Proving $arg(zw)=arg(z)+arg(w)$ The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InProving $arg(𝑧𝑤)=arg(𝑧)+arg(𝑤)$?Geometric meaning of $Arg(fracz_1z_2)=2Arg(fracz_3-z_1z_3-z_2)+2pi k$ for $z_i$ on the unit circleLimits involving logarithm and argument in the complex planeThe annulus $A_r,s(z_0)=z_0-z$ is openIs $zinmathbb Cmid$ open or closed?Finding the set of analytic functions whose image is a subset of a given setPrimitive of an analytic function - Proof verificationProve there is no branch of arg $z$ on $0 < z < 1$.How to row reduce a matrix with complex entries?Complex Contour Integral Involving Arg(z)Confusion in complex analysis

Falsification in Math vs Science

What is the meaning of Triage in Cybersec world?

Why is the Constellation's nose gear so long?

Are there incongruent pythagorean triangles with the same perimeter and same area?

Why didn't the Event Horizon Telescope team mention Sagittarius A*?

What do hard-Brexiteers want with respect to the Irish border?

How to answer pointed "are you quitting" questioning when I don't want them to suspect

"as much details as you can remember"

Time travel alters history but people keep saying nothing's changed

How come people say “Would of”?

Should I use my personal e-mail address, or my workplace one, when registering to external websites for work purposes?

Why do UK politicians seemingly ignore opinion polls on Brexit?

If a Druid sees an animal’s corpse, can they Wild Shape into that animal?

How to type this arrow in math mode?

How to support a colleague who finds meetings extremely tiring?

Shouldn't "much" here be used instead of "more"?

Did Scotland spend $250,000 for the slogan "Welcome to Scotland"?

Does the shape of a die affect the probability of a number being rolled?

Which Sci-Fi work first showed weapon of galactic-scale mass destruction?

What is the most effective way of iterating a std::vector and why?

Can a rogue use sneak attack with weapons that have the thrown property even if they are not thrown?

Is this app Icon Browser Safe/Legit?

Pokemon Turn Based battle (Python)

Is there any way to tell whether the shot is going to hit you or not?



Proving $arg(zw)=arg(z)+arg(w)$



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are InProving $arg(𝑧𝑤)=arg(𝑧)+arg(𝑤)$?Geometric meaning of $Arg(fracz_1z_2)=2Arg(fracz_3-z_1z_3-z_2)+2pi k$ for $z_i$ on the unit circleLimits involving logarithm and argument in the complex planeThe annulus $A_r,s(z_0)=< s$ is openIs $+$ open or closed?Finding the set of analytic functions whose image is a subset of a given setPrimitive of an analytic function - Proof verificationProve there is no branch of arg $z$ on $0 < z < 1$.How to row reduce a matrix with complex entries?Complex Contour Integral Involving Arg(z)Confusion in complex analysis










3












$begingroup$


This is my attempt I know this is incomplete or may even be wrong.


Let $θ_1 in arg(z)$ and $θ_2 in arg(w)$. Then, $θ_1+θ_2 in arg(z)+arg(w)$.


Also, $θ_1+θ_2 in arg(zw)$. Is this sufficient for the proof or correct at all? Hope someone could help me out. Thanks.



EDIT: Just to avoid any confusions I will add how $arg z$ is defined.




$arg z=textArg, z+2pi kmid ktext is an integer$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Why use $in$ instead of $=$ ?
    $endgroup$
    – Winther
    Sep 9 '14 at 19:00






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @Winther: Presumably because it makes the statement true? (If you define $operatornamearg(z)$ to be the set of all possible arguments of $z$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Sep 9 '14 at 21:45















3












$begingroup$


This is my attempt I know this is incomplete or may even be wrong.


Let $θ_1 in arg(z)$ and $θ_2 in arg(w)$. Then, $θ_1+θ_2 in arg(z)+arg(w)$.


Also, $θ_1+θ_2 in arg(zw)$. Is this sufficient for the proof or correct at all? Hope someone could help me out. Thanks.



EDIT: Just to avoid any confusions I will add how $arg z$ is defined.




