MHB Using Cauchy Integral Formula for Laurent Series Coefficients

cbarker1
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
345
Reaction score
23
Dear Everyone,

I am wondering how to use the integral formula for a holomorphic function at all points except a point that does not exist in function's analyticity. For instance, Let $f$ be defined as $$f(z)=\frac{z}{e^z-i}$$. $f$ is holomorphic everywhere except for $z_n=i\pi/2+2ni\pi$ for all $n$ in the integers. Let curve $C$ be closed positively oriented simple curve. \[ f(z_0)=\frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_C\frac{f(z)}{z-z_0}dz \], I want to find $z_0=i$, if it is possible.Thanks,

Cbarker1
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm not sure what you mean by "find $z_0= i$". Do you mean find the value of the integral $\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_C \frac{dz}{z- i}$?
Since that is equal to $f(z_0)= f(i)$, and $f(z)= \frac{z}{e^z- i}$ that is $\frac{i}{e^i- i}$. In general, $e^{ix}= cos(x)+ i sin(x)$ so $e^i= cos(1)+ i sin(1)$. $f(i)= \frac{i}{cos(1)+ i(sin(1)- 1}$. If you like you can "rationalize" the denominator by multiplying both numerator and denominator by $cos(1)- i(sin(1)- 1)$. That gives $\frac{1- sin(1)- i}{cos^2(1)+ sin^2(1)- 2sin(1)+ 1}= \frac{1- sin(1)- i}{2- 2sin(1)}$.
 
Country Boy said:
I'm not sure what you mean by "find $z_0= i$". Do you mean find the value of the integral $\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_C \frac{dz}{z- i}$?
Since that is equal to $f(z_0)= f(i)$, and $f(z)= \frac{z}{e^z- i}$ that is $\frac{i}{e^i- i}$. In general, $e^{ix}= cos(x)+ i sin(x)$ so $e^i= cos(1)+ i sin(1)$. $f(i)= \frac{i}{cos(1)+ i(sin(1)- 1}$. If you like you can "rationalize" the denominator by multiplying both numerator and denominator by $cos(1)- i(sin(1)- 1)$. That gives $\frac{1- sin(1)- i}{cos^2(1)+ sin^2(1)- 2sin(1)+ 1}= \frac{1- sin(1)- i}{2- 2sin(1)}$.
I want to find the coefficient of Laurent series at the singularity point. Sorry for the confusion...
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K