so the total product of all diagonals is n^2, accounting for each vertex. i imagine if someone told me that fact, i'd not be sure how to prove it. fascinating, another great video Dr. Barker. i always look forward to your videos!
@adrienanderson74398 ай бұрын
correct me if I'm wrong, It seems like n^n would be the result of multiplying by each diagonal and edge exactly two times. This suggests that if we multiply by each diagonal between vertexes including the edges once we would get sqrt(n^n).
@DrBarker8 ай бұрын
Thank you!
@DrBarker8 ай бұрын
@@adrienanderson7439 I think this should be n^(n/2), since there are n vertices, and the product is n from each vertex, but each edge/diagonal is counted twice.
@Sasseater8 ай бұрын
@@DrBarkerspot on
@adrienanderson74398 ай бұрын
@@DrBarker I could have worded my original comment better but I was thinking about the product of all of the lengths of all of the diagonals and edges. I think that you are talking about the number of diagonals and edges. By the way I really like this video for all of the complex number techniques it shows.
@RGP_Maths8 ай бұрын
When I encountered this problem just over 9 years ago, I solved it in a very similar manner, which I think is even simpler. We want the product of |z-1|, taking the product over all z for which z^n=1, except z=1. As you say in the video, this is the same as |product (z-1)|. Let w = z-1, so we need the product of all w for which (w+1)^n=1, except w=0. Expanding the binomial and then factorising we have: w [w^(n-1) + n w^(n-2) + ... + n] = 0. The non-zero w are the roots of the polynomial in the square bracket, and by Vieta's formulae their product is ±n. But recall that we need the modulus of this product, which is n.
@armanavagyan18768 ай бұрын
Thanks PROF pretty interesting and useful)
@jacemandt8 ай бұрын
Since the product has to be n, and since there are symmetrical chords of the circle, the lengths (if they are algebraic) are constrained to contain √k, where k is a factor of n. This is why lengths in regular pentagons contain √5, lengths in squares and regular octagons contain √2, and lengths in equilateral triangles and regular hexagons contain √3.
@DavidSartor08 ай бұрын
This is a great result. Thank you for the proof; I hadn't known one. Just yesterday, I gave this problem to my Linear Algebra teacher.
@themaverick18918 ай бұрын
Thank you so much Dr. Barker. I get to learn a lot for you. I admire your knowledge and passion for teaching. Bless you. 😄
@abdallahmo83858 ай бұрын
A great example of generating functions!
@synaestheziac8 ай бұрын
This is stunningly beautiful, and I’m sort of shocked that I’ve never seen it before! If you don’t mind me saying, I think the question should be reworded a bit. First, it should say “vertex of”instead of “point on”. Second, it should ask for the product of all diagonals *and edges*, not just all diagonals, right? Anyway, thanks for another great video!
@hubertorhant88848 ай бұрын
Brilliant ✨
@Unchained_Alice8 ай бұрын
I knew the roots of unity lie on a unit circle and trace out an n-gon but never thought of doing this!
@Hipeter19878 ай бұрын
So an equilateral triangle inscribed in the unit circle has side lengths sqrt(3).
@greenpewdiepie42078 ай бұрын
Interestingly, for any n-gon inscribed in a circle of radius r, the product of all diagonals from an arbitrary point to all other points on that n-gon is nr^(n-1). This is curiously equivalent to the derivative of r^n with respect to r. Is there any connection?
@firstnamelastname3078 ай бұрын
surprising result
@guruone8 ай бұрын
Nice
@mcwulf258 ай бұрын
Clever!
@sunsetclub41328 ай бұрын
Why can we do z^8 = 1? Is it something to do with the area of the n-gon?
@shreyas7138 ай бұрын
In the complex plane, graphing the solutions to z^8 = 1 would display a regular octagon, which is the polygon we would be working with. To generalize this, graphing the solutions to z^n = 1 in the complex plane (and connecting the points adjacent) gives you a regular n-gon.
@sunsetclub41328 ай бұрын
@@shreyas713 Did not know that, thank you very much!
@Mephisto7078 ай бұрын
5:24 I couldn’t grasp why z=1 suddenly became valid.
@iabervon8 ай бұрын
When we made (z^n-1)/(z-1), this rational function is equal to the original polynomial except that it has a hole at 1 where the original was continuous. Then we found a second polynomial that's equal to the rational function except that it's continuous at 1. We don't know directly that the value at 1 is the same between the two polynomials, but since they're both continuous and are the same everywhere else, they must have the same limit at 1 and therefore the same value. If you poke a hole in a continuous function and that fill it in to get a continuous function, you must get the same function you started with. (And all polynomials are continuous.)