Thanks,  It shows that I haven't been teaching high school algebra in quite a 
few years.  

Linda

-----Original Message-----
From: programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com 
[mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Aai
Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 4:45 AM
To: programm...@jsoftware.com
Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] A complex question?


1 / (a + b i) = (a - b i) / ((a + b i) (a - b i)) = (a - b i) / (a^2 + b ^2)

conjugate (a + b i ) = a - b i

Your example:

((];;)+) _3j4
┌─────┬────┬─────┐
│_3j_4│_3j4│_3j_4│
└─────┴────┴─────┘
((];*)+) _3j4
┌─────┬──┐
│_3j_4│25│
└─────┴──┘
((]%*)+) _3j4
_0.12j_0.16



On 17-12-13 09:36, Linda Alvord wrote:
> So now I realize I don't understand how to get the reciprocal of a 
> complex number.
>
>     % _3j4
> _0.12j_0.16
>
> Linda
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
> [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of Linda 
> Alvord
> Sent: Tuesday, December 17, 2013 3:09 AM To:programm...@jsoftware.com
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] A complex question?
>
> Is this a true statement?
>
>     NB. Taking the logarithm of the reciprocal of a
>     NB. number changes the sign of all parts of the logarithm
>     NB. the original number.
>     
>     N=: 4 2 1 0 0.5 0.25
>     
>     ^. N
> 1.38629 0.693147 0 __ _0.693147 _1.38629
>     
>     ]R=: % N
> 0.25 0.5 1 _ 2 4
>     
>     ^. R
> _1.38629 _0.693147 0 _ 0.693147 1.38629
>     
>     C=:1j1 _1j1 _1j_1 1j_1
>     
>     ^.C
> 0.346574j0.785398 0.346574j2.35619 0.346574j_2.35619 
> 0.346574j_0.785398
>     
>     ]RC=: % C
> 0.5j_0.5 _0.5j_0.5 _0.5j0.5 0.5j0.5
>     
>     ^. RC
> _0.346574j_0.785398 _0.346574j_2.35619 _0.346574j2.35619 
> _0.346574j0.785398
>     
> Linda
>
> From:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
> [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of km
> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 10:54 PM To:programm...@jsoftware.com
> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] A complex question?
>
> Off topic: I now know that taking the logarithm of the reciprocal of a 
> non-zero real number changes the sign of the real part of the 
> logarithm of the original number:
>
>     csrp NB. change sign of real part
> (1r2 * -@(+ +) + (- +))"0
>     csrp 1j2 _3j_4
> _1j2 3j_4
>     ]rr =: 1 % 4 2 1 0.5 0.25  NB. non-zero reals
> 0.25 0.5 1 2 4
>     (^.@% -: csrp@^.) rr
> 1
>     (^.@% -: csrp@^.) -rr
> 1
>
> --Kip
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 7:02 PM, "Dan Bron"<j...@bron.us>  wrote:
>>
>> Not sure.  I suppose instead of
>>
>>     -@^.@(+/&.:*:)
>>
>> we could write:
>>
>>     ^.@%@(+/&.:*:)
>>
>> or even:
>>
>>     ^.@(+/&.:(*: :. (^&_0.5) ) )
>>
>> But I'm not sure what this buys us.
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com
>> [mailto:programming-boun...@forums.jsoftware.com] On Behalf Of km
>> Sent: Monday, December 16, 2013 7:49 PM To:programm...@jsoftware.com
>> Subject: Re: [Jprogramming] A complex question?
>>
>> Dan, I haven't been following this thread, but know that minus the 
>> logarithm of a positive number is the logarithm of the reciprocal.  
>> Is
> that relevant?
>>    ^. 1r4 1r2 1 2 4
>> _1.38629 _0.693147 0 0.693147 1.38629
>>
>>
>> --Kip
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>>> On Dec 16, 2013, at 3:42 PM, Dan Bron<j...@bron.us>  wrote:
>>>
>>> Raul wrote:
>>>> Is there a better way of doing this?
>>>>   {: +. r.inv j./1 1
>>> Marshall responded:
>>>> You can also use (+/&.:*:) in place of |@j./ , leaving you with
>>>> -@^.@(+/&.:*:)"1
>>> Raul wrote:
>>>> Experimenting: the - is necessary and the ^. is not necessary.
>>>> (I do not get a hexagon without the minus, I do get a hexagon 
>>>> without the ^.).
>>>> Immediately after writing this I realized the - is also unnecessary
>>>> - changing >./ to <./
>>> What I love is that through some simple trig and a few experiments, 
>>> we got from {:@+.@(r.^:_1)@(j./) to +/&.:*: .
>>>
>>> I suppose I find this particularly gratifying because I spent some 
>>> time trying to restate Raul's phrase in terms of simple arithmetic 
>>> operations, staying entirely in the real domain, and I eventually 
>>> reproduced Marshall's verb.  Having spent so much time 
>>> "simplifying", when I got the final, irreducible result, I wondered 
>>> at the need for -@^. , and what its physical interpretation was.
>>>
>>> Raul's original verb could be rendered in English as "the length 
>>> component of a polar coordinate (initially specified in Cartesian 
>>> terms)".  Why should that length be expressed as the negative log of 
>>> a distance?  Why not, as Don put it, "the raw distance"?
>>>
>>> I know there are subtle and beautiful connections between the 
>>> trigonometric and exponential functions, and the e hidden in r. is 
>>> one expression of that.  But I'm still not seeing the fundamental 
>>> physical
>> interpretation.
>>> In other words, I wasn't surprised with the -@^. disappeared in 
>>> Raul's use case; I might've been more surprised if it'd persisted.
>>>
>>> Anyone want to help me see it? Maybe the best illustration would be 
>>> a concrete use case where the -@^. isn't superfluous - one where 
>>> where it is not only necessary, but inevitable?
>>>
>>> That is, a use case where -@^. has obvious physical interpretation, 
>>> when applied to the distance. Ideally one like Raul's, which 
>>> ultimately didn't involve complex numbers (i.e. a real-valued binary 
>>> [dyadic] operation on real numbers).
>>>
>>> -Dan
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>> - For information about J forums see 
>>> http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> - For information about J forums 
>> seehttp://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> - For information about J forums 
>> seehttp://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums seehttp://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums seehttp://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> For information about J forums seehttp://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

--
Met vriendelijke groet,
@@i = Arie Groeneveld

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm

Reply via email to