Can I Use Substitution to Prove the Residue Theorem Integral?

In summary, the article discusses the application of substitution in proving the Residue Theorem for integrals in complex analysis. It examines how substitution can simplify the evaluation of contour integrals and whether it is valid to use such techniques to derive the theorem's conclusions. The author highlights the importance of understanding the properties of analytic functions and the behavior of residues in this context, ultimately concluding that while substitution can aid in calculations, the fundamental proof of the Residue Theorem relies on more rigorous principles.
  • #1
MatinSAR
606
183
Homework Statement
Prove Residue theorem.
Relevant Equations
Please see the following.
1719052715934.png

Integral 7.2 is ok. I must employ the integration technique used in 7.2 to prove that integral equation 7.1 equals zero. For n<0 we have : $$\sum_{n=- \infty}^{-2} a_n \oint (z-z_0)^ndz$$For n>0 we have : $$\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n \oint (z-z_0)^ndz$$
According to Cauchy's Integral Theorem, since there are no singularities within contour C, the value of the second integral is zero. But for n<0 , ##(z-z_0)^n## isn't an analytic function so it can be unzero.

How can I show that this integral is also equal to zero? Can I show it by using the substitution ##z-z_0=re^{i\theta}## like 7.2? Or I should do sth more than this...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Why don't you use the given anti-derivative?
 
  • Like
Likes MatinSAR
  • #3
fresh_42 said:
Why don't you use the given anti-derivative?
Thank you for tour reply @fresh_42
Do you mean the anti-derivative term in equation 7.1?
If so, I prefer not to use that method because my professor used a different method, and I intend to use a similar approach to his. I recall that his method was similar to the approach in 7.2.
 
  • #4
MatinSAR said:
Thank you for tour reply @fresh_42
Do you mean the anti-derivative term in equation 7.1?
Yes.
MatinSAR said:
If so, I prefer not to use that method because my professor used a different method, and I intend to use a similar approach to his. I recall that his method was similar to the approach in 7.2.
I don't think that would be a big difference, but let's see. I did the same as in 7.2. which you suggested in

\begin{align*} \oint_\gamma \dfrac{1}{z-z_0}\,dz&=\int_0^{2\pi}\dfrac{1}{re^{it}} \cdot ire^{it} \,dt=i\cdot \int_0^{2\pi}dt=2\pi i\\ \oint_\gamma \left(z-z_0\right)^p\,dz&\stackrel{(p\neq -1)}{=}\int_0^{2\pi} r^p e^{i p t} \cdot ire^{it}\,dt=ir^{p+1}\int_0^{2\pi} e^{i(p+1)t}\,dt\\ &=ir^{p+1}\left[\dfrac{e^{i(p+1)t}}{i(p+1)}\right]_0^{2\pi}=\dfrac{r^{p+1}}{p+1}(e^{2(p+1)\pi i t}-e^0)=0\,. \end{align*}

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/an-overview-of-complex-differentiation-and-integration/

Was that what you meant?

Edit: The path here was
##\gamma(t)=z_0+re^{i t}\, , \,0\leq t\leq 2\pi##
and the path integral
\begin{align*} \int_\gamma f(z)\,dz &=…\text{ (substitution }z=\gamma(t)\, , \,dz=\gamma’\,dt) \\ …&=\int_a^b (f\circ \gamma )(t)\cdot \gamma’\,dt =\int_a^b f(\gamma (t))\cdot \gamma'(t)\,dt \end{align*}
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes MatinSAR
  • #5
MatinSAR said:
my professor used a different method, and I intend to use a similar approach
But you aren't going to tell us what it is, hoping we hit on it by accident? That seems...inefficient and likely slow.
 
  • Like
Likes MatinSAR
  • #6
fresh_42 said:
Yes.

I don't think that would be a big difference, but let's see. I did the same as in 7.2. which you suggested in

\begin{align*} \oint_\gamma \dfrac{1}{z-z_0}\,dz&=\int_0^{2\pi}\dfrac{1}{re^{it}} \cdot ire^{it} \,dt=i\cdot \int_0^{2\pi}dt=2\pi i\\ \oint_\gamma \left(z-z_0\right)^p\,dz&\stackrel{(p\neq -1)}{=}\int_0^{2\pi} r^p e^{i p t} \cdot ire^{it}\,dt=ir^{p+1}\int_0^{2\pi} e^{i(p+1)t}\,dt\\ &=ir^{p+1}\left[\dfrac{e^{i(p+1)t}}{i(p+1)}\right]_0^{2\pi}=\dfrac{r^{p+1}}{p+1}(e^{2(p+1)\pi i t}-e^0)=0\,. \end{align*}

Reference: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/an-overview-of-complex-differentiation-and-integration/

Was that what you meant?
It seems similar enough to my professor's method for me to use in the exam. I wrote something similar to this as well. Thank you for your time @fresh_42
Vanadium 50 said:
But you aren't going to tell us what it is, hoping we hit on it by accident? That seems...inefficient and likely slow.
Hello. I wasn't expecting mind reading. I was just looking for a similar approach, like what was mentioned above.
 

FAQ: Can I Use Substitution to Prove the Residue Theorem Integral?

1. What is the Residue Theorem?

The Residue Theorem is a powerful tool in complex analysis that allows us to evaluate certain types of integrals. It states that if a function is analytic inside and on some simple closed contour, except for a finite number of singularities inside the contour, the integral of the function around that contour is equal to 2πi times the sum of the residues of the function at those singularities.

2. What is substitution in the context of integrals?

Substitution in integrals refers to a method where one variable is replaced with another variable to simplify the integral. This technique is often used to transform an integral into a more manageable form, making it easier to evaluate. In complex analysis, substitution can involve changing the contour of integration or the variable of integration.

3. Can substitution be used to prove the Residue Theorem?

Yes, substitution can be used to aid in the proof of the Residue Theorem. By changing variables or contours, one can demonstrate that the integral around a closed contour is equal to the sum of residues at the singularities. However, care must be taken to ensure that the substitution does not introduce new singularities or alter the analytic properties of the function in question.

4. What are the limitations of using substitution in this context?

While substitution can be helpful, it has limitations. It may not be applicable if the substitution introduces additional singularities or if the function is not well-behaved under the transformation. Additionally, the substitution must preserve the orientation of the contour and the nature of the singularities for the proof to hold true.

5. Are there alternative methods to prove the Residue Theorem?

Yes, there are alternative methods to prove the Residue Theorem, such as using Cauchy's integral formula or Laurent series expansion. Each method has its own advantages and may be more suitable depending on the specific function and contour involved. However, substitution remains a valuable technique in many cases.

Back
Top