Evaluating line integrals that are analytic “almost everywhere” using Cauchy's Theorem or Integral...
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
First off: I know that "almost everywhere" has a legitimate meaning in measure theory, but I'm not referring to that in this case, really. I'm talking about the case where there are only a small (finite) number of points where the function is not analytic inside a piecewise-smooth simple closed curve.
I am wondering why we can't use Cauchy's Integral Formula or Cauchy's theorem in this case.
Some examples of what I'm referring to:
a) $int_gamma f(z) dz = int_gamma frac{e^{z^2}}{z(z-2)}dz$ where $gamma(t) = 3+2e^{it}$, $0 leq t leq 2pi$
b) $int_gamma g(z) dz=int_gamma frac{z^2 - 1}{z^2 + 1}$ where $gamma(t) = 1-i+2e^{it}$, $0 leq t leq 2pi$
In the first instance, $f$ is analytic on $mathbb{C} setminus {2}$ but unfortunately, the curve $gamma$, which is the circle of radius $2$ centred at $3$, includes this point.
In the second instance, $g$ is analytic on $mathbb{C} setminus {i, -i}$ but, the curve, which is the circle of radius $2$ centred at $1-i$, includes these points.
I used WolframAlpha to evaluate the second integral using the standard definition of a line integral for a smooth curve, and got that the result is $2pi$.
My question is, why does having a small number of "holes" make the integral evaluate to a larger number (if there weren't any holes, it would have evaluated to 0 from Cauchy's Theorem)? It seems counterintuitive (given my understanding of integration in the reals).
Also, are there any tips or tricks for attacking these types of integrals? They are difficult to work with (computationally) which is why I was hoping to find a way to use some of the nicer formulae.
integration complex-analysis
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
First off: I know that "almost everywhere" has a legitimate meaning in measure theory, but I'm not referring to that in this case, really. I'm talking about the case where there are only a small (finite) number of points where the function is not analytic inside a piecewise-smooth simple closed curve.
I am wondering why we can't use Cauchy's Integral Formula or Cauchy's theorem in this case.
Some examples of what I'm referring to:
a) $int_gamma f(z) dz = int_gamma frac{e^{z^2}}{z(z-2)}dz$ where $gamma(t) = 3+2e^{it}$, $0 leq t leq 2pi$
b) $int_gamma g(z) dz=int_gamma frac{z^2 - 1}{z^2 + 1}$ where $gamma(t) = 1-i+2e^{it}$, $0 leq t leq 2pi$
In the first instance, $f$ is analytic on $mathbb{C} setminus {2}$ but unfortunately, the curve $gamma$, which is the circle of radius $2$ centred at $3$, includes this point.
In the second instance, $g$ is analytic on $mathbb{C} setminus {i, -i}$ but, the curve, which is the circle of radius $2$ centred at $1-i$, includes these points.
I used WolframAlpha to evaluate the second integral using the standard definition of a line integral for a smooth curve, and got that the result is $2pi$.
My question is, why does having a small number of "holes" make the integral evaluate to a larger number (if there weren't any holes, it would have evaluated to 0 from Cauchy's Theorem)? It seems counterintuitive (given my understanding of integration in the reals).
Also, are there any tips or tricks for attacking these types of integrals? They are difficult to work with (computationally) which is why I was hoping to find a way to use some of the nicer formulae.
integration complex-analysis
You'll want the residue theorem or the integral formula to evaluate these.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 18 at 0:21
If $f$ has only one pole on $|z|=1$ at $z=1$ and is meromorphic on $|z| < 1.1$ then $int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz$ is ill-defined however $$PV(int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz)=lim_{epsilon to 0} int_{|z|=1, |z-1|> epsilon} f(z)dz = frac12 lim_{epsilon to 0}( int_{|z|=1-epsilon} f(z)dz+ int_{|z|=1+epsilon} f(z)dz)$$ The RHS integrals are evaluated with the residue theorem. The keywords are 'principal value residue' @SeanRoberson
– reuns
Nov 18 at 2:28
Way more advanced than you're probably looking for, but possibly related is this 29 December 2004 sci.math post of mine.
