Sure brightened up my christmas with an interesting questionMerry Christmas Math man from Spiral.
If
Prove that:
Lots of robot love.
yeh i would hate to be my kid tooThis is a terrible present. I would hate to be your child
But Merry Christmas Maths man =)
i didnt see i still had the 2 there...yes root2 is right...and part i is technically not right as z3 = (cis45)z1 not cis-45...and you were meant to use circle geo to do it really easy as if you read part i) closely i use the words "if...are concylic points prove..."Are you sure Part II is not ?
also i noticed the way you proved this question...which i think is mediocre and not in the true fashion of turning LHS/RHS into the other side...but my way uses the logarithm of complex numbers...making the question easy..Merry Christmas Math man from Spiral.
If
Prove that:
Lots of robot love.
Haha. Then you would use the property of Pythagoras and the fact the hypotenuse is of the sides. I can't describe it though. Was sleepy. =.=i didnt see i still had the 2 there...yes root2 is right...and part i is technically not right as z3 = (cis45)z1 not cis-45...and you were meant to use circle geo to do it really easy as if you read part i) closely i use the words "if...are concylic points prove..."
Is this right?Merry Christmas Math man from Spiral.
If
Prove that:
Lots of robot love.
Looks right.Is this right?
Does this proof have to use methods only learnt in MX2? I have a general idea for a proof, but I think it requires the use of the max/min modulus principle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_modulus_principle), but that's meant to be something learnt in 2nd Year. I only know of it because I've been watching lectures and reading up on a bit of Complex Analysis for next semester.Merry xmas BOS!
Umm, I am reasonably sure the geometric situation in mathmans original question is not actually possible, and hence the identity required to prove should never actually hold...maybe I am mistaken.
Here is another question, based on the triangle inequality. It is commonly used as the first step in a proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra:
Well you may be right for part ii)... root2 z1 may not lie on the original circle, however it does lie on another cirlce....but this is only a simple 4u question so it does not matter if it does or does not lie on the original circle....you just need to prove it lies on a circle, which is easily done.Merry xmas BOS!
Umm, I am reasonably sure the geometric situation in mathmans original question is not actually possible, and hence the identity required to prove should never actually hold...maybe I am mistaken.