Proving Trig Identities with Complex Numbers

In summary: I am proving, to prove it?No. You're just equating the real and imaginary parts of the complex numbers. All you're using is the definition of equality of two complex numbers. (a = c, b = d)No. You're just equating the real and imaginary parts of the complex numbers. All you're using is the definition of equality of two complex numbers. (a = c, b = d)
  • #1
Oblio
398
0
Consider the complex number z=e[tex]_{i\theta}[/tex] = cos[tex]\theta[/tex]+isin[tex]\theta.[/tex] By evaluating z[tex]^{2}[/tex] two different ways, prove the trig identities cos2[tex]\theta[/tex] = cos[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] - sin[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] and sin2[tex]\theta[/tex] = 2sin[tex]\theta[/tex]cos[tex]\theta[/tex].

A question about the approach to this question:
How do you guys approach the task of 'evaluating' something, when told to do so, like here.
I find myself doing random manipulations without knowledge of whether the road I'm on is even close to the correct path or not.
Evaluate seems like such a general instruction...

Anyways,
If I square z I get;
z[tex]^{2}[/tex] = cos[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex] + i[tex]^{2}[/tex]sin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex]

z[tex]^{2}[/tex] = cos[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex] - sin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex]

If I sub z[tex]^{2}[/tex] back in I get 0 so that's wrong.

Is the use of the 'e definition' necessary for this? I kind of want to see how I ought to be approaching this 'evaluation'.

Thanks, as always
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Oblio said:
If I square z I get;
z[tex]^{2}[/tex] = cos[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex] + i[tex]^{2}[/tex]sin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex]
How??

If [tex]z = \cos{\theta}+\imath\sin{\theta}[/tex], then [tex]z^2 = \left(\cos{\theta}+\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2 \neq \cos^2{\theta}+\imath^2\sin^2{\theta}[/tex].

Square that. Then use the other way of evaluating a complex number raised to some power, i.e., de Moiver's formula. Equate the two.
 
Last edited:
  • #3
Am I allowed to do this?

isin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex]

=-sin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex] ?
 
  • #4
Oblio said:
isin[tex]\theta[/tex][tex]^{2}[/tex]
The way you have written is quite ambiguous. But if you mean [tex]\left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2[/tex], then it is equal to [tex]-\sin^2{\theta}[/tex].

P.S. You need not enclose each term of LaTeX code within 'tex' tags. It is enough if you do it for each line of code. Example: Enclosing this - \left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2 - within tex tags will produce [tex]\left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2[/tex]. :smile:
 
  • #5
neutrino said:
The way you have written is quite ambiguous. But if you mean [tex]\left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2[/tex], then it is equal to [tex]-\sin^2{\theta}[/tex].

P.S. You need not enclose each term of LaTeX code within 'tex' tags. It is enough if you do it for each line of code. Example: Enclosing this - \left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2 - within tex tags will produce [tex]\left(\imath\sin{\theta}\right)^2[/tex]. :smile:

lol thanks!
It just does that when I click the latex icon each time.. your saying you write it all out manually?
 
  • #6
I'm still stuck with:

z[tex]^{2}[/tex] = cos[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] + 2isin[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] - sin[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex]

You'll see I still did it the long way if you quote:P
 
  • #7
Oblio said:
lol thanks!
It just does that when I click the latex icon each time.. your saying you write it all out manually?

While I mostly do it manually(click n' latex is only a recent feature), I'm not asking you to do it manually.

When I click on any icon, what I get is that piece of code (say, \frac{}{} for fraction) within tex codes. The cursor is still within the those tags, so when I click on another icon, only its code is printed within the same set of tags. When I want to do a new line, I move the cursor outside the first set of tex tags.
 
  • #8
Oblio said:
I'm still stuck with:
z[tex]^{2}[/tex] = cos[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] + 2isin[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex] - sin[tex]^{2}[/tex][tex]\theta[/tex]

Shouldn't it be [tex]\cos^2{\theta} + 2\imath\cos{\theta}\sin{\theta} - \sin^2{\theta}[/tex]?
 
