A question regarding the order of a pole

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter JmsNxn
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pole
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around determining the residue of a pole for a specific function involving complex variables. Participants explore the implications of the function's form on the order of the pole and the applicability of the residue theorem, as well as methods for evaluating integrals involving the function over closed contours.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether the order of the pole is m, suggesting that the r's might cancel each other out, and proposes a limit expression for the residue.
  • Another participant provides a simpler example with a different function and discusses the integral over a contour, mentioning the residues for different branches.
  • A third participant expresses uncertainty about the original question, suggesting that more work may be needed to solve for the residues of poles defined in the given manner.
  • A later reply calculates the residues for the simpler functions presented, showing different results for each case and providing an integral result for one of the functions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the original question regarding the order of the pole and the applicability of the residue theorem. There are multiple competing views and uncertainties expressed throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the functions involved and the potential need for further analysis regarding the residues and the behavior of the functions around their poles.

JmsNxn
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Hi, I was wondering about how to determine the residue of a pole that is written in the form:

[tex]f(z) = \frac{1}{(1 + t^r)^{\frac{m}{r}}}[/tex]

Here:
[tex]m \in \mathbb{N}\,\,\,\,\;\,\,\,\,r \in \mathbb{R}[/tex]

And if it's possible, r could be complex.

Would the order of the pole be m? Implying that the r's cancel each other out? Would this give the usual residue theorem:

[tex]res(f, e^{\frac{\pi}{r}i}) = \frac{1}{(m-1)!} \lim_{z \to e^{\frac{\pi}{r}i}} \frac{d^{m-1}}{dz^{m-1}} (z - e^{\frac{\pi}{r}i})^{m} f(z)[/tex]

Or does the residue theorem fail all together here? If so, then, is there any way other way of solving the integral:

[tex]\int_{C} f(z)dz[/tex]

When C is a simple closed contour with the pole inside of it. Any help would be greatly appreciated. I didn't post this in the homework section because it isn't a homework question, just a question of intrigue and research. Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First start simple. Consider:

[tex]f(t)=\frac{1}{(1+\sqrt{t})^2}[/tex]
and it's integral over a small contour say [itex]C=1+1/4 e^{it}[/itex] looping just once around the pole over an analytic extension of each branch [itex]w_k, k=1,2[/itex]:
[tex]\mathop\oint\limits_C f(t)dt=2\pi i r_k[/tex]
where [itex]r_k[/itex] is the residue for each branch. Can you use that limit expression for those residues keeping in mind that over the branch [itex]w_2[/itex], the function is actually
[tex]f_2(t)=\frac{1}{(1-\sqrt{t})^2}[/tex]
when [itex]\sqrt{t}[/itex] is interpreted as it's principal value.
 
By the way you seem to phrase it, I'm going to go with 'no'. I guess there requires more work in solving the residue of poles defined in this manner? I'm sorry, but being to new to complex analysis affords me little more reduction of the idea. I still think 'no' though, as hard as I think.
 
For the case

[tex]f_1(t)=\frac{1}{(1+\sqrt{t})^2}[/tex]
[tex]f_2(t)=\frac{1}{(1-\sqrt{t})^2}[/tex]

the two residues are:

[tex]r_1=\lim_{t\to 1}\frac{d}{dt}\left\{(t-1)^2 f_1(t)\right\}=0[/tex]
[tex]r_2=\lim_{t\to 1}\frac{d}{dt}\left\{(t-1)^2 f_2(t)\right\}=2[/tex]

so that

[tex]\mathop\oint\limits_C f_2(t)dt=4\pi i[/tex]
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K