I was looking at the proof of the residue theorem on MathWorld: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/ResidueTheorem.html(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

and got stucked on the 3rd relation.

I don't understand why the Cauchy integral theorem requires that the first term vanishes.

From the Cauchy integral theorem, the contour integral along any path not enclosing a pole is 0. But in this case, the contour [tex]\gamma[/tex] encloses [tex]z_{0}[/tex] which is a pole of [tex](z-z_{0})^{n}[/tex] for [tex]n \in \{-\infty,...,-2\}[/tex]

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Cauchy integral theorem

Loading...

Similar Threads for Cauchy integral theorem |
---|

I How to derive this log related integration formula? |

I An integration Solution |

B I Feel Weird Using Integral Tables |

B Methods of integration: direct and indirect substitution |

A Getting a finite result from a non-converging integral |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**