I ask for an explanation.

I successfully plotted 5 points on the complex function f[z]=Sqrt[(z+1)(z-1)], with Show[ComplexPlot3D, Graphics3D].

If I use the same procedure and plot the point p1=(1, 1, Abs[g[z1]] ), with z1=1+I, on the function g[z]=Log[z] the program does not work. Why? I attach my notebook.

Attachments:

points onto Comp...nb

A thousand thanks. I wouldn't have solved it without your help.

You integrate on the boundary (Circle[]) and sum the residues in the interior (Disk[]):

ResidueSum[{z(z - 1)/((z - 2) (z - 3)), {Re[z], Im[z]} \[Element] 
   Disk[{0, 0}, 5/2]}, z]

By the Residue Theorem, you need to multiply the residue sum by $2 \pi i$ to get the value of the integral.

Hi Mitchell,

A Circle[] represents the boundary of a Disk[]. If {x, y} is a in point "in" the set represented by the Cirlce[], then the point is on the circumference and not in the interior of the circle. A Disk[] represents the region consisting of the circle and its interior. Since we want the sum of the residues over the interior, we need to sum over the Disk[].

This distinction between a circle and disk was not made when I took geometry in school. In Euclid a circle is "a region contained by a [curved] line called the periphery." That is, it was the same as a disk. It was a little strange when the distinction was made, I think around the time I got to line integrals and Green's theorem. When we got to surface integrals a bit later, I ran into a similar distinction between sphere (hollow surface) and ball (solid, equal to the sphere plus its interior). (They are Sphere[] and Ball[] in WL.)

I think I tried Element[z, Disk[{0, 0}, 5/2]], but it didn't work. I guessed I needed to specify the coordinates since Disk[] is two-dimensional in the two-dimensional real plane. One could specify the complex disk with Abs[z] < 5/2, which is how the examples in the docs are set up.

The section "Bonus materials" of the course is a super-shortened condensate of the course with all the main formulas.

Question on notation in Section 12. Should the equation read the contour integral over C1 equals the contour integral over C2 (it says it equals the contour integral over negative C2)? I believe that C2 is defined as being in the clockwise direction, so the negative sign will naturally arise when the integral is done in the counterclockwise direction.

Are branch cuts in a unique location? In Lesson 5 exercise 3 we are asked to "describe the branch cuts" of the function Sqrt[(e^2+1)]. Given the definition from Wolfram Mathworld "A branch cut is a curve (with ends possibly open, closed, or half-open) in the complex plane across which an analytic multivalued function is discontinuous. For convenience, branch cuts are often taken as lines or line segments." The solution states:

I can see from the figure that there are discontinuities for any line parallel to the Im axis for x>0. Is the branch cut where these discontinuities start or can the branch cut be anywhere x>0?

In Section 11 of the Lesson, shouldn't the first definition of a complex integral be the integral of f(z)dz over the contour (and not f(x)dx over the contour).

In Example 5.3, shouldn't the text read: "In other words, the branch cut corresponds to either z purely imaginary or to z real between -1 and 1."

Shouldn't the Caption to Fig 9 in the book be: "Fig. 9 Vector Plot of z^2" and not "Fig. 9 Vector Plot of z^2 + 1 = z^2"

If f(z)=2+2z+ Sum(z^n), where n = 2,3, ..., Infinity, the output of SeriesCoefficient[f[z],{z,0,n}] is:

1 n>1

2 n==0||n==1

0 True

What does "0 True" mean?

I've worked the quiz problems and they all make sense to me, except for one.The answer I get for Quiz 8, Problem 5 is present among the offered choices, but it's marked wrong by the grader.

I just tried the other three choices and found the one the grader likes, but I don't understand why.

Anyone else experience this -- or know why the answer marked correct is correct? I can get the answer it marks correct if I integrate over only half the unit circle.

As I said, the answers to all the other quiz problems make sense to me.

Hi;

In working with the properties of Harmonic Functions, how is the mean value calculated when you are given the formula of (x,y) along with the radius and center of a circle? I have gone through the course materials up to include unit 18 and have not found anything to help me set-up the problem. Thanks, Mitch Sandlin

Thank you. I'll have it fixed.

