MHB Is Swapping Limits and Integrals Justified in Complex Analysis?

  • Thread starter Thread starter chisigma
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Procedure
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the validity of interchanging limits and integrals in complex analysis, specifically whether the formula for limits can be applied to integrals of the form $\lim_{r \rightarrow r_{0}} \int_{a}^{b} f(r, \theta)\ d \theta = \int_{a}^{b} \lim_{r \rightarrow r_{0}} f(r, \theta)\ d \theta$. It is suggested that uniform continuity of the function $f$ around the limit point $r_0$ may be a sufficient condition for this interchange to be justified. The Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem is highlighted as a relevant tool for ensuring the validity of this procedure when treating integrals as Lebesgue integrals. Additionally, a specific case is examined where the limit and integral are computed, confirming that the approach leads to a correct result of $-\pi$. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the importance of proper justification when applying limits to integrals in complex analysis.
chisigma
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
1,627
Reaction score
0
Recently, for the solution of an integral I assumed, with a bit of optimism in truth, the validity of the following formula ...

$\displaystyle \lim_{r \rightarrow r_{0}} \int_{a}^{b} f(r, \theta)\ d \theta = \int_{a}^{b} \lim_{r \rightarrow r_{0}} f(r, \theta)\ d \theta\ (1)$

The question is: this is a correct procedure? ... or ... what property must have f (*, *) so that it is a proper procedure? ...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I believe if $f$ is uniformly $r$-continuous about some finite neighborhood of $r_0$, that will be a sufficient (not sure about necessary) condition to ensure that you can do this. Some relevant theorems would be the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem, the Monotone Convergence Theorem, and Fatou's Lemma. For a more Riemannian approach, you could check out Theorem 7.16 in Baby Rudin. You haven't given much information on the $r$-dependence of $f$, so these theorems may or may not apply.
 
Ackbach said:
I believe if $f$ is uniformly $r$-continuous about some finite neighborhood of $r_0$, that will be sufficient (not sure about necessary) conditions to ensure that you can do this. Some relevant theorems would be the Lebesgue Dominated Convergence Theorem, the Monotone Convergence Theorem, and Fatou's Lemma. For a more Riemannian approach, you could check out Theorem 7.16 in Baby Rudin. You haven't given much information on the $r$-dependence of $f$, so these theorems may or may not apply.

The case was...

$\displaystyle \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} i\ \int_{0}^{\pi} \frac{e^{i\ r\ e^{i\ \theta}} - 1}{r}\ e^{- i\ \theta}\ d \theta = i\ \int_{0}^{\pi} \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{e^{i\ r\ e^{i\ \theta}}- 1}{r}\ e^{- i\ \theta}\ d \theta = - \int_{0}^{\pi} \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} e^{i\ r\ e^{i\ \theta}}\ d \theta = - \int_{0}^{\pi} d \theta = - \pi\ (1) $

... where I applied l'Hopital rule...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
The case was...

$\displaystyle \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} i\ \int_{0}^{\pi} \frac{e^{i\ r\ e^{i\ \theta}} - 1}{r}\ e^{- i\ \theta}\ d \theta = i\ \int_{0}^{\pi} \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{e^{i\ r\ e^{i\ \theta}}- 1}{r}\ e^{- i\ \theta}\ d \theta = - \int_{0}^{\pi} \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} e^{i\ r\ e^{i\ \theta}}\ d \theta = - \int_{0}^{\pi} d \theta = - \pi\ (1) $

... where I applied l'Hopital rule...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

If the integrals are treated as Lebesgue integrals, then your limit procedure is valid by the dominated convergence theorem. First put the $i$ inside the integral. Let $f_r(\theta)$ be the resulting integrand. A version of the mean value theorem shows that $\sup_{r > 0}|f_r| \le 1$. Since $\int_0^\pi 1 \, d\theta$ is finite, we deduce from the dominated convergence theorem (for real variable limits) that

$$\lim_{r\to 0} \int_0^{\pi} f_r(\theta)\, d\theta = \int_0^{\pi} \lim_{r\to 0} f_r(\theta)\, d\theta.$$

Now

$$\lim_{r\to 0} f_r(\theta) = ie^{-i\theta}\frac{d}{dr}|_{r = 0}( e^{ire^{i\theta}}) = ie^{-i\theta} \cdot ie^{i\theta} = -1.$$

Hence

$$\int_0^{\pi} \lim_{r\to 0} f_r(\theta)\, d\theta = \int_0^{\pi} -1\, d\theta = -\pi.$$

If you try to use the monotone convergence theorem or Fatou's lemma for this problem, it'll have to be applied to the real and imaginary parts of $f_r$, separately.
 
chisigma said:
The case was...

$\displaystyle \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} i\ \int_{0}^{\pi} \frac{e^{i\ r\ e^{i\ \theta}} - 1}{r}\ e^{- i\ \theta}\ d \theta = i\ \int_{0}^{\pi} \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} \frac{e^{i\ r\ e^{i\ \theta}}- 1}{r}\ e^{- i\ \theta}\ d \theta = - \int_{0}^{\pi} \lim_{r \rightarrow 0} e^{i\ r\ e^{i\ \theta}}\ d \theta = - \int_{0}^{\pi} d \theta = - \pi\ (1) $

In general, you should not smuggle a limit past an integral without some justification such as the theorems suggested by Ackbach. But you can justify the above result (1) by a direct argument.

If $z = re^{i\theta}$ then $$e^{i r e^{i\ \theta}} - 1 = e^{iz}-1 = \cos z - 1 + i\sin z.$$ As $z\to0,$ $\cos z = 1 + O(|z|^2)$ and $\sin z = z + O(|z|^3)$. Thus $$\frac{\cos z - 1 + i\sin z}{|z|} = \frac{iz}{|z|} + O(|z|) = ie^{i\theta} + O(|z|),$$ so that $$i\int_0^\pi \frac{e^{i r e^{i\ \theta}} - 1}r\,e^{-i\theta}\,d\theta = i\int_0^\pi \bigl(ie^{i\theta} + O(|z|) \bigr) e^{-i\theta}\,d\theta = -\pi + O(|z|).$$ As $r = |z| \to0$, this converges to $-\pi$, as required.

I think that the above argument amounts to the assertion that the limit $$\lim_{r\to0} \frac{e^{i r e^{i\ \theta}} - 1}r = ie^{i\theta}$$ is uniform in $\theta$. That will allow one of Ackbach's theorems to apply.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K