Double checking a coefficient for a Laurent series, the series for $f(z) = frac{z^2 + 1}{(z - i)^2}dz$











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












So we seek the coefficient $a_{-1}$ of the Laurent series for $f(z) = frac{z^2 + 1}{(z - i)^2}dz$, where Laurent series is denoted by



$$f(z) = sum_{n = -infty}^infty a_n(z - z_0)^n$$



when the series is given about the point $z_0 = i$.



We know the coefficients of the Laurent series can be given by the integral



$$a_n = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{f(z)}{(z - z_0)^{n+1}}dz =frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{n+3}}dz$$



where $C$ is a counterclockwise closed curve about $z_0 = i$. Here, the integrand doesn't have any other poles/singularities, so this curve need no other restrictions other than having nonzero radius.



Since we seek $a_{-1}$, we plug in $n = -1$:



$$a_{-1} = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{2}}dz$$



Given the form of the integral matches the below,



$$frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{g(z)}{(z - z_0)^{m+1}}dz=frac{1}{m!}g^{(m)}(z_0)$$



when $g(z)=z^2+1$, $z_0 = i$, and $m=1>0$, we can use this to calculate our integral, yielding



$$a_{-1} = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{2}}dz= frac{1}{1!}g'(i)=g'(i)$$



Since $g'(z)=2z$, then,



$$a_{-1} = 2i$$





I mostly just wanted to double-check this solution since I feel pretty weak when it comes to Laurent series.










share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    1
    down vote

    favorite












    So we seek the coefficient $a_{-1}$ of the Laurent series for $f(z) = frac{z^2 + 1}{(z - i)^2}dz$, where Laurent series is denoted by



    $$f(z) = sum_{n = -infty}^infty a_n(z - z_0)^n$$



    when the series is given about the point $z_0 = i$.



    We know the coefficients of the Laurent series can be given by the integral



    $$a_n = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{f(z)}{(z - z_0)^{n+1}}dz =frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{n+3}}dz$$



    where $C$ is a counterclockwise closed curve about $z_0 = i$. Here, the integrand doesn't have any other poles/singularities, so this curve need no other restrictions other than having nonzero radius.



    Since we seek $a_{-1}$, we plug in $n = -1$:



    $$a_{-1} = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{2}}dz$$



    Given the form of the integral matches the below,



    $$frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{g(z)}{(z - z_0)^{m+1}}dz=frac{1}{m!}g^{(m)}(z_0)$$



    when $g(z)=z^2+1$, $z_0 = i$, and $m=1>0$, we can use this to calculate our integral, yielding



    $$a_{-1} = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{2}}dz= frac{1}{1!}g'(i)=g'(i)$$



    Since $g'(z)=2z$, then,



    $$a_{-1} = 2i$$





    I mostly just wanted to double-check this solution since I feel pretty weak when it comes to Laurent series.










    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      1
      down vote

      favorite











      So we seek the coefficient $a_{-1}$ of the Laurent series for $f(z) = frac{z^2 + 1}{(z - i)^2}dz$, where Laurent series is denoted by



      $$f(z) = sum_{n = -infty}^infty a_n(z - z_0)^n$$



      when the series is given about the point $z_0 = i$.



      We know the coefficients of the Laurent series can be given by the integral



      $$a_n = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{f(z)}{(z - z_0)^{n+1}}dz =frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{n+3}}dz$$



      where $C$ is a counterclockwise closed curve about $z_0 = i$. Here, the integrand doesn't have any other poles/singularities, so this curve need no other restrictions other than having nonzero radius.



