Talk:Complex conjugate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| WikiProject Mathematics (Rated Start-Class) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||
| Mathematics rating: | Start Class | Mid Priority | Field: Basics | |||
|
||||||
Contents |
[edit] imaginary vs pure imaginary
"imaginary" could mean pure imaginary... ...and "complex" does not negate "real". Real roots do not come by pairs. So we're on a par. A better idea ? --FvdP
hmmm.... I've always seen them called them "real roots" vs. "complex roots" (in UK terminology at least). I suppose we could say "non-real", but it sounds clunky. -- Tarquin 00:10 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
you may be right about "complex"... it's been a time. (But yet, outside of that "root" context "complex" does not entail "non-real".) I wrote "outside of the real line", more pedestrian but less clunky. Perhaps is the whole think not worth the fuss, either. Too late ;-) --FvdP 00:14 Jan 31, 2003 (UTC)
As far as I know: A complex number z = a + ib, where a and b are real and i is the imaginary unit (i² = -1). Therefore a complex number could be where b = 0, leaving just z = a, a is real. Basically, I think a real numbers are a subset of complex numbers. I'm pretty sure that's the case. Though when you say "complex" you typically mean where b <> 0. (Technically, real roots do come in pairs... r = a ± ib, b <> 0 :-P) -- Deskana (talk page) 19:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Asterisks versus overlines
The article should probably be converted from asterisk notation (a*) to overline notation (
) to avoid confusion with the conjugate transpose. I haven't seen anything but conjugation use overline notation, has anyone else? -FunnyMan 18:02, Oct 23, 2004 (UTC)
I strongly second this proposal: overline is the standard notation in complex analysis and geometry.--FpWl 18:18, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
-
- I've seen both notations in physics and mathematics. At the very least, a section on the different notations should be added. Perhaps I'll do that now... Dan Granahan 16:15, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I also endorse this proposal, if nothing else it helps the article agree with the complex numbers entry. I went ahead and made the change. Thenub314 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "if w is non-zero" removed (small item)
I removed "if w is non-zero" from the following:
if w is non-zero
because I am almost certain that the equality still holds when w is zero. Even though dividing by zero is not desirable in many cases, it is still mathematically *defined* as "undefined" (in most number systems). Please correct me if i'm wrong. Fresheneesz 08:40, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] LaTeX template removed
Hey -- I removed the template, since I did the job. If I missed anything, just let me know! --NicApicella 16:06, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
[edit] typography
I think that the initial definition of z ought to be in a bigger font, but short of doing something hacky, I don't know how to make it so. --anon
- Done. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] "Idempotence", huh?
, Idempotence (i.e the conjugate of the conjugate of a complex number z is again that number)
I've never heard this usage of the term idempotence. Could someone please point me to some references? (Because I haven't found any.) I think this is confusing (if not bogus), and should be removed.
(I know this is stated in the idempotence article, too, and I think it should be removed from there as well.) --Matt Kovacs (talk) 17:08, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I have not seen this particular word used before. Most frequently you see statements like "blah is an idempotent". Often it is first defined in group theory (or abstract algebra) texts. Thenub314 (talk) 18:56, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
