Gary
GaryVasco
Posts: 3,352
|
Post by Gary on May 6, 2016 5:50:34 GMT
Vasco, I'm working my way slowly through section XI. I haven't quite reached the surprise on page 257, but these exercises should bring me to the brink. nh.ch5.schwarzian_reflection.pdf (210.42 KB) Gary
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 6, 2016 10:30:28 GMT
Vasco, I'm working my way slowly through section XI. I haven't quite reached the surprise on page 257, but these exercises should bring me to the brink. View AttachmentGary Gary Sorry I should have written page 256 and I was referring to the business of the square root and its ambiguities which I see from your attached document is also giving you some food for thought. I have written ambiguities because I hesitate to write sign, since complex numbers do not have a sign in the usual meaning of the word. I am still puzzling over this. Vasco
|
|
Gary
GaryVasco
Posts: 3,352
|
Post by Gary on May 6, 2016 15:40:10 GMT
Vasco,
I had not given any thought to the status of the sign of the square root of a complex number. It seems as mysterious as the idea of sqrt(-1). But (you know all this; I'm thinking aloud) we visualize the negative of a complex number as an antipode of z on the circle $|z| = r$, and the square root of z is just a complex number that multiplied by itself gives z, so both $\sqrt{z}^2$ and $(-\sqrt{z})^2$ equal z. But I suppose that representing z as $re^{i\theta}$ raises a problem. We need $\sqrt{r}$ to be positive unless we think of r as a vector on the whole real line, and $\sqrt{z}$ is usually just $+\sqrt{r}e^{i\theta/2}$, not $\pm\sqrt{r} e^{i\theta/2}$, but $(re^{i(\theta + Pi)})^2$ and $(-re^{i\theta})^2$ are still $r^{2}e^{i2\theta} $ (in some branch). Why would we omit the plus sign when taking the square root of a complex number in the quadratic equation?
As a bit of concrete evidence for retaining both signs in the square root, I found that replotting Figure [31] requires both roots in the quadratic equation.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 6, 2016 17:19:37 GMT
Gary I have been writing a commentary for this last section of chapter 5 on Analytic Continuation, as I did for the one on curvature. I have not finished it yet, but here is a link to what I have written for the suggested exercise on page 256, the one you have attached to your penultimate post. In my document I find that the result given by taking the positive root when the real part of $z$ is $\geq 0$, does not lie on the ellipse and so that will be the reason for ignoring it I think. Vasco
|
|
Gary
GaryVasco
Posts: 3,352
|
Post by Gary on May 6, 2016 20:05:31 GMT
Yes. It is now fixed.
Thank you. I'm working on finding a way to display the tex file in OS X.
Are you referring to the root in the calculation of y, $S_E(z)$, or $\mathfrak{R}_{E}(z)$? If I omit one of the branches of y(x), I get only half an ellipse. When I plot $S_E(z)$ on the points of the ellipse, the entire image with both positive and negative roots plots outside and below the ellipse in a shape that resembles the top half of a bow-tie. When I plot $\mathfrak{R}_{E}(z)$ on the points of the ellipse, the image of the positive branch applied to $Re(z) \gt 0$ lies outside and below the plot range. The image of the negative branch applied to $Re(z) \leq 0$ also lies outside and below the plot range.
Gary
|
|
|
Post by Admin on May 6, 2016 20:26:33 GMT
Gary
Sorry I meant to link to a pdf file. I have edited the link to point to the pdf file. I am referring to $\mathcal{S}_E(z)$
Vasco
|
|
Gary
GaryVasco
Posts: 3,352
|
Post by Gary on May 7, 2016 3:31:34 GMT
I have edited the link to point to the pdf file. Vasco, I like it all, but especially the last two paragraphs which help one to diagnose the behavior of $S_E$. Gary
|
|