Showing that for any complex number $z$, either $ |z + 1| geq 1/sqrt{2} $ or $ |z^2 + 1| geq 1 $
I was reading complex Number from A to Z
There was an example which asks to proof that for any complex Number $z$ either
$$ |z + 1| geq 1/sqrt{2} $$
or
$$ |z^2 + 1| geq 1 $$
In the book proof was by contradiction and I had no problem in understanding it, but what rise my problem is how someone can arrive to such a conclusion from nothing.
complex-numbers
add a comment |
I was reading complex Number from A to Z
There was an example which asks to proof that for any complex Number $z$ either
$$ |z + 1| geq 1/sqrt{2} $$
or
$$ |z^2 + 1| geq 1 $$
In the book proof was by contradiction and I had no problem in understanding it, but what rise my problem is how someone can arrive to such a conclusion from nothing.
complex-numbers
please, edit your first equation.
– Doyun Nam
3 hours ago
It's a method full of logic (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction). In general, suppose we have to prove a statement $A$ is true implies another statement $B$ is true. Next, for the sake of argument assume $B$ be NOT true then we arrived that $A$ is false. So, "$B$ is false $implies$ $A$ is false"-is true, and so, we have $A$ is true $implies$ $B$ is true. Further, see: math.stackexchange.com/questions/227127/…
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
3 hours ago
Thanks for this. But i want to know how can someone without knowing the given inequality , derive them. Not prove them if they are given
– Keshav Sharma
3 hours ago
add a comment |
I was reading complex Number from A to Z
There was an example which asks to proof that for any complex Number $z$ either
$$ |z + 1| geq 1/sqrt{2} $$
or
$$ |z^2 + 1| geq 1 $$
In the book proof was by contradiction and I had no problem in understanding it, but what rise my problem is how someone can arrive to such a conclusion from nothing.
complex-numbers
I was reading complex Number from A to Z
There was an example which asks to proof that for any complex Number $z$ either
$$ |z + 1| geq 1/sqrt{2} $$
or
$$ |z^2 + 1| geq 1 $$
In the book proof was by contradiction and I had no problem in understanding it, but what rise my problem is how someone can arrive to such a conclusion from nothing.
complex-numbers
complex-numbers
edited 26 mins ago
Asaf Karagila♦
302k32426756
302k32426756
asked 3 hours ago
Keshav Sharma
965
965
please, edit your first equation.
– Doyun Nam
3 hours ago
It's a method full of logic (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction). In general, suppose we have to prove a statement $A$ is true implies another statement $B$ is true. Next, for the sake of argument assume $B$ be NOT true then we arrived that $A$ is false. So, "$B$ is false $implies$ $A$ is false"-is true, and so, we have $A$ is true $implies$ $B$ is true. Further, see: math.stackexchange.com/questions/227127/…
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
3 hours ago
Thanks for this. But i want to know how can someone without knowing the given inequality , derive them. Not prove them if they are given
– Keshav Sharma
3 hours ago
add a comment |
please, edit your first equation.
– Doyun Nam
3 hours ago
It's a method full of logic (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction). In general, suppose we have to prove a statement $A$ is true implies another statement $B$ is true. Next, for the sake of argument assume $B$ be NOT true then we arrived that $A$ is false. So, "$B$ is false $implies$ $A$ is false"-is true, and so, we have $A$ is true $implies$ $B$ is true. Further, see: math.stackexchange.com/questions/227127/…
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
3 hours ago
Thanks for this. But i want to know how can someone without knowing the given inequality , derive them. Not prove them if they are given
– Keshav Sharma
3 hours ago
please, edit your first equation.
– Doyun Nam
3 hours ago
please, edit your first equation.
– Doyun Nam
3 hours ago
It's a method full of logic (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction). In general, suppose we have to prove a statement $A$ is true implies another statement $B$ is true. Next, for the sake of argument assume $B$ be NOT true then we arrived that $A$ is false. So, "$B$ is false $implies$ $A$ is false"-is true, and so, we have $A$ is true $implies$ $B$ is true. Further, see: math.stackexchange.com/questions/227127/…
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
3 hours ago
It's a method full of logic (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction). In general, suppose we have to prove a statement $A$ is true implies another statement $B$ is true. Next, for the sake of argument assume $B$ be NOT true then we arrived that $A$ is false. So, "$B$ is false $implies$ $A$ is false"-is true, and so, we have $A$ is true $implies$ $B$ is true. Further, see: math.stackexchange.com/questions/227127/…
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
3 hours ago
Thanks for this. But i want to know how can someone without knowing the given inequality , derive them. Not prove them if they are given
– Keshav Sharma
3 hours ago
Thanks for this. But i want to know how can someone without knowing the given inequality , derive them. Not prove them if they are given
– Keshav Sharma
3 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
Let us think of complex plane. I used the program, GeoGebra to draw the figure below.
