Complex Integral: $\int_0^1$ Calculation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The integral $\int_0^1 \frac{2t+i}{t^2+it+1} dt$ can be evaluated as $\frac{1}{4} + \frac{5}{8} \ln\left(\sqrt{5}\right) + i\left(\frac{1}{4} + \frac{5}{8}\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right) using techniques such as multiplying by the conjugate and recognizing the derivative relationship between the numerator and denominator. The discussion emphasizes that u-substitution is not applicable for complex integrals, as demonstrated by counterexamples. The correct evaluation aligns with results from computational tools like WolframAlpha, confirming the integral evaluates to $\ln(2+i)$.

PREREQUISITES
  • Complex analysis fundamentals
  • Understanding of integral calculus
  • Familiarity with Cauchy's Integral Formula
  • Knowledge of logarithmic and trigonometric identities
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Cauchy's Integral Theorem in complex integration
  • Learn about residue theory and its applications in evaluating complex integrals
  • Explore advanced techniques in complex variable theory, such as contour integration
  • Investigate the use of computational tools like WolframAlpha for complex integrals
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of complex analysis, and anyone interested in advanced calculus techniques for evaluating complex integrals.

Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
$\displaystyle \int_0^1 \frac{2t+i}{t^2+it+1} dt = \int_0^1 \left(\frac{t}{2} + \frac{i}{4} + \frac{5/4}{2t+i}\right) dt = \frac{1}{4} + \frac{5}{8} \ln\left(\sqrt{5}\right) + i\left(\frac{1}{4} + \frac{5}{8}\tan^{-1}\left(\frac{1}{2}\right)\right)$

Is this correct?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
dwsmith said:
$\displaystyle \int_0^1 \frac{2t+i}{t^2+it+1} dt = \int_0^1 \left(\frac{t}{2} + \frac{i}{4} + \frac{5/4}{2t+i}\right) dt = \frac{1}{4} + \frac{5}{8} \ln\left(\sqrt{5}\right) + i\left(\frac{1}{4} + \tan^{-1}(-2)\right)$

Is this correct?

I don't think it is. Note that the numerator is the derivative of the denominator. What does that suggest?
 
Ackbach said:
I don't think it is. Note that the numerator is the derivative of the denominator. What does that suggest?

U-sub isn't defined for Complex integrals because any closed path would be zero. A counter example is 1/z around the unit circle which isn't 0 and is closed path.
 
What Ackbach suggests is correct because you're integrating with respect to a real variable ($t$), in which case $i$ is just a constant.
 
dwsmith said:
U-sub isn't defined for Complex integrals because any closed path would be zero. A counter example is 1/z around the unit circle which isn't 0 and is closed path.

Random Variable said:
What Ackbach suggests is correct because you're integrating with respect to a real variable ($t$), in which case $i$ is just a constant.

Also, the denominator is nonzero on the integration path.
 
Random Variable said:
What Ackbach suggests is correct because you're integrating with respect to a real variable ($t$), in which case $i$ is just a constant.

I think I understand what my professor means. If we substitute,

$\int_{\gamma}\frac{1}{z}dz = \int_0^{2\pi}\frac{ie^{it}}{e^{it}}dt$

The numerator is the derivative of the denominator so substitutions is viable here as well.

$\int_1^1\frac{du}{u}=0\neq 2\pi i$.
 
EDIT: Erased a bunch of nonsesne
 
Last edited:
Ignore my previous post. It contains a bit of nonsense.$u = e^{it}$ for $t$ from $0$t o $2 \pi$ is the unit circle.

So $\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{1}{z}dz = \int_0^{2\pi}\frac{ie^{it}}{e^{it}}dt {\color {red} \ne } \int_{1}^{1}\frac{1}{u}du$.

But rather $\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{1}{z}dz = \int_0^{2\pi}\frac{ie^{it}}{e^{it}}dt = \int_{\gamma}\frac{1}{u}du$. And we're backing to where we started.
 
Random Variable said:
Ignore my previous post. It contains a bit of nonsense.$u = e^{it}$ for $t$ from $0$t o $2 \pi$ is the unit circle.

So $\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{1}{z}dz = \int_0^{2\pi}\frac{ie^{it}}{e^{it}}dt {\color {red} \ne } \int_{1}^{1}\frac{1}{u}du$.

But rather $\displaystyle \int_{\gamma}\frac{1}{z}dz = \int_0^{2\pi}\frac{ie^{it}}{e^{it}}dt = \int_{\gamma}\frac{1}{u}du$. And we're backing to where we started.

