Imaginary numbers have an intuitive explanation: they โrotateโ numbers, just like negatives make a โmirror imageโ of a number. This insight makes arithmetic with complex numbers easier to understand, and is a great way to double-check your results. Hereโs our cheatsheet:

This post will walk through the intuitive meanings.

## Complex Variables

In regular algebra, we often say โx = 3โณ and all is dandy โ thereโs some number โxโ, whose value is 3. With complex numbers, thereโs a gotcha: thereโs two dimensions to talk about. When writing

weโre saying thereโs a number โzโ with two parts: 3 (the real part) and 4i (imaginary part). It is a bit strange how โoneโ number can have two parts, but weโve been doing this for a while. We often write:

and it doesnโt bother us that a single number โyโ has both an integer part (3) and a fractional part (.4 or 4/10). Y is a combination of the two. Complex numbers are similar: they have their real and imaginary parts โcontainedโ in a single variable (shorthand is often Re and Im).

Unfortunately, we donโt have nice notation like (3.4) to โmergeโ the parts into a single number. I had an idea to write the imaginary part vertically, in fading ink, but it wasnโt very popular. So weโll stick to the โa + biโ format.

## Measuring Size

Because complex numbers use two independent axes, we find size (magnitude) using the Pythagorean Theorem:

So, a number z = 3 + 4i would have a magnitude of 5. The shorthand for โmagnitude of zโ is this: |z|

See how it looks like the absolute value sign? Well, in a way, it is. Magnitude measures a complex numberโs โdistance from zeroโ, just like absolute value measures a negative numberโs โdistance from zeroโ.

## Complex Addition and Subtraction

Weโve seen that regular addition can be thought of as โslidingโ by a number. Addition with complex numbers is similar, but we can slide in two dimensions (real or imaginary). For example:

Adding (3 + 4i) to (-1 + i) gives 2 + 5i.

Again, this is a visual interpretation of how โindependent componentsโ are combined: we track the real and imaginary parts separately.

Subtraction is the reverse of addition โ itโs sliding in the **opposite** direction. Subtracting (1 + i) is the same as adding -1 * (1 + i), or adding (-1 โ i).

## Complex Multiplication

Hereโs where the math gets interesting. When we multiply two complex numbers (x and y) to get z:

**Add the angles:**angle(z) = angle(x) + angle(y)**Multiply the magnitudes:**|z| = |x| * |y|

That is, the angle of z is the sum of the angles of x and y, and the magnitude of z is the product of the magnitudes. Believe it or not, the magic of complex numbers makes the math work out!

Multiplying by the magnitude (size) makes sense โ weโre used to that happening in regular multiplication (3 ร 4 means you multiply 3 by 4โฒs size). The reason the angle addition works is more detailed, and weโll save it for another time. (Curious? Find the sine and cosine addition formulas and compare them to how (a + bi) * (c + di) get multiplied out).

Time for an example: letโs multiply z = 3 + 4i by itself. Before doing all the math, we know a few things:

- The resulting magnitude will be 25. z has a magnitude of 5, so |z| * |z| = 25.
- The resulting angle will be above 90. 3 + 4i is above 45 degrees (since 3 + 3i would be 45 degrees), so twice that angle will be more than 90.

With our predictions on paper, we can do the math:

Time to check our results:

- Magnitude: sqrt((-7 * -7) + (24 * 24)) = sqrt(625) = 25, which matches our guess.
- Angle: Since -7 is negative and 24i is positive, we know we are going โbackwards and upโ, which means weโve crossed 90 degrees (โstraight upโ). Getting geeky, we compute atan(24/-7) = 106.2 degrees (keeping in mind weโre in quadrant 2). This guess checks out too.

Nice. While we can always do the math out, the intuition about rotations and scaling helps us check the result. If the resulting angle was less than 90 (โforward and upโ, for example), or the resulting magnitude not 25, weโd know there was a mistake in our math.

## Complex Division

Division is the opposite of multiplication, just like subtraction is the opposite of addition. When dividing complex numbers (x divided by y), we:

**Subtract angles**angle(z) = angle(x) โ angle(y)**Divide by magnitude**|z| = |x| / |y|

Sounds good. Now letโs try to do it:

Hrm. Where to start? How do we actually **do** the division? Dividing regular algebraic numbers gives me the creeps, let alone weirdness of i (*Mister mister! Didya know that 1/i = -i? Just multiply both sides by i and see for yourself!* Eek.). Luckily thereโs a shortcut.

## Introducing Complex Conjugates

Our first goal of division is to subtract angles. How do we do this? Multiply by the opposite angle! This will โaddโ a negative angle, doing an angle subtraction.

Instead of z = a + bi, think about a number z* = a โ bi, called the โcomplex conjugateโ. It has the same real part, but is the โmirror imageโ in the imaginary dimension. The conjugate or โimaginary reflectionโ has the same magnitude, but the opposite angle!

So, multiplying by a โ bi is the same as **subtracting** an angle. Neato.

Complex conjugates are indicated by a star (z*) or bar above the number โ mathematicians love to argue about these notational conventions. Either way, the conjugate is the complex number with the imaginary part flipped:

Note that b doesnโt have to be โnegativeโ. If z = 3 โ 4i, then z* = 3 + 4i.

