So, I read this post on the the area of the sine curve some time ago and in the bottom was this equally amazing comment :
Diameter of the circle/ The distance covered along the x axis starting from and ending up at .
And therefore by the same logic, it is extremely intuitive to see why:
Because if a dude starts at and ends at , the effective distance that he covers is 0.
If you still have trouble understanding, follow the blue point in the above gif and hopefully things become clearer.
I really wish that in High School the math curriculum would dig a little deeper into Complex Numbers because frankly Algebra in the Real Domain is not that elegant as it is in the Complex Domain.
To illustrate this let’s consider this dreaded formula that is often asked to be proved/ used in some other problems:
Now in the complex domain:
And similarly for its variants like and as well.
Now if you are in High School, that’s probably all that you will see. But if you have college friends and you took a peak what they rambled about in their notebooks, then you might this expression (for ):
But you as a high schooler already know a formula for this expression:
where , are merely some numbers. Now you plot some of these values for lambda i.e () and notice that since integration is the area under the curve, the areas cancel out for any real number.
and so on….. Therefore:
This is an important result from the view point of Fourier Series!
Say what? This one blew my mind when I first encountered it. But it turns out Euler was the one who came up with it and it’s proof is just beautiful!
Say you have a quadratic equation whose roots are , then you can write as follows:
You can also divide throughout by and arrive at this form:
As for as this proof is concerned we are only worried about the coefficient of x, which you can prove that for a n-degree polynomial is:
where are the n-roots of the polynomial.
Now begins the proof
It was known to Euler that
But this could also be written in terms of the roots of the equation as:
Now what are the roots of ?. Well, when i.e *
The roots of the equation are
Equating the coefficient of y on both sides of the equation we get that:
* n=0 is not a root since
at y = 0