Evaluate $int_gammafrac{1}{z}dz$ over a circle outside the origin
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am trying to do the evaluate this integral:
$$int_{gamma} frac{1}{z} dz$$
where $gamma$ is a circle that does not contain the origin on itself either on its inside, I mean, $gamma$ is a circle center at $z_0 neq 0$ with radious $r < |z_0|$
My attempt:
Since the idea of the exercise is to evaluate the integral to get an insight into later results (Cauchy's theorem) I made a parametrization:
$z(t) = z_0 + re^{it}$ with $ 0 leq t leq 2pi$. So I had
$$int_{gamma} frac{1}{z} dz = int_{0}^{2pi} frac{1}{z(t)}z'(t)dt = int_0^{2pi}frac{ire^{it}}{z_0 + re^{it}}dt$$
Here what I did to evaluate this integral is a change of variable:
call $u = z_0 + re^{it}$ then $du = ire^{it}dt$ and when $t = 0$, $u = z_0 + r$ and when $t = 2pi$, $u = z_0 + r$. So now I had:
$$int_{gamma} f(z) dz = int_{z_0 + r}^{z_0 + r} frac{1}{u}du = 0$$
Where the last integral is due to fact that the limits of the integral are equal.
I am not quite confident with my change of variable because:
What I get after my change of variable is totally trivially and it totally forget the integrant function ($1/u$).
The notes that I was provided take a totally different approach: they use the fact that $frac{1}{z}$ is analytic in $gamma$ and the result that you can interchange the limit and the integral sign (in fact. they use some tricky steps to justify this) to come to the same answer ( exercise three, part b) )
So, will you please say me if what I did is correct or not¡? Thanks in advance!
complex-analysis contour-integration
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am trying to do the evaluate this integral:
$$int_{gamma} frac{1}{z} dz$$
where $gamma$ is a circle that does not contain the origin on itself either on its inside, I mean, $gamma$ is a circle center at $z_0 neq 0$ with radious $r < |z_0|$
My attempt:
Since the idea of the exercise is to evaluate the integral to get an insight into later results (Cauchy's theorem) I made a parametrization:
$z(t) = z_0 + re^{it}$ with $ 0 leq t leq 2pi$. So I had
$$int_{gamma} frac{1}{z} dz = int_{0}^{2pi} frac{1}{z(t)}z'(t)dt = int_0^{2pi}frac{ire^{it}}{z_0 + re^{it}}dt$$
Here what I did to evaluate this integral is a change of variable:
call $u = z_0 + re^{it}$ then $du = ire^{it}dt$ and when $t = 0$, $u = z_0 + r$ and when $t = 2pi$, $u = z_0 + r$. So now I had:
$$int_{gamma} f(z) dz = int_{z_0 + r}^{z_0 + r} frac{1}{u}du = 0$$
Where the last integral is due to fact that the limits of the integral are equal.
I am not quite confident with my change of variable because:
What I get after my change of variable is totally trivially and it totally forget the integrant function ($1/u$).
The notes that I was provided take a totally different approach: they use the fact that $frac{1}{z}$ is analytic in $gamma$ and the result that you can interchange the limit and the integral sign (in fact. they use some tricky steps to justify this) to come to the same answer ( exercise three, part b) )
So, will you please say me if what I did is correct or not¡? Thanks in advance!
complex-analysis contour-integration
When you define $u$ that way you don't get an integral over a single point, you get an integral over a closed curve.
– Umberto P.
Nov 17 at 1:41
This seems OK. You have made use of that $r<mid z_0 mid$ in last step. Think about why this is not working for the otherwise case.
– AdditIdent
Nov 17 at 1:46
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I am trying to do the evaluate this integral:
$$int_{gamma} frac{1}{z} dz$$
where $gamma$ is a circle that does not contain the origin on itself either on its inside, I mean, $gamma$ is a circle center at $z_0 neq 0$ with radious $r < |z_0|$
My attempt:
Since the idea of the exercise is to evaluate the integral to get an insight into later results (Cauchy's theorem) I made a parametrization:
$z(t) = z_0 + re^{it}$ with $ 0 leq t leq 2pi$. So I had
$$int_{gamma} frac{1}{z} dz = int_{0}^{2pi} frac{1}{z(t)}z'(t)dt = int_0^{2pi}frac{ire^{it}}{z_0 + re^{it}}dt$$
Here what I did to evaluate this integral is a change of variable:
call $u = z_0 + re^{it}$ then $du = ire^{it}dt$ and when $t = 0$, $u = z_0 + r$ and when $t = 2pi$, $u = z_0 + r$. So now I had:
$$int_{gamma} f(z) dz = int_{z_0 + r}^{z_0 + r} frac{1}{u}du = 0$$
Where the last integral is due to fact that the limits of the integral are equal.
