Evaluating Complex Integral: Over |z|=4 Region

AI Thread Summary
The integral to evaluate is ∫(exp^z)/Sinh(z) dz over the circle |z|=4. The discussion suggests using the Residue Theorem, especially since the problem involves the zeros of sinh(z), which are at z = iπn. An alternative approach using the argument principle is also proposed, highlighting that the contour integral of the first part is zero and leading to a straightforward calculation of zeros and poles. The conversation emphasizes that if the problem does not explicitly prohibit the Residue Theorem, it should be utilized. Overall, the focus is on leveraging these mathematical tools to simplify the evaluation of the integral.
fudgenstuff
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I've been given the problem of evaluating the integral

\int(exp^z)/Sinh(z) dz

Over the region C which is the circle |z|=4

I can't figure out how to do this,I tried parameterizing with z(t)=4e^i\theta but the integrand just seems far too complicated. Any suggestions?

(Apologies for the terrible formatting)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF fudgenstuff,

Have you come across the Residue Theorem before?

I'm assuming that this is homework, for future reference we have Homework & Coursework forums where such questions can be posted.
 
Ah sorry, if one of the mods could move this thread then that'd be great.

The question is from an exam paper,I'm not entirely sure they want us to use the residue theorem here as there's another question on it later on in the paper.
This question follows on from deducing that Sinh(x+iy) = sinh(x)cos(y) + icosh(x)sin(y), and then showing that Sinh(z)=0 only if z= i*pi*n (where n is an integer), so I'm not sure if I'm supposed to use that result somehow?
 
Last edited:
fudgenstuff said:
The question is from an exam paper,I'm not entirely sure they want us to use the residue theorem here as there's another question on it later on in the paper.
If it doesn't explicitly say that you can't use the Residue Theorem then you'd be crazy not to!
 
If they tell you how to find the zeros of sinh(z), they want you to use the residue theorem.
 
Here's an alternative way, using the argument principle. We have
\frac{e^z}{sinh(z)} = \frac{cosh(z) + sinh(z)}{sinh(z)} = 1 + \frac{cosh(z)}{sinh(z)}

Now the contour integral of the first is of course zero, and the contour integral of the second is of the form \frac{f'(z)}{f(z)} which by the argument principle is 2 \pi i[Z-P] where Z and P are the numbers of zeros and poles of sinh(z) enclosed by the contour, respectively. Since you already know the number of zeroes, and since sinh(z) has no poles, you're done.

If you haven't seen the residue theorem, you probably haven't seen this, but it's always nice to avoid computations if possible.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top