Hi;

Is there a straight-Forward method of producing a Stereographic Projection of a complex number? The examples given in our discussion materials seems extremely convoluted with several complex plots joined together with possibly some primitives added in.

Thanks,

Mitch Sandlin

Perhaps the contributed function RiemannSphereComplexPlot[] -- a 3D rotatable Riemann sphere version of ComplexPlot -- is what you are seeking: https://resources.wolframcloud.com/FunctionRepository/resources/RiemannSphereComplexPlot/

Hi Michael,

In my Complex Analysis textbook (Bak & Newman), the Riemann Sphere has unit diameter and sits above the complex plane tangent at $z=0$ (the origin), just as you say. It has the nice property that the equator maps to the unit circle.

In my code, I used a sphere with a unit radius, since this seemed to be quite common in a google search. I thought maybe things had changed since I took the course. The equator in this model is nothing special, though.

I have seen before the Riemann Sphere presented as the standard unit sphere (unit radius centered at the origin) so that the complex plane cuts it in two. This model seems less common to me. It does have the property that the equator is the unit circle.

All three models are effectively equivalent: Any proof or explanation based on one can be translated to another, changing projection formulas if necessary. In all three, the south pole corresponds to $z=0$ and the north pole to $z=\infty$, which is convenient.

Because of this, it seems more a matter of convention than correctness to me. I personally prefer the tangent-sphere models to the sphere centered at the origin. (And I like the unit diameter one better than the unit radius one, but I went with the peer-pressure of google in my previous reply.) Possibly the one centered at the origin is easier to deal with pedagogically.

Hi Tingting,

The only problem is if the "north pole" $N$, the point that you connect with $z$, lies in the complex plane. If it's not in the complex plane, then the line through $N$ and $z$ intersects the sphere in another point $P(z)$, which we may define as the projection of $z$ onto the sphere.

If the sphere is tangent to the complex plane at $N$, then all lines through $N$ and $z$ are tangent to the sphere at $N$. The projection is undefined. (Or all numbers $z$ are projected onto $N$, which is pretty useless.)

Right! the projected points end up on the other side of the sphere. And you were right before: If you use rays from the north pole $N$, then you get what said in your first reply, and the north pole has to be above the $z$ plane to get a second intersection point. (And if one uses the line segment from $N$ to $z$, then the whole sphere has to be above, or tangent to, the $z$ plane. I was used to lines, which avoids concerns about betweenness.)

Thank you, This is nice and will, I hope, give me some basis for experimentation. I would like to define my own shapes on the sphere and see the mapping not the plane.

You are correct, I'll have it fixed. Thank you!

Lesson 9 states "for the limit of a complex function to exist, it must exist no matter the direction by which it is approached." Is a necessary and sufficient condition for this that the limit exists and is the same for all approaches along straight lines? Is it possible for the limit to exist and be the same for all approaches along straight lines but for that not to be the case when approaching along some curve that is not a straight line?

I think @Marco is right. If we are considering arbitrary functions of a complex $z$, here is an example based on a real two-variable example:

$$f(z)=\frac{\left(z-z^*\right) \left(z^*+z\right)^2}{\left(z-z^*\right)^2-\left(z^*+z\right)^4}$$

Along lines through $z=0$,

$$f\bigl((a+ib)\,t\bigr)=-\frac{2 i a^2 b}{4 a^4 t^2+b^2} \,t$$

approaches $0$. Along certain parabolas through $z=0$,

$$f(t a + i b t^2)=-\frac{2 i a^2 b}{4 a^4+b^2}$$

is constant and so has a nonzero limit if $a$ and $b$ are nonzero.

Here is a visual:

ComplexPlot3D[
 ((z + Conjugate[z])^2 (z - Conjugate[z])) /
  ((z - Conjugate[z])^2 - (z + Conjugate[z])^4)
 , {z, -1 - I, 1 + I}, PlotRange -> {0, 1}, 
 MaxRecursion -> 6]

Michael, I've written some code that enhances the ComplexPlot3D display of the function

f[z_] := ((z + Conjugate[z])^2 (z - 
      Conjugate[z]))/((z - Conjugate[z])^2 - (z + Conjugate[z])^4)

The code is in the attached Notebook, file ComplexLimitCounterExample_16nov24.nb .

