Showing the integral of z^n around any smooth curve = 0.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The integral of \( z^n \) around any closed smooth path equals zero for any integer \( n \) not equal to -1, as established by Cauchy's Integral Theorem. For \( n > 0 \), \( z^n \) is entire, allowing direct application of the theorem. When \( n < 0 \), the integral can still be shown to be zero by integrating around a circle and recognizing that the only singularity is at the origin, which is not enclosed by the path. The case for \( n = -1 \) requires special attention, as it leads to a non-zero integral around a unit circle.

PREREQUISITES
  • Cauchy's Integral Theorem
  • Complex analysis fundamentals
  • Understanding of analytic functions
  • Integration techniques in polar coordinates
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Cauchy's Integral Theorem in complex analysis
  • Learn about singularities and their effects on integrals
  • Explore integration in polar coordinates with complex functions
  • Investigate mathematical induction in the context of complex integrals
USEFUL FOR

Students of complex analysis, mathematicians working with integrals, and anyone interested in the properties of analytic functions and their integrals.

mancini0
Messages
30
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hello everyone. I'm trying to finish the following problem:

Show that \intz^n dz = 0 for any closed smooth path and any integer not equal to -1. [If n is negative, assume that γ does not pass through the origin, since otherwise the integral is not defined.]

Homework Equations



Cauchy's Integral Theorem states that the integral of all simple closed curves around an analytic region is zero.

Cauchy's Theorem.

The Attempt at a Solution



First, I recognize that if n>0, z^n is analytic everywhere (entire) and Cauchy's Integral Theorem yields the desired result.

My trouble arises when n is negative. By the problem statement, I must only consider n not equal to -1. I plan on using a circle (call it "C1" )as my path of integration, somehow arrive at the conclusion that the integral of z^n with (n<0, n does not = 1) is always zero, then apply Cauchy's Theorem to extend that result to any smooth curve C2. But when n is negative, z^n is not analytic, and Cauchy's Integral Theorem does not apply.

Can I proceed as follows?

Let z =re^i\theta
then z^n = r^n *e^in\theta
Now pull the r^n in front of the integral, leaving

(r^n)\ointe^in\theta d\theta

Hmmm...Perhaps I can say e^in\theta is analytic since the exponential is never zero. Is this correct? What trouble arises when n=-1?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Shucks... the exponential is analytic everywhere, so I can use Cauchy's Integral Theorem. :0
 
mancini0 said:
Shucks... the exponential is analytic everywhere, so I can use Cauchy's Integral Theorem. :0

It's not that simple. r isn't analytic and neither is theta. You should really figure out what's wrong with the n=(-1) case. Integrate around the unit circle for general n. Then use that the only place 1/z^n isn't analytic is the origin.
 
Thank you. The fact that theta and r are not analytic follow from the fact that theta and r are functions of z = x+iy. That thought was bothering me. When n = -1, my problem is that I calculate the integral of z^-1 dz to in fact be zero, when z = re^i*theta. But a previous problem showed me that the integral of (z-w)^-1 dz around a unit circle centered on w is 2(pi)i.
 
mancini0 said:
Thank you. The fact that theta and r are not analytic follow from the fact that theta and r are functions of z = x+iy. That thought was bothering me. When n = -1, my problem is that I calculate the integral of z^-1 dz to in fact be zero, when z = re^i*theta. But a previous problem showed me that the integral of (z-w)^-1 dz around a unit circle centered on w is 2(pi)i.

I don't get z^(-1)*dz around the unit circle to be zero. Use z=e^(i*theta). Find dz in terms of d(theta). Integrate for theta from 0 to 2*pi.
 
Yikes. I made an elementary mistake in taking the derivative of e^i*theta. Then the integral reduces to the integral of i d(theta) from theta = 0 to theta = 2pi, which is 2(pi)i.
 
mancini0 said:
Yikes. I made an elementary mistake in taking the derivative of e^i*theta. Then the integral reduces to the integral of i d(theta) from theta = 0 to theta = 2pi, which is 2(pi)i.

Ok. Now you're getting it. Try z^n where n<1.
 
Okay, for example suppose n = -2. Then integrating (e^i*theta)^-2 from 0 to 2pi gives me zero, as desired. I suppose I could use mathematical induction from here on out?
 
mancini0 said:
Okay, for example suppose n = -2. Then integrating (e^i*theta)^-2 from 0 to 2pi gives me zero, as desired. I suppose I could use mathematical induction from here on out?

How did you get n=(-2) to be zero? You really don't need induction. You just need that the integral of cos(k*theta) and sin(k*theta) from 0 to 2*pi is zero with k an integer unless k=0, don't you? It's elementary integration. And using the trig functions are periodic.
 
  • #10
I meant the integral of z^n dz, which should be 0 by the problem statement. Somebody get this man a Field's Medal! Thanks for your help.
 
  • #11
By Cauchy's theorem, it is sufficient to integrate around the circle with center at 0 and radius R. On such a circle, z= Re^{i\theta} so that dz= ri e^{i\theta}d\theta. The integral is
\oint z^n dz= \int_0^{2\pi} (R^ne^{ni\theta})(Re^{i\theta}d\theta
= R^{n+1} \int_0^{2\pi} e^{(n+1)i\theta}d\theta

Now, just do that integral. Note that you will have to do the cases n= -1 and n\ne -1 separately.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
32
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K