Why the path independence theorem does not work?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the path independence theorem in complex analysis, specifically regarding the integral of the function \( z^2 - 2z + 1 \) over a contour defined by the variable \( y \) ranging from -2 to 2, with a fixed \( x \) value of 5.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to compute the integral using both a direct approach and the path independence theorem, leading to differing results. Some participants question the validity of the integration steps and the endpoints of the paths used.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively discussing the discrepancies in the results obtained from different methods. There is an exploration of the conditions under which the path independence theorem applies, with some guidance offered regarding the endpoints of the paths.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of a potential misunderstanding regarding the endpoints of the paths used in the integration, which may affect the application of the path independence theorem. Additionally, a correction was made regarding the notation used in the integral.

oahsen
Messages
58
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


where C is the contour given with direction marked by increasing y, and where -2≤y≤2 , compute itgeral(z^2-2z+1)dz. With the condition x=5;

Firstly I solved the auestion with the classical way ;
taking z= 5 + it where -2≤t≤2;
we take the i*integral((5+it)^2-2(5+it) +1)dt from t=-2 to t=2 and I found the result as
176i/3.

Then I tried to use the path independence theorem. The antiderivative of z^2-2z+1 is z^3/3 - z^2 + z then taking the integral from 2i to -2i yields -4i/3. So the two answers are different. Why the path independence theorem did not work here?[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
integral((5+it)^2-2(5+it) +1)
That makes no sense; you have to integrate with respect to some variable. It looks like you just erased the dz from the original integral before getting to this point!
 
Hurkyl said:
That makes no sense; you have to integrate with respect to some variable. It looks like you just erased the dz from the original integral before getting to this point!

sorry , I made a mistyping now I corrected it. There I used the formula
integral(f(z)dz) over a contour c = integral(f(z(t))* z'(t)) dt .
 
oahsen said:
Why the path independence theorem did not work here?
Your paths don't have the same endpoints, do they?

Incidentally,
The antiderivative of z^2-2z+1 is z^3/3 - z^2 + z
It's not the antiderivative; it's an antiderivative. (But that's not relevant here)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K