From the plots, it appears that the values of function f have only two arguments (angles with the real axis) and that they are determined by whether Im[z} is positive or negative. I have not analyzed f to confirm this. Am I correct? Do you see a simple analysis to determine this?

BTW, "Calculus Volume II" by Tom M. Apostol, Copyright 1962 by Blaisdell Publishing Company has on page 70 a simple real-valued function of two real variables that is not continuous at 0 even though approaching 0 along either axis has limit 0. However, when approaching 0 along the line x = y, its limit is 1/2. Here is the function:
f(x,y) = x*y / (x^2 + y^2) if (x,y) != (0,0) and f(0,0) = 0.

Attachments:

ComplexLimitCoun...nb

All code can already be seen, including that for images and animations. You just have to double click on the bracket that hides the input, identifiable by the little upward-pointing arrow:

Double clicking will expand the code:

In Lesson 3, why does the Postfix instruction //Labeled[#,Text[ ...]& result in just one Text for the entire row rather than a separate text for each of the 3 ComplexPlot3D[...] entries in the Row[...] for the following code?

Row[{
ComplexPlot3D[z,{z,3},PlotRange->{{-3,3},{-3,3},{0,6}},BoxRatios->{1,1,1},PlotStyle->Directive[Opacity[0.8`]],AxesLabel->{Style[ToString[Re[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[Im[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[Abs[z],TraditionalForm],12]},ImageSize->160],
ComplexPlot3D[Conjugate[z],{z,3},PlotRange->{{-3,3},{-3,3},{0,6}},BoxRatios->{1,1,1},PlotStyle->Directive[Opacity[0.8`]],AxesLabel->{Style[ToString[Re[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[Im[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[Abs[Overscript[z, _]],TraditionalForm],12]},ImageSize->160],
ComplexPlot3D[1/z,{z,3},PlotRange->{{-3,3},{-3,3},{0,6}},BoxRatios->{1,1,1},PlotStyle->Directive[Opacity[0.8`]],AxesLabel->{Style[ToString[Re[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[Im[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[HoldForm[Abs[1/z]],TraditionalForm],12]},ImageSize->160,PlotLegends->Automatic]
}]//Labeled[#,Text[StringJoin["Fig. 4. Plots of the functions ",ToString[z,TraditionalForm],", ",ToString[Overscript[z, _],TraditionalForm],", ",ToString[1/z,TraditionalForm],"."]]]&

I think I see the answer to my question. The Postfix code is just a function; no Map (/@) is specified.

For figure 2 lesson 3, is the caption correct?

Trying to catch up here. Surely this is a simple question. When plotting Re[z] and Im[z], shouldn't these plots be confined to either the {z, Re[z]} or the {z,Im[z]} planes? I don't see why these plots appear to be surfaces in 3 dimensions.

Thanks!

Attachments:

14381729.nb

I am wondering about the history of complex numbers, Girolamo and Rafel, in 16C. How did they find the need, and what profession both were in? Did mathematician careers exist in 16C?

Thxs, Marco.

I am wondering how you got into complex number analysis. What trigger made you enter this field?

In the European tradition of philosophy, Plato famously asked (demanded?) a knowledge of mathematics from his students. At that time, I think, mathematics was considered as part of Logic which was an essential component of philosophy.

The Pythagorean School (much earlier than Plato) also took mathematics very seriously, but the school looks quasi religious by today's (western) standards.

Can you comment on the significance or the application of the Riemann sphere concept? Why should it matter how lines or circles in the complex plane map to the sphere?

Wow. That needs to find itself into some SciFi story about space travel. Love it. Thanks.