Let $A = 0$, $B = -0.5+0.5i$, $C = -0.5 -0.5 i$, and $D=-1$.
Your first inequality is true if and only if $z$ is on the circle or outside the circle.
Thus it is enough to show that if $z$ is in the circle, then that $z$ satisfies the second inequality.
The circle is between the half-line $overrightarrow{AB}$ and $overrightarrow{AC}$.
The angle of $overrightarrow{AB}$ is $frac{3pi}{4}$, and the angle of
$overrightarrow{AC}$ is $frac{5pi}{4}$.
Generally, assume that $z$ is a complex number between these two half-line.
We know that the angle of $z^2$ is twice of the angle of $z$.
Thus the angle of $z^2$ is between $frac{3pi}{2}$ and $frac{5pi}{2}$.
It means that the real part of $z^2$ is non-negative.
Thus, the real part of $z^2 +1$ is greater than or equal to $1$.
Because $|z^2 + 1| geq |Re(z^2 +1)|$, it follows that $|z^2 + 1| geq 1$. Q.E.D.
I think that this geometric proof let us be able to make similar problems.
For example, let the second inequality be the same. And let the first inequality change as follows:
$$ |z+r| leq frac{r}{sqrt{2}} , $$
for any fixed $r>0$.
Then we can say that every complex number $z$ satisfies the (changed) first or second inequality.
add a comment |
Geometrically, looking at the equality case, the first equation corresponds to a circle centered at $-1$ with radius $1/sqrt{2}$, whereas the second is the locus of points whose product of the distances from $i$ and $-i$ is equal to $1$. The second locus of points is called the Lemiscate of Bernoulli. The thesis is equivalent to saying that the Bernoulli Lemniscate and the circle do not intersect.
Rotating the frame of reference the lemniscate is given by the equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemniscate_of_Bernoulli:
$(x^2+y^2)^2=2(x^2-y^2) [1]$
and the rotated circle:
$x^2+(y-1)^2=r^2 [2]$
The optimal $r$ is given when the circle and the lemniscate are tangent, i.e. the point of intersections are only 2. Substituting $x^2$ from [2] into [1] and putting the determinant to zero I get $sqrt{2-sqrt{2}} sim 0.76$ as optimal r, which is greater than $1/sqrt{2}sim 0.70$ the one proposed and proves that the circle and the leminscate do not intersect.
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%2f3061500%2fshowing-that-for-any-complex-number-z-either-z-1-geq-1-sqrt2-or%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Let us think of complex plane. I used the program, GeoGebra to draw the figure below.
Let $A = 0$, $B = -0.5+0.5i$, $C = -0.5 -0.5 i$, and $D=-1$.
Your first inequality is true if and only if $z$ is on the circle or outside the circle.
Thus it is enough to show that if $z$ is in the circle, then that $z$ satisfies the second inequality.
The circle is between the half-line $overrightarrow{AB}$ and $overrightarrow{AC}$.
The angle of $overrightarrow{AB}$ is $frac{3pi}{4}$, and the angle of
$overrightarrow{AC}$ is $frac{5pi}{4}$.
Generally, assume that $z$ is a complex number between these two half-line.
We know that the angle of $z^2$ is twice of the angle of $z$.
Thus the angle of $z^2$ is between $frac{3pi}{2}$ and $frac{5pi}{2}$.
It means that the real part of $z^2$ is non-negative.
Thus, the real part of $z^2 +1$ is greater than or equal to $1$.
Because $|z^2 + 1| geq |Re(z^2 +1)|$, it follows that $|z^2 + 1| geq 1$. Q.E.D.
I think that this geometric proof let us be able to make similar problems.
For example, let the second inequality be the same. And let the first inequality change as follows:
$$ |z+r| leq frac{r}{sqrt{2}} , $$
for any fixed $r>0$.
Then we can say that every complex number $z$ satisfies the (changed) first or second inequality.
add a comment |
Let us think of complex plane. I used the program, GeoGebra to draw the figure below.
Let $A = 0$, $B = -0.5+0.5i$, $C = -0.5 -0.5 i$, and $D=-1$.
