How to compute limit of removable singularity?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aheight
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Limit Singularity
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around computing the limit of a derivative at a removable singularity for an algebraic function defined implicitly. Participants explore various methods to evaluate the limit, including numerical approaches and the application of l'Hôpital's Rule, while considering the implications of the functional dependence of variables involved.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents an implicit expression for an algebraic function and notes that the point (1,0) is a removable singularity, suggesting the limit can be computed as z approaches 1 and w approaches 0.
  • Another participant proposes using l'Hôpital's Rule to evaluate the limit, obtaining different results depending on the path taken in the complex plane.
  • Concerns are raised about the variability of limits based on the approach direction, with one participant noting that the limit cannot generally be determined by taking the limit in one direction.
  • A participant discusses the complexity of numerically finding limits of derivatives along a spiral path approaching the singularity, expressing difficulties in obtaining consistent results.
  • One participant realizes that the derivative expression must consider w as a function of z, which alters the limiting process and suggests substituting known expressions for w(z) to evaluate the limit.
  • Another participant speculates about the possibility of using directional derivatives to find when the derivative of the implicit function becomes zero, although they acknowledge the need for further clarification.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of l'Hôpital's Rule and the impact of the functional dependence of w on z. There is no consensus on the best method to compute the limit, and multiple competing approaches are discussed.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of understanding the functional relationship between w and z when evaluating limits, indicating that without this knowledge, limits may not be accurately determined. The discussion also reflects the challenges of numerical methods in approaching singularities.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying complex analysis, algebraic functions, and numerical methods for evaluating limits, particularly in the context of removable singularities.

aheight
Messages
318
Reaction score
108
I am given an implicit expression for an algebraic function, ##w(z)## as:##f(z,w)=(1-3 z+3 z^2-z^3)+(-4+8 z-4 z^2)w+(6-6 z)w^2+(-4)w^3+(1)w^4=0## with ##\displaystyle \frac{dw}{dz}=-\frac{\frac{df}{dz}}{\frac{df}{dw}}=\frac{6 w^2+8 w z-8 w+3 z^2-6 z+3}{4 w^3-12 w^2-12 w z+12 w-4 z^2+8 z-4}##. And note at the point ##(1,0)## we have: ##\frac{dw}{dz}=\frac{0}{0}##. However, I know ##w(z)=1+z^{1/4}+z^{1/2}+z^{3/4}## and so obviously the point ##(1,0)## is a removable singularity. In fact, ##\frac{dw}{dz}\biggr|_{(z=1)}=\{-1/2,-1/2+1/2 i, -1/2-1/2i,3/2\}##

But I only know this because I have the (fractional) polynomial solution and can compute the derivatives directly.

If I didn't know the solution but knew the point ##(1,0)## was a removable singularity, how could I compute:

##\lim_{(z\to 1, w\to 0)} \frac{dw}{dz}##?

I've thought about spiraling-in to the singularity numerically and maybe squeeze-out the (approx) limits but that process necessarily involves computing a numerical derivative which becomes increasingly indeterminate as I approach the singular point. I could try it I guess. Is numerically, the only way to find the limit if the solution is not known?

Perhaps I should also point out we can write the solution as:
##w(z)=\begin{cases}
1-z^{1/4}+z^{1/2}-z^{3/4} \\
1-i z^{1/4}-z^{1/2}+iz^{3/4} \\
1+iz^{1/4}-z^{1/2}-iz^{3/4} \\
1+z^{1/4}+z^{1/2}+z^{3/4}
\end{cases}
##
where we use the principal value of ##z^{1/4}## in the expressions.

Updated by mfb on request from aheight - July 2018
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Can l'Hopital's Rule help? According to this it is is still valid for complex numbers.

When I apply it to your ratio and take the limit as ##z\to 1## with ##w=0##, I get
$$\lim_{z\to 1}\frac{6z-6}{-8z+8}=\lim_{z\to 1}\frac{6(z-1)}{-8(z-1)}=lim_{z\to 1}-3/4=-3/4$$

On the other hand when I fix ##z=1## and take the limit as ##w\to 0##, l'Hopital gives me -1/2.
 
andrewkirk said:
Can l'Hopital's Rule help? According to this it is is still valid for complex numbers.

