Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community  

Go Back   Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community > The Academy > Tilted Knowledge and How-To


 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 12-15-2003, 09:28 AM   #1 (permalink)
Addict
 
complex analysis help needed.

here's a taste of what i need help on:

{z : 0 < |z| < infinity} is conformally equivalent to {z : r < |z| < R} if and only if r=0 and R=infinity.

i need to prove this, but i don't know how to get started. can anyone give me some pointers?

thx.
phukraut is offline  
Old 12-18-2003, 01:22 PM   #2 (permalink)
On the lam
 
rsl12's Avatar
 
Location: northern va
this is the complex plane you're talking about?

not that that helps--i would have no idea how to prove it...seems self evident...

or is this for a topology class?
__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.
rsl12 is offline  
Old 12-18-2003, 02:16 PM   #3 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Pennsylvania
Thats not complex analysis, that is real analysis. I'd need the definition of "conformally equivalent"
Giltwist is offline  
Old 12-18-2003, 02:42 PM   #4 (permalink)
kel
WARNING: FLAMMABLE
 
Location: Ask Acetylene
Well the sets are identical... one is a synonym of the other through substitution...
The formal way to prove this is if you take the opposite of union (I forgot the formal name for this operation) of the two sets then it should the empty set. This means they are equivalent (I don't know what conformally equivalent is).
As I will show, if you mess with R, or r then you won't get the empty set.

The basic deal is that if R is not equal to infinite, but to some finite number, then the set will always be of a finite size in the positive direction.... So it could never be equal to the inifinite positive set and when you take ~union (the set of all elements that exists on only one set or the other, but not in both) of the two you will not have an empty set. If it is -infinite then you will have an empty set. Whether r is infinite or not makes no difference, I am not sure but in this case if r were infinite or -infinite we would get the empty set, which ~union with the original, is non empty.

If little r were set to anything other then zero then then again the set's ~union would have elements in it, either elements <0, or elements >0.

That basically takes care of the two cases I see here... r != 0, or R != infinity


Don't know if this proof holds water in the crazy set universe.
__________________
"It better be funny"

Last edited by kel; 12-18-2003 at 02:52 PM..
kel is offline  
Old 12-19-2003, 10:04 PM   #5 (permalink)
Addict
 
conformally equivalent means there is a conformal mapping between the sets in the complex plane. conformal means there is a biholomorphic map.. a holomorphic map f(z) is a function with a complex derivative such that df/dzbar=0. thanks for the help.

i attempted to prove this by contradiction. i assumed there existed a map, then by a compositions of maps from this beginning (a composition of transforms) showed that the end result would have to be something that is NOT conformally equivalent to the first set. this would imply that the only conformal mapping of that set which is of the form in the second set, would have to be the identity map.

Last edited by phukraut; 12-19-2003 at 10:09 PM..
phukraut is offline  
Old 12-20-2003, 05:27 AM   #6 (permalink)
Insane
 
Location: Pennsylvania
Ah with that definition of conformally equivalent, that is complex analysis. You must be in a grad program for math, because I am a junior in an undergrad math program and just learning real analysis. I think you are pretty much out of luck finding help here.
Giltwist is offline  
Old 12-20-2003, 10:35 AM   #7 (permalink)
Addict
 
the set theoretic approach was interesting and i would have never even considered an argument along those lines, so it was not a waste to post.

this was a difficult set of questions that i was working on, so i thought it couldn't hurt to try and see if anyone else out there was doing it .

thanks again for the help.
phukraut is offline  
Old 12-20-2003, 10:53 AM   #8 (permalink)
Addict
 
Quote:
Originally posted by kel
The formal way to prove this is if you take the opposite of union (I forgot the formal name for this operation) of the two sets then it should the empty set. This means they are equivalent (I don't know what conformally equivalent is).
at first i thought you meant intersection, but now i know you must mean the minus, ie: for two sets A and B, A\B={x in A: x not in B}. therefore, if the sets are equivalent, then A\B=null.

Quote:

Don't know if this proof holds water in the crazy set universe.
well, at least for standard axioms (ZF?), it works.. to recap your steps:

if we name the two sets A and B respectively, then, if R is less than infinity, then we must have |A\B|>0 because some elements (an infinite number) will not be removed at the positive tail.

if r>0, then once again, |A\B|>0 since some elements (possibly infinite again if we are talking about say hte real numbers) will not be removed about the point 0 (zero).

therefore, A\B=null only if A=B. if A=B, then r=0 and R=infinity.

that's a clever way to prove seemingly obvious facts about sets, i'll use it some day, thx..

i wonder if the same would hold for complex numbers.. since there is no actual lessthan/greaterthan relation on complex numbers, only on their real moduli, could we still use this argument (putting aside "conformally" for a moment and just talking about actual set equivalence)?

Last edited by phukraut; 12-20-2003 at 10:56 AM..
phukraut is offline  
Old 12-22-2003, 06:42 AM   #9 (permalink)
On the lam
 
rsl12's Avatar
 
Location: northern va
can you use a topologic approach?

a donut with one hole cannot be conformally equivalent to a plane; therefore, r=0.

Not sure how you could prove that R=infinity though...
__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.
rsl12 is offline  
Old 12-22-2003, 06:50 AM   #10 (permalink)
On the lam
 
rsl12's Avatar
 
Location: northern va
actually, i just noticed that the signs are less than signs, not less than or equal to. Is this right?

If so, can't you map onto a region

{z':0<|z'|<1} using z'=1/(R+1)*e^it

where R=|z| and t = the angle for z?

i'm stoopid though--i haven't used complex analysis in years...
__________________
oh baby oh baby, i like gravy.
rsl12 is offline  
 

Tags
analysis, complex, needed

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 02:45 PM.

Tilted Forum Project

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160 161 162 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 171 172 173 174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222 223 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245 246 247 248 249 250 251 252 253 254 255 256 257 258 259 260 261 262 263 264 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323 324 325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341 342 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356 357 358 359 360