Complex analysis- poles vs. Zeros, etc.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion clarifies the distinction between poles and zeros in complex analysis, specifically addressing the function f(z) = z²/sin(z). The user initially confuses the removable singularity at z=0 with a zero, while the community confirms that z=0 is indeed a removable singularity, not a zero. Conversely, the points z=nπ are identified as simple poles due to the behavior of sin(z) at these values. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding how singularities affect the analyticity of functions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Complex analysis fundamentals
  • Understanding of singularities and analyticity
  • Power series expansion techniques
  • Knowledge of poles and zeros in functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of removable singularities in complex functions
  • Learn about the classification of poles in complex analysis
  • Explore power series expansions of trigonometric functions
  • Investigate the implications of analyticity on function behavior
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those focusing on complex analysis, as well as educators seeking to clarify the concepts of poles and zeros in their teaching materials.

quasar_4
Messages
273
Reaction score
0
I am having a hard time understanding the difference between poles and zeros, and simple poles versus removable poles. For instance, consider f(z)=\frac{z^2}{sin(z)}. we can expand sine into a power series and pull out a z, so doesn't that remove the singularity at z=0? Also, I don't see why n*pi would not also be removable since it doesn't seem to be a problem in the series expansion (but according to my graded homework, 0 is a zero and n*pi is a simple pole)... Can someone help me out here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
quasar_4 said:
we can expand sine into a power series and pull out a z, so doesn't that remove the singularity at z=0?
That's how you remove the singularity. But this operation produces a new (partial) function that is not f. (The difference being that this function is defined at 0 whereas f is not)
 
But 0 is not a zero, it is a removable singularity! :/
 
quasar987 said:
But 0 is not a zero, it is a removable singularity! :/
?? What is your point? Hurkyl's point was that if f(z) has a "removable singularity" at z_0, yes, you can "remove" it but then you get a different function, g(z). g(z)= f(z) for all z except z_0. He never said anything about being a zero.
 
My comment was in response to
quasar_4 said:
(but according to my graded homework, 0 is a zero and n*pi is a simple pole)... Can someone help me out here?
HallofIvy.
 
To try and sum up:
1) Cancel z top and bottom to show that the bottom term -> 1 as z -> 0. So that would remove the singularity and make the function analytic at zero.
1a) Because the bottom can't go to zero, the function must -> 0 when z -> 0. So there is a zero of the function at z = 0.
2) But if you don't cancel the z and stick with the original function, the sin(z) will vanish every time z -> n*pi and the function will go through the roof. So there are simple poles when z = n*pi.

hope this helps.
 

Similar threads

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