      Since we seek $a_{-1}$, we plug in $n = -1$:



      $$a_{-1} = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{2}}dz$$



      Given the form of the integral matches the below,



      $$frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{g(z)}{(z - z_0)^{m+1}}dz=frac{1}{m!}g^{(m)}(z_0)$$



      when $g(z)=z^2+1$, $z_0 = i$, and $m=1>0$, we can use this to calculate our integral, yielding



      $$a_{-1} = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{2}}dz= frac{1}{1!}g'(i)=g'(i)$$



      Since $g'(z)=2z$, then,



      $$a_{-1} = 2i$$





      I mostly just wanted to double-check this solution since I feel pretty weak when it comes to Laurent series.










      share|cite|improve this question













      So we seek the coefficient $a_{-1}$ of the Laurent series for $f(z) = frac{z^2 + 1}{(z - i)^2}dz$, where Laurent series is denoted by



      $$f(z) = sum_{n = -infty}^infty a_n(z - z_0)^n$$



      when the series is given about the point $z_0 = i$.



      We know the coefficients of the Laurent series can be given by the integral



      $$a_n = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{f(z)}{(z - z_0)^{n+1}}dz =frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{n+3}}dz$$



      where $C$ is a counterclockwise closed curve about $z_0 = i$. Here, the integrand doesn't have any other poles/singularities, so this curve need no other restrictions other than having nonzero radius.



      Since we seek $a_{-1}$, we plug in $n = -1$:



      $$a_{-1} = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{2}}dz$$



      Given the form of the integral matches the below,



      $$frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{g(z)}{(z - z_0)^{m+1}}dz=frac{1}{m!}g^{(m)}(z_0)$$



      when $g(z)=z^2+1$, $z_0 = i$, and $m=1>0$, we can use this to calculate our integral, yielding



      $$a_{-1} = frac{1}{2pi i} int_C frac{z^2 + 1}{(z-i)^{2}}dz= frac{1}{1!}g'(i)=g'(i)$$



      Since $g'(z)=2z$, then,



      $$a_{-1} = 2i$$





      I mostly just wanted to double-check this solution since I feel pretty weak when it comes to Laurent series.







      complex-analysis proof-verification laurent-series






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Nov 14 at 4:37









      Eevee Trainer

      7938




      7938






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Observe: $f(z) = frac{z^2+1}{(z-i)^2} = frac{(z+i)(z-i)}{(z-i)^2} = frac{z+i}{z-i} = frac{(z-i) +i +i}{z-i} = frac{2i}{z-i} + 1.$ What is the coefficient for $a_{-1}$ given this observation?






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I believe that, following from the definition of Laurent series, we would have $2i$ as well per this derivation, since $$frac{2i}{z-i}=2i(z-i)^{-1}$$ with the power of $(z-i)$ hinting that this refers to the $a_{-1}$ term. And thus, similarly, if I wanted to find $a_0$, $a_0 = 1$. In which case I'd be correct, right? Just want to be sure.
            – Eevee Trainer
            Nov 14 at 5:05








          • 1




            @EeveeTrainer indeed!
            – user328442
            Nov 14 at 5:06


















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Just wanted to give some context to the already accepted answer:

          In practice, when trying to compute the Laurent series for a complex function, we (almost) never use the definitions provided by the Laurent theorem to calculate the coefficients. Rather, we fool around with the Taylor series of known portions of the function until we get one sum with possibly negative powers of $z$, as in the accepted answer. This typically involves tricks like multiplying by 1, adding 0, and things like that. This in turn gives information about the integrals, according to the definitions
          $$
          a_n = frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{+gamma}frac{f(w)}{(w-z_0)^{n+1}}dw,
          b_n = frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{+gamma}f(w)(w-z_0)^{n-1}dw
          $$

          where $gamma$ is any curve defined in the annulus on which you are computing the Laurent series. This is well defined by the homotopy principle.



          So in this case, we didn't need any Taylor series expansions, the expression happened to be nice enough to simplify to a Laurent series already.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          staedtlerr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.


















