Understanding the Order of Poles in Complex Functions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the identification of poles in the complex function defined by z/Sin(πz²). The poles are determined to be at points where Sin(πz²) = 0, specifically at z = ±√n for n = 0, ±1, ±2, etc. For n = 0, the pole is classified as a simple pole due to the Laurent expansion yielding a highest negative power of 1/z. Conversely, for n ≠ 0, the poles at z = ±√n are confirmed to be second-order poles, as the Laurent expansion reveals a highest negative power of 1/(z ± √n)². The confusion regarding the nature of these poles is clarified through a detailed analysis of the function's behavior near the singular points.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex analysis and poles
  • Familiarity with Laurent series expansions
  • Knowledge of trigonometric identities and approximations
  • Experience with singularities in complex functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Laurent series in complex analysis
  • Learn about the classification of poles and their orders
  • Explore trigonometric function behavior near singular points
  • Investigate the application of complex functions in mathematical physics
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of complex analysis, and anyone interested in understanding the behavior of complex functions and their singularities.

Baibhab Bose
Messages
34
Reaction score
3
When The denominator is checked, the poles seem to be at Sin(πz²)=0, Which means πz²=nπ ⇒z=√n for (n=0,±1,±2...)
but in the solution of this problem, it says that, for n=0 it would be simple pole since in the Laurent expansion of (z∕Sin(πz²)) about z=0 contains the highest negative power to be 1/z. But, in case of the other values of z=±√n,±i√n, it says the Laurent expansion of z∕Sin(πz²) about z=±√n,±i√n, contains the highest negative to be 1/(z±√n)² and 1/(z±i√n)² from which we can infer that for n≠0 it has second order poles at z=±√n,±i√n.
I couldn’t figure out how to check this, since I can't manage to expand this weird function in Laurent series about z=±√n,±i√n these singular points.
So, how do I proceed to do so?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Delta2
Physics news on Phys.org
That answer doesn't seem correct to me. Let's look at a pole at ##\sqrt{n}##. Let ##\xi = z-\sqrt{n}## and look at ##sin(\pi z^2) = sin(\pi n + 2\pi \sqrt{n} \xi + \pi \xi^2)##. We can write that (using a trig identity): ##sin(\pi n + 2\pi \sqrt{n} \xi + \pi \xi^2) = sin(\pi n) cos(2\pi \sqrt{n} \xi + \pi \xi^2) + cos(\pi n) sin(2\pi \sqrt{n} \xi + \pi \xi^2) = 0 + (-1)^n sin(2\pi \sqrt{n} \xi + \pi \xi^2)## When ##\xi## is small, we can use ##sin(x) \approx x##, so this is approximately ##(-1)^n (2\pi \sqrt{n} \xi + ## higher order terms ##)##. So ##\frac{z}{sin(\pi z^2)} \approx \frac{\sqrt{n}}{(-1)^n 2 \pi \sqrt{n} \xi} = \frac{(-1)^n}{2\pi \xi}##. So I think it has a first order pole at ##z = \sqrt{n}##
 
Thank you so much @stevendaryl !
But again my confusion is, here we see that this function, at the singular point, which you have evaluated, doesn't blow up at all, rather it boils down to a constant value. So in that case at z=√n the function remains analytic, and z=√n is not a pole at all, isn't it?
Again if I'm not wrong, that last constant term (−1)^n/2πξ is not a constant, since the ξ is present there in the denominator, which actually approaches 0, thereby blowing up the function. Thus we can conclude that its a simple pole at z=rootn. Right?
 
Baibhab Bose said:
Thank you so much @stevendaryl !
But again my confusion is, here we see that this function, at the singular point, which you have evaluated, doesn't blow up at all, rather it boils down to a constant value.

No, assuming my approximation is accurate, near ##z=\sqrt{n}##, the function ##\frac{z}{sin(\pi z^2)} \approx \frac{1}{2\pi \xi} = \frac{1}{2\pi (z-\sqrt{n})}##. So it blows up when ##z \rightarrow \sqrt{n}##

Again if I'm not wrong, that last constant term (−1)^n/2πξ is not a constant, since the ξ is present there in the denominator, which actually approaches 0, thereby blowing up the function. Thus we can conclude that its a simple pole at z=rootn. Right?

I think so. Saying that it has an order 2 pole seems wrong to me.
 
Yes, now its clear! Thank you, it was really helpful sir! :D
 

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K