Contour Integration over Square, Complex Anaylsis

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating the integral of the function \( e^z \) over a closed contour defined by a square in the complex plane. The original poster attempts to apply Cauchy's theorem to show that the integral equals zero, citing the analyticity of \( e^z \). Participants explore the conditions under which Cauchy's theorem applies, particularly regarding the contour's relationship to points of non-analyticity.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Some participants question the completeness of the original poster's understanding of Cauchy's theorem and its requirements for analyticity both on the contour and within its interior. Others suggest that parametrizing the contour and directly computing the integral might provide further insight.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing clarifications on the application of Cauchy's theorem and suggesting alternative approaches such as parametrization. There is an acknowledgment of the need for careful consideration of the function's analyticity in relation to the contour.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of ensuring that the contour does not enclose any singularities of the function being integrated. The original poster's approach may be constrained by assumptions regarding the function's behavior along the contour and within its enclosed area.

Safder Aree
Messages
42
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


Show that
$$\int_C e^zdz = 0$$

Let C be the perimeter of the square with vertices at the points z = 0, z = 1, z = 1 +i and z = i.

Homework Equations


$$z = x + iy$$

The Attempt at a Solution


I know that if a function is analytic/holomorphic on a domain and the contour lies within the domain lies. Then this integral equals 0. I can prove that e^z is analytic everywhere. (using cauchy-riemann) Is that enough to show it works in this case?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let me make the statement more correct. Cauchy's theorem says that an analytic function has integral zero over a closed contour, lying in its region of analyticity, provided that contour does not wind around any point where the function is not analytic. In the case of a simple closed contour like this one, that means the function must be analytic on the contour as well as on the points interior to the contour. Does that apply?

In this extremely simple case, it might be more instructive to actually parametrize the contour and compute the integral over the four sides.

Notice that your less precise statement of the Cauchy theorem, ("I know that..."), would also imply that the integral of 1/z is zero over this contour, which is false. I.e. the function needs to be analytic not just on the contour but also at points "interior to" the contour.

Oh yes, and a contour is normally oriented, but when the integral is zero, it does not matter much for the value, since zero = -zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Safder Aree
mathwonk said:
Let me make the statement more correct. Cauchy's theorem says that an analytic function has integral zero over a closed contour, lying in its region of analyticity, provided that contour does not wind around any point where the function is not analytic. In the case of a simple closed contour like this one, that means the function must be analytic on the contour as well as on the points interior to the contour. Does that apply?

In this extremely simple case, it might be more instructive to actually parametrize the contour and compute the integral over the four sides.

Notice that your less precise statement of the Cauchy theorem, ("I know that..."), would also imply that the integral of 1/z is zero over this contour, which is false. I.e. the function needs to be analytic not just on the contour but also at points "interior to" the contour.

That makes sense. Thank you. I'll just solve the integral.
 
I'm not sure if I am parametrizing this correctly, would you be able to double check where i am going wrong?

So for the path 0 -> 1.

$$z(t) = t, z'(t) = 1$$

$$\int_0^1 e^t dt $$Path 1-> 1+i
$$ z(t) = 1 + it, z'(t) = 1$$
$$\int_0^1 e^{(1+it)}dt $$

Path 1+i -> i
$$z(t) = 1+i -t, z'(t) = -1$$
$$-\int_0^1 e^{1+i -t}dt$$

Path i -> 0
$$z(t) = i -t, z'(t) = -1$$
$$-\int_0^1 e^{i-t}dt$$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
5K
Replies
32
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K