Why the path independence theorem does not work?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the path independence theorem in complex integration, specifically for the integral of the function \( z^2 - 2z + 1 \) along a contour defined by \( -2 \leq y \leq 2 \) with \( x = 5 \). The user initially computed the integral using a parameterization and obtained a result of \( \frac{176i}{3} \). However, when applying the path independence theorem, they found a different result of \( -\frac{4i}{3} \), leading to confusion about the theorem's applicability due to differing endpoints of the paths used.

PREREQUISITES
  • Complex analysis fundamentals
  • Understanding of contour integration
  • Knowledge of antiderivatives in complex functions
  • Familiarity with the path independence theorem
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of contour integration in complex analysis
  • Learn about the conditions for the path independence theorem to hold
  • Explore the differences between definite integrals and antiderivatives
  • Investigate parameterization techniques for complex integrals
USEFUL FOR

Students and practitioners of complex analysis, particularly those interested in contour integration and the application of the path independence theorem in solving integrals.

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