Integral of real part of z around the unit circle
$begingroup$
What is the result of integrating the real part of z (a complex number) anti clockwise around the unit circle?
At first glance, I couldn't identify any points within the circle where analyticity breaks down. So it seemed to me that the integral should vanish and the answer should be 0. Since the real part of a complex number is differentiable everywhere right? It seems smooth.
But I tried using parameterization and got the answer to be i$pi$. So I am guessing there is a residue of 0.5 at 0 maybe?
So my question is, can we use Cauchy residue theorem to solve this? If so how? Is there a more elegant solution for this problem?
residue-calculus complex-integration analyticity analytic-functions
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What is the result of integrating the real part of z (a complex number) anti clockwise around the unit circle?
At first glance, I couldn't identify any points within the circle where analyticity breaks down. So it seemed to me that the integral should vanish and the answer should be 0. Since the real part of a complex number is differentiable everywhere right? It seems smooth.
But I tried using parameterization and got the answer to be i$pi$. So I am guessing there is a residue of 0.5 at 0 maybe?
So my question is, can we use Cauchy residue theorem to solve this? If so how? Is there a more elegant solution for this problem?
residue-calculus complex-integration analyticity analytic-functions
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
That’s the right answer, by a correct method.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
What is the result of integrating the real part of z (a complex number) anti clockwise around the unit circle?
At first glance, I couldn't identify any points within the circle where analyticity breaks down. So it seemed to me that the integral should vanish and the answer should be 0. Since the real part of a complex number is differentiable everywhere right? It seems smooth.
But I tried using parameterization and got the answer to be i$pi$. So I am guessing there is a residue of 0.5 at 0 maybe?
So my question is, can we use Cauchy residue theorem to solve this? If so how? Is there a more elegant solution for this problem?
residue-calculus complex-integration analyticity analytic-functions
$endgroup$
What is the result of integrating the real part of z (a complex number) anti clockwise around the unit circle?
At first glance, I couldn't identify any points within the circle where analyticity breaks down. So it seemed to me that the integral should vanish and the answer should be 0. Since the real part of a complex number is differentiable everywhere right? It seems smooth.
But I tried using parameterization and got the answer to be i$pi$. So I am guessing there is a residue of 0.5 at 0 maybe?
So my question is, can we use Cauchy residue theorem to solve this? If so how? Is there a more elegant solution for this problem?
residue-calculus complex-integration analyticity analytic-functions
residue-calculus complex-integration analyticity analytic-functions
asked 2 hours ago
AdityaAditya
278314
278314
2
$begingroup$
That’s the right answer, by a correct method.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2
$begingroup$
That’s the right answer, by a correct method.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
2
2
$begingroup$
That’s the right answer, by a correct method.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
That’s the right answer, by a correct method.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The real part of $z$ is not a complex-differentiable function anywhere. So, what can we do instead in order to apply complex analysis techniques? We can find an analytic function that agrees with it on the circle - even if it's completely different everywhere else.
First, we note that $text{Re}(z) = frac12(z+overline{z})$. Since the conjugate isn't analytic, that isn't good enough yet. But then, for $|z|=1$, $overline{z}=frac1z$. So, on the circle $|z|=1$ we care about,
$$text{Re}(z) = frac12left(z+frac1zright)$$
That's something we can work with. (Of course, it's a bit absurd to apply the residue theorem to the literal integral $frac az$ around a circle - we needed that integral to prove the theorem in the first place)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot, just what I wanted.
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
${1 over 2 pi i} int_0^{2 pi} cos t ie^{it} dt = {1 over 2 pi} int_0^{2 pi} {1 over 2 } (e^{it} + e^{-it}) e^{it} dt = {1 over 2}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Not true - $dz$ isn't real.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I don't know what I was thinking.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
That was embarrassing.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Here $dz = ie^{it}$ right? And we can write $Re(z) = cos t = frac{(e^{it}+ e^{-it})}{2} $ all of this makes sense. So we have $int_0^{2pi} e^{2it} + 1 = 2pi$ because $cos 0 = cos 2pi$. So I don't see why this is wrong just because $dz$ is not real? This is almost the same way I solved it above in the question details, like I did via the trigonometric route, it was much longer. This is super fast. Isn't this correct too?
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I edited out my embarrassing mistake. The answer above is correct. For real measures we have $operatorname{re} (int f d mu) = int operatorname{re}(f) d mu$, but that does not apply here.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
59 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
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',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
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
});
}
});
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%2f3097060%2fintegral-of-real-part-of-z-around-the-unit-circle%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
$begingroup$
The real part of $z$ is not a complex-differentiable function anywhere. So, what can we do instead in order to apply complex analysis techniques? We can find an analytic function that agrees with it on the circle - even if it's completely different everywhere else.
