Proving that an integral is a pure imaginary

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that the integral \(\int_{\gamma} f^*(z) f'(z) dz\) is a pure imaginary number for any piecewise smooth closed curve \(\gamma\) and any \(C^1\) function \(f\) whose domain includes an open set containing the image of \(\gamma\).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore various methods, including Taylor expansion and integration by parts, to analyze the integral. There are questions about the differentiability of \(f^*\) and the implications of using integration by parts. Some participants express uncertainty about the steps taken and seek validation of their reasoning.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing hints and clarifications. Some guidance has been offered regarding the differentiability of \(f^*\) and the relationship between \(f\) and its complex conjugate. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored, and there is a recognition of the need for careful handling of the integral's properties.

Contextual Notes

Participants are operating under the constraints of \(C^1\) differentiability and the properties of complex functions. There is an ongoing examination of assumptions related to the differentiability of \(f^*\) and the implications for the integral's evaluation.

JPaquim
Messages
33
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show that [itex]\int_{\gamma}\ f^*(z)\ f'(z)\ dz[/itex] is a pure imaginary for any piecewise smooth closed curve [itex]\gamma[/itex] and any [itex]C^1[/itex] function [itex]f[/itex] whose domain contains an open set containing the image of [itex]\gamma[/itex]


2. The attempt at a solution

I have tried to approach it from some different angles. I've tried to Taylor expand everything, to see if some interesting things would happen, but I found none. I've also tried to expand it as such:

[itex]\int_{\gamma}\ f^*(z)\ f'(z)\ dz = \int_{\gamma}\ [(u - iv)(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} + i\frac{\partial v}{\partial x})](dx + idy) =[/itex]

[itex]\int_{\gamma}\ (u\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}+v\frac{\partial v}{\partial x})dx+(u\frac{\partial u}{\partial y} + v\frac{\partial v}{\partial y})dy + i\int_{\gamma}\ (u\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-v\frac{\partial u}{\partial x})dx+(u\frac{\partial v}{\partial y}-v\frac{\partial u}{\partial y})dy[/itex]

What can I do with this? Is this the way to go?

Cheers
 
Physics news on Phys.org
JPaquim said:

Homework Statement



Show that [itex]\int_{\gamma}\ f^*(z)\ f'(z)\ dz[/itex] is a pure imaginary for any piecewise smooth closed curve [itex]\gamma[/itex] and any [itex]C^1[/itex] function [itex]f[/itex] whose domain contains an open set containing the image of [itex]\gamma[/itex]2. The attempt at a solution

I have tried to approach it from some different angles. I've tried to Taylor expand everything, to see if some interesting things would happen, but I found none. I've also tried to expand it as such:

[itex]\int_{\gamma}\ f^*(z)\ f'(z)\ dz = \int_{\gamma}\ [(u - iv)(\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} + i\frac{\partial v}{\partial x})](dx + idy) =[/itex]

[itex]\int_{\gamma}\ (u\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}+v\frac{\partial v}{\partial x})dx+(u\frac{\partial u}{\partial y} + v\frac{\partial v}{\partial y})dy + i\int_{\gamma}\ (u\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}-v\frac{\partial u}{\partial x})dx+(u\frac{\partial v}{\partial y}-v\frac{\partial u}{\partial y})dy[/itex]

What can I do with this? Is this the way to go?

Cheers

It's a lot simpler than that. A number is pure imaginary if its complex conjugate is equal to its negative. Hint: use integration by parts. You are starting from the integral of f*df.
 
Last edited:
Dick said:
It's a lot simpler than that. A number is pure imaginary if its complex conjugate is equal to its negative. Hint: use integration by parts. You are starting from the integral of f*df.

I thought of that, but integration by parts produces [itex]-\int_\gamma\ f\cdot(f^*)'dz[/itex], but I have no guarantee that [itex]f^*[/itex] is differentiable... And even if it were, I'd still have to show that [itex]-\int_\gamma\ f\cdot(f^*)'dz = -\int_\gamma\ f\cdot(f')^*dz[/itex], which doesn't seem trivial...
 
JPaquim said:
I thought of that, but integration by parts produces [itex]-\int_\gamma\ f\cdot(f^*)'dz[/itex], but I have no guarantee that [itex]f^*[/itex] is differentiable... And even if it were, I'd still have to show that [itex]-\int_\gamma\ f\cdot(f^*)'dz = -\int_\gamma\ f\cdot(f')^*dz[/itex], which doesn't seem trivial...

Your are making this seem a LOT harder than it is. If f is differentiable then f* is differentiable. That's almost trivial. As is (f*)'=(f')*. We are just talking C^1 differentiabilty here, the existence of continuous partial derviatives, not complex differentiability. If your curve is z=γ(t) then you can express all of the derivatives as d/dt.
 
Last edited:
Dick said:
Your are making this seem a LOT harder than it is. If f is differentiable then f* is differentiable. That's almost trivial. As is (f*)'=(f')*. We are just talking C^1 differentiabilty here, the existence of continuous partial derviatives, not complex differentiability. If your curve is z=γ(t) then you can express all of the derivatives as d/dt.

Oh, that makes a lot of sense! So one gets:

[itex]\int_{\gamma}\ f^*(z)\ f'(z)\ dz = \int_a^b\ f(\gamma(t))^*\cdot f'(\gamma(t))\cdot \gamma'(t)\ dt = \int_a^b\ ((f\circ\gamma)(t))^*\cdot \frac{d}{dt}(f\circ\gamma)(t)\ dt[/itex]
[itex]= [\ |\ f(\gamma(t))\ |^2\ ]_a^b - \int_a^b\ \frac{d}{dt}((f\circ\gamma)^*)(t) \cdot (f\circ\gamma)(t)\ dt = -\int_a^b\ (f'(\gamma(t)))^* \cdot \gamma'(t) \cdot f(\gamma(t))\ dt[/itex]
[itex]= -\int_{\gamma}\ f(z)\ (f'(z))^*\ dz[/itex]
 
Last edited:
Right! It's actually (ff*)=|f|^2 in the difference term for the integration by parts, but that doesn't make any difference.
 
Dick said:
Right! It's actually (ff*)=|f|^2 in the difference term for the integration by parts, but that doesn't make any difference.

You're totally right, my mistake. I've already corrected it.
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K