Does anyone know any Approximation methods to find complex zeros?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Edwin
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Approximation Complex
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on approximation methods for finding complex zeros of analytic functions, specifically exploring the function cos(1/z) and its variants. Participants examine the nature of zeros, poles, and singularities in complex analysis, along with the implications of vertical and horizontal shifts in functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Edwin G. Schasteen inquires about simple approximation methods for complex zeros of analytic functions, using cos(1/z) as an example.
  • One participant argues that all zeros of cos(1/z) are real, providing a breakdown of the equations involved in determining zeros.
  • Another participant points out the misunderstanding regarding the function being discussed, clarifying that cos(1/z) = 0 is the correct form.
  • Newton's method is suggested as a viable approach for finding complex roots, with an explanation of the iterative process involved.
  • Edwin proposes that cos(1/z) - 2 = 0 may have complex roots, except for the essential singularity at the origin, and questions the behavior of singularities under vertical shifts.
  • A participant confirms that the function cos(1/z) - 2 = 0 has complex roots and explains why vertical shifts do not affect the location of singularities.
  • Edwin acknowledges a confusion regarding poles and zeros, clarifying that he meant to discuss zeros instead of poles in his previous statements.
  • Another question is raised about the continuity of zeros in analytic functions as parameters are varied, specifically whether zeros can "jump" in the complex plane.
  • A participant questions the applicability of Newton's method to complex numbers, highlighting the lack of a natural ordering in the complex plane.
  • One participant suggests treating the problem as a system of equations in two variables (x, y) to find complex roots.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the nature of zeros and singularities in the context of the discussed functions. There is no consensus on the implications of vertical shifts on singularities, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the behavior of zeros under continuous variation.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their understanding of the relationship between zeros and poles, as well as the implications of shifting functions in the complex plane. The discussion includes unresolved questions about the continuity of zeros as parameters change.

Edwin
Messages
159
Reaction score
0
Does anyone know any relatively simple approximation methods for approximating complex zeros of an analytic function, like say, cos(1/z), for example?

Inquisitively,

Edwin G. Schasteen
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For that particular example, all the zero of the function are real since for real x,y we have

[tex]\cos (x+iy) = \cos (x) \mbox{cosh} (y) - i\sin (x) \mbox{sinh} (y)[/tex]

so that upon setting [tex]\cos (x+iy) = 0[/tex] and equating the real and imaginary parts we require that the system of equations

[tex]\cos (x) \mbox{cosh} (y)=0, \, \, \sin (x) \mbox{sinh} (y)=0[/tex]

hold. The second of these equations is zero if and only if either y=0 or [tex]x=k\pi, k=0, \pm 1, \pm 2,\ldots ,[/tex] and the first equation cannot equal zero if [tex]x=k\pi, k=0, \pm 1, \pm 2,\ldots ,[/tex] so we must require that y=0 in order to satisfy the second equation and also require that [tex]\cos (x) =0[/tex] to make the first equation hold. Hence the only values of z such that [tex]\cos (z)=0[/tex] are [tex]z=\frac{\pi}{2}+k\pi, k=0, \pm 1, \pm 2,\ldots .[/tex]
 
Except that "that particular example" was [itex]cos(\frac{1}{z})= 0[/itex], not cos(z)= 0!

Newton's method works nicely for complex values as well as real values: choose some starting [itex]z_0[/itex] and iterate
[tex]z_{n+1}= z_n- \frac{f(z_n)}{f '(z_n)}[/tex]
 
yes, but 1/z is real iff z (neq 0) is real
 
Thanks! Newton's method would be perfect then!

Benorin has a good point about Cos(1/z)=0 having no complex roots. That function was a poor example, a better choice would have been
cos(1/z) - 2 = 0, which I believe, has all complex roots, except for the essential singularity at the origin. Is this correct? One more question...how come when you shift cos(1/z) vertically by some real valued amount k, cos(1/z)+k, the simple poles move off into the complex plane but the essential singularity at the origin never seems to move no matter how big k is? What, if anything, happens to the essential singularity as k approaches positive infinity?

It seems that poles of finite order can be moved about in the complex plane by vertically shifting the function by adding or subtracting a real valued constant, and by shifting the function horizontally by adding or subtracting the independent variable z by some constant k,
f(z-k). It seems that the only way to shift the essential singularity is by adding or subtracting the independent variable z by some constant k. Is this correct?

Inquisitively,

Edwin
 
Edwin said:
cos(1/z) - 2 = 0, which I believe, has all complex roots, except for the essential singularity at the origin. Is this correct?

yes this is correct (the all complex roots part - a singularity isn't a root!) because [itex]|\cos{z}| \leq 1[/itex] for all real z. The reason that you can't move the singularity by shifting vertically is that the singularity comes from the 1/z inside the cosine. So, for example, cos(1/(z-k)) will have a singularity at z=k (because 1/(z-k) has a singularity at z=k). Also, [itex]\cos(1/z)[/itex] is analytic for all [itex]z \neq 0[/itex] so I don't know what other poles you're referring to later in your post.

Certainly if f(z) has a finite number of poles (of any order) then f(z-k) will have the same number, just shifted by k. And f(z) will never have the same roots as f(z)-k for [itex]k \neq 0[/itex] (to find the roots of f(z) you solve f(z)=0, and to find the roots of f(z)-k you solve f(z)=k). Note that a root is not the same as a "pole of finite order." Vertically shifting a function is never going to change its poles (in other words, for any k, f(z) is analytic iff f(z)+k is analytic).
 
Last edited:
Code:
Also, is analytic for all so I don't know what other poles you're referring to later in your post.

I apologize about that. I was thinking about zeros but my interest is in the poles of a function similar to 1/[cos(1/z)-k]. I meant to say zeros
cos(1/z) - k, but had "poles" on the brain :smile: Also, I noticed that
1/[f(z) - k] is not vertically shifted, g(z) = 1/f(z) - k would be vertically shifted, but, as you pointed out, that would not move the poles of g. Your posts answer my question; thanks!

Another question I have is as follows:

Suppose you have an analytic function f(z) -k, like cos(1/z) - k, that is analytic everywhere except the origin. If you were to vertically shift such a function continuously with time, must zeros of a function, that is analytic in some open disc, that move off into the complex plane move continuously along some continuous arc, or is it possible for the zeros of the "locally" analytic function to "jump about" erratically in the complex plane as k is varied continuously with time?

Inquisitively,

Edwin
 
Last edited:
-Hallsoftivy..how can Newton-method like for complex numbers when you can't "order" them?..for example for real numbers a,b,c,d,e,f,..you can put a>b>c>d>e>... but this doesn't work for complex numbers.

-Perhaps the best method to find complex roots is to consider as pointed by others the function:

[tex]f(x+iy)=0=U(x,y)+iW(x,y)=0[/tex] and consider it as a system with 2 unknown values (x,y) to be determined... knowing that these values must satisfy [tex]U(x,y)=W(x,y)=0[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 53 ·
2
Replies
53
Views
7K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K