Your first inequality is true if and only if $z$ is on the circle or outside the circle.
Thus it is enough to show that if $z$ is in the circle, then that $z$ satisfies the second inequality.
The circle is between the half-line $overrightarrow{AB}$ and $overrightarrow{AC}$.
The angle of $overrightarrow{AB}$ is $frac{3pi}{4}$, and the angle of
$overrightarrow{AC}$ is $frac{5pi}{4}$.
Generally, assume that $z$ is a complex number between these two half-line.
We know that the angle of $z^2$ is twice of the angle of $z$.
Thus the angle of $z^2$ is between $frac{3pi}{2}$ and $frac{5pi}{2}$.
It means that the real part of $z^2$ is non-negative.
Thus, the real part of $z^2 +1$ is greater than or equal to $1$.
Because $|z^2 + 1| geq |Re(z^2 +1)|$, it follows that $|z^2 + 1| geq 1$. Q.E.D.
I think that this geometric proof let us be able to make similar problems.
For example, let the second inequality be the same. And let the first inequality change as follows:
$$ |z+r| leq frac{r}{sqrt{2}} , $$
for any fixed $r>0$.
Then we can say that every complex number $z$ satisfies the (changed) first or second inequality.
add a comment |
Let us think of complex plane. I used the program, GeoGebra to draw the figure below.
Let $A = 0$, $B = -0.5+0.5i$, $C = -0.5 -0.5 i$, and $D=-1$.
Your first inequality is true if and only if $z$ is on the circle or outside the circle.
Thus it is enough to show that if $z$ is in the circle, then that $z$ satisfies the second inequality.
The circle is between the half-line $overrightarrow{AB}$ and $overrightarrow{AC}$.
The angle of $overrightarrow{AB}$ is $frac{3pi}{4}$, and the angle of
$overrightarrow{AC}$ is $frac{5pi}{4}$.
Generally, assume that $z$ is a complex number between these two half-line.
We know that the angle of $z^2$ is twice of the angle of $z$.
Thus the angle of $z^2$ is between $frac{3pi}{2}$ and $frac{5pi}{2}$.
It means that the real part of $z^2$ is non-negative.
Thus, the real part of $z^2 +1$ is greater than or equal to $1$.
Because $|z^2 + 1| geq |Re(z^2 +1)|$, it follows that $|z^2 + 1| geq 1$. Q.E.D.
I think that this geometric proof let us be able to make similar problems.
For example, let the second inequality be the same. And let the first inequality change as follows:
$$ |z+r| leq frac{r}{sqrt{2}} , $$
for any fixed $r>0$.
Then we can say that every complex number $z$ satisfies the (changed) first or second inequality.
Let us think of complex plane. I used the program, GeoGebra to draw the figure below.
Let $A = 0$, $B = -0.5+0.5i$, $C = -0.5 -0.5 i$, and $D=-1$.
Your first inequality is true if and only if $z$ is on the circle or outside the circle.
Thus it is enough to show that if $z$ is in the circle, then that $z$ satisfies the second inequality.
The circle is between the half-line $overrightarrow{AB}$ and $overrightarrow{AC}$.
The angle of $overrightarrow{AB}$ is $frac{3pi}{4}$, and the angle of
$overrightarrow{AC}$ is $frac{5pi}{4}$.
Generally, assume that $z$ is a complex number between these two half-line.
We know that the angle of $z^2$ is twice of the angle of $z$.
Thus the angle of $z^2$ is between $frac{3pi}{2}$ and $frac{5pi}{2}$.
It means that the real part of $z^2$ is non-negative.
Thus, the real part of $z^2 +1$ is greater than or equal to $1$.
Because $|z^2 + 1| geq |Re(z^2 +1)|$, it follows that $|z^2 + 1| geq 1$. Q.E.D.
I think that this geometric proof let us be able to make similar problems.
For example, let the second inequality be the same. And let the first inequality change as follows:
$$ |z+r| leq frac{r}{sqrt{2}} , $$
for any fixed $r>0$.
Then we can say that every complex number $z$ satisfies the (changed) first or second inequality.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Doyun Nam
4149
4149
add a comment |
add a comment |
Geometrically, looking at the equality case, the first equation corresponds to a circle centered at $-1$ with radius $1/sqrt{2}$, whereas the second is the locus of points whose product of the distances from $i$ and $-i$ is equal to $1$. The second locus of points is called the Lemiscate of Bernoulli. The thesis is equivalent to saying that the Bernoulli Lemniscate and the circle do not intersect.