## Multiplying By the Conjugate

What happens if you multiply by the conjugate? What is z times z*? Without thinking, think about this:

So we take 1 (a real number), add angle(z), and add angle (z*). But this last angle is negative โ itโs a subtraction! So our final result should be a real number, since weโve canceled the angles. The number should be |z|^2 since we scaled by the size twice.

Now letโs do an example:

We got a real number, like we expected! The math fans can try the algebra also:

Tada! The result has no imaginary parts, and is the magnitude squared. Understanding complex conjugates as a โnegative rotationโ lets us predict these results in a different way.

## Scaling Your Numbers

When multiplying by a conjugate z*, we scale by the magnitude |z*|. To reverse this effect we can divide by |z|, and to actually **shrink** by |z| we have to divide again. All in all, we have to divide by |z| * |z| to the original number after multiplying by the conjugate.

## Show Me The Division!

Iโve been sidestepping the division, and hereโs the magic. If we want to do

We can approach it intuitively:

- Rotate by opposite angle: multiply by (1 โ i) instead of (1 + i)
- Divide by magnitude squared: divide by |sqrt(2)|^2 = 2

The answer, using this approach, is:

The more traditional โplug and chugโ method is to multiply top and bottom by the complex conjugate:

Weโre traditionally taught to โjust multiply both sides by the complex conjugateโ without questioning what complex division really means. But not today.

We know whatโs happening: division is subtracting an angle and shrinking the magnitude. By multiplying top and bottom by the conjugate, we subtract by the angle of (1-i), which happens to make the denominator a real number (itโs no coincidence, since itโs the exact opposite angle). We scaled both the top and bottom by the same amount, so the effects cancel. The result is to turn division into a multiplication in the numerator.

Both approaches work (youโre usually taught the second), but itโs nice to have one to double-check the other.

## More Math Tricks

Now that we understand the conjugate, thereโs a few properties to consider:

The first should make sense. Adding two numbers and โreflectingโ (conjugating) the result, is the same as adding the reflections. Another way to think about it: sliding two numbers then taking the opposite, is the same as sliding both times in the opposite direction.

The second property is trickier. Sure, the algebra may work, but whatโs the intuitive explanation?

The result (xy)* means:

- Multiply the magnitudes: |x| * |y|
- Add the angles and take the conjugate (opposite): angle(x) + angle(y) becomes โ-angle(x) + -angle(y)โ

And x* times y* means:

- Multiply the magnitudes: |x| * |y| (this is the same as above)
- Add the conjugate angles: angle(x
*) + angle(y*) = -angle(x) + -angle(y)

Aha! We get the same angle and magnitude in each case, and we didnโt have to jump into the traditional algebra explanation. Algebra is fine, but it isnโt always the most satisfying explanation.

## A Quick Example

The conjugate is a way to โundoโ a rotation. Think about it this way:

- I deposited $3, $10, $15.75 and $23.50 into my account. What transaction will cancel these out? To find the opposite: add them up, and multiply by -1.
- I rotated a line by doing several multiplications: (3 + 4i), (1 + i), and (2 + 10i). What rotation will cancel these out? To find the opposite: multiply the complex numbers together, and take the conjugate of the result.

See the conjugate z* as a way to โcancelโ the rotation effects of z, just like a negative number โcancelsโ the effects of addition. One caveat: with conjugates, you need to divide by |z| * |z| to remove the scaling effects as well.

## Closing Thoughts

The math here isnโt new, but I never realized **why** complex conjugates worked as they did. Why a โ bi and not -a + bi? Well, complex conjugates are not a random choice, but a mirror image from the imaginary perspective, with the exact opposite angle.

Seeing imaginary numbers as rotations gives us a new mindset to approach problems; the โplug and chugโ formulas can make intuitive sense, even for a strange topic like complex numbers. Happy math.

## Other Posts In This Series

- A Visual, Intuitive Guide to Imaginary Numbers
- Intuitive Arithmetic With Complex Numbers
- Understanding Why Complex Multiplication Works
- Intuitive Guide to Angles, Degrees and Radians
- Intuitive Understanding Of Euler's Formula
- An Interactive Guide To The Fourier Transform
- Intuitive Understanding of Sine Waves
- An Intuitive Guide to Linear Algebra

## Leave a Reply

74 Comments on "Intuitive Arithmetic With Complex Numbers"

Great explanation! Here is what i tried to understand the intuitution for multiplication:

We know that any comlplex number can be represented as z=r(cosA+isinA) where r is the magnitude and A is its angle.

Now, let z1=r(cosA+isinA) and z2=q(cosB+isinB)

z1*z2=rq(cosA+isinA)(cosB+isinB)

=rq(cosAcosB-sinAsinB+i(sinAcosB+cosAsinB))

=rq(cos(A+B)+isin(A+B))

so magnitude of z1*z2 is rq(product of magnitudes of z1 and z2) and the angle of z1*z2 is A+B(sum of angles of z1 and z2).

Again, great explanation, thanks!

