Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Suppose $z=x+iy$, $x$ and $y$ are real, and $|z|=x^2+y^2=1$ so that $z=e^{i\alpha}$ for some real $\alpha$. Then for some real $\gamma$, $$ \begin{align} e^{i\gamma} = f(e^{i\alpha}) = f(z) & \overset{\text{def}}{=} \frac{\left(\tan\frac\beta2\right)z - 1}{\left(\tan\frac\beta2\right) - z} =\frac{(\sin\beta)-x}{1-(\sin\beta)x} + i \frac{(\cos\beta)y}{1-(\sin\beta)x} \tag{1}. \\[10pt] & = f(f(x)) + i \frac{(\cos\beta)y}{1-(\sin\beta)x}. \tag{2} \\[15pt] \text{and }\tan\frac\gamma2 & = \tan\frac\beta2\cdot\tan\frac\alpha2.\tag{3} \end{align} $$

PS: OK, now I hope I've fixed the problem of the correct trivial choices between "$+$" and "$-$". Attention to detail and all that . . . . .

QUESTIONS:

  • Is $(1)$ yet another known tangent half-angle identity?
  • The real part of $f(z)$ is $f(f(x))$, where $x$ is the real part of $z$. Can anything similar be done with the imaginary part?
  • (Have I got all my pluses and minuses right?)
  • The right side of $(3)$ is symmetric in $\alpha$ and $\beta$. Is there some way to see that symmetry by staring at $(1)$? (My suspicion: Either this is trivial and tomorrow I'll see that it's obvious, or else it's not.)
  • Discuss applications to geometry and turn it in at 3:59 AM tomorrow.
    [No, this is not homework, and you are hereby instructed not to read this sarcastic final item unless you want to.]

(I'm not sure I've crossed all the "$t$"s and dotted all the "$i$"s$\ldots\ldots$
I'll come back later and check things again.)

PS: Now I'm guessing that the answers will emerge from looking at what happens in $(1)$ and $(2)$ if in $(3)$ one multiplies $n$ tangent half-angles instead of only two.

share|improve this question
2  
Now posted to MO, mathoverflow.net/questions/138491/… --- Michael, you know enough not to do this without posting a link. –  Gerry Myerson Aug 4 '13 at 0:34
    
I posted a link within the m.o. posting. Now someone's migrated that to m.s.e. as a duplicate of this despite the explicit statement at the top that it was earlier posted to m.s.e. –  Michael Hardy Aug 4 '13 at 2:03

1 Answer 1

For some of this, it is useful to view this in terms of the stereographic projection $\phi: S^1 \to L$, mapping the unit circle to the real projective line $L = \mathbb{P}^1 \mathbb{R}$ given by $x = 1$, by projecting from $z = -1$. By elementary geometry, $\phi$ takes $z = e^{i\alpha}$ to the point with $y$-coordinate $2\tan\frac{\alpha}{2}$.

The transformation $\phi: S^1 \to \mathbb{P}^1 \mathbb{R}$ is actually given by restricting a complex fractional linear transformation to the unit circle (it takes $z = 1$ to $y = 0$, $z = -1$ to $y = \infty$, and $z = i$ to $y = 2$, so $\phi: z \mapsto \frac{2}{i}\frac{z-1}{z+1}$). The function $f$ is manifestly fractional linear, so that the analysis of $f$ is equivalent to the analysis of $g = \phi \circ f \circ \phi^{-1}$ as a fractional linear transformation on $\mathbb{P}^1 \mathbb{R}$. The function $f$ fixes $z = 1$ and $z = -1$, so $g$ fixes $y = 0$ and $y = \infty$, and thus is given by multiplication by some scalar. It is easy to check that $f$ takes $i$ to $e^{-i\beta}$; on the $\mathbb{P}^1 \mathbb{R}$ side, $g$ is given by multiplying by the scalar that takes $2$ to $-2\tan (\frac{\beta}{2})$. So $g(y) = -\tan(\frac{\beta}{2}) \cdot y$, and this explains formula (3) (except that I get a different sign).

I'd have to think before answering the other questions. -- Todd Trimble

share|improve this answer
    
+1. But approximately this reasoning is where I got $(3)$ in the first place (except that I used the line $x=0$), so that part is largely the same as what I had already done. If you're right about $i$ going to $e^{-i\beta}$ then I was right to think I might not have been nitpicking enough with "$+$" and "$-$", since I intended $i$ to go to $e^{i\beta}$; I'll check through that again. The part with $f(f(x))$ surprised me and it was so simple to derive it that I thought it must be well within the beaten paths, but I don't see anyone saying so here. –  Michael Hardy Aug 8 '13 at 0:15
    
OK, now I'm getting that $i$ goes to $-e^{i\beta}$ (so neither the $e^{i\beta}$ that I had intended, nor the $e^{-i\beta}$ that you wrote, is correct). I should have written $z-\tan\frac\beta2$ rather than $(\tan\frac\beta2) - z$ in the denominator. –  Michael Hardy Aug 8 '13 at 0:20
    
Well, weirdly I'm now getting that $i$ goes to $-i e^{-i\beta}$. –  user43208 Aug 8 '13 at 0:46
    
Tripping up on trivial choices between pluses and minuses is something I seldom do but that happened to me a number of times while deriving this thing, and that's why I got impatient with those details while typing this posting, and why included my third bullet point and the comment at the bottom about dotting "i"s, etc. –  Michael Hardy Aug 8 '13 at 3:27

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.