Why doesn't the residue theorem work for branch cut integration?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the residue theorem in branch cut integration, specifically for the integral \(\int_{0}^{\infty}{x^{\alpha - 1} \over x+1}={\pi \over \sin(\alpha\pi)}\) where \(0 < \alpha < 1\). The user initially encountered discrepancies when applying the residue theorem using a keyhole contour, resulting in \(-\pi i e^{i\alpha\pi}\), which did not match the expected result. The error was identified as stemming from the treatment of the branch cut along the real axis, particularly when evaluating the contour just below the x-axis, leading to different logarithmic values for \(z^{\alpha}\).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex analysis, specifically contour integration
  • Familiarity with the residue theorem and its applications
  • Knowledge of branch cuts and their implications in complex functions
  • Proficiency in evaluating integrals involving complex variables
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of branch cuts in complex analysis
  • Learn about keyhole contour integration techniques
  • Explore the implications of the residue theorem in different contour configurations
  • Investigate the behavior of logarithmic functions in complex integration
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students engaged in complex analysis, particularly those dealing with integrals involving branch cuts and contour integration techniques.

gonzo
Messages
277
Reaction score
0
I need help with a branch cut intgration. The problem is to show the following for [itex]0< \alpha <1[/itex]:

[tex] \int_{0}^{\infty}{x^{\alpha - 1} \over x+1}={\pi \over sin\alpha\pi}[/tex]

I used the standard keyhole contour around the real axis (taking that as the branch cut), but using the residue theorem I end up with:

[tex] -\pi i e^{i\alpha\pi}[/tex]

Which obviously doesn't match. Although this does match up for alpha equals one half.

Some help would be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It would be easier to see what went wrong if you showed more work!

What was your residue? (I think you were Ok here)

How did you deal with the part of the keyhole contour that lies just below the x-axis? I think this is what went wrong. On this part you will be working with a different branch of the logarithm, so z^{alpha} will take on different values here than the bit above the x-axis.
 
Thanks, you actually showed me my stupid mistake. I had just worked through the problem with alpha as one half, in which case the lower and upper part of the branch cuts are the same (well, negatives, but going in different directions, so you get a divisor of 2).

I had naively assumed that it would be the same for this problem. Your comment inspired me to take a closer look and I realized it wasn't the case, and then the answer was trivial.

Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K