Re: Geometrical meaning of imaginary roots?
- From: magidin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Arturo Magidin)
- Date: Tue, 21 Nov 2006 16:06:23 +0000 (UTC)
In article <1164124905.991803.107060@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
<131208@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Consider two graphs y = x^2 + 1 and y = 0.
These two graphs have no intersection points in the real coordinate
system.
But these equations have common solutions ( root(-1), 0 ), ( -root(-1),
0 )
if we extend a range of x to the complex number.
How can we explain these complex points geometrically?
That is, what's the geometrical meaning of these common points?....
We think of the graph of a real function of real variable as a
collection of points on the plane because we think of the real numbers
as the line; so pairs of points correspond to coordinate points on R x
R, the plane.
Geometrically, we think of complex numbers as the plane as well, with
the horizontal axis representing the real part, and the vertical axis
representing the imaginary part. But that means that if you want to
"graph" f(x) = x^2 + 1 as a complex function of complex variable (that
is, x can be complex and f(x) is also complex), then you need points
in C x C, which is a 4-dimensional (real) space. If you graph that
function, and the function y = x on this 4-dimensional real space,
then you get two points of intersection, but it is hard to visualize
what you are doing since you need to imagine 4-d space.
--
======================================================================
"It's not denial. I'm just very selective about
what I accept as reality."
--- Calvin ("Calvin and Hobbes" by Bill Watterson)
======================================================================
Arturo Magidin
magidin-at-member-ams-org
.
- Prev by Date: Strange math operation in a scientific journal
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Previous by thread: Strange math operation in a scientific journal
- Next by thread: Re: Geometrical meaning of imaginary roots?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|