Hi Ragavendar, thanks for the comment. You got it, by converting to polar coordinates you can see the sine and cosine addition formula emerge. I’ll be writing more on this in a later post, but thanks for providing the details!

If you’re interested in a _fantastic_ text on complex analysis (with gorgeous proofs and arguments), you should check out Visual Complex Analysis, by Tristan Needham.

It’s amazing. And amazingly intuitive.

Thanks Alec! I’ve been looking for a good book on complex analysis, I’ll have to check it out :).

Hello, good article but I think it’s still missing the big A-ha idea with complex numbers, which is their relation to “e” for example when I multiply two exponentials I multiply the bases and add the exponents which is analogous to multiplying complex numbers. when you divide complex numbers you divide the magnitude and subtract the angles and when diving exponential you divide the bases and subtract the exponents.

I guess this connection is manifested in euler’s formula? I don’t get it either, but wish I did.

even though I know those rules work for all bases when multiplying or dividing exponentials not just “e” However e is used in euler’s formula

e^ix = cosx + isinx

Hi Jayson, yep, Euler’s formula is a great use of complex numbers. I’ll be covering it in a later article :).

Khalid,

You are always better explained !! Though most of us knew the concepts before, reading you is an experience by itself !! ๐

Great, glad you enjoyed it! ๐

[…] There’s much more complex numbers: check out the details of complex arithmetic. Happy math. […]

Hey, Here is a basic question from me.

1. Why does complex number came into existance?

2. Why we need to rotate the number?

Sometimes I go dumb and ask such question don’t mind ๐

Hi Maheshexp, check out the article on complex numbers to see why they are needed.

The rotation is one way for us to visualize what’s happening, just like multiplication can be seen as “stretching” a number. We don’t need to do this, but it’s a nice learning tool.

After reading your article (which was much appreciated considering I’m in Calc 3 and still couldn’t comprehend complex numbers past their arithmetic consequences), I got to thinking of a real world example that could help substantiate my thoughts. My ‘a-ha moment’ occurred in the following fashion:

How can you describe an object’s (i.e. a bike) position from you?

Before negatives:

“The bike is 4 feet from me in that direction” and you point in the direction of the bike.

After negatives:

“The bike is -4 feet from me in that direction” and you point in the opposite direction.

My aha moment, considering the use-fulness of imaginary numbers occurred when I pointed in a direction other than the 2 aforementioned ones. If you pointed 45 degrees to the right of the bike, you could say “the bike is 1+i feet away from me in that direction”.

I think what throws people off is the addition sign. Perhaps saying “1i1” would make more sense conceptually even if it’d complicate operations performed on complex numbers.

Thank you very much for this article.

Hi Tim, that’s great — thanks for sharing your insight!

Yes, negative and complex numbers are a different way to talk about where things are. Even decimals are like this: we write 2.3, not 2 + .3, even though we could. Similarly, writing 2i3 might be easier to make sense of than 2 + 3i.

Again, appreciate the notes! I love seeing the different ways people look at the same topic.

There is already a way to write complex numbers without addition in a nice form that avoids addition and even “i”, but it goes under the category of “interesting but useless”: the Quaternary Imaginary number system, base 2i. Donald Knuth created it, and it’s an interesting theoretical idea, but quite useless.

On another note, I’m all for rewriting “a+bi” as aib. It makes it more obvious that it’s one number, and not two separate numbers.

@Zac: Great point — I think I ran across Knuth’s system a while ago, and agree it’s interesting but not very practical. I’d love it if we’d rewrite a+bi into something more “combined” to show that they are really two parts of the same number (just like 3 + 1/2 is better expressed by 3.5).

Thank you, from Argentina

Very well explained. Thank you.

@Paulodic, Roger: Thanks!

Thank you, from Iran ๐

@Reza: You’re welcome!

thnks. a lot. ive been looking for a website like explaining math intuitively. i hope that one day you will come up with an article explaining fourier transform in a similar fashion. again thank a lot.

@Luis: Thank you for the comment, really glad it was helpful. I think the Fourier transform would be a great topic, I need to study it more to move beyond an “academic” understanding into an intuitive one. But once that happens I’ll be writing about it :).

In the division portion, why is (3+4i) divided by the magnitude squared of (1+i) and simply just the magnitude?

@Steve: Great question — I should make this more clear.

==========

We can approach it intuitively:

* Rotate by opposite angle: multiply by (1 – i) instead of (1 + i)

[Note: When we multiply by (1-i) we cancel out the angle just like dividing by (1+i) would. However, we end up scaling the number by the size of (1-i).]

* Divide by magnitude squared: divide by |sqrt(2)|^2 = 2

[We need to divide twice: first, by the size of (1-i), because we multiplied by it above, and second by the size of (1+i), which was part of the original division. Both have the same size (just reflections of the same angle)].

So, we have to divide twice: once for the original (1+i), and again to cancel the “side effect” of multiplying by (1-i) in the first step.

If we wanted, we could just multiply by (1-i)/sizeof(1-i) to remove the angle and keep the same size, all in one step. Then we could divide by the sizeof(1+i) as we intended in the beginning.

Hope this helps!