I am not quite confident with my change of variable because:
What I get after my change of variable is totally trivially and it totally forget the integrant function ($1/u$).
The notes that I was provided take a totally different approach: they use the fact that $frac{1}{z}$ is analytic in $gamma$ and the result that you can interchange the limit and the integral sign (in fact. they use some tricky steps to justify this) to come to the same answer ( exercise three, part b) )
So, will you please say me if what I did is correct or not¡? Thanks in advance!
complex-analysis contour-integration
I am trying to do the evaluate this integral:
$$int_{gamma} frac{1}{z} dz$$
where $gamma$ is a circle that does not contain the origin on itself either on its inside, I mean, $gamma$ is a circle center at $z_0 neq 0$ with radious $r < |z_0|$
My attempt:
Since the idea of the exercise is to evaluate the integral to get an insight into later results (Cauchy's theorem) I made a parametrization:
$z(t) = z_0 + re^{it}$ with $ 0 leq t leq 2pi$. So I had
$$int_{gamma} frac{1}{z} dz = int_{0}^{2pi} frac{1}{z(t)}z'(t)dt = int_0^{2pi}frac{ire^{it}}{z_0 + re^{it}}dt$$
Here what I did to evaluate this integral is a change of variable:
call $u = z_0 + re^{it}$ then $du = ire^{it}dt$ and when $t = 0$, $u = z_0 + r$ and when $t = 2pi$, $u = z_0 + r$. So now I had:
$$int_{gamma} f(z) dz = int_{z_0 + r}^{z_0 + r} frac{1}{u}du = 0$$
Where the last integral is due to fact that the limits of the integral are equal.
I am not quite confident with my change of variable because:
What I get after my change of variable is totally trivially and it totally forget the integrant function ($1/u$).
The notes that I was provided take a totally different approach: they use the fact that $frac{1}{z}$ is analytic in $gamma$ and the result that you can interchange the limit and the integral sign (in fact. they use some tricky steps to justify this) to come to the same answer ( exercise three, part b) )
So, will you please say me if what I did is correct or not¡? Thanks in advance!
complex-analysis contour-integration
complex-analysis contour-integration
edited Nov 17 at 1:17
Tianlalu
2,8811835
2,8811835
asked Nov 17 at 1:04
Aldebaran
284
284
When you define $u$ that way you don't get an integral over a single point, you get an integral over a closed curve.
– Umberto P.
Nov 17 at 1:41
This seems OK. You have made use of that $r<mid z_0 mid$ in last step. Think about why this is not working for the otherwise case.
– AdditIdent
Nov 17 at 1:46
add a comment |
When you define $u$ that way you don't get an integral over a single point, you get an integral over a closed curve.
– Umberto P.
Nov 17 at 1:41
This seems OK. You have made use of that $r<mid z_0 mid$ in last step. Think about why this is not working for the otherwise case.
– AdditIdent
Nov 17 at 1:46
When you define $u$ that way you don't get an integral over a single point, you get an integral over a closed curve.
– Umberto P.
Nov 17 at 1:41
When you define $u$ that way you don't get an integral over a single point, you get an integral over a closed curve.
– Umberto P.
Nov 17 at 1:41
This seems OK. You have made use of that $r<mid z_0 mid$ in last step. Think about why this is not working for the otherwise case.
– AdditIdent
Nov 17 at 1:46
This seems OK. You have made use of that $r<mid z_0 mid$ in last step. Think about why this is not working for the otherwise case.
– AdditIdent
Nov 17 at 1:46
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
The integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ only has a precise meaning when $a$ and $b$ are real. If $a$ and $b$ are complex, you could define it to mean the integral along a straight-line path in the complex plane from $a$ to $b$, but line integrals are not always path independent. The technique of $u$-substitution is derived from the fundamental theorem of calculus, a theorem about real-valued functions on the reals. This theorem (and therefore the $u$-substitution technique) doesn’t necessarily work if you use complex numbers where real numbers appear in the theorem. (Lots of things from real analysis don’t generalize. For example, the definition of $f'(z)$ as a limit where $hto0$ is wrong, because this is only the derivative in a particular direction in the complex plane.) A full understanding of these issues is a good chunk of a course in complex analysis.
