Complex analysis: residue integration question

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating a complex integral involving residues, specifically the integral \(\int_{c} \frac{30z^2-23z+5}{(2z-1)^2(3z-1)}dz\) over the unit circle. Participants explore the calculation of residues at poles within the integration region, addressing both the methodology and the application of residue formulas.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant initially computes residues at the poles \(z=\frac{1}{3}\) and \(z=\frac{1}{2}\) but arrives at different values than expected, questioning the validity of their approach.
  • Another participant suggests a corrected formula for computing the residue at a second-order pole, indicating that the factorial term should be \((2-1)!\).
  • A participant reflects on their previous method of multiplying by terms creating singularities, acknowledging a misunderstanding of the residue calculation process.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the general applicability of the residue formula and seeks clarification on its universality.
  • Another participant presents their own calculations for the residues, arriving at values opposite to those discussed, and emphasizes understanding the underlying concepts rather than relying solely on formulas.
  • A later reply acknowledges the correctness of the residues as stated by the participant who initially calculated them incorrectly.
  • One participant recommends a method of expressing the function in a specific form to facilitate finding the residue, suggesting that this approach may reduce errors in recalling formulas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct values of the residues, with some asserting their calculations lead to different results. There is no consensus on the correct approach to calculating the residues, and multiple competing views remain throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved issues regarding the assumptions made in the residue calculations, particularly related to the application of residue formulas for different orders of poles. Participants also highlight the importance of understanding the conceptual basis behind residue calculations.

Wheelwalker
Messages
42
Reaction score
1
I'm asked to evaluate the following integral: \int_{c} \frac{30z^2-23z+5}{(2z-1)^2(3z-1)}dz where c is the unit circle. This function has a simple pole at z=\frac{1}{3} and a second order pole at z=\frac{1}{2}, both of which are within my region of integration. I then went about computing the residues using the following formula (which I, mistakenly perhaps, thought was general and applied to any mth-order pole): Res f(z) = \frac{1}{(1-1)!}\lim_{z \to 1/2}{\frac{d}{dz}\{[2z-1]^2 \frac{30z^2-23z+5}{(2z-1)^2(3z-1)}}\} for which I got 2 (this was just the residue for the first pole). The residue I got for the other singularity was 6. They are supposed to be 1/2 and 2, respectively. What am I doing wrong, exactly? Does this residue formula not apply to this case? If so, why not? Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The formula you should have used is $$
Res f(z) = \frac{1}{(2-1)!}\lim_{z \to 1/2}{\frac{d}{dz}\{[z-\dfrac{1}{2}]^2 \frac{30z^2-23z+5}{(2z-1)^2(3z-1)}}\}
$$
That is why you got 2=4(1/2) instead of 1/2 and 6=3*2 instead of 2
 
Oh, wow that makes a lot of sense. I got in the habit of multiplying f(z_0) by whichever term was creating the singularity in the denominator because a lot of the first problems we did would have something simple like (z-1) there. So then, (z-z_0) would equal exactly what was there. Anyway, thank you so much!
 
Ah, and yes that factorial term definitely should have been (2-1)!, although of course it doesn't matter in this case.
 
One more question for you actually. So, is this the most general residue formula? This should apply to nearly any case?
 
I am not very good at computations, but I am getting residues opposite to what you seem to say, i.e. res = 1/2 at z=1/2, and res = 2 at z= 1/3.

My reasoning is as follows: the residue at a, is the coefficient of 1/(z-a) in the Laurent expansion in powers of (z-a). So at z= 1/3 we should have 1/(z-1/3) . g(z), where g(z) = (30z^2 -23z + 5)/3(2z-1)^2. Then when we expand g in powers of (z-1/3), the constant term will be the residue, i.e. the coefficient of 1/(z-1/3) after we multiply by the 1/(z-1/3) out front. so this is just g(1/3) = (30/9 - 23/3 + 5)/3(1/3)^2 = 2.

Then for the other one, at z= 1/2, the function can be written as 1/(z-1/2)^2 h(z), where h(z) = (30z^2-23z+5)/4(3z-1). then the residue after multiplying by the factor 1/(z-1/2)^2, will be the linear coefficient of the expansion of h(z), i.e. should be the derivative of h(z). By the quotient rule, this is (1/4)(7/2 - 3)/(1/4) = (1/8)/(1/4) = 1/2.Am I missing something? My point in doing it this way is to emphasize not memorizing formulas. but going back to the meaning of the concept. But of course one wants to get it right, and I am not super confident after apparently getting a different answer. Or maybe I just misunderstood what was said.
 
Those are the correct residues. I made a mistake in finding them the first time.
 
Thank you. My recommended point of view, as I said, is to write the function as a product of form 1/(z-a)^m . g(z), where g is holomorphic at a.

Then we want the coefficient of (z-a)^(m-1) in the Taylor expansion of g. this is of course just g^(m-1)(a) /(m-1)!, i.e. the (m-1) st derivative of g at a, divided by (m-1)!I suggest this because your error was apparently in recalling the residue formula incorrectly. I hope this method makes that less likely, since all you have to recall this way is that you want the coefficient of 1/(z-a). In the product 1/(z-a)^m . g(z), that will be the coefficient of (z-a)^(m-1) in the expansion of g.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K