I Solving Complex Integral Paths - Real Line Poles

Silviu
Messages
612
Reaction score
11
Hello! If I have a real integral between ##-\infty## and ##+\infty## and the function to be integrated is holomorphic in the whole complex plane except for a finite number of points on the real line does it matter how I make the path around the poles on the real line? I.e. if I integrate on the semicircle in the upper plane and I have a pole at 0 let's say, do I get the same result if I go around the pole above or below the real axis? Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The sign will change because one path is clockwise around the pole and the other is counter-clockwise.
 
FactChecker said:
The sign will change because one path is clockwise around the pole and the other is counter-clockwise.
Do you mean the sign of the semicircle around the pole (whose radius t=you take to go to 0 in the end)? But you also have to consider that in one case the pole is inside the contour (so you must use Residue theorem) and in the other is outside (SO by Cauchy theorem the integral around everything would be 0), right?
 
Silviu said:
[...] does it matter how I make the path around the poles on the real line?
You'll get the same result IF you do both integrals properly.

In the first case, the pole is outside the contour, so no residue contribution. But there's potentially a contribution from the small semicircle over the pole, traversed clockwise.

In the second case, the pole is inside the contour so there's a residue contribution. But there's also a contribution from the small semicircle under the pole, this time traversed anticlockwise.

You should end up with the same result either way.
 
  • Like
Likes FactChecker
Silviu said:
Do you mean the sign of the semicircle around the pole (whose radius t=you take to go to 0 in the end)? But you also have to consider that in one case the pole is inside the contour (so you must use Residue theorem) and in the other is outside (SO by Cauchy theorem the integral around everything would be 0), right?
Yes. Sorry. My post was too brief. @strangerep gave a better answer.
 
A sphere as topological manifold can be defined by gluing together the boundary of two disk. Basically one starts assigning each disk the subspace topology from ##\mathbb R^2## and then taking the quotient topology obtained by gluing their boundaries. Starting from the above definition of 2-sphere as topological manifold, shows that it is homeomorphic to the "embedded" sphere understood as subset of ##\mathbb R^3## in the subspace topology.

Similar threads

Back
Top