I just multiplied by the conjugate and obtained the answer without the use of substitution.
 
  • #10
So you said that $\displaystyle \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2t +i}{t^{2}+it+1} \ dt \ \frac{t^{2}-it+1}{t^2-it+1} = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2t^{3}+3t}{t^4+3t^{2}+1} \ dt + i \int_{0}^{1} \frac{1-t^{2}}{t^{4}+3t^{2}+1} \ dt $?

The first integral is easy, but the second integral looks fairly nasty. But that is a valid approach.But I would still make that substitution to get $\displaystyle \int \frac{2t +i}{t^{2}+it+1} \ dt = \int \frac{1}{u} \ du = \ln u + C = \ln(t^{2}+it+1) + C$

Then $\displaystyle \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2t +i}{t^{2}+it+1} \ dt = \ln(1^{2}+i(1)+1) - \ln(0^{2}+i(0)+1) = \ln(2+i) - \ln(1) = \ln(2+i)$ which is the answer that WolframAlpha gives

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integrate+(2t%2Bi)%2F(t^2%2Bit%2B1)+from+0+to+1
 
  • #11
Random Variable said:
So you said that $\displaystyle \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2t +i}{t^{2}+it+1} \ dt \ \frac{t^{2}-it+1}{t^2-it+1} = \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2t^{3}+3t}{t^4+3t^{2}+1} \ dt + i \int_{0}^{1} \frac{1-t^{2}}{t^{4}+3t^{2}+1} \ dt $?

The first integral is easy, but the second integral looks fairly nasty. But that is a valid approach.But I would still make that substitution to get $\displaystyle \int \frac{2t +i}{t^{2}+it+1} \ dt = \int \frac{1}{u} \ du = \ln u + C = \ln(t^{2}+it+1) + C$

Then $\displaystyle \int_{0}^{1} \frac{2t +i}{t^{2}+it+1} \ dt = \ln(1^{2}+i(1)+1) - \ln(0^{2}+i(0)+1) = \ln(2+i) - \ln(1) = \ln(2+i)$ which is the answer that WolframAlpha gives

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=integrate+(2t+i)/(t^2+it+1)+from+0+to+1
Yup that is what I did.
Since u-sub isn't defined for complex integrals, we can't use it even though it may work in some cases.
 
  • #12
Can you quote where in your textbook such a claim is made?
 
  • #13
Random Variable said:
Can you quote where in your textbook such a claim is made?

It is made by Richard Foote.
 
  • #14
I do believe you misinterpreted what he said. Because to evaluate every complex integral by breaking it into it's real and imaginary parts will become ridiculously time-consuming.
 
  • #15
Random Variable said:
I do believe you misinterpreted what he said. Because to evaluate every complex integral by breaking it into it's real and imaginary parts will become ridiculously time-consuming.

I don't do that every time. He wanted us to appreciate Cauchy's Integral Formula, Residue Theory, etc. So we were doing these integrals the hard way. I didn't misinterpret. He had a had a brief discussion about it on Friday when he noticed that some students were using it. That is when he gave the counter example of all closed curves will evaluate to 0 when we know that isn't the case.
 
  • #16
But your assertion that making the substitution $u =e^{it}$ would mean that $\displaystyle \int_{0}^{2 \pi} \frac{i e^{it}}{e^{it}} \ dt = \int_{1}^{1} \frac{1}{u} \ du$ is false.

That substitution, as I already stated, would mean that $\displaystyle \int_{0}^{2 \pi} \frac{i e^{it}}{e^{it}} \ dt = \int_{\gamma} \frac{1}{u} \ du$
 
  • #17
Random Variable said:
But your assertion that making the substitution $u =e^{it}$ would mean that $\displaystyle \int_{0}^{2 \pi} \frac{i e^{it}}{e^{it}} \ dt = \int_{1}^{1} \frac{1}{u} \ du$ is false.

That substitution, as I already stated, would mean that $\displaystyle \int_{0}^{2 \pi} \frac{i e^{it}}{e^{it}} \ dt = \int_{\gamma} \frac{1}{u} \ du$

If you do a change of bounds, you get 1 and 1. e^0 = 1 and e^{2\pi i} = 1
 
  • #18
We made the substitution $u = e^{it}$, and the limits are from $t=0$ to $t= 2 \pi$. Isn't that the definition of the unit circle?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K