MHB Proof of Lemma 2.1, Part (vi) in Palka's Ch.4: Explaining Inequality

  • Thread starter Thread starter Math Amateur
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integrals Section
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding a specific inequality in the proof of Lemma 2.1, part (vi) from Bruce P. Palka's book on complex function theory. The inequality in question states that the integral of the real part of a complex function is less than or equal to the integral of its absolute value. This is derived from the mathematical property that the real part of any complex number is always less than or equal to its modulus. Participants confirm this understanding, with one expressing gratitude for the clarification. The exchange highlights the importance of recognizing fundamental properties of complex numbers in contour integrals.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Bruce P. Palka's book: An Introduction to Complex Function Theory ...

I am focused on Chapter 4: Complex Integration, Section 2.2 Properties of Contour Integrals ...

I need some further help with some other aspects of the proof of Lemma 2.1, part (vi), Section 2.2, Chapter 4 ...

Lemma 2.1, Chapter 4 reads as follows:View attachment 7433
View attachment 7434In the above text from Palka, near the end of the proof of part (vi), we read the following:" ... ... $$\int_a^b \text{ Re} \{ u f[ \gamma (t) ] \dot{ \gamma } (t) \} \ dt$$ $$\le \int_a^b \lvert u f[ \gamma (t) ] \dot{ \gamma } (t) \rvert \ dt$$ ... ... "
Can some please explain why/how we have $$\int_a^b \text{ Re} \{ u f[ \gamma (t) ] \dot{ \gamma } (t) \} \ dt $$ $$\le \int_a^b \lvert u f[ \gamma (t) ] \dot{ \gamma } (t) \rvert \ d$$t ... ... ?
Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It follows from the fact that $\operatorname{Re}(z) \le \lvert z\rvert$ for all $z$.
 
Euge said:
It follows from the fact that $\operatorname{Re}(z) \le \lvert z\rvert$ for all $z$.
Oh ... should have seen that ...

... thanks Euge ...

Peter
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K