          • Yeah I get that, it's still a mode of thought I'm trying to get into myself though since my professor waffles on the idea. Sometimes he seems to want the formal calculations of the coefficients, other times he wants us to do it the easy way, etc. I figured he specifically wanted the formal calculation in this case given a comment earlier in the evening (mostly just trying to contextualize this question/comment), though the alternate method was also helpful and illustrative as well.
            – Eevee Trainer
            Nov 14 at 5:33













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2997787%2fdouble-checking-a-coefficient-for-a-laurent-series-the-series-for-fz-frac%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes








          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Observe: $f(z) = frac{z^2+1}{(z-i)^2} = frac{(z+i)(z-i)}{(z-i)^2} = frac{z+i}{z-i} = frac{(z-i) +i +i}{z-i} = frac{2i}{z-i} + 1.$ What is the coefficient for $a_{-1}$ given this observation?






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I believe that, following from the definition of Laurent series, we would have $2i$ as well per this derivation, since $$frac{2i}{z-i}=2i(z-i)^{-1}$$ with the power of $(z-i)$ hinting that this refers to the $a_{-1}$ term. And thus, similarly, if I wanted to find $a_0$, $a_0 = 1$. In which case I'd be correct, right? Just want to be sure.
            – Eevee Trainer
            Nov 14 at 5:05








          • 1




            @EeveeTrainer indeed!
            – user328442
            Nov 14 at 5:06















          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted










          Observe: $f(z) = frac{z^2+1}{(z-i)^2} = frac{(z+i)(z-i)}{(z-i)^2} = frac{z+i}{z-i} = frac{(z-i) +i +i}{z-i} = frac{2i}{z-i} + 1.$ What is the coefficient for $a_{-1}$ given this observation?






          share|cite|improve this answer





















          • I believe that, following from the definition of Laurent series, we would have $2i$ as well per this derivation, since $$frac{2i}{z-i}=2i(z-i)^{-1}$$ with the power of $(z-i)$ hinting that this refers to the $a_{-1}$ term. And thus, similarly, if I wanted to find $a_0$, $a_0 = 1$. In which case I'd be correct, right? Just want to be sure.
            – Eevee Trainer
            Nov 14 at 5:05








          • 1




            @EeveeTrainer indeed!
            – user328442
            Nov 14 at 5:06













          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          1
          down vote



          accepted






          Observe: $f(z) = frac{z^2+1}{(z-i)^2} = frac{(z+i)(z-i)}{(z-i)^2} = frac{z+i}{z-i} = frac{(z-i) +i +i}{z-i} = frac{2i}{z-i} + 1.$ What is the coefficient for $a_{-1}$ given this observation?






          share|cite|improve this answer












          Observe: $f(z) = frac{z^2+1}{(z-i)^2} = frac{(z+i)(z-i)}{(z-i)^2} = frac{z+i}{z-i} = frac{(z-i) +i +i}{z-i} = frac{2i}{z-i} + 1.$ What is the coefficient for $a_{-1}$ given this observation?







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Nov 14 at 5:01









          user328442

          1,7881516




          1,7881516












          • I believe that, following from the definition of Laurent series, we would have $2i$ as well per this derivation, since $$frac{2i}{z-i}=2i(z-i)^{-1}$$ with the power of $(z-i)$ hinting that this refers to the $a_{-1}$ term. And thus, similarly, if I wanted to find $a_0$, $a_0 = 1$. In which case I'd be correct, right? Just want to be sure.
            – Eevee Trainer
            Nov 14 at 5:05








          • 1




            @EeveeTrainer indeed!
            – user328442
            Nov 14 at 5:06


















          • I believe that, following from the definition of Laurent series, we would have $2i$ as well per this derivation, since $$frac{2i}{z-i}=2i(z-i)^{-1}$$ with the power of $(z-i)$ hinting that this refers to the $a_{-1}$ term. And thus, similarly, if I wanted to find $a_0$, $a_0 = 1$. In which case I'd be correct, right? Just want to be sure.
            – Eevee Trainer
            Nov 14 at 5:05








