How to show integrals are zero around funny contours.

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vertices
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Funny Integrals Zero
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating integrals over complex contours, specifically focusing on why certain integrals approach zero as the contour extends to infinity. The participants explore the integral \(\int\frac{e^{ax}}{\cosh x}dx\) and its evaluation using contour integration techniques, including the residue theorem and ML inequality.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to understand why the integral \(\int\frac{e^{aR+ait}}{\cosh(R+it)}idt\) from 0 to \(\pi\) equals zero as \(R\) tends to infinity.
  • Another participant suggests using the ML inequality to demonstrate that the integral approaches zero.
  • There is a discussion about the parameterization of the contour and its implications for the integral's evaluation.
  • A participant mentions that the contour integral contributes negligibly when \(R\) is large, specifically being "less than" \(2\pi e^{-aR}\), prompting questions about the reasoning behind this conclusion.
  • One participant proposes restricting the parameter \(a\) to \(|a| < 1\) to ensure the integral tends to zero as \(R\) approaches infinity.
  • Another participant confirms that in their notes, the integral indeed tends to zero under the condition that \(|a| < 1\), but expresses confusion about why it is less than \(2\pi e^{-aR}\).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the evaluation of the integral and the conditions under which it approaches zero. There is no consensus on the reasoning behind the integral's behavior as \(R\) tends to infinity, and multiple viewpoints on the application of contour integration techniques are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific mathematical techniques and inequalities, such as the ML inequality, but do not fully resolve the underlying assumptions or steps necessary for a complete evaluation of the integral. The discussion also highlights the dependence on the parameter \(a\) and its restrictions.

vertices
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
This is related to my thread on 'integrals over an infinite range (using residue theorem)'. I am trying to understand how certain integrals over semi circles, or the widths of rectangles go to zero under certain functions.

I want to evaluate the integral [tex]\int\frac{exp(ax)}{coshx}dx[/tex] from -infinity to plus infinity.

So consider [tex]\oint\frac{exp(az)}{coshz}dz[/tex] around a rectangle. This is equal to

[tex]\int\frac{exp(ax)}{coshx}dx[/tex] from R to -R

PLUS

[tex]\int\frac{exp(a(i*pi+x))}{coshx}dx[/tex] from R to -R (contains one singularity)

PLUS two integrals corresponding to the sides. They look like this:

I=[tex]\int\frac{exp(aR+ait)}{cosh(R+it)}idt[/tex] from 0 to pi. Now these integrals apparently EQUAL ZERO when R tends to infinity. Can anyone help me see why this is?

Perhaps I could use ML inequality but how?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Let me summarise the problem (hopefully I can get someone to answer now;p)

I basically want to see why the following integral EQUALS 0:

I=[tex]\int\frac{exp(aR+ait)}{cosh(R+it)}idt[/tex] from 0 to pi.

Perhaps I could use ML inequality but how?
 
:(

still hoping someone can answer; there's so many clever people on here:)
 
Factor out the a inside the exp, and consider what kind of contour R+it makes with t ranging from 0 to pi.

did that help?
 
thanks for your reply *-<|:-D=<-<

Hmm a simple parameterisation like z=e^it sweeps out a semi circle on the interval 0<t<pi.

This integral however is more complicated - how could I work out what contour it makes if I don't know what the integration of the integral actually is?

Perhaps a better question might be - is it possible to easily evaluate this integral through analytical means?
 
well you get a straight horizontal line with length pi (lets call it [tex]\gamma[/tex]) starting somewhere on the real axis (if R is real), you now have to integrate;

[tex]\int_\gamma \frac{e^{az}}{\cosh(z)} \mathrm{d}z[/tex]

does that help you at all? (I have not tested this method, I'm not certain it will get you where you want to be, but i had a feeling it would come through.)
 
*-<|:-D=<-< said:
[tex]\int_\gamma \frac{e^{az}}{\cosh(z)} \mathrm{d}z[/tex]

yes indeed that was the original integral (I forgot that for a second!). I didn't explain it well, but I wanted to evaluate this integral, with x subsituted for z, from -inifinity to +infinity. To do this we have consider a rectangular contour:

if you go to the bottom of *page 22* here:

http://www-thphys.physics.ox.ac.uk/user/JamesBinney/advcalc.pdf

the problem is illustrated more clearly. Basically the line(s) we're talking about contributes very little to the contour integral when R tends to infinity, and thus can be neglected - it is "less than" 2*pi*exp(-a*r). I don't know how the lecturer came to that conclusion?

EDIT: Sorry, its the bottom of page 22 and top of page 23
 
Last edited:
Okay I've just realized you won't be able to see that link from outside my university network, so I'm attaching it to this post.

Would greatly appreciate any thoughts:)
 

Attachments

Vertices, can you restrict the parameter "a" to |a|<1. That will definitely get you zero on any contour with R going to infinity
 
Last edited:
  • #10
uart said:
Vertices, can you restrict the parameter "a" to |a|<1. That will definitely get you zero on any contour with R going to infinity

well in that example, |a| IS less than 1.

So the integrals like:

I=[tex]\int\frac{exp(aR+ait)}{cosh(R+it)}idt[/tex] from 0 to pi.

will tend to zero as R tends to infinity? According to my notes, this integral actually is LESS than 2pi*exp(-aR) so yes it does indeed tend to zero as R tends to infinity.

I don't understand why it is less than 2pi*exp(-ar) though.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K