Integral of Log(z) Homework Solution | Math

  • Thread starter Milky
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Integral
In summary: I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say.Can't we use the (semicircle) contour to avoid all of this?
  • #1
Milky
43
0

Homework Statement


Use the principal branch of log z to evaluate the integral from -1 to 1 of log(z)dz

Homework Equations


log(z) = log(r) + i(theta)

The Attempt at a Solution


I approached this problem as if it were in real variables - which I'm almost sure was not the way to go.

Since the integral of log(z) = zlog(z) - z, I ended up with an answer of -2.

However, I feel as though I'm suppose to do a change of variables for z:
[tex]z = re^{i\theta}[/tex]
[tex]dz=ie^{i\theta}d\theta[/tex]
where r=1?? And my new limits are 0 to pi
Not sure where to go from there, and
not sure which is the correct way to go.
Would appreciate any help
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
z log(z) - z is correct; now you have to evaluate it at the endpoints, +1 and -1. +1 is easy, but for -1 you need log(-1). This is where that "principal branch" stuff comes in ...
 
  • #3
Avodyne said:
now you have to evaluate it at the endpoints, +1 and -1. +1 is easy, but for -1 you need log(-1).

And there is another technicality too -- this is an improper integral, so really he should be computing

[tex]\lim_{r \to 0^-} \int_{-1}^r \log z \, dz +
\lim_{r \to 0^+} \int_r^1 \log z \, dz[/tex]

So he has to evaluate at the endpoints and add in the contribution due to the singularity at zero.
 
  • #4
Okay, so I'm still not sure what to do about log(-1), although I'm sure I can look that up on the web somewhere.
Thanks!

Also, the professor hinted at my using the second way (without having actually looked at the solution I already had which you guys said was correct). Does anyone know how I would approach it that way.
 
  • #5
Milky said:
Okay, so I'm still not sure what to do about log(-1), although I'm sure I can look that up on the web somewhere.
You already told us what to do about log(-1). Remember
log(z) = log(r) + i(theta)?​
 
  • #6
Milky said:
Also, the professor hinted at my using the second way (without having actually looked at the solution I already had which you guys said was correct). Does anyone know how I would approach it that way.
Well, you still have to do something about the origin, but let's forget that for a second. What's the problem with doing exactly what you said?
 
  • #7
I guess I would just like to know so I would know how to approach a similar problem using polar form.
The way he explained it to us was as if we were using an upper semi-circle with radius 1, and that would be our way of avoiding the origin. I'm confused about this method.
 
  • #8
Hmm.. I got: [tex]-2 + i\pi[/tex]

Here's what I did (though I'm still learning how to do these.)

Subbing in for z and zdz
[tex]\int_{-1}^{1}logz dz[/tex][tex]=\int_{\pi}^{0}log(e^{i\theta})ie^{i\theta}d\theta[/tex][tex]=-2 + i\pi[/tex]

But I don't know if that's right.
 
  • #9
Hurkyl said:
And there is another technicality too -- this is an improper integral, so really he should be computing

[tex]\lim_{r \to 0^-} \int_{-1}^r \log z \, dz +
\lim_{r \to 0^+} \int_r^1 \log z \, dz[/tex]

So he has to evaluate at the endpoints and add in the contribution due to the singularity at zero.

Can't was use a Parametrization to avoid all of this?
 
  • #10
futurebird said:
Can't was use a Parametrization to avoid all of this?
I think you mean "Can't we use the (semicircle) contour to avoid all of this?"

The answer, as far as I know, is no. The beautiful theorems of complex analysis generally require, at the very least, that your integrand to be analytic on all the contours of interest.



The idea you are trying to apply here is the fact that semicircle S (oriented counterclockwise) + the diameter (oriented left to right) is a simple closed curve. So if your integrand f(z) is analytic everywhere inside and on this curve, you have:
[tex]\oint_S f(z) \, dz + \int_{-1}^{1} f(z) \, dz = 0.[/tex]

The problem is that our integrand is not analytic everywhere on our curve, so this theorem doesn't directly apply. You need both the big semicircle of radius 1, and you need a little contour near the origin that skirts around the singularity there.

You might write the integral like this:

[tex]\int_{-1}^{1} \log z \, dz =
\lim_{(a, b) \to (0^-, 0^+)} \int_{-1}^a \log z \, dz + \int_b^1 \log z \, dz[/tex]

and then evaluate the integral by using the big semicircle and a little curve that goes from a to b, but passes above the origin, and always stays within the little semicircle of radius [itex]\max\{a, b\}[/itex].

(You can apply deformation of contour to show that we can assume a = b, and then use an actual semicircle for the little contour)


If you do this, then your integrand is analytic everywhere it needs to be, because we've really and truly avoided the origin.
 
  • #11
Hurkyl said:
I think you mean "Can't we use the (semicircle) contour to avoid all of this?"

The answer, as far as I know, is no. The beautiful theorems of complex analysis generally require, at the very least, that your integrand to be analytic on all the contours of interest.

But with a branch cut, would it be analytic? Say from the origin to infinity through the -y axis?
 