$arg z=textArg, z+2pi kmid ktext is an integer$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Why use $in$ instead of $=$ ?
    $endgroup$
    – Winther
    Sep 9 '14 at 19:00






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @Winther: Presumably because it makes the statement true? (If you define $operatornamearg(z)$ to be the set of all possible arguments of $z$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Sep 9 '14 at 21:45













3












3








3


3



$begingroup$


This is my attempt I know this is incomplete or may even be wrong.


Let $θ_1 in arg(z)$ and $θ_2 in arg(w)$. Then, $θ_1+θ_2 in arg(z)+arg(w)$.


Also, $θ_1+θ_2 in arg(zw)$. Is this sufficient for the proof or correct at all? Hope someone could help me out. Thanks.



EDIT: Just to avoid any confusions I will add how $arg z$ is defined.




$arg z=textArg, z+2pi kmid ktext is an integer$










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




This is my attempt I know this is incomplete or may even be wrong.


Let $θ_1 in arg(z)$ and $θ_2 in arg(w)$. Then, $θ_1+θ_2 in arg(z)+arg(w)$.


Also, $θ_1+θ_2 in arg(zw)$. Is this sufficient for the proof or correct at all? Hope someone could help me out. Thanks.



EDIT: Just to avoid any confusions I will add how $arg z$ is defined.




$arg z=textArg, z+2pi kmid ktext is an integer$







complex-analysis complex-numbers






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 23 at 15:59









Thomas Shelby

4,7362727




4,7362727










asked Sep 9 '14 at 18:36









HeisenbergHeisenberg

1,3281742




1,3281742







  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Why use $in$ instead of $=$ ?
    $endgroup$
    – Winther
    Sep 9 '14 at 19:00






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @Winther: Presumably because it makes the statement true? (If you define $operatornamearg(z)$ to be the set of all possible arguments of $z$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Sep 9 '14 at 21:45












  • 5




    $begingroup$
    Why use $in$ instead of $=$ ?
    $endgroup$
    – Winther
    Sep 9 '14 at 19:00






  • 5




    $begingroup$
    @Winther: Presumably because it makes the statement true? (If you define $operatornamearg(z)$ to be the set of all possible arguments of $z$.)
    $endgroup$
    – Micah
    Sep 9 '14 at 21:45







5




5




$begingroup$
Why use $in$ instead of $=$ ?
$endgroup$
– Winther
Sep 9 '14 at 19:00




$begingroup$
Why use $in$ instead of $=$ ?
$endgroup$
– Winther
Sep 9 '14 at 19:00




5




5




$begingroup$
@Winther: Presumably because it makes the statement true? (If you define $operatornamearg(z)$ to be the set of all possible arguments of $z$.)
$endgroup$
– Micah
Sep 9 '14 at 21:45




$begingroup$
@Winther: Presumably because it makes the statement true? (If you define $operatornamearg(z)$ to be the set of all possible arguments of $z$.)
$endgroup$
– Micah
Sep 9 '14 at 21:45










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Let $z=r_1 e^i theta_1$ and $w=r_2 e^i theta_2$, then
$
zw=r_1 r_2 e^i (theta_1+theta_2).
$
Hence
$$
arg(z)=theta_1 + 2kpi, kin mathbfZ\
arg(w)=theta_2+2kpi, kin mathbfZ\
arg(zw)=theta_1+theta_2+2kpi, kin mathbfZ.
$$
There it is: $arg(zw)=arg(z)+arg(w)$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$




















    0












    $begingroup$

    Here's a proof: Let $z=r e^itheta$ and $w=s e^iphi$. Then $$textArg(zw)=textArgleft(rse^ithetae^iphiright)=textArgleft(rse^i(theta+phi)right)=textArg(z)+textArg(w)quad(textmod 2pi),$$
    where $textArg(z)in[0,2pi)$ is the principal argument of $z$.



