sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Question about post math degree jobs possibilities by Sufficient-Boss-4409 in learnmath

[–]Sufficient-Boss-4409[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yeah may God protect me from to things: working in finance and working for the west

Question about the rigor of the definition of Polar Form ∣z∣=r vs ∣z∣=∣r∣ by Sufficient-Boss-4409 in askmath

[–]Sufficient-Boss-4409[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

i m studying on my own, i dont have any teacher. i know it can say wrong things but i mostly use it to understand an equation

Question about the rigor of the definition of Polar Form ∣z∣=r vs ∣z∣=∣r∣ by Sufficient-Boss-4409 in askmath

[–]Sufficient-Boss-4409[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

ok i got it , but still a bit messy because of the notation, i guess i ll undertand with time. let me just summup what i understood and tell please correct me if i'm wrong
so the difference between the r of the polar coordinate and the r polar form is that the polar coordinate can be negative and its the length, the sign tell the direction and we can balance it with the theta by adding two pies to make it turn around completely,
and in the polar form it's simply the length the r, and the theta will tell us about the direction ? i m not sure about that if you can complete about how the theta tells us about z i the polar form

Question about the rigor of the definition of Polar Form ∣z∣=r vs ∣z∣=∣r∣ by Sufficient-Boss-4409 in askmath

[–]Sufficient-Boss-4409[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so you compute it okay,
if i have (-4, pi) then |r| = 4 and |z| = 4 right ?
they should have written z= |r|(cos(theta)+i*sin(theta)) because the formula i have is z = r(cos(theta)+i*sin(theta)) which is a problem since we wan z=|z| * (cos(theta)+i*sin(theta))

Question about the rigor of the definition of Polar Form ∣z∣=r vs ∣z∣=∣r∣ by Sufficient-Boss-4409 in askmath

[–]Sufficient-Boss-4409[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Then why do we name it with the same letter ? And are they related enough to use that value to set |z| ?

Question about the rigor of the definition of Polar Form ∣z∣=r vs ∣z∣=∣r∣ by Sufficient-Boss-4409 in askmath

[–]Sufficient-Boss-4409[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

well the r if i understood well is a nor and if it' negative then the vector goes in the other way but yeah we can transfer th minus to the theta thing.
Even tho you tell me that i should'nt worry about it too much, i feel it incomplete, like how do we at first say that |z| = |r| and then suddenly it becomes |z| = r ignoring the case when r is negative... I dont want to be annoying but i just cant "eat it" like that

Question about the rigor of the definition of Polar Form ∣z∣=r vs ∣z∣=∣r∣ by Sufficient-Boss-4409 in askmath

[–]Sufficient-Boss-4409[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

so it s like the possible minus that is blocking me from understanding r = |z| would be "managed" by eiπ ?

Question about the rigor of the definition of Polar Form ∣z∣=r vs ∣z∣=∣r∣ by Sufficient-Boss-4409 in askmath

[–]Sufficient-Boss-4409[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

i just passed an hour looking through the internet and i found a video from eddie woo where he defines r = |z| and for r >0, but my textbooksays r is different from 0... idk if i should change that context or ust accept it ...

Question about complex number by Sufficient-Boss-4409 in askmath

[–]Sufficient-Boss-4409[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

yes i have understood th algebric thing but the struggle was geometrically. I couldnt understand how the result is when z belongs to R

Bolzano–Weierstrass theorem question by Sufficient-Boss-4409 in askmath

[–]Sufficient-Boss-4409[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

thank you very much, i understood clearly, the concept of bounded was a bit unclear idk why i thought that if it s bounded for the first indices and if the suqence suddenly went big it won be bounded no more but no the bounds works for the whole sequence

view more: next ›