  • #12
futurebird said:
But with a branch cut, would it be analytic? Say from the origin to infinity through the -y axis?
It's certainly not analytic at the origin.
 
  • #13
Hurkyl said:
It's certainly not analytic at the origin.

That's why the branch cut starts at the origin and goes to infinity-- that was badly worded on my part.

My answer seems to check out against the formula I found at wolfram.

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Logarithm.html

[tex]\int log_bz dz =\frac{z(ln z -1)}{ln b}+C [/tex]

So, I got the right answer but I did it wrong in some way? (won't be the first time) I'm having a hard time understanding why I need to deform it around the origin if it isn't a closed circut. Where is log z not defined on the semicircle in the upper half place witha branch cut on the negative y axis?
 
Last edited:
  • #14
I've been trying to integrate using integration by parts since last night, but not once have I arrived at the answer -2 + i(pi).
Could you pls explain to me how u integrated it - I think I'm missing something because I'm still getting an answer that contains e
 
  • #15
Milky said:
I've been trying to integrate using integration by parts since last night, but not once have I arrived at the answer -2 + i(pi).
Could you pls explain to me how u integrated it - I think I'm missing something because I'm still getting an answer that contains e


I don't know if I did it right. I was hoping someone here would chime in.

But here is what I did for what it is worth...


[tex]\int_{-1}^{1}logz dz[/tex]

You see how -1 to 1 became pi to 0? That should make the e^whatever terms go away.
Then you can do it by parts.

[tex]=\int_{\pi}^{0}log(e^{i\theta})ie^{i\theta}d\theta[/tex]

[tex]=-2 + i\pi[/tex]


PS. are you at hunter?
 
  • #16
Yes I'm at Hunter - I just sent you a message asking you the same thing lol.

Okay, I'm still confused... when I do this by parts, my result is (bare with me, I have not yet gotten the hang of the [tex] thing

[e^(i(pi)) [i(pi) - 1] +1
 
Last edited:
  • #17
Milky said:
Yes I'm at Hunter - I just sent you a message asking you the same thing lol.

Okay, I'm still confused... when I do this by parts, my result is (bare with me, I have not yet gotten the hang of the tex thing

[tex]e^{i\pi}=[/tex] Come on this one is famous!
 
  • #18
duuuuh lol thanks
 
Last edited:
  • #19
You want to take z*ln(z)-z and evaluate between -1 and 1. I.e. first put in z=1 and then subtract the value at z=-1. You're doing it backwards.
 
  • #20
Is the way we did it in polar form correct?
 
  • #21
Looks like it to me. You got the same answer, right?
 
  • #22
Not yet, I'm sure I'm mixing up the signs somewhere but I'm close
 
  • #23
futurebird got it right. So I think you can too.
 
  • #24
Thanks for your help
 
  • #25
Dick said:
futurebird got it right. So I think you can too.

Hey waddaya mean by that! :tongue:
 
  • #26
futurebird said:
Hey waddaya mean by that! :tongue:

I was just trying to encourage Milky. Even though Milky will NEVER be as good as you are. :)
 
  • #27
futurebird said:
So, I got the right answer but I did it wrong in some way? (won't be the first time) I'm having a hard time understanding why I need to deform it around the origin if it isn't a closed circut. Where is log z not defined on the semicircle in the upper half place witha branch cut on the negative y axis?
Let C be the upper semicircle of radius 1.

Exercise: prove that
[tex]\oint_C \log z \, dz = \int_{-1}^1 \log z \, dz[/tex].


Oh, try this one out:
Exercise: Compute the principal value of
[tex]\int_{-1}^1 \frac{1}{x} \, dx[/tex]
using contour integration.

(It's clear that this integral is zero. But can you get that answer with contour integration?)
 

1. What is the definition of the integral of log(z)?

The integral of log(z) is the inverse of the logarithmic function. It is denoted as ∫log(z)dz and is used to find the area under the curve of the logarithmic function.

2. How do you solve for the integral of log(z)?

The integral of log(z) can be solved using integration techniques such as substitution or integration by parts. It is important to first rewrite the logarithmic function as ln(z) before integrating.

3. What are the applications of the integral of log(z)?

The integral of log(z) is commonly used in physics and engineering to calculate the work done by a force, the displacement of an object, or the electric potential of a charge distribution. It is also used in statistics to calculate the entropy of a probability distribution.

4. Are there any special properties of the integral of log(z)?

Yes, the integral of log(z) has a few special properties. One of them is that the integral of log(z) is equal to zln(z) - z + C, where C is a constant. Another property is that the integral of log(z) is undefined for z = 0.

5. Can the integral of log(z) be solved using the fundamental theorem of calculus?

Yes, the integral of log(z) can be solved using the fundamental theorem of calculus. This theorem states that the integral of a function f(x) can be evaluated by finding the antiderivative of f(x) and plugging in the upper and lower bounds of the integration.

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
606
Replies
23
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
557
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
864
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
663
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
935
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
7
Views
682
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
503
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
32
Views
2K
Back
Top