  • #9
neutrino said:
Shouldn't it be [tex]\cos^2{\theta} + 2\imath\cos{\theta}\sin{\theta} - \sin^2{\theta}[/tex]?


yeah, sorry. Typo
 
  • #10
Did you also find the other expression using de Moivre's theorem/formula?
 
  • #11
oh i equate the 2 just for one of the two I am looking for? I thought that was for the other equation
 
  • #12
What do you get when you equate the two?
 
  • #13
neutrino said:
Shouldn't it be [tex]\cos^2{\theta} + 2\imath\cos{\theta}\sin{\theta} - \sin^2{\theta}[/tex]?

I've gotten to

cos2[tex]\theta[/tex]=cos2[tex]\theta[/tex]-isin2[tex]\theta[/tex]+2isin[tex]\thetacos\theta[/tex]
 
  • #14
im realizing now that's wrong isn't it..
 
  • #15
Oblio said:
I've gotten to

cos2[tex]\theta[/tex]=cos2[tex]\theta[/tex]-isin2[tex]\theta[/tex]+2isin[tex]\thetacos\theta[/tex]

When is a + ib = c + id? (a,b,c,d are real)
 
  • #16
whennn...
a=c, b=d?
 
  • #17
Right.

So when you equate cos(2t) + isin(2t) and cos^2(t) + 2isin(t)cos(t) - sin^2(t)...?

(using 't' instead of theta.)
 
  • #18
well if i use what I am trying to prove,
cos(2t) = cos^2(t)-sin^2(t)
and sin(2t) = 2sintcost
 
  • #19
but doesn't this method require that which I am proving, to prove it?
 
  • #20
Oblio said:
well if i use what I am trying to prove,
cos(2t) = cos^2(t)-sin^2(t)
and sin(2t) = 2sintcost

Oblio said:
but doesn't this method require that which I am proving, to prove it?

No. You're just equating the real and imaginary parts of the complex numbers. All you're using is the definition of equality of two complex numbers. (a = c, b = d)
 
  • #21
neutrino said:
No. You're just equating the real and imaginary parts of the complex numbers. All you're using is the definition of equality of two complex numbers. (a = c, b = d)


So is it a valid proof to say that

cos2t +isin2t = cos^2(t) + 2isintcost - sin^2(t)

cos2t must = cos^2(t)-sin^2(t)
sin2t=2sintcost ?
 
  • #22
They must be equal since the corresponding real and imaginary components are equal.

I think writing the RHS as (cos^2(t) - sin^2(t)) + i(2sin(t)cos(t)) will make things familiar to you.
 
  • #23
Ok.

If the i's cancel leaving:
cos2t + sin2t = cos^2(t) - sin^2(t) + 2sin(t)cos(t)

There are all real parts. You don't think I'll need to prove the two RHS pieces?
 

FAQ: Proving Trig Identities with Complex Numbers

What are complex numbers and how are they related to trigonometric identities?

Complex numbers are numbers that contain both a real and imaginary component. They are often represented in the form a + bi, where a is the real component and bi is the imaginary component. These numbers are used in trigonometric identities because they can be expressed in terms of sine and cosine functions, allowing for more complex identities to be proven.

How do I know when to use complex numbers in proving trigonometric identities?

Complex numbers are typically used when dealing with identities that involve powers of sine and cosine, or when trying to prove identities involving multiple angles. If an identity seems too difficult to prove using traditional methods, it may be helpful to use complex numbers.

What is the process for proving trigonometric identities with complex numbers?

The process for proving trigonometric identities with complex numbers involves converting the complex numbers to their exponential form, using Euler's formula, and then manipulating the expressions using algebraic techniques. By replacing sine and cosine with their exponential form, identities can often be simplified and more easily proven.

Why is proving trigonometric identities with complex numbers useful?

Proving trigonometric identities with complex numbers allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the relationships between trigonometric functions. It also provides a more efficient method for proving certain identities that may be difficult to prove using traditional methods.

Are there any limitations to using complex numbers in proving trigonometric identities?

One limitation of using complex numbers in proving trigonometric identities is that it may not always be the most efficient method. In some cases, traditional methods may be quicker and simpler. Additionally, complex numbers may not always provide a complete proof and may need to be supplemented with additional steps or techniques.

Back
Top