          • 1




            @EeveeTrainer indeed!
            – user328442
            Nov 14 at 5:06
















          I believe that, following from the definition of Laurent series, we would have $2i$ as well per this derivation, since $$frac{2i}{z-i}=2i(z-i)^{-1}$$ with the power of $(z-i)$ hinting that this refers to the $a_{-1}$ term. And thus, similarly, if I wanted to find $a_0$, $a_0 = 1$. In which case I'd be correct, right? Just want to be sure.
          – Eevee Trainer
          Nov 14 at 5:05






          I believe that, following from the definition of Laurent series, we would have $2i$ as well per this derivation, since $$frac{2i}{z-i}=2i(z-i)^{-1}$$ with the power of $(z-i)$ hinting that this refers to the $a_{-1}$ term. And thus, similarly, if I wanted to find $a_0$, $a_0 = 1$. In which case I'd be correct, right? Just want to be sure.
          – Eevee Trainer
          Nov 14 at 5:05






          1




          1




          @EeveeTrainer indeed!
          – user328442
          Nov 14 at 5:06




          @EeveeTrainer indeed!
          – user328442
          Nov 14 at 5:06










          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Just wanted to give some context to the already accepted answer:

          In practice, when trying to compute the Laurent series for a complex function, we (almost) never use the definitions provided by the Laurent theorem to calculate the coefficients. Rather, we fool around with the Taylor series of known portions of the function until we get one sum with possibly negative powers of $z$, as in the accepted answer. This typically involves tricks like multiplying by 1, adding 0, and things like that. This in turn gives information about the integrals, according to the definitions
          $$
          a_n = frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{+gamma}frac{f(w)}{(w-z_0)^{n+1}}dw,
          b_n = frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{+gamma}f(w)(w-z_0)^{n-1}dw
          $$

          where $gamma$ is any curve defined in the annulus on which you are computing the Laurent series. This is well defined by the homotopy principle.



          So in this case, we didn't need any Taylor series expansions, the expression happened to be nice enough to simplify to a Laurent series already.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          staedtlerr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.


















          • Yeah I get that, it's still a mode of thought I'm trying to get into myself though since my professor waffles on the idea. Sometimes he seems to want the formal calculations of the coefficients, other times he wants us to do it the easy way, etc. I figured he specifically wanted the formal calculation in this case given a comment earlier in the evening (mostly just trying to contextualize this question/comment), though the alternate method was also helpful and illustrative as well.
            – Eevee Trainer
            Nov 14 at 5:33

















          up vote
          1
          down vote













          Just wanted to give some context to the already accepted answer:

          In practice, when trying to compute the Laurent series for a complex function, we (almost) never use the definitions provided by the Laurent theorem to calculate the coefficients. Rather, we fool around with the Taylor series of known portions of the function until we get one sum with possibly negative powers of $z$, as in the accepted answer. This typically involves tricks like multiplying by 1, adding 0, and things like that. This in turn gives information about the integrals, according to the definitions
          $$
          a_n = frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{+gamma}frac{f(w)}{(w-z_0)^{n+1}}dw,
          b_n = frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{+gamma}f(w)(w-z_0)^{n-1}dw
          $$

          where $gamma$ is any curve defined in the annulus on which you are computing the Laurent series. This is well defined by the homotopy principle.



          So in this case, we didn't need any Taylor series expansions, the expression happened to be nice enough to simplify to a Laurent series already.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          staedtlerr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.


















          • Yeah I get that, it's still a mode of thought I'm trying to get into myself though since my professor waffles on the idea. Sometimes he seems to want the formal calculations of the coefficients, other times he wants us to do it the easy way, etc. I figured he specifically wanted the formal calculation in this case given a comment earlier in the evening (mostly just trying to contextualize this question/comment), though the alternate method was also helpful and illustrative as well.
            – Eevee Trainer
            Nov 14 at 5:33















          up vote
          1
          down vote










          up vote
          1
          down vote









          Just wanted to give some context to the already accepted answer:

