Why is the complex number $z=a+bi$ equivalent to the matrix form $\left(\begin{smallmatrix}a &-b\\b&a\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ [duplicate]

Possible Duplicate:
Relation of this antisymmetric matrix $r = \!\left(\begin{smallmatrix}0 &1\\-1 & 0\end{smallmatrix}\right)$ to $i$

On Wikipedia, it says that:

Matrix representation of complex numbers
Complex numbers $z=a+ib$ can also be represented by $2\times2$ matrices that have the following form: $$\pmatrix{a&-b\\b&a}$$

I don't understand why they can be represented by these matrices or where these matrices come from.

No one seems to have mentioned it explicitly, so I will. The matrix $J = \left( \begin{smallmatrix} 0 & -1\\1 & 0 \end{smallmatrix} \right)$ satisfies $J^{2} = -I,$ where $I$ is the $2 \times 2$ identity matrix (in fact, this is because $J$ has eigenvalues $i$ and $-i$, but let us put that aside for one moment). Hence there really is no difference between the matrix $aI + bJ$ and the complex number $a +bi.$

Look at the arithmetic operations and their actions. With + and *, these matrices form a field. And we have the isomorphism $$a + ib \mapsto \left[\matrix{a&-b\cr b &a}\right].$$

What I think of a complex number is a scaling and 2D rotation operation, where the absolute value $r$ is scaling factor, and the phase $\theta$ is the rotation angle.

The same operation can be described by scalar multiplication of a rotation matrix as $$r\begin{pmatrix}\cos \theta & -\sin \theta \\ \sin \theta & \cos \theta \end{pmatrix}$$

Since $r e^{i\theta}=r\cos \theta + ir \sin \theta = a +ib$, we have $$a +ib = \begin{pmatrix}a & -b \\ b & a \end{pmatrix}$$

As to the "where did it come from?", rather than verifying that it does work: this is a special case of a "rational representation" of a bigger collection of "numbers" as matrices with entries in a smaller collection. ("Fields" or "rings", properly, but it's not clear what our context here is.)

That is, the collection of complex numbers is a two-dimensional real vector space, and multiplication by $a+bi$ is a real-linear map of $\mathbb C$ to itself, so, with respect to any $\mathbb R$-basis of $\mathbb C$, there'll be a corresponding matrix. For example, with $\mathbb R$-basis $e_1=1,\,e_2=i$, $$ (a+bi)\cdot e_1 = a+bi = ae_1+be_2 \hskip40pt (a+bi)\cdot e_2 = (a+bi)i = -b+ai = -be_1+ae_2 $$ So $$ \pmatrix{e_1 \cr e_2}\cdot (a+bi) \;=\; \pmatrix{a & b \cr -b & a}\pmatrix{e_1\cr e_2} $$ Oop, I guessed wrong, and got the $b$ and $-b$ interchanged. Maybe using $e_2=-i$ instead will work... :)

But this is the way one finds such representations.

I had something written up on this lying around. The $-$ sign is off, but it's more or less the same, I hope it helps.

Let $M$ denote the set of such matrices. Define a function $\phi\colon M\to\mathbb{C}$ by $$ \begin{pmatrix} \alpha & \beta \\ -\beta & \alpha\end{pmatrix}\mapsto \alpha+i\beta. $$ Note that this function has inverse $\phi^{-1}$ defined by $\alpha+i\beta\mapsto\begin{pmatrix} \alpha & \beta \\ -\beta & \alpha\end{pmatrix}$. This function is well defined, since $\alpha+i\beta=\gamma+i\delta$ if and only if $\alpha=\gamma$ and $\beta=\delta$, and thus it is never the case that a complex number can be written in two distinct ways with different real part and different imaginary part. So $\phi$ is invertible.

Now let $$ A=\begin{pmatrix} \alpha & \beta \\ -\beta & \alpha\end{pmatrix},\qquad B=\begin{pmatrix} \gamma & \delta \\ -\delta & \gamma\end{pmatrix}. $$ Then $$ \phi(A+B)=\phi\begin{pmatrix} \alpha+\gamma & \beta+\delta \\ -\beta-\delta & \alpha+\delta\end{pmatrix}=(\alpha+\gamma)+i(\beta+\delta)=(\alpha+i\beta)+(\gamma+i\delta)=\phi(A)+\phi(B). $$ Also, $$ \phi(AB)=\phi\begin{pmatrix} \alpha\gamma-\beta\delta & \alpha\delta+\beta\gamma \\ -\beta\gamma-\alpha-\delta & -\beta\delta+\alpha\gamma\end{pmatrix}=(\alpha\gamma-\beta\delta)+i(\alpha\delta+\beta\gamma)=(\alpha+i\beta)(\gamma+i\delta)=\phi(A)\phi(B). $$ So $\phi$ respects addition and multiplication. Lastly, $\phi(I_2)=1$, so $\phi$ also respects the multiplicative identity. Hence $\phi$ is a field isomorphism, so $M$ and $\mathbb{C}$ are isomorphic as fields.