Short answer: $u$-substitution (or “change of variable” for a definite integral) is a technique for functions of real numbers.
(Worth noting: Even for functions of real numbers, the “change the limits” approach for changing variables in a definite integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ can fail if the function $u(x)$ used for the substitution doesn’t map the interval $[a,b]$ to $[u(a),u(b)]$ in one-to-one fashion. Unfortunately, this issue is often ignored in elementary calculus courses.)
wao!! than you so much... Now everything is clearer... I was almost sure that what I did was wrong but now I know why... Just one more favor. In about three weeks I will be on vacations and I really want to learn much more about complex analysis, so... could you recommend me some great books¡?¡
– Aldebaran
Nov 17 at 4:13
There are good suggestions here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2107445/complex-analysis-books. You could also search Math StackExchange for other discussions of your question.
– Steve Kass
Nov 17 at 19:01
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
The integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ only has a precise meaning when $a$ and $b$ are real. If $a$ and $b$ are complex, you could define it to mean the integral along a straight-line path in the complex plane from $a$ to $b$, but line integrals are not always path independent. The technique of $u$-substitution is derived from the fundamental theorem of calculus, a theorem about real-valued functions on the reals. This theorem (and therefore the $u$-substitution technique) doesn’t necessarily work if you use complex numbers where real numbers appear in the theorem. (Lots of things from real analysis don’t generalize. For example, the definition of $f'(z)$ as a limit where $hto0$ is wrong, because this is only the derivative in a particular direction in the complex plane.) A full understanding of these issues is a good chunk of a course in complex analysis.
Short answer: $u$-substitution (or “change of variable” for a definite integral) is a technique for functions of real numbers.
(Worth noting: Even for functions of real numbers, the “change the limits” approach for changing variables in a definite integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ can fail if the function $u(x)$ used for the substitution doesn’t map the interval $[a,b]$ to $[u(a),u(b)]$ in one-to-one fashion. Unfortunately, this issue is often ignored in elementary calculus courses.)
wao!! than you so much... Now everything is clearer... I was almost sure that what I did was wrong but now I know why... Just one more favor. In about three weeks I will be on vacations and I really want to learn much more about complex analysis, so... could you recommend me some great books¡?¡
– Aldebaran
Nov 17 at 4:13
There are good suggestions here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2107445/complex-analysis-books. You could also search Math StackExchange for other discussions of your question.
– Steve Kass
Nov 17 at 19:01
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
The integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ only has a precise meaning when $a$ and $b$ are real. If $a$ and $b$ are complex, you could define it to mean the integral along a straight-line path in the complex plane from $a$ to $b$, but line integrals are not always path independent. The technique of $u$-substitution is derived from the fundamental theorem of calculus, a theorem about real-valued functions on the reals. This theorem (and therefore the $u$-substitution technique) doesn’t necessarily work if you use complex numbers where real numbers appear in the theorem. (Lots of things from real analysis don’t generalize. For example, the definition of $f'(z)$ as a limit where $hto0$ is wrong, because this is only the derivative in a particular direction in the complex plane.) A full understanding of these issues is a good chunk of a course in complex analysis.
Short answer: $u$-substitution (or “change of variable” for a definite integral) is a technique for functions of real numbers.
(Worth noting: Even for functions of real numbers, the “change the limits” approach for changing variables in a definite integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ can fail if the function $u(x)$ used for the substitution doesn’t map the interval $[a,b]$ to $[u(a),u(b)]$ in one-to-one fashion. Unfortunately, this issue is often ignored in elementary calculus courses.)
wao!! than you so much... Now everything is clearer... I was almost sure that what I did was wrong but now I know why... Just one more favor. In about three weeks I will be on vacations and I really want to learn much more about complex analysis, so... could you recommend me some great books¡?¡
– Aldebaran
Nov 17 at 4:13
There are good suggestions here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2107445/complex-analysis-books. You could also search Math StackExchange for other discussions of your question.
