Pole expansion of meromorphic functions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the pole expansion of meromorphic functions as presented in a specific section of Arfken's text, particularly focusing on the application of the residue theorem to evaluate contour integrals involving these functions. Participants explore the conditions under which the expansion holds and the implications of the assumptions made regarding the behavior of the function near its poles.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on the proof of a specific equality involving the residue theorem and contour integrals for a meromorphic function.
  • Another participant provides a detailed derivation using the residue theorem, confirming the equality in question under certain conditions regarding the poles of the functions involved.
  • A later reply questions the assumption that a function with poles can be bounded, suggesting a potential inconsistency in the initial conditions presented.
  • Another participant clarifies that the inequality regarding the boundedness of the function is applicable for points on the contour C_n.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the boundedness of meromorphic functions with poles, indicating a lack of consensus on this aspect of the discussion. The mathematical derivation provided is accepted by some, but the assumptions underlying the boundedness are contested.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights the importance of the conditions under which the residue theorem is applied, including the distinctness of poles and the behavior of the function near these poles. There are unresolved questions regarding the implications of these assumptions on the validity of the results.

Who May Find This Useful

Readers interested in complex analysis, particularly those studying meromorphic functions and the application of the residue theorem in evaluating contour integrals.

LAHLH
Messages
405
Reaction score
2
Hi,

I was hoping someone may be able to help me understand what Arfken is doing in sec 7.2 when he does the pole expansion of meromorphic functions (he says this proof is due to Mittag-Leffler).

So he starts off with a function f(z) that is analytic except at some isolated poles. These poles are at isolated [itex]z=a_n[/itex] with [itex]0<|a_1|<|a_2|<...[/itex] and are all simple with residues [itex]b_n[/itex]. He then considers a series of concentric circles C_n about the origin so that C_n contains poles [itex]a_1,a_2,...a_n[/itex] but no others. Finally he assumes that [itex]|f(z)|<\epsilon R_n[/itex] where R_n is radius of C_n and [itex]\epsilon>0[/itex] is small constant. He says then that:

[tex]f(z)=f(0)+\sum_0^{\infty} b_n\{(z-a_n)^{-1}+a_n^{-1}\}[/tex]

converges to f(z).

To prove this he says to prove this we use residue theorem to evaluate the contour integral for z inside C_n:

[tex]I_n:=(2\pi i)^{-1}\int_{C_n}\,\frac{f(w)}{w(w-z)}\mathrm{d}w[/tex]

[tex]I_n=\sum_{m=1}^{n}\frac{b_m}{a_m(a_m-z)}+\frac{f(z)-f(0)}{z}[/tex]

My first question is how to prove this second equality using the residue theorem? I just don't seem to be able to get it out..
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Suppose we have two functions f and g that are holomorphic inside some circle ##\gamma## except for poles a_1, ..., a_n for f and b_1, ..., b_m for g. Also suppose that no a_i is equal to a b_j. Then the residue theorem yields
$$ (2\pi i)^{-1} \int_\gamma f(z)g(z) dz = \sum_{i=1}^n \text{Res}(f,a_i)g(a_i) + \sum_{j=1}^m \text{Res}(g,b_j)f(b_j). $$

In our case g(w)=1/w(w-z), which has poles at 0 and z with residues -1/z and 1/z, resp. So
$$\begin{align} (2\pi i)^{-1} \int_{C_n} \frac{f(w)}{w(w-z)} dw &= (2\pi i)^{-1} \int_{C_n} f(w) g(w) dw \\ &= \sum_{m=1}^n b_m g(a_m) + \text{Res}(g,0)f(0) + \text{Res}(g,z)f(z) & \\ &= \sum_{m=1}^n \frac{b_m}{a_m(a_m-z)} + \frac{f(z)-f(0)}{z}, \end{align}$$
as desired.

[Note that this only holds if ##a_m,z\neq0## and ##z\neq a_m## for all m; this is consistent with the requirement that the poles of f and g be distinct.]
 


morphism said:
Suppose we have two functions f and g that are holomorphic inside some circle ##\gamma## except for poles a_1, ..., a_n for f and b_1, ..., b_m for g. Also suppose that no a_i is equal to a b_j. Then the residue theorem yields
$$ (2\pi i)^{-1} \int_\gamma f(z)g(z) dz = \sum_{i=1}^n \text{Res}(f,a_i)g(a_i) + \sum_{j=1}^m \text{Res}(g,b_j)f(b_j). $$

In our case g(w)=1/w(w-z), which has poles at 0 and z with residues -1/z and 1/z, resp. So
$$\begin{align} (2\pi i)^{-1} \int_{C_n} \frac{f(w)}{w(w-z)} dw &= (2\pi i)^{-1} \int_{C_n} f(w) g(w) dw \\ &= \sum_{m=1}^n b_m g(a_m) + \text{Res}(g,0)f(0) + \text{Res}(g,z)f(z) & \\ &= \sum_{m=1}^n \frac{b_m}{a_m(a_m-z)} + \frac{f(z)-f(0)}{z}, \end{align}$$
as desired.

[Note that this only holds if ##a_m,z\neq0## and ##z\neq a_m## for all m; this is consistent with the requirement that the poles of f and g be distinct.]

Ah, thank you very much, very helpful!
 


"he assumes that |f(z)|<ϵRn where R_n is radius of C_n and ϵ>0 is small constant. "

how can a function with poles be bounded?
 


Presumably that inequality is for points z on C_n.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K