Classifying singularities of a complex function

Click For Summary
The isolated singularities of the function f(z) = 1/(e^z - 1) are located at z = 2nπi for n = 0, ±1, ±2, etc. These singularities are classified as simple poles. The confusion arose from a misinterpretation of the derivative of f(z), which led to the incorrect assumption that the singularities were of higher order. Clarification was provided that for a first-order pole, the product (z - z_0)·f(z) approaches a finite value as z approaches z_0. Understanding this concept resolves the classification of the singularities as simple poles.
TheCanadian
Messages
361
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement


[/B]
Find and classify the isolated singularities of the following:

$$ f(z) = \frac {1}{e^z - 1}$$

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution



I have the solution for the positions of the singularities, which is: ## z = 2n\pi i## (for ##n = 0, \pm 1, \pm 2, ...##) and this makes sense. But the solution also says these are simple poles. This part I do not quite understand. For example, if I take the derivative of ##f(z)##, then ##f'(z) = -(e^z -1)^{-2} e^z## where ##f'(2n\pi i)## is also ##\infty##. Perhaps my understanding of simple poles is wrong, but I don't see any singularities of order 1 when considering the Laurent series of ##f(z)##.

Any ideas on why ## z = 2n\pi i## is considered a simple pole here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If ##z_0=1## is a pole of first order of ##f(z)##, what can be said about ##(z-z_0)\cdot f(z)##?
 
fresh_42 said:
If ##z_0=1## is a pole of first order of ##f(z)##, what can be said about ##(z-z_0)\cdot f(z)##?
Ahh that makes sense. When evaluating ##(z-z_0)\cdot f(z)## at ##z = z_0##, the value is finite. I incorrectly took the derivative above and treated this like a zero of order 1 instead of a pole. Thank you for the help.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K