Gaussian Integral Using Residues

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the challenges of evaluating the Gaussian integral using contour integration. The user initially attempts to show that the integral I = ∫ e^(-x^2) dx equals zero by analyzing a contour integral in the upper half-plane. However, they realize that the Gaussian function diverges on the arc of the contour, leading to a contradiction where the integral appears to be zero instead of the expected √π. Participants suggest that contour integration may not be the best approach for this integral, pointing out that oscillations complicate the evaluation. Ultimately, the user seeks alternative methods for solving the Gaussian integral through complex integration.
ghotra
Messages
53
Reaction score
0
I am trying to to the Gaussian integral using contour integration.

What terrible mistake have I made.

<br /> I = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-x^2} \mathrm{d}x<br />

I consider the following integral:

<br /> \int_C \mathrm{e}^{-z^2} \mathrm{d}z<br />

where C is the half-circle (of infinite radius) in the upper-half plane.
There are no singularities in the upper-half plane. So,

<br /> \int_C \mathrm{e}^{-z^2} \mathrm{d}z = 0<br />

Now, I can break this integral up into two parts.

<br /> 0 = \int_C \mathrm{e}^{-z^2} \mathrm{d}z = \int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-x^2} \mathrm{d}x + \int_{\theta=0}^{\theta=\pi} \mathrm{e}^{-z^2} \mathrm{d}z<br />

Or...

<br /> \int_{-\infty}^\infty \mathrm{e}^{-x^2} \mathrm{d}x &amp;= - \int_{\theta=0}^{\theta=\pi} \mathrm{e}^{-z^2} \mathrm{d}z = <br /> -\lim_{R\rightarrow \infty} \int_{0}^{\pi} \mathrm{e}^{-R^2 \exp(2\mathrm{i}\theta)}\cdot \mathrm{i} R \mathrm{e}^{\mathrm{i}\theta} \mathrm{d}\theta \stackrel{?}{=} \sqrt{\pi}<br />

I know the answer should be \sqrt{\pi}...so the RHS must give this result! But it does not...at least, I have convinced myself that the RHS actually goes to zero. The exponential dominates the linear term, so in the limit as R goes to infinity, the RHS equals zero.

How can this be...it seems I have shown that the gaussian integral is zero.

I should cry.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
The terrible mistake have you made is the Gaussian diverges to infinity on the arc. You could show that all the integrals of the Gaussian from 0 to points r*exp(i theta) are equal when sin(theta)<=cos(theta). This won't answer any thing though as you would still need to calculate one such integral. I feel that this integral is not best done by contour integration (though it is possible and I have seen it done). There are other easier ways.
 
lurflurf said:
The terrible mistake have you made is the Gaussian diverges to infinity on the arc.
...which becomes painfully obvious when I include the effect of the oscillations. It is true that R->infinity makes exp(-R^2 exp(2*I*theta)) very large...but the oscillation causes it to go back and forth between +infinity and -infinity.

It seems that no matter which contour I pick (as far as infinite semi-circles go), I will have this issue. At iR and -iR, e^(-z^2) will have trouble. Thus, it seems that my contour CANNOT be anything that goes to infinity in the imaginary part.

I know that the Guassian integral can be done easily in polar coordinates...that doesn't concern me. I _want_ to do it when complex integration. So how do you do it?
 
This page about statistics
http://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/
has an article called Information on the History of the Normal Law
in which the desired integral is found 7 ways. #7 uses contour integration
In specific the function f(z)=exp(pi i z^2)/sin(pi z) is integrated on the parallelogram with vertices +-1/2+-Rexp(pi i/4) where R goes to infinity.
Also the oct 98' issue of the American Mathematical Monthly has an article on this integral (actually an integral that this one is a special case of).
 
Here is a little puzzle from the book 100 Geometric Games by Pierre Berloquin. The side of a small square is one meter long and the side of a larger square one and a half meters long. One vertex of the large square is at the center of the small square. The side of the large square cuts two sides of the small square into one- third parts and two-thirds parts. What is the area where the squares overlap?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K