Probably because sqrt(x) * sqrt(y) =sqrt(xy) only works when x,y>0
Why does sqrt(-6) * sqrt(-6) = sqrt(36) = 6 not work? I know the answer is = sqrt(6)i * sqrt(6)i = -6, but why does the first one not work?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buy my books/notes cheaply here!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2016 HSC (Accelerated): // 2U Maths (97) // SOR 1 (48) //
2017 HSC: // English Adv (91) // Bio (96) // Phys (95) // 3U Maths (99) // 4U Maths (97) //
ATAR: 99.75
30june2016 is lame
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Probably because sqrt(x) * sqrt(y) =sqrt(xy) only works when x,y>0
Once we enter the complex world, the square root function is multi-valued (in fact, double-valued) (except when z = 0, in which case sqrt(z) has only one value). (Actually also for real positive numbers, it'S multivalued). We need to specify something called a "branch" to make the square root single-valued. When we use the "√" symbol, we are referring to what is known as the principal square root. For a non-zero complex number z, the principal square root √(z) is defined as √(z) = √(|z|) * cis((1/2)*Arg(z)), where |z| > 0 is the modulus of z and Arg(z) is the principal argument of z (the unique argument of z in (-pi, pi]). Here √(|z|) is the positive square root of the modulus.
Equivalently, the principal square root of z is the square root of it that has positive real part (except when z is pure imaginary, when it refers to the square root with argument pi/2).
Using this definition of principal square roots, it is not generally true that √(wz) = √(w) * √(z).
What is true is that given any two values of sqrt(wz), sqrt(w) and sqrt(z), there is a value for the third square root so that sqrt(zw) = sqrt(z)*sqrt(w).
Expanding on that idea, we can prove in a different way why is not correct.
let f(x) be our extended square root function, principal square root, where , the definition of i,. we want to prove any function with that condition can not satisfy
suppose
letting x= y implies
but we also know
from (1) and (2) we get
which is a contradiction, assuming
Last edited by Mahan1; 13 Feb 2017 at 8:50 PM.
Mahan Ghobadi
Maths Tutor- ESL (80)| 2 Unit maths (96)(2013) | 3 Unit maths (99)| 4 Unit maths(95)| Physics (88)| music1(93)
Get more answers for your questions, as well as weekly tips and blog posts, from my friends and I at:
HSC http://bit.ly/HSC-Help
VCE* http://bit.ly/VCE-Help
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Bookmarks