– Dave L. Renfro
Nov 18 at 9:47
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
First off: I know that "almost everywhere" has a legitimate meaning in measure theory, but I'm not referring to that in this case, really. I'm talking about the case where there are only a small (finite) number of points where the function is not analytic inside a piecewise-smooth simple closed curve.
I am wondering why we can't use Cauchy's Integral Formula or Cauchy's theorem in this case.
Some examples of what I'm referring to:
a) $int_gamma f(z) dz = int_gamma frac{e^{z^2}}{z(z-2)}dz$ where $gamma(t) = 3+2e^{it}$, $0 leq t leq 2pi$
b) $int_gamma g(z) dz=int_gamma frac{z^2 - 1}{z^2 + 1}$ where $gamma(t) = 1-i+2e^{it}$, $0 leq t leq 2pi$
In the first instance, $f$ is analytic on $mathbb{C} setminus {2}$ but unfortunately, the curve $gamma$, which is the circle of radius $2$ centred at $3$, includes this point.
In the second instance, $g$ is analytic on $mathbb{C} setminus {i, -i}$ but, the curve, which is the circle of radius $2$ centred at $1-i$, includes these points.
I used WolframAlpha to evaluate the second integral using the standard definition of a line integral for a smooth curve, and got that the result is $2pi$.
My question is, why does having a small number of "holes" make the integral evaluate to a larger number (if there weren't any holes, it would have evaluated to 0 from Cauchy's Theorem)? It seems counterintuitive (given my understanding of integration in the reals).
Also, are there any tips or tricks for attacking these types of integrals? They are difficult to work with (computationally) which is why I was hoping to find a way to use some of the nicer formulae.
integration complex-analysis
First off: I know that "almost everywhere" has a legitimate meaning in measure theory, but I'm not referring to that in this case, really. I'm talking about the case where there are only a small (finite) number of points where the function is not analytic inside a piecewise-smooth simple closed curve.
I am wondering why we can't use Cauchy's Integral Formula or Cauchy's theorem in this case.
Some examples of what I'm referring to:
a) $int_gamma f(z) dz = int_gamma frac{e^{z^2}}{z(z-2)}dz$ where $gamma(t) = 3+2e^{it}$, $0 leq t leq 2pi$
b) $int_gamma g(z) dz=int_gamma frac{z^2 - 1}{z^2 + 1}$ where $gamma(t) = 1-i+2e^{it}$, $0 leq t leq 2pi$
In the first instance, $f$ is analytic on $mathbb{C} setminus {2}$ but unfortunately, the curve $gamma$, which is the circle of radius $2$ centred at $3$, includes this point.
In the second instance, $g$ is analytic on $mathbb{C} setminus {i, -i}$ but, the curve, which is the circle of radius $2$ centred at $1-i$, includes these points.
I used WolframAlpha to evaluate the second integral using the standard definition of a line integral for a smooth curve, and got that the result is $2pi$.
My question is, why does having a small number of "holes" make the integral evaluate to a larger number (if there weren't any holes, it would have evaluated to 0 from Cauchy's Theorem)? It seems counterintuitive (given my understanding of integration in the reals).
Also, are there any tips or tricks for attacking these types of integrals? They are difficult to work with (computationally) which is why I was hoping to find a way to use some of the nicer formulae.
integration complex-analysis
integration complex-analysis
edited Nov 18 at 9:21
rtybase
10.2k21433
10.2k21433
asked Nov 18 at 0:01
Jane Doe
12912
12912
You'll want the residue theorem or the integral formula to evaluate these.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 18 at 0:21
If $f$ has only one pole on $|z|=1$ at $z=1$ and is meromorphic on $|z| < 1.1$ then $int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz$ is ill-defined however $$PV(int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz)=lim_{epsilon to 0} int_{|z|=1, |z-1|> epsilon} f(z)dz = frac12 lim_{epsilon to 0}( int_{|z|=1-epsilon} f(z)dz+ int_{|z|=1+epsilon} f(z)dz)$$ The RHS integrals are evaluated with the residue theorem. The keywords are 'principal value residue' @SeanRoberson
– reuns
Nov 18 at 2:28
Way more advanced than you're probably looking for, but possibly related is this 29 December 2004 sci.math post of mine.