– Steve Kass
Nov 17 at 19:01
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
The integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ only has a precise meaning when $a$ and $b$ are real. If $a$ and $b$ are complex, you could define it to mean the integral along a straight-line path in the complex plane from $a$ to $b$, but line integrals are not always path independent. The technique of $u$-substitution is derived from the fundamental theorem of calculus, a theorem about real-valued functions on the reals. This theorem (and therefore the $u$-substitution technique) doesn’t necessarily work if you use complex numbers where real numbers appear in the theorem. (Lots of things from real analysis don’t generalize. For example, the definition of $f'(z)$ as a limit where $hto0$ is wrong, because this is only the derivative in a particular direction in the complex plane.) A full understanding of these issues is a good chunk of a course in complex analysis.
Short answer: $u$-substitution (or “change of variable” for a definite integral) is a technique for functions of real numbers.
(Worth noting: Even for functions of real numbers, the “change the limits” approach for changing variables in a definite integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ can fail if the function $u(x)$ used for the substitution doesn’t map the interval $[a,b]$ to $[u(a),u(b)]$ in one-to-one fashion. Unfortunately, this issue is often ignored in elementary calculus courses.)
The integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ only has a precise meaning when $a$ and $b$ are real. If $a$ and $b$ are complex, you could define it to mean the integral along a straight-line path in the complex plane from $a$ to $b$, but line integrals are not always path independent. The technique of $u$-substitution is derived from the fundamental theorem of calculus, a theorem about real-valued functions on the reals. This theorem (and therefore the $u$-substitution technique) doesn’t necessarily work if you use complex numbers where real numbers appear in the theorem. (Lots of things from real analysis don’t generalize. For example, the definition of $f'(z)$ as a limit where $hto0$ is wrong, because this is only the derivative in a particular direction in the complex plane.) A full understanding of these issues is a good chunk of a course in complex analysis.
Short answer: $u$-substitution (or “change of variable” for a definite integral) is a technique for functions of real numbers.
(Worth noting: Even for functions of real numbers, the “change the limits” approach for changing variables in a definite integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ can fail if the function $u(x)$ used for the substitution doesn’t map the interval $[a,b]$ to $[u(a),u(b)]$ in one-to-one fashion. Unfortunately, this issue is often ignored in elementary calculus courses.)
answered Nov 17 at 2:15
Steve Kass
10.9k11429
10.9k11429
wao!! than you so much... Now everything is clearer... I was almost sure that what I did was wrong but now I know why... Just one more favor. In about three weeks I will be on vacations and I really want to learn much more about complex analysis, so... could you recommend me some great books¡?¡
– Aldebaran
Nov 17 at 4:13
There are good suggestions here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2107445/complex-analysis-books. You could also search Math StackExchange for other discussions of your question.
– Steve Kass
Nov 17 at 19:01
add a comment |
wao!! than you so much... Now everything is clearer... I was almost sure that what I did was wrong but now I know why... Just one more favor. In about three weeks I will be on vacations and I really want to learn much more about complex analysis, so... could you recommend me some great books¡?¡
– Aldebaran
Nov 17 at 4:13
There are good suggestions here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2107445/complex-analysis-books. You could also search Math StackExchange for other discussions of your question.
– Steve Kass
Nov 17 at 19:01
wao!! than you so much... Now everything is clearer... I was almost sure that what I did was wrong but now I know why... Just one more favor. In about three weeks I will be on vacations and I really want to learn much more about complex analysis, so... could you recommend me some great books¡?¡
– Aldebaran
Nov 17 at 4:13
wao!! than you so much... Now everything is clearer... I was almost sure that what I did was wrong but now I know why... Just one more favor. In about three weeks I will be on vacations and I really want to learn much more about complex analysis, so... could you recommend me some great books¡?¡
– Aldebaran
Nov 17 at 4:13
There are good suggestions here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2107445/complex-analysis-books. You could also search Math StackExchange for other discussions of your question.
– Steve Kass
Nov 17 at 19:01
There are good suggestions here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/2107445/complex-analysis-books. You could also search Math StackExchange for other discussions of your question.
– Steve Kass
Nov 17 at 19:01
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%2f3001840%2fevaluate-int-gamma-frac1zdz-over-a-circle-outside-the-origin%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
When you define $u$ that way you don't get an integral over a single point, you get an integral over a closed curve.
– Umberto P.
Nov 17 at 1:41
This seems OK. You have made use of that $r<mid z_0 mid$ in last step. Think about why this is not working for the otherwise case.
– AdditIdent
Nov 17 at 1:46