# Help me this one complex number question (1 Viewer)

#### Drdusk

##### π
Moderator
View attachment 27898
I turned z1 and z2 into modulus argument form so I got z1 = cos(pi/2)+isin(pi/2) and z2= cos(pi/4)+isin(pi/4) but I dont know how to prove arg(z1+z2) as I had never seen this identity before.
Why not just add the two complex numbers as they are? This gives you z1 + z2 = 'something', and then just find the argument using

Argument is calculated by taking tan inverse of the imaginary part over the real part of a complex number.

#### fan96

##### 617 pages
Why not just add the two complex numbers as they are? This gives you z1 + z2 = 'something', and then just find the argument using

Argument is calculated by taking tan inverse of the imaginary part over the real part of a complex number.
The argument of a complex number satisfies

This is not the same as

because is not an inverse function of .

With it's clear that the above does not hold, as the function can't possibly have an output of .

In the case of this question, both numbers have modulus 1. If you draw a diagram you can probably see that the argument of the sum will be the average of the sum of the arguments (, and the origin form an isosceles triangle).

Last edited:
• Drdusk

#### Drdusk

##### π
Moderator
The argument of a complex number satisfies

This is not the same as

because is not an inverse function of .

With it's clear that the above does not hold, as the function can't possibly have an output of .

In the case of this question, both numbers have modulus 1. If you draw a diagram you can probably see that the argument of the sum will be the average of the sum of the arguments.
I waaas waiting for someone to say that imao.

It's such a small subtlety kinda negligible.

#### fan96

##### 617 pages
It's such a small subtlety kinda negligible.
It's not negligible at all - it's the biggest defect in the "inverse" trig functions and it can completely throw off your calculations if you're not careful.

Suppose you're developing a navigation software with some sort of compass function.
Ignoring the fact that we don't actually live in two-dimensional space, if you just use the method discussed above, a bearing of 315 degrees is calculated as 135 degrees and now some poor bushwalker is probably very badly lost.

• Drdusk

#### upishcat

##### New Member
Thank you very much for the help guys.

• Drdusk

#### HeroWise

##### Active Member
You can do it geometrically too, Since its a rhobus yada yada