When I apply it to your ratio and take the limit as ##z\to 1## with ##w=0##, I get
$$\lim_{z\to 1}\frac{6z-6}{-8z+8}=\lim_{z\to 1}\frac{6(z-1)}{-8(z-1)}=lim_{z\to 1}-3/4=-3/4$$

On the other hand when I fix ##z=1## and take the limit as ##w\to 0##, l'Hopital gives me -1/2.

Thanks. I haven't reviewed, but I'm pretty sure, the limit over the complex plane cannot in general be determined by taking the limit in one direction; we'll get different values depending upon the path. For example, the value of -3/4 is not one of the values of the derivative of the functions w(z) at z=1. And all four are analytically-continuous at z=1.

Also, I'm having problems attempting to find the limits of the derivatives numerically. Need ##\displaystyle \frac{d^2 w}{dt^2} ## for a spiral path around 1 like for example ##z(t)=1+\frac{\cos (t)+i \sin (t)}{2 t}## and that ends up being very messy. This is what I get:

Given:

##f(z,w)=(1-3 z+3 z^2-z^3)+(-4+8 z-4 z^2)w+(6-6 z)w^2+(-4)w^3+(1)w^4=0## and ##z(t)=1+\frac{\cos (t)+i \sin (t)}{2 t}##, then we have:

##\frac{dw}{dt}=-\frac{\frac{df}{dz}}{\frac{df}{dw}} \frac{dz}{dt}## and so the function ##u(t)=\frac{dw}{dt}## is what I wish to investigate by numerically integrating it over an analytically-continuous path so I need ##\frac{du}{dt}## and so using the chain rule and product rule, I get:

## \frac{du}{dt}=\frac{d^2w}{dt^2}=\displaystyle-\biggr[ \frac{\frac{df}{dz}}{\frac{df}{dw}} \frac{d^2 z}{dt^2}+\frac{dz}{dt}\bigg\{\frac{\frac{df}{dw}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{df}{dz}\right)-\frac{df}{dz}\frac{d}{dt}\left(\frac{df}{dw}\right)}{\left(\frac{df}{dw}\right)^2}\bigg\}\biggr]##

I think that's right so then I just start the integration on one of the four branch sheets and numerically integrate for say t=500 and I should be very close to ##\lim_{t\to\infty} \frac{dw}{dt}## and then I assume that I can then write ##\lim_{z\to 1}\frac{dw}{dz}\approx\lim_{t\to 500} \frac{\frac{dw}{dt}}{\frac{dz}{dt}}## to find the limit but not sure. However, my initial attempts to code it produces results not in agreement with the derivatives of the four functions above.

Anyone want to look at the expression and check if you agree with it?

Thanks.
 
Last edited:
I just realized I can traverse the branch sheets of the function along an analytically-continuous path spiraling towards the point z=1, and then plug-in the (z,w) values along the way into the expression for ##\frac{dw}{dz}## above. This will give an analytically-continuous path along the derivative towards the four limiting cases at z=1. This is not at all difficult in Mathematica: Compute the derivative, numerically integrate it for say from t=(pi, 100) to obtain the analytic-continuation of the function starting at one of the four branch values, then use those values in the expression for ##\frac{dw}{dz}##. Lot easier than messing with the second derivative above. Here is the code to do this for the branch sheet having the limit of -1/2+1/2 i and a plot showing how the path over the derivative for the sheet, spirals into the limit. Similar results are obtained starting on the other branch sheets leading to the other three limiting cases.

