Is Cosh(4z) Integrable Along Any Path Between -πi/8 and πi/8?

John O' Meara
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
Integrate cosh(4z) w.r.t., z, for any path from \frac{-\pi i}{8} \inbox{to } \frac{\pi i}{8}. If the function is analytic, i.e., obeys Cauchy - Riemann equations we can integrate as in standard calculus.
\frac{{\partial \cosh(4(x+iy)}}{{\partial x}} = a\sinh(4x + 4iy) \\ \frac{{\partial \cosh(4x +4iy)}}{{\partial y }} = 4i\sinh(4x + 4iy)\\. Therefore u_x and v_y are not equal, therefore the cosh(4z) is not analytic. So we integrate as follows: C (the path of integration) can be represented by z(t)= 0 + it, \frac{-\pi}{8} \leq t \leq \frac{\pi}{8}\\ Hence \dot z(t) = \iota \\ and f(z(t)) = cosh(it), therefore \int_C \cosh(z) dz = \int_{\frac{-\pi}{8}}^\frac{\pi}{8} \cosh(it)\iota dt \\ = sinh(it) evulated at the respective limits = 2\sinh(\frac{\iota\pi}{8}) \
I don't think that this is correct, I think my Z(t) = 0 +it is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
cosh(4z) IS analytic. You have to split the function into real and imaginary parts before applying CR. cosh(z)=(e^z+e^-z)/2. Now e.g. e^z=e^(x+iy)=e^x*e^(iy)=e^x*(cos(y)+i*sin(y)). So the split for e^z is u(x,y)=e^x*cos(y) and v(x,y)=e^x*sin(y) and it IS analytic. Similarly for cosh(z).
 
Thanks for the reply Dick. As a matter of interest do you know how "Cauchy" is pronounced? E.g., Ca-u-chy?
 
John O' Meara said:
Thanks for the reply Dick. As a matter of interest do you know how "Cauchy" is pronounced? E.g., Ca-u-chy?

Co-she, 'co' as in coordinate and 'she' as in she. You're welcome.
 
You can use the fundamental theorem of calculus here, it is easy to find the primitive of cosh(4z)
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top