Parametrizing Complex Line Integral

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the parametrization of complex line integrals, specifically evaluating the integral \(\int_{\gamma} z \: dz\) where \(\gamma\) is a path in the complex plane. The user correctly identifies the parametrization \(\gamma(t) = x(t) + iy(t)\) and applies the definition of complex integration, leading to the expression \(\int_a^b (x(t)+iy(t))(x'(t)+iy'(t)) \: dt\). The conversation confirms that the approach is valid and emphasizes the importance of correctly identifying the limits of integration as \(t_0\) to \(t_1\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex functions and integration
  • Familiarity with parametrization techniques in calculus
  • Knowledge of derivatives in the context of complex variables
  • Basic concepts of paths in the complex plane
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of complex line integrals
  • Learn about the Cauchy-Goursat theorem in complex analysis
  • Explore the concept of contour integration in complex functions
  • Investigate the application of the residue theorem for evaluating integrals
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying complex analysis, as well as anyone interested in mastering parametrization techniques for evaluating complex integrals.

Newtime
Messages
347
Reaction score
0
So this is an ultra basic question, but I'm rusty with parametrization techniques and wanted to make sure I was doing this correctly. Let's say I want to evaluate [tex]\int_{\gamma} z \: dz[/tex] where [tex]\gamma : [a,b]\rightarrow \mathbb{C}[/tex] is some path of integration. Now, I figure I can parametrize the curve and apply the definition of complex integration to arrive at the following: [tex]\gamma(t) = x(t) + iy(t) \quad \text{so} \quad \int_{\gamma} z \: dz = \int_a^b \gamma(t) \gamma(t)' \: dt = \int_a^b (x(t)+iy(t))(x'(t)+iy'(t)) \: dt[/tex] and distribute from there. Again, I know this is a very basic question, and I'm pretty sure it's correct, but it's been a while so I wanted to make sure I wasn't making some silly logical error (quite possible). Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
So far so good. You are following the definition. You can also calculate this way

[tex]\int_\gamma f(z)dz[/tex]

replacing [tex]f(z)[/tex] by [tex]f(\gamma(t))[/tex]
 
Shouldn't that be from t_0 to t_1?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K