Professional Documents
Culture Documents
2(n 1)] Then take the nth roots of both sides and use De Moirs theorem for rational indices, we shall get 1n = cos Since cos
2k n
1
2k n
+ i sin
2k n
for k=0,1,2,,n-1
+ i sin
2k n
have exactly n roots, they must all be the roots of x n 1 = 0. By definition, they are the nth roots of unity. Proof for nth roots of unity (2) Let z = e n
2i
(Z k )n = (Z n )k = 1k = 1 for k=0,1,2,,n-1 Z k for k=0,1,2,,n-1 are all the roots of the equation x n 1 = 0 As these n roots are distinct, they must be all the roots of x n 1 = 0 By definition, they are the nth roots of unity. NOTE The proofs for nth roots of a complex number (1) and (2) have similar claims as the above Proof for nth roots of a complex number let t k = r n e
1 +2k ) i( n
for k = 0,1,2, , n 1
(t k )n = r ei t k for k = 0,1,2, , n 1 are all the roots of the equation x n ei = 0 As these n roots are distinct, they must be all the roots of x n ei = 0 Proof for Sum of powers of nth roots of unity If k|n, then k = 1, hence
n1 n1
(k )j = 1 = n
j=0 j=0
If k n, then 1, hence
(n k n 1 1)
n1
(k )j =
j=0
(k )n 1 (n )k 1 = k =0 k 1 1
Proof for Euler s formula (1) Let f(x) = (cos x + i sin x)eix f (x) = ( sin x + i cos x)eix + (cos x + i sin x)(i)eix = eix ( sin x + i cos x i cos x + sin x) =0 f(x) is a constant function. f(x) = f(0) = 1 eix = cos x + i sin x Q.E.D.
Proof for Euler s formula (2) This proof may not be 100% correct Use Taylor s expansion for e , cos x , sin x about 0
x
x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 e = 1+x+ + + + + + + 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7!
x
x2 x3 x4 x5 x6 x7 = 1 + ix i + + i i + 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 2 4 6 3 x x x x x5 x7 = (1 + + ) + i (x + + ) 2! 4! 6! 3! 5! 7! = cos x + i sin x Proof for De Moirs Theorem By induction on n Prove it when n=0 Then start by (cos x + i sin x)m and use the above proved results (cos x + i sin x)n = cos(nx) + i sin(nx) for n Proof for De Moirs Theorem for rational indices
(cos
px q
+ i sin
px q
Derivation of De Moirs Theorem (cos x + i sin x)n = (eix ) = ei(nx) = cos(nx) + i sin(nx) The above formula is valid for n , though the original theorem is only for n
n