Can Cauchy's residue theorem be used for functions with poles at infinity?

Click For Summary
Cauchy's residue theorem can indeed be applied to functions with poles at infinity, as demonstrated in the discussion. The integral of a function with a simple pole at infinity can be evaluated using the residue at that pole. The limit approach mentioned is related to calculating the residue itself, not the integral directly. An example involving a non-meromorphic function illustrates how the theorem can be utilized by transforming the contour. This confirms the versatility of the residue theorem in complex analysis, even when dealing with poles at infinity.
zetafunction
Messages
371
Reaction score
0
my question is , let us have the following complex integral

\oint f(z)dz where f(z) has a simple pole at z=\infty

then by Residue theorem \oint f(z)dz =2\pi i Res(z,\infty,f(z)

or equal to the limit (z-\infty )f(z) with 'z' tending to infinity
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry, I don't see a question here! Are you asking if it is one or the other of those?

If so, it is the first. The second, the "limit (z-\infty )f(z) with z tending to infinity", is the residue itself.
 
sorry i am not from US or England so my english could be a little mistaken

the idea of the post is: can we use 'Cauchy's residue theorem' even in the case the function f(z) has a pole at infinity ??
 
zetafunction said:
sorry i am not from US or England so my english could be a little mistaken

the idea of the post is: can we use 'Cauchy's residue theorem' even in the case the function f(z) has a pole at infinity ??

Yes. This is useful if the function is not meromorphic in the interior of the contour. Take e.g. the real integral (x^2 - x^3)^(1/3)dx from
x = 0 to 1. You can evaluate this by considering the so-called "dogbone" contour that goes from zero to 1 just below the real axis, encircles the branch point at z = 1 and then goes to zero just above the real axis and then encicles the branch point at z = 0.

Clearly the function is not meromophic inside the contour, but it is outside the contour (if you choose the branch cuts so that they cancel out outside the interval from zero to 1).

If you then perform the conformal transformation z ---> 1/z, you see that what was outside the contour is now inside the contour and what was inside is now outside. You also see that the function is now meromorphic inside the the contour and has a pole at zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K