          In practice, when trying to compute the Laurent series for a complex function, we (almost) never use the definitions provided by the Laurent theorem to calculate the coefficients. Rather, we fool around with the Taylor series of known portions of the function until we get one sum with possibly negative powers of $z$, as in the accepted answer. This typically involves tricks like multiplying by 1, adding 0, and things like that. This in turn gives information about the integrals, according to the definitions
          $$
          a_n = frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{+gamma}frac{f(w)}{(w-z_0)^{n+1}}dw,
          b_n = frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{+gamma}f(w)(w-z_0)^{n-1}dw
          $$

          where $gamma$ is any curve defined in the annulus on which you are computing the Laurent series. This is well defined by the homotopy principle.



          So in this case, we didn't need any Taylor series expansions, the expression happened to be nice enough to simplify to a Laurent series already.






          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          staedtlerr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          Just wanted to give some context to the already accepted answer:

          In practice, when trying to compute the Laurent series for a complex function, we (almost) never use the definitions provided by the Laurent theorem to calculate the coefficients. Rather, we fool around with the Taylor series of known portions of the function until we get one sum with possibly negative powers of $z$, as in the accepted answer. This typically involves tricks like multiplying by 1, adding 0, and things like that. This in turn gives information about the integrals, according to the definitions
          $$
          a_n = frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{+gamma}frac{f(w)}{(w-z_0)^{n+1}}dw,
          b_n = frac{1}{2pi i}oint_{+gamma}f(w)(w-z_0)^{n-1}dw
          $$

          where $gamma$ is any curve defined in the annulus on which you are computing the Laurent series. This is well defined by the homotopy principle.



          So in this case, we didn't need any Taylor series expansions, the expression happened to be nice enough to simplify to a Laurent series already.







          share|cite|improve this answer








          New contributor




          staedtlerr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer






          New contributor




          staedtlerr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered Nov 14 at 5:28









          staedtlerr

          413




          413




          New contributor




          staedtlerr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          staedtlerr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          staedtlerr is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.












          • Yeah I get that, it's still a mode of thought I'm trying to get into myself though since my professor waffles on the idea. Sometimes he seems to want the formal calculations of the coefficients, other times he wants us to do it the easy way, etc. I figured he specifically wanted the formal calculation in this case given a comment earlier in the evening (mostly just trying to contextualize this question/comment), though the alternate method was also helpful and illustrative as well.
            – Eevee Trainer
            Nov 14 at 5:33




















          • Yeah I get that, it's still a mode of thought I'm trying to get into myself though since my professor waffles on the idea. Sometimes he seems to want the formal calculations of the coefficients, other times he wants us to do it the easy way, etc. I figured he specifically wanted the formal calculation in this case given a comment earlier in the evening (mostly just trying to contextualize this question/comment), though the alternate method was also helpful and illustrative as well.
            – Eevee Trainer
            Nov 14 at 5:33


















          Yeah I get that, it's still a mode of thought I'm trying to get into myself though since my professor waffles on the idea. Sometimes he seems to want the formal calculations of the coefficients, other times he wants us to do it the easy way, etc. I figured he specifically wanted the formal calculation in this case given a comment earlier in the evening (mostly just trying to contextualize this question/comment), though the alternate method was also helpful and illustrative as well.
          – Eevee Trainer
          Nov 14 at 5:33






          Yeah I get that, it's still a mode of thought I'm trying to get into myself though since my professor waffles on the idea. Sometimes he seems to want the formal calculations of the coefficients, other times he wants us to do it the easy way, etc. I figured he specifically wanted the formal calculation in this case given a comment earlier in the evening (mostly just trying to contextualize this question/comment), though the alternate method was also helpful and illustrative as well.
          – Eevee Trainer
          Nov 14 at 5:33




















           

          draft saved


          draft discarded



















































           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2997787%2fdouble-checking-a-coefficient-for-a-laurent-series-the-series-for-fz-frac%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Plaza Victoria

          Puebla de Zaragoza

          Musa