Code:
theFunction=1-4 w+6 w^2-4 w^3+w^4-3 z+8 w z-6 w^2 z+3 z^2-4 w z^2-z^3
myz[t_]:=1+(Cos[t]+I Sin[t])/t;
startVals=w/.Solve[theFunction==0/.z->myz[\[Pi]],w]//Flatten

wstart=startVals[[4]];
tstart=\[Pi];
tend=100;

wDeriv=w'[t]==((-(D[theFunction,z]/D[theFunction,w]) D[myz[t],t])/.{w->w[t],z->myz[t]})

myazsol=First[NDSolve[{wDeriv,w[tstart]==wstart},w,{t,tstart,tend},MaxSteps->1500000,MaxStepSize->0.0001]];
myDerivTrace[t_]=Evaluate[Flatten[w[t]/.myazsol]];
theDeriv=(-D[theFunction,z]/D[theFunction,w])/.{z->myz[t],w->myDerivTrace[t]};

thelimits.jpg
 
Last edited:
After thinking about this problem a bit I realized that the expression for the derivative:

##\displaystyle \frac{dw}{dz}=-\frac{\frac{df}{dz}}{\frac{df}{dw}}=\frac{6 w^2+8 w z-8 w+3 z^2-6 z+3}{4 w^3-12 w^2-12 w z+12 w-4 z^2+8 z-4}##

is not just a function of two independent variables z and w but must consider w as a function of z. That changes the limiting process: as z approaches 1, w approaches 0 by a functional dependence on z. That changes everything! We can see this by simply substituting the four expressions for w(z) into the expression for the derivative. For example, when I substitute ## w=1 - z^{1/4} + z^{1/2} - z^{3/4}## and simplify, I get: ##\frac{2 \sqrt[4]{z}-3 \sqrt{z}-1}{4 z^{3/4}}## and we see that:

##\lim_{z\to 1}\frac{2 \sqrt[4]{z}-3 \sqrt{z}-1}{4 z^{3/4}}=-1/2##

The remaining limits are obtained by substituting the other three expressions for w.

It seem then I must conclude: without knowing the functional dependence of w on z, the limit cannot be evaluated. Even using the numerical approach above, we are implicitly determining that dependence and then substituting the dependence into the expression for the derivative.
 
Last edited:
Maybe a stupid idea, but if the functions w(z) and f(z,w) are sufficiently smooth (would have to be seen what exactly is required), then I would expect that the directional derivative of f is zero exactly if you hit the "right direction" - the direction of w(z). Those directions are linear relations between w and z, so you can plug them in and see when the derivative of f gets zero?
 
mfb said:
Maybe a stupid idea, but if the functions w(z) and f(z,w) are sufficiently smooth (would have to be seen what exactly is required), then I would expect that the directional derivative of f is zero exactly if you hit the "right direction" - the direction of w(z). Those directions are linear relations between w and z, so you can plug them in and see when the derivative of f gets zero?

Hi Mfb. Afraid I don't understand this. Can you elaborate this? I just don't see how it's possible to compute this limit (exactly) without knowing what w(z) is.
 
Thinking more about it: it won't work in general, but it could work for a large class of functions.

If your functions are sufficiently smooth, you can approximate ##w=1+\frac{dw}{dz} \cdot z##.

Let's assume for now that this approximation is exact, i.e. w and z have a linear relationship, and define ##c=\frac{dw}{dz}##. Then f is zero iff this equation is satisfied. You can calculate the directional derivatives of f.
If you calculate the 1-dimensional derivative of f along the line ##w=1## and evaluate it at z=0, you'll get some value. In general, this value won't be zero, because f(1,z)=0 only at z=0.
If you calculate the 1-dimensional derivative of f along the line ##z=0## and evaluate it at w=1, you'll get some other value. In general, this value won't be zero, because f(w,1)=0 only at w=1.
If you calculate the 1-dimensional derivative of f along the line ##w=z+1## and evaluate it at z=0,w=1, you'll get yet another value. In general, this value won't be zero, because f(z+1,z)=0 only at z=0.

If you calculate the 1-dimensional derivative of f along the line ##w=1+cz## and evaluate it at z=0,w=1, you'll get zero, because f(1+cz,z)=0. You have to find the direction where the derivative is zero.
By calculating the general 1-dimensional derivative and setting it to zero, you can find c if there is a unique solution. Otherwise you get multiple candidates for c.

Your w(z) is not linear, but if the functions are sufficiently smooth, I would expect that the approach still works.

The approach will fail in cases like f(w,z)=(w-z)2 where all 1D derivatives will be zero.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 39 ·
2
Replies
39
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K