Thanks for explaining this. I've been self studying Complex Analysis using Zill and Shanahan and tripped on this section. Your explanation makes it very simple to understand.
Hey Jim! I am teaching complex analysis this semester and I am using your phase plotter, so I linked them your video. I think you already know my perspective on this stuff, but I will comment here regardless. A function f: C --> C has a total derivative which is a real-linear function Df(p): C --> C. When I write that derivative as a matrix with respect to the basis {1,i} we get the regular Jacobian matrix. Saying that a function is complex differentiable is equivalent to saying that the map Df(p) is complex linear, not just real linear. This happens if and only if the Cauchy-Riemann equations hold. Also note that a complex linear map from C --> C is just multiplication by a fixed complex number. This justifies just writing f'(p) as a complex number instead of a linear map. Even cooler: the space Lin(C,C) of real-linear maps is a 4 dimensional real vector space (4 real entries in a 2x2 matrix) but it is also (naturally!) a 2 dimensional complex vector space (you can obviously scale a map C --> C by a complex scalar). A natural basis to choose is the identity map and the complex conjugation map (both are real linear). Expressing a real-linear map L:C --> C in this basis breaks it into a complex-linear and a complex-antilinear part. When you apply this decomposition to Df(p) you get (df/dz) dz + (df/zbar) dzbar. The Cauchy-Riemann equations are then equivalent to Df(p) being complex linear, which means the dzbar term vanishing.
Is there some intuitive reason for the negative sign in one equation, but not the other? Maybe I should try to think up a simple example to show myself it is true... Great video :)
Great question. Yes, there's some geometry to do which yields some intuition for this, which basically boils down to the real input and imaginary output being separated by 90 degrees (just like the imaginary input and real output!), but the "sense" is different: in one case, these are clockwise, and in the other, counterclockwise.
the conclusion the change in i output when you wiggle i input = the change in real output when you wiggle real input // the change in i output when you wiggle real input = negative(-) the change in real output when you wiggle i input still we need more deep explanation better than other videos
Your excitement with this beatiful piece of math is contagious! Thank you.
Thanks for explaining this. I've been self studying Complex Analysis using Zill and Shanahan and tripped on this section. Your explanation makes it very simple to understand.
I'm glad you found the video helpful. Complex analysis is the Disneyland of mathematics, so it is great that you're studying it!
Hey Jim! I am teaching complex analysis this semester and I am using your phase plotter, so I linked them your video.
I think you already know my perspective on this stuff, but I will comment here regardless.
A function f: C --> C has a total derivative which is a real-linear function Df(p): C --> C. When I write that derivative as a matrix with respect to the basis {1,i} we get the regular Jacobian matrix. Saying that a function is complex differentiable is equivalent to saying that the map Df(p) is complex linear, not just real linear. This happens if and only if the Cauchy-Riemann equations hold. Also note that a complex linear map from C --> C is just multiplication by a fixed complex number. This justifies just writing f'(p) as a complex number instead of a linear map.
Even cooler: the space Lin(C,C) of real-linear maps is a 4 dimensional real vector space (4 real entries in a 2x2 matrix) but it is also (naturally!) a 2 dimensional complex vector space (you can obviously scale a map C --> C by a complex scalar). A natural basis to choose is the identity map and the complex conjugation map (both are real linear). Expressing a real-linear map L:C --> C in this basis breaks it into a complex-linear and a complex-antilinear part. When you apply this decomposition to Df(p) you get (df/dz) dz + (df/zbar) dzbar. The Cauchy-Riemann equations are then equivalent to Df(p) being complex linear, which means the dzbar term vanishing.
Thank you! this video helped me so much
You're so welcome! I'm glad you liked the animations.
This was a wonderful explanation, thank you so much! I just started complex analysis and had a hard time understanding this from the textbook.
I'm glad you liked it! complex analysis is so fun.
Thank you for this information highly appreciated the effort of explaining the topic 💛
You are so welcome!
Is there some intuitive reason for the negative sign in one equation, but not the other? Maybe I should try to think up a simple example to show myself it is true... Great video :)
Great question. Yes, there's some geometry to do which yields some intuition for this, which basically boils down to the real input and imaginary output being separated by 90 degrees (just like the imaginary input and real output!), but the "sense" is different: in one case, these are clockwise, and in the other, counterclockwise.
This is a cool explanation 👍
beautiful explanation, gave me some extra clarify in my complex variables class
Thanks! I am glad it was helpful.
Awesome 👌
Thanks!
Mark my attendance, Sir!
I like the idea of having a roll call in a TH-cam video!
dope video
Thanks!
Brilliant!
the conclusion
the change in i output when you wiggle i input
= the change in real output when you wiggle real input
//
the change in i output when you wiggle real input
= negative(-) the change in real output when you wiggle i input
still we need more deep explanation
better than other videos
Put a little English subtitles sir it will help us to understand easily
its my humble request sir
thanks my dude, this is great!
We want complex calculus course 😢
Help please
Murilo sent me this video.
best lecture, thanks , where find a note book
thanks man!
You'ew awesome!
Oh thank you!
the conclustion
What is the use of this lesson in the day to day life sir!
this is amazing, need to learn complex analysis to understand a proof in my book using liouville's theorem.
partial
very helpful video
thanks -- I'm glad you found it helpful