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
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on proving that the function \(\frac{1}{1-2^{1-z}}\) has a simple pole at \(z=1\). Participants explore various methods, including Taylor series expansions and the use of Laurent series. The key conclusion is that the residue at the pole can be calculated using l'Hospital's rule, leading to the result \(R=\frac{1}{\ln(2)}\). The conversation also emphasizes the relationship between simple poles and simple zeros, clarifying that a function has a simple pole if its reciprocal has a simple zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Complex analysis fundamentals, including poles and residues.
  • Understanding of Taylor and Laurent series expansions.
  • Familiarity with l'Hospital's rule for evaluating limits.
  • Knowledge of the properties of exponential functions, particularly \(2^{1-z}\).
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of residues in complex functions using l'Hospital's rule.
  • Learn how to construct and analyze Laurent series for meromorphic functions.
  • Explore the relationship between simple poles and simple zeros in more depth.
  • Investigate the implications of the primary branch of the complex logarithm in complex analysis.
USEFUL FOR

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

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