– Dave L. Renfro
Nov 18 at 9:47
add a comment |
You'll want the residue theorem or the integral formula to evaluate these.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 18 at 0:21
If $f$ has only one pole on $|z|=1$ at $z=1$ and is meromorphic on $|z| < 1.1$ then $int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz$ is ill-defined however $$PV(int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz)=lim_{epsilon to 0} int_{|z|=1, |z-1|> epsilon} f(z)dz = frac12 lim_{epsilon to 0}( int_{|z|=1-epsilon} f(z)dz+ int_{|z|=1+epsilon} f(z)dz)$$ The RHS integrals are evaluated with the residue theorem. The keywords are 'principal value residue' @SeanRoberson
– reuns
Nov 18 at 2:28
Way more advanced than you're probably looking for, but possibly related is this 29 December 2004 sci.math post of mine.
– Dave L. Renfro
Nov 18 at 9:47
You'll want the residue theorem or the integral formula to evaluate these.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 18 at 0:21
You'll want the residue theorem or the integral formula to evaluate these.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 18 at 0:21
If $f$ has only one pole on $|z|=1$ at $z=1$ and is meromorphic on $|z| < 1.1$ then $int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz$ is ill-defined however $$PV(int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz)=lim_{epsilon to 0} int_{|z|=1, |z-1|> epsilon} f(z)dz = frac12 lim_{epsilon to 0}( int_{|z|=1-epsilon} f(z)dz+ int_{|z|=1+epsilon} f(z)dz)$$ The RHS integrals are evaluated with the residue theorem. The keywords are 'principal value residue' @SeanRoberson
– reuns
Nov 18 at 2:28
If $f$ has only one pole on $|z|=1$ at $z=1$ and is meromorphic on $|z| < 1.1$ then $int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz$ is ill-defined however $$PV(int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz)=lim_{epsilon to 0} int_{|z|=1, |z-1|> epsilon} f(z)dz = frac12 lim_{epsilon to 0}( int_{|z|=1-epsilon} f(z)dz+ int_{|z|=1+epsilon} f(z)dz)$$ The RHS integrals are evaluated with the residue theorem. The keywords are 'principal value residue' @SeanRoberson
– reuns
Nov 18 at 2:28
Way more advanced than you're probably looking for, but possibly related is this 29 December 2004 sci.math post of mine.
– Dave L. Renfro
Nov 18 at 9:47
Way more advanced than you're probably looking for, but possibly related is this 29 December 2004 sci.math post of mine.
– Dave L. Renfro
Nov 18 at 9:47
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
To begin with, none of the points are on the actual curves, i.e
a) $gamma(t)=3+2e^{it}, 0leq tleq 2pi$ is
So $z_0=2$ is inside the disk surrounded by $gamma$ ($0$ isn't). In this case Cauchy's integral formula applies
$$f(z_0)=frac{1}{2pi i } intlimits_{gamma}frac{f(z)}{z-z_0}dz tag{1}$$
where $f(z)=frac{e^{z^2}}{z}$. Or
$$intlimits_{gamma}frac{e^{z^2}}{z(z-2)}dz=2 pi i cdot f(2)=pi i e^4$$
b) $gamma(t)=1-i+2e^{it}, 0leq tleq 2pi$ is
So $z_0=-i$ is inside the disk surrounded by $gamma$ ($i$ isn't). Cauchy's integral formula $(1)$ applies again for $f(z)=frac{z^2-1}{z-i}$. Or
$$intlimits_{gamma}frac{z^2-1}{z^2+1}dz=2 pi i cdot f(-i)=2 pi i frac{-1-1}{-i-i}=2 pi$$
As with regards to the question in bold, everything depends on the final result of applying residue theorem, assuming $f(z)$ meets the inputs of the theorem. $(1)$ is a particular case of it, to some extent. But the integral may evaluate to a complex number, in which case larger number doesn't make sense.
