Show Res(F'(z)/F(z), z0) = m if F(z) is analytic and has a zero of order m at z0.

  • Thread starter Thread starter StumpedPupil
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Zero
StumpedPupil
Messages
11
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Show Res(F'(z)/F(z), z0) = m if F(z) is analytic on the disc |z - z0| < R and has a zero of order m at z0.

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


We know that the kth derivation of F(z) is 0 for all k less than m, since F(z) has a zero of order m at z0. The kth derivative of F(z) is not 0 for all k greater than or equal to m.

We know F(z) can be written as a power series on the disc and that the coefficients are given by the kth derivative of F(z), evaluated at z0 and divided by k!. That means that the power series for F(z) = ∑(m to ∞) an(z-z0)^n since an = 0 for all n less than m.

I want to show F'(z)/F(z) has a residue at z0 which is m, but am not quite sure how I should begin. I tried solving by equating coefficients for some function G(z), where I showed F(z)G(z) = F'(z) but this seems wrong.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If F(z) is analytic and has a zero of order 3 at z0, then F(z)= (z- z0)3g(z) where g is analytic. F'(z)= 3(z-z0)2g+ (z-z0)3g'(z).
F'(z)/F(z)= 3/(z-z0)+ g'(z)/g(z). Does that help?
 
It definitely helps, thank you. I do have a follow up question though. In the general case where F has a zero of order m and we represent F = (z-z0)^mg(z), like you did, then we can get F'/F = m/(z-z0) + g'(z)/g(z).
The only condition of g(z) is that it is analytic, so is it not possible that g'(z)/g(z) could include some other factor necessary to calculate the residue. If not, then why. And if not, then I see that Res( F'/F, z0) = m.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top