Exponential integral over removeable singularity gives wrong result

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion revolves around the analytical evaluation of the integral $$\int_{-n}^{N-n} \left( \frac{e^{-j\pi(\alpha-1)\tau}}{\tau} - \frac{e^{-j\pi(\alpha+1)\tau}}{\tau} \right) d\tau$$ using exponential integrals E_1(z). The user compares analytical results calculated via MATLAB's expint function against numerical results obtained through the trapezoidal rule. Discrepancies arise, particularly when $\alpha$ equals -1 or 1, leading to undefined values and mismatches of 1 or 0.5. The user attempts to resolve these issues by excluding the singularity at zero, yet still encounters unexpected results.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of exponential integrals, specifically E_1(z).
  • Familiarity with complex analysis, particularly the behavior of integrals involving singularities.
  • Proficiency in MATLAB, including the use of the expint function and numerical integration techniques.
  • Knowledge of the sinc function and its properties in integration.
NEXT STEPS
  • Investigate the properties of removable singularities in complex integrals.
  • Learn advanced techniques in numerical integration, focusing on handling singularities.
  • Explore the implications of using the trapezoidal rule for integrals with oscillatory functions.
  • Study the relationship between exponential integrals and sinc functions in detail.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers dealing with complex integrals, particularly those using MATLAB for numerical analysis and seeking to understand the behavior of integrals with singularities.

divB
Messages
85
Reaction score
0
Hi,

I am struggling for some time to solve the following integral:

$$
\int_{-n}^{N-n} \left( \frac{e^{-j\pi(\alpha-1)\tau}}{\tau} - \frac{e^{-j\pi(\alpha+1)\tau}}{\tau} \right) d\tau
$$

N is a positive integer, n is an integer, \alpha can be a negative or positive rational number.

I want to express it analytically using exponential integrals E_1(z):

$$
\mathrm{E}_1(z) = \int_z^\infty \frac{e^{-t}}{t}\, dt,\qquad|{\rm Arg}(z)|<\pi
$$

In my opinion, the result should just be

$$
E_1(i\pi(\alpha-1)n) - E_1(-i\pi(\alpha-1)(N-n)) - E_1(-i\pi(\alpha+1)n) + E_1(-i\pi(\alpha+1)(N-n))
$$

I compare my analytical results against a numerical evaluation in MATLAB.
I calculate my analytical results by using E_1(z) (expint in MATLAB) and the numerical version by creating a vector and using trapezoidal rule for integration.

Both match for approximately half of my values but the rest is different by absolute values of 1 or 0.5. Sometimes I even get NaN (undefined) values because \alpha will be -1 and 1 at some point and n will be zero at some point. Still, practically this makes no sense and should not happen (it does not happen with the numerical integration too and the result of the numerical integrations is exactly what I expect).

In order to match the results with my numerical integration, I split the integration and leave out the problematic point around zero (\epsilon\rightarrow 0):

$$
E_1(i\pi(\alpha-1)n) - E_1(-i\pi(\alpha-1)\epsilon) + E_1(i\pi(\alpha-1)\epsilon) - E_1(-i\pi(\alpha-1)(N-n))
-E_1(-i\pi(\alpha+1)n)+E_1(-i\pi(\alpha+1)\epsilon)-E_1(i\pi(\alpha+1)\epsilon)+E_1(-i\pi(\alpha+1)(N-n))
$$

I would expect -E_1(-i\pi(\alpha-1)\epsilon) + E_1(i\pi(\alpha-1)\epsilon) and E_1(-i\pi(\alpha+1)\epsilon)-E_1(i\pi(\alpha+1)\epsilon) to be zero. If they would be, numerical and analytical results would match.However, depending on n, they are \pm i\pi (which ultimately results in the wrong result).

Despite the fact the it is a removeable singularity, do I need to care about something special here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry you are not finding help at the moment. Is there any additional information you can share with us?
 
Didn’t get into details, but… you apparently forgot to say that “ j ” is the imaginary unit. If my guess is correct, then the expression under the integral certainly contains sinc function as a factor.
 
Hi Incnis,
Yes, j is the imaginary unit. And yes, it contains some sort of the sinc function. To be precise, I want to integrate parts of the sinc function (this is where my formula comes from in the first place).

I still have no idea why and where I get my mismatch from :( :(

divB
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K