Integrals over an infinite range (using residue theorem)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around evaluating the integral \(\int\frac{dx}{1+x^{2}}\) from \(-\infty\) to \(+\infty\) using contour integration techniques, specifically the residue theorem. Participants explore the relationship between this integral and a closed contour integral over a semicircle in the complex plane.

Discussion Character

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

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions why only the singularity at \(+i\) is considered when evaluating the contour integral, suggesting that the contour must enclose that singularity.
  • Another participant notes that the integral over the semicircle must be shown to approach zero as the radius \(R\) tends to infinity, possibly using techniques like the ML inequality or Jordan's lemma.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the justification for the equality of the two integrals without relying on advanced techniques.
  • It is mentioned that the integral over the semicircle tends to zero as \(R\) increases, which is a common result in contour integration.
  • Some participants discuss the applicability of Jordan's lemma and the ML inequality in this context, with one participant suggesting that the ML inequality is more relevant due to the absence of an exponential term in the integrand.
  • A later post raises a question about computing arc integrals in the context of semi-infinite integrals, indicating a broader interest in the topic.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need to show that the integral over the semicircle approaches zero as \(R\) tends to infinity, but there is no consensus on the specific techniques to justify this. Some participants express uncertainty about the application of Jordan's lemma and the ML inequality.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference various techniques for evaluating integrals in complex analysis, indicating a reliance on specific mathematical properties and theorems that may not be universally understood or agreed upon in this discussion.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners of complex analysis, particularly those interested in contour integration and the residue theorem.

vertices
Messages
62
Reaction score
0
I am taking a short course of complex variables and am trying to understand how to evaluate the integral:

[tex]\int\frac{dx}{1+x^{2}}[/tex] (1) where the integration is from -infinity to +infinity.

To do this, we must, apparently consider:

[tex]\oint\frac{dz}{1+z^2}[/tex] (2). The closed loop is a countour which is a semi circle of radius R about the origin containing ONLY the +i singularity (there are two singularities, +i and -i). .

Ofcourse we may write [tex]\frac{1}{1+z^2}=-\frac{1}{2i}\left(\frac{1}{z+i}-\frac{1}{z-i}\right)[/tex]

Thus the residue at z=i is 1/2i. Therefore the integral (2) is 2pi*i*res(z=i)=pi

This implies (I can't understand why) the Integral (1) EQUALS Integral (2)=pi.

Questions:

1)why do we consider only a loop containing one of the singularities (+i)?
2)why is integral (1), with limits going from -infinity to plus infinity EQUAL to the same integral, with weird limits (-R to R along a semi circle, then along real axis from -R to R)?

Thanks in advance:)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
These are pretty basic contour integration questions, I think they should be explained in your course?

But to address your questions;

1) Because you are integrating over the semicircle from -R to R, (with R>1 you get [tex]i[/tex] inside of the contour). The other pole ([tex]z=-i[/tex]) is not inside the contour.

2) Well you are not done yet, you still have to show that part. (Most likely using the ML inequality or Jordans lemma).

And the integral (2), has that value from the residue (as all contour integrals over a jordan curve "[tex]\gamma[/tex]" in the complex plane)

[tex]\oint_\gamma f(z) \mathrm{d}z = 2\pi i \sum_k \text{Res}(f,a_k)[/tex]

Where Res(f,a_k) are the residues (z=a_k) of the poles of f inside of the contour "gamma".
 
Last edited:
thanks *-<|:-D=<-<

"2) Well you are not done yet, you still have to show that part. (Most likely using the ML inequality or Jordans lemma)."

Hmmm, rereading my notes, I get the impression that there is a trivial reason as to why integral 1 equals integral 2... as in it should be obvious from looking at both integrals, without having to resort to jordan's lemma and such like... i just don't get it though!
 
Hi vertices,

The complex contour integral (2) you are considering equals the original real integral (1) plus the integral over a semicircle of radius R. It turns out that, in a lot of cases, the integral over that semi circle goes to zero as R goes to infinity, so you get the equality you were seeking.
 
I think what you are missing is that the integral over the semicircle of radius R goes to 0 as R goes to infinity.
 
thanks jeff and hallsofivy. Is there a non-trivial reason as to why the integral over the semi circle goes to 0 as R tends to infinity?

My lecturer wrote the first integral and literally put an "=>" sign by it before writing the second integral.
 
I think he put that indicator to show that the appropriate contour to choose was the closed semi-circle.

The integrand 1/(z^2+1) goes to 0 when R tends to infinity hence the integral does so too.
 
maybe I guess.

That said, I still don't understand why the integral (2) over a semi circle from R to -R is zero when R tends to infinity. This does not come about from Jordan's Lemma because there is no exp(iaz) term, where a>0. Are there any other techniques I could use to see why the integral is zero?
 
Ah you're absolutely right, i had forgot what jordans lemma was. The ML inequality or "estimation lemma" applies here however, and i think that is what you are going to use for all these types of integrals, it is very typical for an introductory course to complex calculus.

Check out estimation lemma on wiki.
 
  • #10
*-<|:-D=<-< said:
Ah you're absolutely right, i had forgot what jordans lemma was. The ML inequality or "estimation lemma" applies here however, and i think that is what you are going to use for all these types of integrals, it is very typical for an introductory course to complex calculus.

Check out estimation lemma on wiki.

thanks, I just did - very useful:)
 
  • #11
what about semi infinite integrals? how do we compute the arc integral in that case?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K