1
Perfect. Thank you for the link to the discussion on comparing the “size” of real and complex numbers! And obviously, I misunderstood where to use Cauchy’s Integral formula, so thanks for that!
– Jane Doe
Nov 18 at 18:43
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
To begin with, none of the points are on the actual curves, i.e
a) $gamma(t)=3+2e^{it}, 0leq tleq 2pi$ is
So $z_0=2$ is inside the disk surrounded by $gamma$ ($0$ isn't). In this case Cauchy's integral formula applies
$$f(z_0)=frac{1}{2pi i } intlimits_{gamma}frac{f(z)}{z-z_0}dz tag{1}$$
where $f(z)=frac{e^{z^2}}{z}$. Or
$$intlimits_{gamma}frac{e^{z^2}}{z(z-2)}dz=2 pi i cdot f(2)=pi i e^4$$
b) $gamma(t)=1-i+2e^{it}, 0leq tleq 2pi$ is
So $z_0=-i$ is inside the disk surrounded by $gamma$ ($i$ isn't). Cauchy's integral formula $(1)$ applies again for $f(z)=frac{z^2-1}{z-i}$. Or
$$intlimits_{gamma}frac{z^2-1}{z^2+1}dz=2 pi i cdot f(-i)=2 pi i frac{-1-1}{-i-i}=2 pi$$
As with regards to the question in bold, everything depends on the final result of applying residue theorem, assuming $f(z)$ meets the inputs of the theorem. $(1)$ is a particular case of it, to some extent. But the integral may evaluate to a complex number, in which case larger number doesn't make sense.
1
Perfect. Thank you for the link to the discussion on comparing the “size” of real and complex numbers! And obviously, I misunderstood where to use Cauchy’s Integral formula, so thanks for that!
– Jane Doe
Nov 18 at 18:43
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
To begin with, none of the points are on the actual curves, i.e
a) $gamma(t)=3+2e^{it}, 0leq tleq 2pi$ is
So $z_0=2$ is inside the disk surrounded by $gamma$ ($0$ isn't). In this case Cauchy's integral formula applies
$$f(z_0)=frac{1}{2pi i } intlimits_{gamma}frac{f(z)}{z-z_0}dz tag{1}$$
where $f(z)=frac{e^{z^2}}{z}$. Or
$$intlimits_{gamma}frac{e^{z^2}}{z(z-2)}dz=2 pi i cdot f(2)=pi i e^4$$
b) $gamma(t)=1-i+2e^{it}, 0leq tleq 2pi$ is
So $z_0=-i$ is inside the disk surrounded by $gamma$ ($i$ isn't). Cauchy's integral formula $(1)$ applies again for $f(z)=frac{z^2-1}{z-i}$. Or
$$intlimits_{gamma}frac{z^2-1}{z^2+1}dz=2 pi i cdot f(-i)=2 pi i frac{-1-1}{-i-i}=2 pi$$
As with regards to the question in bold, everything depends on the final result of applying residue theorem, assuming $f(z)$ meets the inputs of the theorem. $(1)$ is a particular case of it, to some extent. But the integral may evaluate to a complex number, in which case larger number doesn't make sense.
1
Perfect. Thank you for the link to the discussion on comparing the “size” of real and complex numbers! And obviously, I misunderstood where to use Cauchy’s Integral formula, so thanks for that!
– Jane Doe
Nov 18 at 18:43
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
To begin with, none of the points are on the actual curves, i.e
a) $gamma(t)=3+2e^{it}, 0leq tleq 2pi$ is
So $z_0=2$ is inside the disk surrounded by $gamma$ ($0$ isn't). In this case Cauchy's integral formula applies
$$f(z_0)=frac{1}{2pi i } intlimits_{gamma}frac{f(z)}{z-z_0}dz tag{1}$$
where $f(z)=frac{e^{z^2}}{z}$. Or
$$intlimits_{gamma}frac{e^{z^2}}{z(z-2)}dz=2 pi i cdot f(2)=pi i e^4$$
b) $gamma(t)=1-i+2e^{it}, 0leq tleq 2pi$ is
So $z_0=-i$ is inside the disk surrounded by $gamma$ ($i$ isn't). Cauchy's integral formula $(1)$ applies again for $f(z)=frac{z^2-1}{z-i}$. Or
$$intlimits_{gamma}frac{z^2-1}{z^2+1}dz=2 pi i cdot f(-i)=2 pi i frac{-1-1}{-i-i}=2 pi$$
As with regards to the question in bold, everything depends on the final result of applying residue theorem, assuming $f(z)$ meets the inputs of the theorem. $(1)$ is a particular case of it, to some extent. But the integral may evaluate to a complex number, in which case larger number doesn't make sense.