    However, as Micah commented above, it looks like you're considering sets of all arguments, i.e. to obtain all representations, $$z=re^i(theta + 2pi n)$$ and $$w=se^i(phi+2pi m),$$ where $n,minmathbbZ$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
      $endgroup$
      – Did
      Sep 9 '14 at 21:03










    • $begingroup$
      I think that fixes it, but I'm sure you will throw another spanner my way @ Did.
      $endgroup$
      – Antinous
      Sep 9 '14 at 21:32










    • $begingroup$
      If arguments are in $[0,2pi)$, try $z=w=-i$. (But I am surprised, do you still think your computations are rigorous?)
      $endgroup$
      – Did
      Sep 9 '14 at 21:34











    • $begingroup$
      In that case, $textArg(-i)=3pi/2$, and so $textArg(-i)+textArg(-i)=3piequiv pi$. But $textArg(-itimes-i)=textArg(-1)=pi$. This is correct given arguments in $[0,2pi)$.
      $endgroup$
      – Antinous
      Sep 9 '14 at 21:39











    • $begingroup$
      Sorry but this won't do: your answer does state that the usual sum of the arguments is the argument of the sum.
      $endgroup$
      – Did
      Sep 9 '14 at 21:41


















    0












    $begingroup$

    I'm not sure we can use the $w = e^itheta_w$ here because this is a notation that is partially induced from what he is trying to prove. Here's a proof that doesn't need this.



    So we have $textarg(w) in theta_w$ and $textarg(z) in theta_z$.



    This means $w = |w|(costheta_w+sintheta_w)$ and $z = |z|(costheta_z+sintheta_z)$.



    By multiplication : $wz = |w| |z| ((cos theta_w cos theta_z - sin theta_w sin theta_z) + i (cos theta_w sin theta_z + sin theta_w cos theta_z))$ which happens to be equal to $|w| |z| (cos (theta_w + theta_z) + i sin (theta_w + theta_z)).$



    Hence, noting $wz = x + iy$ and identifying the real and the imaginary part, we have $dfrac x wz = cos (theta_w + theta_z)$ and $dfrac y wz = sin (theta_w + theta_z)$.



    This is the definition of $(theta_w + theta_z)$ belonging to $textarg(wz)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$












    • $begingroup$
      Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
      $endgroup$
      – Did
      Sep 9 '14 at 21:02











    • $begingroup$
      @Did Yes, $-i$ and $-2i$ have the same argument. Draw them on the complex plane. E: Wait, there's another discussion on a comment with same content (by Did) in a different answer. :confused:
      $endgroup$
      – kekkonen
      Sep 9 '14 at 21:58







    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Did I added the definition of argz to the question hoping it would resolve any confusions
      $endgroup$
      – Heisenberg
      Sep 11 '14 at 3:35






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @did Yes it works for sets but not always for principal arguments
      $endgroup$
      – Heisenberg
      Sep 11 '14 at 3:36






    • 1




      $begingroup$
      @Traklonq the sum need not be in [0,2π[ right?
      $endgroup$
      – Heisenberg
      Sep 11 '14 at 3:39











    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
    );



    );













    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f925296%2fproving-argzw-argz-argw%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes








    3 Answers
    3






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1












    $begingroup$

    Let $z=r_1 e^i theta_1$ and $w=r_2 e^i theta_2$, then
    $
    zw=r_1 r_2 e^i (theta_1+theta_2).
    $
    Hence
    $$
    arg(z)=theta_1 + 2kpi, kin mathbfZ\
    arg(w)=theta_2+2kpi, kin mathbfZ\
    arg(zw)=theta_1+theta_2+2kpi, kin mathbfZ.
    $$
    There it is: $arg(zw)=arg(z)+arg(w)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$

















      1












      $begingroup$

      Let $z=r_1 e^i theta_1$ and $w=r_2 e^i theta_2$, then
      $
      zw=r_1 r_2 e^i (theta_1+theta_2).
      $
      Hence
      $$
      arg(z)=theta_1 + 2kpi, kin mathbfZ\
      arg(w)=theta_2+2kpi, kin mathbfZ\
      arg(zw)=theta_1+theta_2+2kpi, kin mathbfZ.
      $$
      There it is: $arg(zw)=arg(z)+arg(w)$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$















