Without going into the precise definition in terms of the Laurent expansion, what exactly is a pole? Is it just where division by zero occurs? I mean, clearly if we have a fraction with (za) on the bottom then a will be a pole. But what if we have a fraction with a 1/z term or, say (1 + 1/z)^2 on the top? Is that going to give a pole at 0?
How can I tell the order of a pole when it's not completely clear? Say we have a pole at a. Do I just take my function f(z), and take the function gn(z) = (za)^n * f(z) for each natural number n, and find the least natural number n such that gn(a) is not zero?
What is the easiest/most straightforward way to find residues? Should I try to get at the 1 term of the Laurent expansion using Taylor/power series expansions, or will it usually be easier to just use the derivative formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residue...er_order_poles
?
Thanks for any help.
x
Turn on thread page Beta

gangsta316
 Follow
 2 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to gangsta316
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 1
 28032011 02:05

 Follow
 2
 28032011 02:53
(Original post by gangsta316)
Without going into the precise definition in terms of the Laurent expansion, what exactly is a pole? Is it just where division by zero occurs?
I mean, clearly if we have a fraction with (za) on the bottom then a will be a pole. But what if we have a fraction with a 1/z term or, say (1 + 1/z)^2 on the top? Is that going to give a pole at 0?
How can I tell the order of a pole when it's not completely clear? Say we have a pole at a. Do I just take my function f(z), and take the function gn(z) = (za)^n * f(z) for each natural number n, and find the least natural number n such that gn(a) is not zero?
What is the easiest/most straightforward way to find residues? Should I try to get at the 1 term of the Laurent expansion using Taylor/power series expansions, or will it usually be easier to just use the derivative formula
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Residue...er_order_poles
? 
gangsta316
 Follow
 2 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to gangsta316
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 3
 28032011 20:19
(Original post by Zhen Lin)
More or less. Formally, if you have a holomorphic function with U containing an open annulus around z, we say f has a pole of order n at z if exists and is nonzero.
, so this has a double pole at 0.
Yes.
Do a few practice questions and see which is easier for you. If you know in advance that you have a simple pole you can take a shortcut and try to directly evaluate , for example.
If I want to evaluate a real integral with infinity in one (or both) of its limits, I know that I would use the usual semicircular contour. In these cases, is the integral round the semicircular arc always going to go to 0? In all of the examples I've seen, this seems to be the case. 
davros
 Follow
 40 followers
 16 badges
 Send a private message to davros
 Study Helper
Offline16ReputationRep:Study Helper Follow
 4
 28032011 21:42
(Original post by gangsta316)
Thank you.
If I want to evaluate a real integral with infinity in one (or both) of its limits, I know that I would use the usual semicircular contour. In these cases, is the integral round the semicircular arc always going to go to 0? In all of the examples I've seen, this seems to be the case.
Look out for a complex analysis book with plenty of examples and you should see some instances of how to use a rectangular contour for example. 
gangsta316
 Follow
 2 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to gangsta316
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 5
 29032011 01:48
(Original post by davros)
By no means! Sometimes you will see an integral with something like sinh x in the denominator, in which case, not only would you not have convergence on a large semicircle, but you would be adding an infinite series of residues as the radius of the semicircle increased!
Look out for a complex analysis book with plenty of examples and you should see some instances of how to use a rectangular contour for example.
How do I deal with the indented semicircle contour, where we go round the origin in a semicircle to avoid a point of nonholomorphy? Usually the main part of the integral we need to evaluate is this one: the integral round the semicircle in the upper half plane, with center at the origin and radius r (r is small). I know that we can let r>0 before we integrate if we need to. But what happens if I get something/r in the integrand (say exponential/r)? Does this mean that I have definitely done something wrong? This kind of integrand would appear to blow up if we let r>0. 
davros
 Follow
 40 followers
 16 badges
 Send a private message to davros
 Study Helper
Offline16ReputationRep:Study Helper Follow
 6
 29032011 20:47
(Original post by gangsta316)
It seems that if Jordan's lemma applies, then I should go for the semicircle and that otherwise I should use the rectangle (and the integrand will usually be something involving exponentials).
How do I deal with the indented semicircle contour, where we go round the origin in a semicircle to avoid a point of nonholomorphy? But what happens if I get something/r in the integrand (say exponential/r)? Does this mean that I have definitely done something wrong? This kind of integrand would appear to blow up if we let r>0.