To begin with, none of the points are on the actual curves, i.e
a) $gamma(t)=3+2e^{it}, 0leq tleq 2pi$ is
So $z_0=2$ is inside the disk surrounded by $gamma$ ($0$ isn't). In this case Cauchy's integral formula applies
$$f(z_0)=frac{1}{2pi i } intlimits_{gamma}frac{f(z)}{z-z_0}dz tag{1}$$
where $f(z)=frac{e^{z^2}}{z}$. Or
$$intlimits_{gamma}frac{e^{z^2}}{z(z-2)}dz=2 pi i cdot f(2)=pi i e^4$$
b) $gamma(t)=1-i+2e^{it}, 0leq tleq 2pi$ is
So $z_0=-i$ is inside the disk surrounded by $gamma$ ($i$ isn't). Cauchy's integral formula $(1)$ applies again for $f(z)=frac{z^2-1}{z-i}$. Or
$$intlimits_{gamma}frac{z^2-1}{z^2+1}dz=2 pi i cdot f(-i)=2 pi i frac{-1-1}{-i-i}=2 pi$$
As with regards to the question in bold, everything depends on the final result of applying residue theorem, assuming $f(z)$ meets the inputs of the theorem. $(1)$ is a particular case of it, to some extent. But the integral may evaluate to a complex number, in which case larger number doesn't make sense.
edited Nov 18 at 10:02
answered Nov 18 at 9:17
rtybase
10.2k21433
10.2k21433
1
Perfect. Thank you for the link to the discussion on comparing the “size” of real and complex numbers! And obviously, I misunderstood where to use Cauchy’s Integral formula, so thanks for that!
– Jane Doe
Nov 18 at 18:43
add a comment |
1
Perfect. Thank you for the link to the discussion on comparing the “size” of real and complex numbers! And obviously, I misunderstood where to use Cauchy’s Integral formula, so thanks for that!
– Jane Doe
Nov 18 at 18:43
1
1
Perfect. Thank you for the link to the discussion on comparing the “size” of real and complex numbers! And obviously, I misunderstood where to use Cauchy’s Integral formula, so thanks for that!
– Jane Doe
Nov 18 at 18:43
Perfect. Thank you for the link to the discussion on comparing the “size” of real and complex numbers! And obviously, I misunderstood where to use Cauchy’s Integral formula, so thanks for that!
– Jane Doe
Nov 18 at 18:43
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3002985%2fevaluating-line-integrals-that-are-analytic-almost-everywhere-using-cauchys-t%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
You'll want the residue theorem or the integral formula to evaluate these.
– Sean Roberson
Nov 18 at 0:21
If $f$ has only one pole on $|z|=1$ at $z=1$ and is meromorphic on $|z| < 1.1$ then $int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz$ is ill-defined however $$PV(int_{|z|=1} f(z)dz)=lim_{epsilon to 0} int_{|z|=1, |z-1|> epsilon} f(z)dz = frac12 lim_{epsilon to 0}( int_{|z|=1-epsilon} f(z)dz+ int_{|z|=1+epsilon} f(z)dz)$$ The RHS integrals are evaluated with the residue theorem. The keywords are 'principal value residue' @SeanRoberson
– reuns
Nov 18 at 2:28
Way more advanced than you're probably looking for, but possibly related is this 29 December 2004 sci.math post of mine.
– Dave L. Renfro
Nov 18 at 9:47