        1












        1








        1





        $begingroup$

        Let $z=r_1 e^i theta_1$ and $w=r_2 e^i theta_2$, then
        $
        zw=r_1 r_2 e^i (theta_1+theta_2).
        $
        Hence
        $$
        arg(z)=theta_1 + 2kpi, kin mathbfZ\
        arg(w)=theta_2+2kpi, kin mathbfZ\
        arg(zw)=theta_1+theta_2+2kpi, kin mathbfZ.
        $$
        There it is: $arg(zw)=arg(z)+arg(w)$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        Let $z=r_1 e^i theta_1$ and $w=r_2 e^i theta_2$, then
        $
        zw=r_1 r_2 e^i (theta_1+theta_2).
        $
        Hence
        $$
        arg(z)=theta_1 + 2kpi, kin mathbfZ\
        arg(w)=theta_2+2kpi, kin mathbfZ\
        arg(zw)=theta_1+theta_2+2kpi, kin mathbfZ.
        $$
        There it is: $arg(zw)=arg(z)+arg(w)$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Aug 16 '17 at 21:00









        ness_boy

        1032




        1032










        answered Sep 11 '14 at 3:54









        Pan YanPan Yan

        472515




        472515





















            0












            $begingroup$

            Here's a proof: Let $z=r e^itheta$ and $w=s e^iphi$. Then $$textArg(zw)=textArgleft(rse^ithetae^iphiright)=textArgleft(rse^i(theta+phi)right)=textArg(z)+textArg(w)quad(textmod 2pi),$$
            where $textArg(z)in[0,2pi)$ is the principal argument of $z$.



            However, as Micah commented above, it looks like you're considering sets of all arguments, i.e. to obtain all representations, $$z=re^i(theta + 2pi n)$$ and $$w=se^i(phi+2pi m),$$ where $n,minmathbbZ$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:03










            • $begingroup$
              I think that fixes it, but I'm sure you will throw another spanner my way @ Did.
              $endgroup$
              – Antinous
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:32










            • $begingroup$
              If arguments are in $[0,2pi)$, try $z=w=-i$. (But I am surprised, do you still think your computations are rigorous?)
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:34











            • $begingroup$
              In that case, $textArg(-i)=3pi/2$, and so $textArg(-i)+textArg(-i)=3piequiv pi$. But $textArg(-itimes-i)=textArg(-1)=pi$. This is correct given arguments in $[0,2pi)$.
              $endgroup$
              – Antinous
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:39











            • $begingroup$
              Sorry but this won't do: your answer does state that the usual sum of the arguments is the argument of the sum.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:41















            0












            $begingroup$

            Here's a proof: Let $z=r e^itheta$ and $w=s e^iphi$. Then $$textArg(zw)=textArgleft(rse^ithetae^iphiright)=textArgleft(rse^i(theta+phi)right)=textArg(z)+textArg(w)quad(textmod 2pi),$$
            where $textArg(z)in[0,2pi)$ is the principal argument of $z$.



            However, as Micah commented above, it looks like you're considering sets of all arguments, i.e. to obtain all representations, $$z=re^i(theta + 2pi n)$$ and $$w=se^i(phi+2pi m),$$ where $n,minmathbbZ$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:03










            • $begingroup$
              I think that fixes it, but I'm sure you will throw another spanner my way @ Did.
              $endgroup$
              – Antinous
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:32










            • $begingroup$
              If arguments are in $[0,2pi)$, try $z=w=-i$. (But I am surprised, do you still think your computations are rigorous?)
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:34











            • $begingroup$
              In that case, $textArg(-i)=3pi/2$, and so $textArg(-i)+textArg(-i)=3piequiv pi$. But $textArg(-itimes-i)=textArg(-1)=pi$. This is correct given arguments in $[0,2pi)$.
              $endgroup$
              – Antinous
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:39











            • $begingroup$
              Sorry but this won't do: your answer does state that the usual sum of the arguments is the argument of the sum.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:41













            0












            0








            0





            $begingroup$

            Here's a proof: Let $z=r e^itheta$ and $w=s e^iphi$. Then $$textArg(zw)=textArgleft(rse^ithetae^iphiright)=textArgleft(rse^i(theta+phi)right)=textArg(z)+textArg(w)quad(textmod 2pi),$$
            where $textArg(z)in[0,2pi)$ is the principal argument of $z$.



