The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » Math Topics » geometry.pre-college

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: "Specific Complex Numbers"
Replies: 2   Last Post: Mar 20, 2007 2:35 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
R. Brown

Posts: 54
From: texas
Registered: 12/29/05
"Specific Complex Numbers"
Posted: Mar 16, 2007 10:42 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

General Complex Numbers....vs.........Specific Complex Numbers
by Robt W. Brown

The following is a 'general form' that all numbers from the
Complex Number Set can take:

a + bi

a= 2
b= 1.4142135

we can say:

a + bi = 2 + 1.4142135i..................eq. 101

It might appear that we have now defined a 'specific complex number' in eq. 101.
But I contend that we still have a 'complex number' of generality. We know this about the number:
1. It will graph as a single point on the 'complex plane'.
2. It is a complex number that can be part of a multitude of geometrical sequences.

Let's now suppose we setup a 3-axes system, for graphing complex numbers:
a= axis of reals.........horozontal axis #1
b= axis of imaginaries.............horozontal axis #2
y= axis of rank...............vertical axis

With this system of graphing rectangular coordinates the
"complex plane" can be considered as the (a-b horozontal plane).

Then to explain this idea further, let's consider this rule for ranking terms:

Rule #1: The rank (y) of any term in a geometrical sequence is always equal the logarithm of the related log base (B).

According to this rule we now can say this about our number:

B^y = 2 + 1.4142135i................eq. 201
B= (2 + 1.4142135i)^1/y............eq. 301

Log_(B){2 + 1.4142135i}= y

Let's also set the Domain of (y) as the 'real number set'.

At this point it becomes obvious that we initially had 2 unknowns in the LHS of the equation 201. This means (B & y) could be ANY combination of real numbers. So let's simply set the rank of the Number/Term (y) at zero:

y= 0

Then with eq. 301 let's try and determine the 'related log base' of our complex number:

B= (2 + 1.4142135i)^1/0............

Unfortunately, we find the power of our complex number is 'undefined' because:

1/0= undefined

So, we cannot arrive at a 'related log base' in this special instance!
Therefore, we must consider this new rule:

Rule #2:
Any complex number that graphs as a point upon the 'complex plane' has a rank of zero (y= 0). Therefore, any such number cannot not be a "specific number". Namely as number that is derived from a 'specific log base'. It is therfore a 'general complex number'.

Now let's give an example of a 'specific complex number':

(3 + 1.7320508i)_1

we see that in the above number, we have attached a rank to the number and the rank equals one:
y= 1
a= 3
b= 1.7320508

Therefore, if we graph the above number on the 3-axes system proposed, the resulting point will NOT be on the complex plane. (Because any point on the complex plane maintains a constant coordinate...y= 0.)

Also we can find the related Log Base:

B= (3 + 1.7320508i)^1/y
B= (3 + 1.7320508i)^1/1
B= 3 + 1.7320508i

Surprisingly we find that the Log is the original number
it's self: Log Base= 3 + 1.7320508i

B^1= 3 + 1.7320508i
B^y= a + bi

Since the related Log base equals = the number in question, we can state another rule:

Rule #3:
When the rank of a complex number equals one (1)... this indicates that the related log base of the number is the same number to the power of (1). Which means, the Log Base IS precisely the SAME number.

So, in this 3 coordinate system of Numbers & Ranks we can
can differentiate between 'general complex numbers' and 'specific complex numbers'.

Furthermore, we can argue that all complex numbers that can be graphed on the Argand Scale have an 'implied rank' of zero (0). Meaning y= 0

If the above problem interests you, please indicate and I will make follow comments in terms of how this can also relate to 'quadratics'.

Compliments of Col. Rbtx, the Barnyard Physicist of Texas

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.