View Post
    how can they know that the imaginary number line is perpendicular to the real number line, or that the points on the imaginary number line have the same spacing as real numbers or even if it has a linear progression? If we knew the properties of imaginary numbers, they wouldn't be very imaginary.
    "Imaginary" is just a name, so try not to take it too literally. We know the properties of complex numbers because we define them.

    A complex number, z, is defined as

    z=a+bi

    where a and b are in the set of real numbers, and i is the square root of minus one. So from this we construct what is known as the complex plane, which is the graphical representation you are speaking of.

  5. #5
    Captain Crash brewbuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Portland, OR
    Posts
    7,160
    Quote Originally Posted by cpjust View Post
    The only "proof" that I've seen is graphical, but since they are dealing with imaginary numbers, how can they know that the imaginary number line is perpendicular to the real number line, or that the points on the imaginary number line have the same spacing as real numbers or even if it has a linear progression? If we knew the properties of imaginary numbers, they wouldn't be very imaginary.
    The numbers are "imaginary" because that's the term chosen by the guy who first started playing with the concept sqrt(-1). The "number line" itself does not actually exist, nor does the "complex plane." These are just concepts which allow us to visualize.

    The most important thing to understand about complex numbers is that they are made up of two components which are independent of each other. The sqrt(-1) thing just adds some spice to the mathematics when these quantities multiply with each other -- in most other respects, complex numbers are very similar to 2-vectors. The best way to represent, and think, about this is in terms of two dimensions. As there are multiple representations of multidimensional quantites, so there are multiple representations of complex numbers. You can look at them in terms of Cartesian coordinates on a plane, or a magnitude and an angle from "reality."

    Forget about the mysticism implied by the name "imaginary." It was a dumb name but unfortunately it has stuck. These numbers are quite REAL, at least so much as any other number you've ever encountered is "real," and play important roles in explaining physical phenomena.
    Code:
    //try
    //{
    	if (a) do { f( b); } while(1);
    	else   do { f(!b); } while(1);
    //}

  6. #6
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by cpjust View Post
    If we knew the properties of imaginary numbers, they wouldn't be very imaginary.
    This was actually meant as more of a joke.

    But what I don't understand is why people assume that sqrt( -1 ) is perpendicular to the real number line?

  7. #7
    and the Hat of Guessing tabstop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    14,185
    Quote Originally Posted by cpjust View Post
    This was actually meant as more of a joke.

    But what I don't understand is why people assume that sqrt( -1 ) is perpendicular to the real number line?
    It depends on what you mean by "assume". Why do people assume that the y-axis is perpendicular to the x-axis? (I mean, you can get a perfectly good 2-d system with the y-axis at any angle (edit: other than 0 or 180 of course).) It's just more convenient to be orthogonal than not.

  8. #8
    C++ Witch laserlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    20,975
    If I should hazard a guess, it is because a change in the real number coefficient (or the imaginary number coefficient) has no effect on the imaginary number coefficient (or real number coefficient, respectively), thus suggesting that they can be represented orthogonally.

    EDIT:
    hmm... the convenience argument sounds better, though then an argument might be put forth if we merely find what we are familiar with convenient.
    Last edited by laserlight; 08-10-2008 at 11:11 AM.
    C + C++ Compiler: MinGW port of GCC
    Version Control System: Bazaar

    Look up a C++ Reference and learn How To Ask Questions The Smart Way

  9. #9
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by tabstop View Post
    I can think of no earthly reason why anyone would think that |x| = |y| implies that x^2 = y^2. All it implies is that x*xbar = y*ybar (where xbar is the complex conjugate of x).
    Well I couldn't use: (|x|)^2 because then how do I get rid of the | | without using the very formula I'm trying to disprove?

    |x| is just trying to make x positive, so squaring a positive or negative number creates a positive number. Of course squaring i gives you a negative number, so maybe I should use ^4 instead?
    The main reason I started playing around with this idea is because I've never seen an algebraic proof for the absolute value of imaginary numbers; only the graphical one and I just can't see why the i isn't included in the formula.

  10. #10
    and the Hat of Guessing tabstop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    14,185
    Quote Originally Posted by cpjust View Post
    Well I couldn't use: (|x|)^2 because then how do I get rid of the | | without using the very formula I'm trying to disprove?

    |x| is just trying to make x positive, so squaring a positive or negative number creates a positive number. Of course squaring i gives you a negative number, so maybe I should use ^4 instead?
    The main reason I started playing around with this idea is because I've never seen an algebraic proof for the absolute value of imaginary numbers; only the graphical one and I just can't see why the i isn't included in the formula.
    I think you've missed the boat completely. |x| is defined as x*xbar, not as "making x positive" or any such -- it finds the length of x.

  11. #11
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    The formula
    |a + ib| = sqrt(a^2 + b^2)
    is true by definition. There is no proof. Given this definition, the fact that the "imaginary axis is perpendicular to the real axis" follows from this.
    Last edited by Sang-drax; 08-11-2008 at 08:28 AM.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  12. #12
    S Sang-drax's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Location
    Göteborg, Sweden
    Posts
    2,072
    By the way, your question is a good one. It is important to keep track of what is defined and what is derived.
    Last edited by Sang-drax : Tomorrow at 02:21 AM. Reason: Time travelling

  13. #13
    and the hat of sweating
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Toronto, ON
    Posts
    3,545
    Quote Originally Posted by tabstop View Post
    I think you've missed the boat completely. |x| is defined as x*xbar, not as "making x positive" or any such -- it finds the length of x.
    I've heard of foobar, but I've never heard of xbar? What is it?

    In elementary school, you found the absolute value by removing the negative sign if it existed; in high school it became sqrt( x^2 )... Why don't they just tell us the real formula right from the beginning?

  14. #14
    & the hat of GPL slaying Thantos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    5,681
    Because sometimes you need simplifications before you can get to the truth. Imagine if you tried to get 5th graders to find the area of a triangle by integration instead of just giving them the derived equation?

  15. #15
    and the Hat of Guessing tabstop's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    14,185
    Quote Originally Posted by cpjust View Post
    I've heard of foobar, but I've never heard of xbar? What is it?

    In elementary school, you found the absolute value by removing the negative sign if it existed; in high school it became sqrt( x^2 )... Why don't they just tell us the real formula right from the beginning?
    Quote Originally Posted by tabstop View Post
    (where xbar is the complex conjugate of x).
    Because most elementary school students aren't up on their inner product spaces. (If it comes to that, we haven't gotten to the real definition of | | in this thread yet either -- all we've gotten to are special cases of the general formula. And for that matter, there are an infinite number of norms (this is the 2-norm, but there's also the 1-norm and the 3-norm and the ... and the infinity-norm). See article.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Popular pages Recent additions subscribe to a feed

Similar Threads

  1. Logical errors with seach function
    By Taka in forum C Programming
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 09-18-2006, 05:20 AM
  2. imaginary numbers
    By Gil22 in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 04-17-2003, 09:39 PM
  3. Real and Imaginary numbers
    By tetra in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-03-2003, 10:49 AM
  4. the definition of a mathematical "average" or "mean"
    By DavidP in forum A Brief History of Cprogramming.com
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 12-03-2002, 10:15 AM
  5. A (complex) question on numbers
    By Unregistered in forum C++ Programming
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 02-03-2002, 05:38 PM

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21