            However, as Micah commented above, it looks like you're considering sets of all arguments, i.e. to obtain all representations, $$z=re^i(theta + 2pi n)$$ and $$w=se^i(phi+2pi m),$$ where $n,minmathbbZ$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            Here's a proof: Let $z=r e^itheta$ and $w=s e^iphi$. Then $$textArg(zw)=textArgleft(rse^ithetae^iphiright)=textArgleft(rse^i(theta+phi)right)=textArg(z)+textArg(w)quad(textmod 2pi),$$
            where $textArg(z)in[0,2pi)$ is the principal argument of $z$.



            However, as Micah commented above, it looks like you're considering sets of all arguments, i.e. to obtain all representations, $$z=re^i(theta + 2pi n)$$ and $$w=se^i(phi+2pi m),$$ where $n,minmathbbZ$.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Sep 10 '14 at 3:31

























            answered Sep 9 '14 at 19:05









            AntinousAntinous

            5,84842453




            5,84842453











            • $begingroup$
              Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:03










            • $begingroup$
              I think that fixes it, but I'm sure you will throw another spanner my way @ Did.
              $endgroup$
              – Antinous
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:32










            • $begingroup$
              If arguments are in $[0,2pi)$, try $z=w=-i$. (But I am surprised, do you still think your computations are rigorous?)
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:34











            • $begingroup$
              In that case, $textArg(-i)=3pi/2$, and so $textArg(-i)+textArg(-i)=3piequiv pi$. But $textArg(-itimes-i)=textArg(-1)=pi$. This is correct given arguments in $[0,2pi)$.
              $endgroup$
              – Antinous
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:39











            • $begingroup$
              Sorry but this won't do: your answer does state that the usual sum of the arguments is the argument of the sum.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:41
















            • $begingroup$
              Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:03










            • $begingroup$
              I think that fixes it, but I'm sure you will throw another spanner my way @ Did.
              $endgroup$
              – Antinous
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:32










            • $begingroup$
              If arguments are in $[0,2pi)$, try $z=w=-i$. (But I am surprised, do you still think your computations are rigorous?)
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:34











            • $begingroup$
              In that case, $textArg(-i)=3pi/2$, and so $textArg(-i)+textArg(-i)=3piequiv pi$. But $textArg(-itimes-i)=textArg(-1)=pi$. This is correct given arguments in $[0,2pi)$.
              $endgroup$
              – Antinous
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:39











            • $begingroup$
              Sorry but this won't do: your answer does state that the usual sum of the arguments is the argument of the sum.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:41















            $begingroup$
            Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:03




            $begingroup$
            Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:03












            $begingroup$
            I think that fixes it, but I'm sure you will throw another spanner my way @ Did.
            $endgroup$
            – Antinous
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:32




            $begingroup$
            I think that fixes it, but I'm sure you will throw another spanner my way @ Did.
            $endgroup$
            – Antinous
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:32












            $begingroup$
            If arguments are in $[0,2pi)$, try $z=w=-i$. (But I am surprised, do you still think your computations are rigorous?)
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:34





            $begingroup$
            If arguments are in $[0,2pi)$, try $z=w=-i$. (But I am surprised, do you still think your computations are rigorous?)
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:34













            $begingroup$
            In that case, $textArg(-i)=3pi/2$, and so $textArg(-i)+textArg(-i)=3piequiv pi$. But $textArg(-itimes-i)=textArg(-1)=pi$. This is correct given arguments in $[0,2pi)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Antinous
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:39





            $begingroup$
            In that case, $textArg(-i)=3pi/2$, and so $textArg(-i)+textArg(-i)=3piequiv pi$. But $textArg(-itimes-i)=textArg(-1)=pi$. This is correct given arguments in $[0,2pi)$.
            $endgroup$
            – Antinous
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:39













            $begingroup$
            Sorry but this won't do: your answer does state that the usual sum of the arguments is the argument of the sum.
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:41




            $begingroup$
            Sorry but this won't do: your answer does state that the usual sum of the arguments is the argument of the sum.
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:41











            0












            $begingroup$

            I'm not sure we can use the $w = e^itheta_w$ here because this is a notation that is partially induced from what he is trying to prove. Here's a proof that doesn't need this.