Hi Gerald,

I learned these things back in the 1980s, some facts as an undergraduate but mainly in graduate school from lectures. The professors sometimes recommended books as ancillary materials, but only a few used books as textbooks and followed them. Further, I've been at an institution teaching only 1st and 2nd year students for 30 years, so I haven't taught this or related material for a long time. Nonetheless, I can give you some recommendations, but I personally have not field-tested them, so to speak.

Integrals of the form (2) first showed up for me as an undergraduate in physics. Integrals with the square of 3rd and 4th degree polynomials are called elliptic integrals. The arc length of an ellipse can be expressed with such an integral, hence the name, and they first came to the attention of mathematicians in the mid 18th century. They were studied somewhat intensely in the early 19th century by Gauss, Jacobi, Legendre, and in particular by Abel, who extended the scope to include integrals involving square roots of higher degree polynomials. These are called hyperelliptic or "Abelian* integrals. Much knowledge of them was developed before the Riemann sphere or topology was even invented. These facts give you some keywords to google, but they also warn you that you will find a lot of information about (2) not relating to my remarks above.

I came to know more about elliptic integrals from a sideways direction. I was studying number theory and algebraic geometry in grad school; in particular, "elliptic curves" was a hot topic. They come from the square-roots in the elliptic integrals, that is, curves of the form $y^2 = \text{cubic or quartic}$. In the 1980s, they were thought to hold a key to proving Fermat's Last Theorem (which turned out to be the case). They also yielded a powerful factorization algorithm, which was important because of the then relatively new RSA encryption algorithm. It's truly amazing the connections the integral (2) has to seemingly unrelated branches of mathematics.

It turns out there is a book that "does it all", or almost:

Elliptic Curves: Function Theory, Geometry, Arithmetic by McKean and Moll

The book was recommended to me by a friend, and on that basis, I am recommending it here. It gives an explicit construction of the differential manifold structure on the Riemann sphere, which is fairly simple, considering. It also gives a definition of manifold. So it covers everything that is necessary. However, it is question in my mind whether, having given someone the needed tool, they will know why, when, and how to use it. But it's less likely to be a problem than the general case, because the goal is to understand this manifold, namely the Riemann sphere, not manifolds in general. That aside, it covers elliptic integrals, elliptic functions, elliptic curves (though not the connections to Fermat's Last Theorem and factorization), and a few other things.

For differential topology, it's a bit harder to suggest a book. Many assume the reader is familiar with topology, especially manifolds. General introductions to topology include manifolds and much else that isn't strictly necessary for the question at hand. The following was my undergraduate textbook. I remember liking it and using it as a reference in grad school from time to time. And it seems to have the right scope, at least through, say, Chapter 5, which covers differentiable manifolds:

Singer and Thorpe, Lecture Notes on Elementary Topology and Geometry.

This Math.SE Q&A contains some good recommendations:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/46482/introductory-texts-on-manifolds

These two have a good reputation:

• L. Tu, An Introduction to Manifolds (includes differentiable a.k.a. smooth manifolds†)
• John M. Lee, Introduction to Smooth Manifolds

†Note: Usually there is a slight difference between these two; however, every smooth manifold is a differentiable manifold.

I hope that helps.

You are right, I'll have to fix the exercise. Thank you

You are correct, thank you!

Thxs, Gerald for the updated references. Do any books cover aerospace applications that use complex numbers?

So, I asked this question during the lecture and Marco did not have an answer for it. I had never heard of the stereographic projection of complex numbers. I was wondering if anybody knows of a practical application for it. It seemed to me that it might be used in modulation/coding theory or maybe image recognition problems but I'm just shooting in the dark. Anybody know?

This method is used to produce a map from a sphere to a cartesian plane. Say for example to show a flat map of the spherical Earth.

Oooo, bro set x = s + t so that he can cancel the imaginary numbers in certain conditions. Noice!

Please look at the 3rd question in Quiz 1. The question asks whether a given point is stereographically projected into the lower or the upper hemisphere of the Riemann sphere. In fact, the magnitude of the point is exactly 1, so that the given point lies on the equator. But that's not an available answer.

So, what's the right response?

yeah, I noticed that too. I picked North since the equator was not available. It said it was the wrong answer.