For the small semicircle, remember that you can parameterize it as z = re^(it) where t varies from 0 to pi (or pi to 0 if going clockwise) so dz = (ire^(it))dt and the r's will cancel if you have a 1/r in the integrand. This is typically why you get a finite contribution from the indentation, and if you think about it you can probably see that the integral round a semicircle is half the integral round a circle enclosing the pole  and you get the latter by a simple application of the residue theorem. 
gangsta316
 Follow
 2 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to gangsta316
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 7
 06042011 01:53
I'm having trouble understanding the keyhole contour.
http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/~bin06/M2...pm3l30(11).pdf
Check near the end of the document. It says "Near gamma 3: argz = 2pi.....". Why is it important that we parametrized it as z = x* e^(2*pi*i)? It clearly made a difference somewhere but why didn't we just replace that e^(2*pi*i) by 1? How can we have an upper branch where the argument is 0 and a lower branch where the argument is 2*pi? I mean, aren't they the same? We could perhaps think of them as slightly different but won't we still get the same things coming out when we plug in 2*pi instead of 0? So I don't understand why this method works, when we would expect the upper integral and lower integral (above and below the axis) to cancel each other out and thus not give us anything useful. 
thebadgeroverlord
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to thebadgeroverlord
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 8
 06042011 02:50
(Original post by gangsta316)
I'm having trouble understanding the keyhole contour.
http://www2.imperial.ac.uk/~bin06/M2...pm3l30(11).pdf
Check near the end of the document. It says "Near gamma 3: argz = 2pi.....". Why is it important that we parametrized it as z = x* e^(2*pi*i)? It clearly made a difference somewhere but why didn't we just replace that e^(2*pi*i) by 1? How can we have an upper branch where the argument is 0 and a lower branch where the argument is 2*pi? I mean, aren't they the same? We could perhaps think of them as slightly different but won't we still get the same things coming out when we plug in 2*pi instead of 0? So I don't understand why this method works, when we would expect the upper integral and lower integral (above and below the axis) to cancel each other out and thus not give us anything useful.
sum of residues
The LHS is not zero as a is not an integer. 
gangsta316
 Follow
 2 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to gangsta316
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 9
 06042011 13:13
(Original post by thebadgeroverlord)
They don't cancel as on the lower side of the branch cut you have time the 1 where so you will get
sum of residues
The LHS is not zero as a is not an integer. 
thebadgeroverlord
 Follow
 0 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to thebadgeroverlord
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 10
 06042011 13:32
(Original post by gangsta316)
But if we had parametrized it as z = x instead of z = x*exp(2*pi*i), we would get I wouldn't we? But why? x = x*exp(2*pi*i) !
As you have cut the plane along the real axis the arguement can't jump back to zero 
gangsta316
 Follow
 2 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to gangsta316
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 11
 06042011 13:57
(Original post by thebadgeroverlord)
Because you have cut the plane along the positive real axis, , you take .
As you have cut the plane along the real axis the arguement can't jump back to zero 
DFranklin
 Follow
 60 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 12
 06042011 14:36
(Original post by gangsta316)
I thought that, wherever one sees exp(2*pi*i), this can just be replaced by 1. 
gangsta316
 Follow
 2 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to gangsta316
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 13
 06042011 15:50
(Original post by DFranklin)
No, you can't always do this.
I've another question. What is the residue of f(z) = 1/z^2 * pi * cot(pi*z) at 0? I tried using the derivative rule by letting g(z) = z * pi *cot(pi*z) [since 0 is a triple pole] and differentiating twice. But then when you plug in 0 we get division by zero. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 60 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 14
 06042011 15:59
(Original post by gangsta316)
Why not? Aren't they equal?
I've another question. What is the residue of f(z) = 1/z^2 * pi * cot(pi*z) at 0? I tried using the derivative rule by letting g(z) = z * pi *cot(pi*z) [since 0 is a triple pole] and differentiating twice. But then when you plug in 0 we get division by zero. 
gangsta316
 Follow
 2 followers
 2 badges
 Send a private message to gangsta316
 Thread Starter
Offline2ReputationRep: Follow
 15
 06042011 20:26
(Original post by DFranklin)
Not when you've got a fractional power in the mix, no.
You can't "plug in 0", you need to take the limit as z>0.
I see. That does seem to be the proper form of the derivative rule. 
DFranklin
 Follow
 60 followers
 17 badges
 Send a private message to DFranklin
Offline17ReputationRep: Follow
 16
 06042011 20:58
(Original post by gangsta316)
But why aren't they equal? Isn't it just exp(2*pi*i) = cos(2*pi) + i* sin(2*pi) = 1?
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Related discussions:
 Residues  complex analysis confusion.
 Oxford MAT 2013/2014
 OCR Biology F215 Control, Genomes and Environment Fri 15 ...
 The hard integral thread.
 The Proof is Trivial!
 Official TSR Mathematical Society
 Oxford Applicants for 2014 Entry
 TSR Med Students' Society Part V
 Current Year 12 Thread Mark II (20142015)
TSR Support Team
We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.
This forum is supported by:
 SherlockHolmes
 Notnek
 charco
 Mr M
 TSR Moderator
 Nirgilis
 usycool1
 Changing Skies
 James A
 rayquaza17
 RDKGames
 randdom
 davros
 Gingerbread101
 Kvothe the Arcane
 TeeEff
 The Empire Odyssey
 Protostar
 TheConfusedMedic
 nisha.sri
 Reality Check
 claireestelle
 Doonesbury
 furryface12
 Amefish
 harryleavey
 Lemur14
 brainzistheword
 Rexar
 Sonechka
 LeCroissant
 EstelOfTheEyrie
 CoffeeAndPolitics
 an_atheist
 Moltenmo
 Labrador99
Updated: April 6, 2011
Share this discussion:
Tweet