            So we have $textarg(w) in theta_w$ and $textarg(z) in theta_z$.



            This means $w = |w|(costheta_w+sintheta_w)$ and $z = |z|(costheta_z+sintheta_z)$.



            By multiplication : $wz = |w| |z| ((cos theta_w cos theta_z - sin theta_w sin theta_z) + i (cos theta_w sin theta_z + sin theta_w cos theta_z))$ which happens to be equal to $|w| |z| (cos (theta_w + theta_z) + i sin (theta_w + theta_z)).$



            Hence, noting $wz = x + iy$ and identifying the real and the imaginary part, we have $dfrac x wz = cos (theta_w + theta_z)$ and $dfrac y wz = sin (theta_w + theta_z)$.



            This is the definition of $(theta_w + theta_z)$ belonging to $textarg(wz)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:02











            • $begingroup$
              @Did Yes, $-i$ and $-2i$ have the same argument. Draw them on the complex plane. E: Wait, there's another discussion on a comment with same content (by Did) in a different answer. :confused:
              $endgroup$
              – kekkonen
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:58







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Did I added the definition of argz to the question hoping it would resolve any confusions
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:35






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @did Yes it works for sets but not always for principal arguments
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:36






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Traklonq the sum need not be in [0,2π[ right?
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:39















            0












            $begingroup$

            I'm not sure we can use the $w = e^itheta_w$ here because this is a notation that is partially induced from what he is trying to prove. Here's a proof that doesn't need this.



            So we have $textarg(w) in theta_w$ and $textarg(z) in theta_z$.



            This means $w = |w|(costheta_w+sintheta_w)$ and $z = |z|(costheta_z+sintheta_z)$.



            By multiplication : $wz = |w| |z| ((cos theta_w cos theta_z - sin theta_w sin theta_z) + i (cos theta_w sin theta_z + sin theta_w cos theta_z))$ which happens to be equal to $|w| |z| (cos (theta_w + theta_z) + i sin (theta_w + theta_z)).$



            Hence, noting $wz = x + iy$ and identifying the real and the imaginary part, we have $dfrac x wz = cos (theta_w + theta_z)$ and $dfrac y wz = sin (theta_w + theta_z)$.



            This is the definition of $(theta_w + theta_z)$ belonging to $textarg(wz)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$












            • $begingroup$
              Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:02











            • $begingroup$
              @Did Yes, $-i$ and $-2i$ have the same argument. Draw them on the complex plane. E: Wait, there's another discussion on a comment with same content (by Did) in a different answer. :confused:
              $endgroup$
              – kekkonen
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:58







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Did I added the definition of argz to the question hoping it would resolve any confusions
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:35






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @did Yes it works for sets but not always for principal arguments
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:36






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Traklonq the sum need not be in [0,2π[ right?
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:39













            0












            0








            0





            $begingroup$

            I'm not sure we can use the $w = e^itheta_w$ here because this is a notation that is partially induced from what he is trying to prove. Here's a proof that doesn't need this.



            So we have $textarg(w) in theta_w$ and $textarg(z) in theta_z$.



            This means $w = |w|(costheta_w+sintheta_w)$ and $z = |z|(costheta_z+sintheta_z)$.



            By multiplication : $wz = |w| |z| ((cos theta_w cos theta_z - sin theta_w sin theta_z) + i (cos theta_w sin theta_z + sin theta_w cos theta_z))$ which happens to be equal to $|w| |z| (cos (theta_w + theta_z) + i sin (theta_w + theta_z)).$



            Hence, noting $wz = x + iy$ and identifying the real and the imaginary part, we have $dfrac x wz = cos (theta_w + theta_z)$ and $dfrac y wz = sin (theta_w + theta_z)$.



            This is the definition of $(theta_w + theta_z)$ belonging to $textarg(wz)$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$



            I'm not sure we can use the $w = e^itheta_w$ here because this is a notation that is partially induced from what he is trying to prove. Here's a proof that doesn't need this.