Rotating the frame of reference the lemniscate is given by the equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemniscate_of_Bernoulli:
$(x^2+y^2)^2=2(x^2-y^2) [1]$
and the rotated circle:
$x^2+(y-1)^2=r^2 [2]$
The optimal $r$ is given when the circle and the lemniscate are tangent, i.e. the point of intersections are only 2. Substituting $x^2$ from [2] into [1] and putting the determinant to zero I get $sqrt{2-sqrt{2}} sim 0.76$ as optimal r, which is greater than $1/sqrt{2}sim 0.70$ the one proposed and proves that the circle and the leminscate do not intersect.
add a comment |
Geometrically, looking at the equality case, the first equation corresponds to a circle centered at $-1$ with radius $1/sqrt{2}$, whereas the second is the locus of points whose product of the distances from $i$ and $-i$ is equal to $1$. The second locus of points is called the Lemiscate of Bernoulli. The thesis is equivalent to saying that the Bernoulli Lemniscate and the circle do not intersect.
Rotating the frame of reference the lemniscate is given by the equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemniscate_of_Bernoulli:
$(x^2+y^2)^2=2(x^2-y^2) [1]$
and the rotated circle:
$x^2+(y-1)^2=r^2 [2]$
The optimal $r$ is given when the circle and the lemniscate are tangent, i.e. the point of intersections are only 2. Substituting $x^2$ from [2] into [1] and putting the determinant to zero I get $sqrt{2-sqrt{2}} sim 0.76$ as optimal r, which is greater than $1/sqrt{2}sim 0.70$ the one proposed and proves that the circle and the leminscate do not intersect.
add a comment |
Geometrically, looking at the equality case, the first equation corresponds to a circle centered at $-1$ with radius $1/sqrt{2}$, whereas the second is the locus of points whose product of the distances from $i$ and $-i$ is equal to $1$. The second locus of points is called the Lemiscate of Bernoulli. The thesis is equivalent to saying that the Bernoulli Lemniscate and the circle do not intersect.
Rotating the frame of reference the lemniscate is given by the equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemniscate_of_Bernoulli:
$(x^2+y^2)^2=2(x^2-y^2) [1]$
and the rotated circle:
$x^2+(y-1)^2=r^2 [2]$
The optimal $r$ is given when the circle and the lemniscate are tangent, i.e. the point of intersections are only 2. Substituting $x^2$ from [2] into [1] and putting the determinant to zero I get $sqrt{2-sqrt{2}} sim 0.76$ as optimal r, which is greater than $1/sqrt{2}sim 0.70$ the one proposed and proves that the circle and the leminscate do not intersect.
Geometrically, looking at the equality case, the first equation corresponds to a circle centered at $-1$ with radius $1/sqrt{2}$, whereas the second is the locus of points whose product of the distances from $i$ and $-i$ is equal to $1$. The second locus of points is called the Lemiscate of Bernoulli. The thesis is equivalent to saying that the Bernoulli Lemniscate and the circle do not intersect.
Rotating the frame of reference the lemniscate is given by the equation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lemniscate_of_Bernoulli:
$(x^2+y^2)^2=2(x^2-y^2) [1]$
and the rotated circle:
$x^2+(y-1)^2=r^2 [2]$
The optimal $r$ is given when the circle and the lemniscate are tangent, i.e. the point of intersections are only 2. Substituting $x^2$ from [2] into [1] and putting the determinant to zero I get $sqrt{2-sqrt{2}} sim 0.76$ as optimal r, which is greater than $1/sqrt{2}sim 0.70$ the one proposed and proves that the circle and the leminscate do not intersect.
edited 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Thomas
16318
16318
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
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%2f3061500%2fshowing-that-for-any-complex-number-z-either-z-1-geq-1-sqrt2-or%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
please, edit your first equation.
– Doyun Nam
3 hours ago
It's a method full of logic (See: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_by_contradiction). In general, suppose we have to prove a statement $A$ is true implies another statement $B$ is true. Next, for the sake of argument assume $B$ be NOT true then we arrived that $A$ is false. So, "$B$ is false $implies$ $A$ is false"-is true, and so, we have $A$ is true $implies$ $B$ is true. Further, see: math.stackexchange.com/questions/227127/…
– Sujit Bhattacharyya
3 hours ago
Thanks for this. But i want to know how can someone without knowing the given inequality , derive them. Not prove them if they are given
– Keshav Sharma
3 hours ago