Improper integral using residues

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating the improper integral of sech(x) from negative infinity to infinity using residue theory in complex analysis. Participants are exploring the identification of poles and the calculation of residues.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the identification of poles in the upper half-plane and the implications of using different contour choices. There is an exploration of the relationship between sech(z) and sech(z + iπ) and how this affects the integral's evaluation.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided hints and suggestions for approaching the problem, including the need for a more clever contour choice and converting the integrand to a rational function. There is recognition of multiple poles and the potential for different approaches to yield the same result.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the complexity of the problem due to the infinite number of poles and the need to consider the behavior of integrals along different paths as the rectangle width approaches infinity.

cscott
Messages
778
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement



integral of sech(x) from -Inf to Inf using residues.

Homework Equations



Calculate using: (2 Pi I) * Res[sech(x), "poles in upper half plane"]

The Attempt at a Solution



I used sech(x) = 2/[exp(x)+exp(-x)] to find a simple pole at z = (I Pi)/2 with a residue of -I. Then,

Result = (2 Pi I)(-I) = 2 Pi

As far as I know the answer should be Pi so I'm off by a factor of two. I can't find the mistake in finding the residue. Can anyone verify that the residue should be -I/2?

Let f(z)=g(z)/h(z), then residue of a simple pole z0 is g(z0)/h'(z0), no? (Assuming g(z0) != 0, h(z0)=0)

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can tell you what's wrong. i*pi/2 isn't the only pole in the upper half plane. i*3*pi/2, i*5*pi/2 ... are also poles. There's an infinite number. You need to make a more clever choice of contour.
 
Last edited:
Dick said:
I can tell you what's wrong. i*pi/2 isn't the only pole in the upper half plane. i*3*pi/2, i*5*pi/2 ... are also poles. There's an infinite number. You need to make a more clever choice of contour.

Ah you are right :( I approached this too quickly.

My hint from the prof is 'convert the integrand to a rational function by changing variables'

Either way I'm not sure exactly how to proceed now.
 
cscott said:
Ah you are right :( I approached this too quickly.

My hint from the prof is 'convert the integrand to a rational function by changing variables'

Either way I'm not sure exactly how to proceed now.

Well, your professor gave you one suggestion, and I gave you another. I think they both will work. Pick one and try it. Here's a hint for my route. How are sech(x) and sech(x+i*pi) related?
 
So if I take a rectangle with height [itex]\pi[/itex] I'd enclose one pole at [itex]i\pi/2[/itex]. Something tells me the two side integrals should go to zero as rectangle width->inf and I'll get a multiple of my integral on the upper part.

So in this case [itex]sech(z) = -sech(z + i\pi)[/itex] and because of the opposite integration directions I'll get double my desired integral, which is why I have [itex]2\pi[/itex] in my OP instead of [itex]pi[/itex]?
 
Last edited:
cscott said:
So if I take a rectangle with height 1 I'd enclose one pole at [itex]i\pi/2[/itex]. Something tells me the two side integrals should go to zero as rectangle width->inf and I'll get a multiple of my integral on the upper part.

So in this case [itex]sech(z) = -sech(z + i\pi)[/itex] and because of the opposite integration directions I'll get double my desired integral, which is why I have [itex]2\pi[/itex] in my OP instead of [itex]pi[/itex]?

That's basically it. You mean a rectangle with height pi, right?
 
Yes, I meant Pi, sorry.

Thanks for your help.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K