Proving Simple Pole of $\frac{1}{1-2^{1-z}}$ at $z=1$

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Diophantus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pole
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the function \(\frac{1}{1-2^{1-z}}\) has a simple pole at \(z=1\). Participants explore various methods including Taylor series, Laurent series, and limits, while addressing the nature of poles in complex analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests proving the pole by showing that \(\lim_{z\to 0} \frac{z}{1-2^{1-z}} = 1\), but later expresses uncertainty about this approach.
  • Another participant proposes using the Laurent series to demonstrate the presence of a pole, but questions the validity of the geometric series expansion near \(z=1\).
  • A different approach involves calculating the residue using l'Hospital's rule, leading to different proposed values for the residue at the pole.
  • Some participants discuss the implications of the complex logarithm and the primary branch, raising questions about the nature of solutions to \(2^{1-z} = 1\).
  • There is a contention regarding the definition of a simple pole and the conditions under which \(2^{1-z}\) equals 1, with references to the derivative not being zero.
  • Participants express confusion over the relevance of certain methods and definitions, particularly regarding the primary branch of the complex logarithm and its implications for the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the methods for proving the existence of a simple pole, with multiple competing views and approaches presented throughout the discussion.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the mathematical steps involved, particularly in relation to the series expansions and the implications of the complex logarithm. The discussion reflects a range of interpretations regarding the definitions and properties of poles in complex analysis.

  • #31
sorry i waS CRANKY TODAY.

but it is kind of odd to know what a simple pole is and not know what a simple zero is.

a meromorphic function has a simple pole at a if it looks locally near a, like

1/(z-a) times a holomorphic function which is not zero at a.

it has a simple zero at a if it looks locally at a like (z-a) times a holomorphic function which is not zero at a.hence obviously f has a simple pole iff 1/f has a simple zero.

as you realized, since a holomorphic function has a taylor series, whose coefficient of (z-a) is its first derivative at a, a holomorphic f has a simple zero at a iff f(a) = 0 and f'(a) is not zero.so to show the function above has a simple pole at z=1, it is much easier to turn it upside down and show the reciprocal has a simple zero, which can be checked by taking a derivative.but somebody is teaching you amiss, if they have you doing meromorphic functions and poles and have not even taught you about using derivatives to compute the order of a zero, which is easier and more fundamental.

a holomorphic function, e.g. a polynomial, has a zero of order at least k at a, iff if is divisible by (z-a)^k, (with holomorphic quotient),

iff its first k derivatives (0'th through k-1'st) are zero at a.

a simple zero is a zero of order one. i would think this would be familiar even from high school algebra.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Thanks a lot mathwonk, I know the author of the thread in real life, I don't think either of us have come across simple zero's before but I think we both understood what you were on about straight away, very useful thanks :smile:
 
  • #33
you are quite welcome.

there is also a geometric version of the order of a zero or pole.

a point a is a zero of f of order k iff the inverse image of a small punctured disc D centered at 0, intersects a small nbhd of a, in a set that maps exactly k to one onto D.

since reciprocation is an isomorpism from a nbhd of 0 to a nbhd of infinity, a pole of order k at a, means some punctured nbhd of a maps exactly k to one, onto the exterior of a large disc, i.e. ointo a small opunctured disc about infinbity.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
26
Views
5K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K