Can I Use Substitution to Prove the Residue Theorem Integral?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that integral equation 7.1 equals zero using techniques similar to those applied in integral 7.2. The user explores the application of Cauchy's Integral Theorem, noting that the integral for n>0 evaluates to zero due to the absence of singularities within contour C. However, for n<0, the function (z-z_0)^n is not analytic, prompting the user to seek alternative methods, such as substitution with z-z_0=re^{iθ}, to demonstrate the integral's value. The conversation highlights the importance of adhering to specific methods taught by instructors while exploring complex integration techniques.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Cauchy's Integral Theorem
  • Familiarity with complex integration techniques
  • Knowledge of contour integration
  • Proficiency in using substitution methods in integrals
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Cauchy's Integral Theorem in various contexts
  • Learn about complex function analyticity and its implications for integration
  • Explore substitution techniques in complex integrals, specifically using polar coordinates
  • Investigate different methods for evaluating contour integrals beyond standard techniques
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying complex analysis, educators teaching integration techniques, and anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of contour integration and the residue theorem.

MatinSAR
Messages
673
Reaction score
204
Homework Statement
Prove Residue theorem.
Relevant Equations
Please see the following.
1719052715934.png

Integral 7.2 is ok. I must employ the integration technique used in 7.2 to prove that integral equation 7.1 equals zero. For n<0 we have : $$\sum_{n=- \infty}^{-2} a_n \oint (z-z_0)^ndz$$For n>0 we have : $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n \oint (z-z_0)^ndz$$
According to Cauchy's Integral Theorem, since there are no singularities within contour C, the value of the second integral is zero. But for n<0 , ##(z-z_0)^n## isn't an analytic function so it can be unzero.

How can I show that this integral is also equal to zero? Can I show it by using the substitution ##z-z_0=re^{i\theta}## like 7.2? Or I should do sth more than this...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why don't you use the given anti-derivative?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR
fresh_42 said:
Why don't you use the given anti-derivative?
Thank you for tour reply @fresh_42
Do you mean the anti-derivative term in equation 7.1?
If so, I prefer not to use that method because my professor used a different method, and I intend to use a similar approach to his. I recall that his method was similar to the approach in 7.2.
 
MatinSAR said:
Thank you for tour reply @fresh_42
Do you mean the anti-derivative term in equation 7.1?
Yes.
MatinSAR said:
If so, I prefer not to use that method because my professor used a different method, and I intend to use a similar approach to his. I recall that his method was similar to the approach in 7.2.
I don't think that would be a big difference, but let's see. I did the same as in 7.2. which you suggested in

\begin{align*} \oint_\gamma \dfrac{1}{z-z_0}\,dz&=\int_0^{2\pi}\dfrac{1}{re^{it}} \cdot ire^{it} \,dt=i\cdot \int_0^{2\pi}dt=2\pi i\\ \oint_\gamma \left(z-z_0\right)^p\,dz&\stackrel{(p\neq -1)}{=}\int_0^{2\pi} r^p e^{i p t} \cdot ire^{it}\,dt=ir^{p+1}\int_0^{2\pi} e^{i(p+1)t}\,dt\\ &=ir^{p+1}\left[\dfrac{e^{i(p+1)t}}{i(p+1)}\right]_0^{2\pi}=\dfrac{r^{p+1}}{p+1}(e^{2(p+1)\pi i t}-e^0)=0\,. \end{align*}

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/an-overview-of-complex-differentiation-and-integration/

Was that what you meant?

Edit: The path here was
##\gamma(t)=z_0+re^{i t}\, , \,0\leq t\leq 2\pi##
and the path integral
\begin{align*} \int_\gamma f(z)\,dz &=…\text{ (substitution }z=\gamma(t)\, , \,dz=\gamma’\,dt) \\ …&=\int_a^b (f\circ \gamma )(t)\cdot \gamma’\,dt =\int_a^b f(\gamma (t))\cdot \gamma'(t)\,dt \end{align*}
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR
MatinSAR said:
my professor used a different method, and I intend to use a similar approach
But you aren't going to tell us what it is, hoping we hit on it by accident? That seems...inefficient and likely slow.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MatinSAR
fresh_42 said:
Yes.

I don't think that would be a big difference, but let's see. I did the same as in 7.2. which you suggested in

\begin{align*} \oint_\gamma \dfrac{1}{z-z_0}\,dz&=\int_0^{2\pi}\dfrac{1}{re^{it}} \cdot ire^{it} \,dt=i\cdot \int_0^{2\pi}dt=2\pi i\\ \oint_\gamma \left(z-z_0\right)^p\,dz&\stackrel{(p\neq -1)}{=}\int_0^{2\pi} r^p e^{i p t} \cdot ire^{it}\,dt=ir^{p+1}\int_0^{2\pi} e^{i(p+1)t}\,dt\\ &=ir^{p+1}\left[\dfrac{e^{i(p+1)t}}{i(p+1)}\right]_0^{2\pi}=\dfrac{r^{p+1}}{p+1}(e^{2(p+1)\pi i t}-e^0)=0\,. \end{align*}

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/an-overview-of-complex-differentiation-and-integration/

Was that what you meant?
It seems similar enough to my professor's method for me to use in the exam. I wrote something similar to this as well. Thank you for your time @fresh_42
Vanadium 50 said:
But you aren't going to tell us what it is, hoping we hit on it by accident? That seems...inefficient and likely slow.
Hello. I wasn't expecting mind reading. I was just looking for a similar approach, like what was mentioned above.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K