            So we have $textarg(w) in theta_w$ and $textarg(z) in theta_z$.



            This means $w = |w|(costheta_w+sintheta_w)$ and $z = |z|(costheta_z+sintheta_z)$.



            By multiplication : $wz = |w| |z| ((cos theta_w cos theta_z - sin theta_w sin theta_z) + i (cos theta_w sin theta_z + sin theta_w cos theta_z))$ which happens to be equal to $|w| |z| (cos (theta_w + theta_z) + i sin (theta_w + theta_z)).$



            Hence, noting $wz = x + iy$ and identifying the real and the imaginary part, we have $dfrac x wz = cos (theta_w + theta_z)$ and $dfrac y wz = sin (theta_w + theta_z)$.



            This is the definition of $(theta_w + theta_z)$ belonging to $textarg(wz)$.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Sep 11 '14 at 6:50

























            answered Sep 9 '14 at 19:50









            TraklonTraklon

            2,71711127




            2,71711127











            • $begingroup$
              Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:02











            • $begingroup$
              @Did Yes, $-i$ and $-2i$ have the same argument. Draw them on the complex plane. E: Wait, there's another discussion on a comment with same content (by Did) in a different answer. :confused:
              $endgroup$
              – kekkonen
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:58







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Did I added the definition of argz to the question hoping it would resolve any confusions
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:35






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @did Yes it works for sets but not always for principal arguments
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:36






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Traklonq the sum need not be in [0,2π[ right?
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:39
















            • $begingroup$
              Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
              $endgroup$
              – Did
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:02











            • $begingroup$
              @Did Yes, $-i$ and $-2i$ have the same argument. Draw them on the complex plane. E: Wait, there's another discussion on a comment with same content (by Did) in a different answer. :confused:
              $endgroup$
              – kekkonen
              Sep 9 '14 at 21:58







            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Did I added the definition of argz to the question hoping it would resolve any confusions
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:35






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @did Yes it works for sets but not always for principal arguments
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:36






            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @Traklonq the sum need not be in [0,2π[ right?
              $endgroup$
              – Heisenberg
              Sep 11 '14 at 3:39















            $begingroup$
            Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:02





            $begingroup$
            Since $arg(-1+i)=3pi/4$ and $(-1+i)^2=-2i$, your answer means that $arg(-2i)=3pi/4+3pi/4=3pi/2$? I thought that $arg(-i)$ was equal to $-pi/2$. Please explain.
            $endgroup$
            – Did
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:02













            $begingroup$
            @Did Yes, $-i$ and $-2i$ have the same argument. Draw them on the complex plane. E: Wait, there's another discussion on a comment with same content (by Did) in a different answer. :confused:
            $endgroup$
            – kekkonen
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:58





            $begingroup$
            @Did Yes, $-i$ and $-2i$ have the same argument. Draw them on the complex plane. E: Wait, there's another discussion on a comment with same content (by Did) in a different answer. :confused:
            $endgroup$
            – kekkonen
            Sep 9 '14 at 21:58





            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @Did I added the definition of argz to the question hoping it would resolve any confusions
            $endgroup$
            – Heisenberg
            Sep 11 '14 at 3:35




            $begingroup$
            @Did I added the definition of argz to the question hoping it would resolve any confusions
            $endgroup$
            – Heisenberg
            Sep 11 '14 at 3:35




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @did Yes it works for sets but not always for principal arguments
            $endgroup$
            – Heisenberg
            Sep 11 '14 at 3:36




            $begingroup$
            @did Yes it works for sets but not always for principal arguments
            $endgroup$
            – Heisenberg
            Sep 11 '14 at 3:36




            1




            1




            $begingroup$
            @Traklonq the sum need not be in [0,2π[ right?
            $endgroup$
            – Heisenberg
            Sep 11 '14 at 3:39




            $begingroup$
            @Traklonq the sum need not be in [0,2π[ right?
            $endgroup$
            – Heisenberg
            Sep 11 '14 at 3:39

















            draft saved

            draft discarded
















































            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.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f925296%2fproving-argzw-argz-argw%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

            random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

            Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye