Why is the integral of $\frac{1}{z+2}$ over $\gamma(0;1)$ equal to zero?

In summary: So the integral will be $0$ according to Cauchy's Theorem.In summary, the conversation discusses why the integral $\int_{\gamma(0;1)}\frac{1}{z+2} \mathrm{d}z$ is equal to zero. This is because the pole at $z=-2$ lies outside the closed curve $\gamma(0;1)$, and as a result, Cauchy's Integral Theorem can be applied to show that the integral is equal to zero. Additionally, using Cauchy's Theorem, it is also shown that the integral is equal to zero as the function is holomorphic inside and on the curve.
  • #1
shen07
54
0
Hello i would like to know why this integral is Zero:

$$\int_{\gamma(0;1)}\frac{1}{z+2} \mathrm{d}z$$

Well i know by a fundamental result that:
$$\int_{\gamma(a;r)}\frac{1}{z-a} \mathrm{d}z=2\pi\imath$$

But here the point $$z=-2$$ lies outside $$\gamma(0;1)$$ so what is the reasoning behind could you help me please?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Re: Reason why Integral Zero

Hi shen07! :)

shen07 said:
But here the point $$z=-2$$ lies outside $$\gamma(0;1)$$ so what is the reasoning behind could you help me please?

I believe you already said it: the "pole" lies outside the closed curve.
In that case the circular integral is zero.
If the curve were around a pole, it would be $2\pi i$.
 
  • #3
Re: Reason why Integral Zero

shen07 said:
Hello i would like to know why this integral is Zero:

$$\int_{\gamma(0;1)}\frac{1}{z+2} \mathrm{d}z$$

Well i know by a fundamental result that:
$$\int_{\gamma(a;r)}\frac{1}{z-a} \mathrm{d}z=2\pi\imath$$

But here the point $$z=-2$$ lies outside $$\gamma(0;1)$$ so what is the reasoning behind could you help me please?

Cauchy's Integral Theorem states that for any complex function which is closed and holomorphic everywhere in and on the boundary, its contour integral is equal to 0. As your function only has a singular point at z = -2, which is not in the boundary, your function satisfies the conditions and so Cauchy's Integral Theorem applies.

Proof of the Theorem
 
  • #4
Re: Reason why Integral Zero

shen07 said:
Well i know by a fundamental result that:
$$\int_{\gamma(a;r)}\frac{1}{z-a} \mathrm{d}z=2\pi\imath$$

By using \(\displaystyle \gamma(a;r)\) you are making sure that the pole at \(\displaystyle z=a\) is included in your curve by letting it the center of the disk since the radius is nonzero .
 
  • #5
Re: Reason why Integral Zero

What if i use Cauchy's Theorem, since $$f(z)=\frac{1}{z+2}$$ is holomorphic on and inside $$\gamma(0;1)$$, using Cauchy's Theorem
$$\int_{\gamma(0;1)}\frac{1}{z+2} \mathrm{d}z=0$$
 
  • #6
Re: Reason why Integral Zero

shen07 said:
What if i use Cauchy's Theorem, since $$f(z)=\frac{1}{z+2}$$ is holomorphic on and inside $$\gamma(0;1)$$, using Cauchy's Theorem
$$\int_{\gamma(0;1)}\frac{1}{z+2} \mathrm{d}z=0$$

Yes , since the only pole is at $z=-2$ which is out of the circular curve .
 

FAQ: Why is the integral of $\frac{1}{z+2}$ over $\gamma(0;1)$ equal to zero?

Why is the integral of a constant function always equal to zero?

The integral of a constant function is always equal to zero because the integral represents the area under the curve of the function. Since a constant function has a flat, unchanging curve, the area under the curve is always equal to zero.

Is there a specific rule or formula for finding the integral of a function that results in zero?

There is no specific rule or formula for finding the integral of a function that results in zero. However, if the function has a zero value over the entire interval, the integral will be equal to zero.

Can the integral of a non-zero function ever be equal to zero?

No, the integral of a non-zero function can never be equal to zero. This is because the integral represents the area under the curve of the function, and a non-zero function will always have some area under the curve.

Are there any exceptions to the rule that the integral of a function is zero when the function is constant?

No, there are no exceptions to this rule. The integral of a constant function will always be equal to zero, regardless of the function's shape or the interval over which it is integrated.

How does the concept of integration relate to the concept of differentiation in calculus?

The concept of integration is the inverse of differentiation in calculus. While differentiation calculates the rate of change of a function, integration calculates the accumulated change in a function. The fundamental theorem of calculus states that differentiation and integration are inverse operations, meaning that they undo each other. Therefore, the integral of a function can be thought of as the antiderivative of that function.

Similar threads

Back
Top