MHB 1st Derivative of Cauchy Integral formula

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the first derivative of a function using the Cauchy Integral formula. The user starts with the expression for f(z) and seeks clarification on the second integral in the derivative expression. Another participant points out that the second integral should mirror the original expression but with f(z₀) instead of f(z). This clarification helps the user understand the significance of the f(z₀) term in the context of the integral. The conversation concludes with the user expressing gratitude for the insight gained.
ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2
Hi - I know the final result for the n'th derivative, I am looking though at getting an expression for the 1st derivative of f(z).

From $ f({z}_{0}) = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \oint_{c} \frac{f(z)}{z - {z}_{0}}dz $ we get

$ \frac{f({z}_{0} + \delta {z}_{0}) -{f({z}_{0}}) }{\delta {z}_{0}} =
\frac{1}{2\pi i \delta {z}_{0} } (\oint_{c} \frac{f(z)}{z - {z}_{0} - \delta {z}_{0} } dz - \oint_{c} \frac{f({z}_{0})}{z - {z}_{0}}dz ) $

Where does the 2nd integral on the right come from?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ognik said:
Hi - I know the final result for the n'th derivative, I am looking though at getting an expression for the 1st derivative of f(z).

From $ f({z}_{0}) = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \oint_{c} \frac{f(z)}{z - {z}_{0}}dz $ we get

$ \frac{f({z}_{0} + \delta {z}_{0}) -{f({z}_{0}}) }{\delta {z}_{0}} =
\frac{1}{2\pi i \delta {z}_{0} } (\oint_{c} \frac{f(z)}{z - {z}_{0} - \delta {z}_{0} } dz - \oint_{c} \frac{f({z}_{0})}{z - {z}_{0}}dz ) $

Where does the 2nd integral on the right come from?

I think the 2nd integral on the right should just be a copy of your original expression, right? That is, you should have
$$ \frac{f({z}_{0} + \delta {z}_{0}) -{f({z}_{0}}) }{\delta {z}_{0}} =
\frac{1}{2\pi i \delta {z}_{0} } \left(\oint_{c} \frac{f(z)}{z - {z}_{0} - \delta {z}_{0} } dz - \oint_{c} \frac{f({z})}{z - {z}_{0}}dz \right). $$
 
It's not quite the same, it has $ f({z}_{o}) $ on top instead of $ f({z}) $ and also the $\delta {z}_{o} $ in the divisor in front.

Saying that told me what I was missing (and also what you were saying), it is of course the $ - f({z}_{o}) $ part of the expression. Thanks Ackbach, got it now.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
853
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K