First, we note that $text{Re}(z) = frac12(z+overline{z})$. Since the conjugate isn't analytic, that isn't good enough yet. But then, for $|z|=1$, $overline{z}=frac1z$. So, on the circle $|z|=1$ we care about,
$$text{Re}(z) = frac12left(z+frac1zright)$$
That's something we can work with. (Of course, it's a bit absurd to apply the residue theorem to the literal integral $frac az$ around a circle - we needed that integral to prove the theorem in the first place)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot, just what I wanted.
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The real part of $z$ is not a complex-differentiable function anywhere. So, what can we do instead in order to apply complex analysis techniques? We can find an analytic function that agrees with it on the circle - even if it's completely different everywhere else.
First, we note that $text{Re}(z) = frac12(z+overline{z})$. Since the conjugate isn't analytic, that isn't good enough yet. But then, for $|z|=1$, $overline{z}=frac1z$. So, on the circle $|z|=1$ we care about,
$$text{Re}(z) = frac12left(z+frac1zright)$$
That's something we can work with. (Of course, it's a bit absurd to apply the residue theorem to the literal integral $frac az$ around a circle - we needed that integral to prove the theorem in the first place)
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot, just what I wanted.
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The real part of $z$ is not a complex-differentiable function anywhere. So, what can we do instead in order to apply complex analysis techniques? We can find an analytic function that agrees with it on the circle - even if it's completely different everywhere else.
First, we note that $text{Re}(z) = frac12(z+overline{z})$. Since the conjugate isn't analytic, that isn't good enough yet. But then, for $|z|=1$, $overline{z}=frac1z$. So, on the circle $|z|=1$ we care about,
$$text{Re}(z) = frac12left(z+frac1zright)$$
That's something we can work with. (Of course, it's a bit absurd to apply the residue theorem to the literal integral $frac az$ around a circle - we needed that integral to prove the theorem in the first place)
$endgroup$
The real part of $z$ is not a complex-differentiable function anywhere. So, what can we do instead in order to apply complex analysis techniques? We can find an analytic function that agrees with it on the circle - even if it's completely different everywhere else.
First, we note that $text{Re}(z) = frac12(z+overline{z})$. Since the conjugate isn't analytic, that isn't good enough yet. But then, for $|z|=1$, $overline{z}=frac1z$. So, on the circle $|z|=1$ we care about,
$$text{Re}(z) = frac12left(z+frac1zright)$$
That's something we can work with. (Of course, it's a bit absurd to apply the residue theorem to the literal integral $frac az$ around a circle - we needed that integral to prove the theorem in the first place)
answered 1 hour ago
jmerryjmerry
6,457718
6,457718
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot, just what I wanted.
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot, just what I wanted.
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot, just what I wanted.
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Thanks a lot, just what I wanted.
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
${1 over 2 pi i} int_0^{2 pi} cos t ie^{it} dt = {1 over 2 pi} int_0^{2 pi} {1 over 2 } (e^{it} + e^{-it}) e^{it} dt = {1 over 2}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Not true - $dz$ isn't real.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I don't know what I was thinking.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
That was embarrassing.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Here $dz = ie^{it}$ right? And we can write $Re(z) = cos t = frac{(e^{it}+ e^{-it})}{2} $ all of this makes sense. So we have $int_0^{2pi} e^{2it} + 1 = 2pi$ because $cos 0 = cos 2pi$. So I don't see why this is wrong just because $dz$ is not real? This is almost the same way I solved it above in the question details, like I did via the trigonometric route, it was much longer. This is super fast. Isn't this correct too?
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I edited out my embarrassing mistake. The answer above is correct. For real measures we have $operatorname{re} (int f d mu) = int operatorname{re}(f) d mu$, but that does not apply here.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
59 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
${1 over 2 pi i} int_0^{2 pi} cos t ie^{it} dt = {1 over 2 pi} int_0^{2 pi} {1 over 2 } (e^{it} + e^{-it}) e^{it} dt = {1 over 2}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Not true - $dz$ isn't real.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I don't know what I was thinking.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
That was embarrassing.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Here $dz = ie^{it}$ right? And we can write $Re(z) = cos t = frac{(e^{it}+ e^{-it})}{2} $ all of this makes sense. So we have $int_0^{2pi} e^{2it} + 1 = 2pi$ because $cos 0 = cos 2pi$. So I don't see why this is wrong just because $dz$ is not real? This is almost the same way I solved it above in the question details, like I did via the trigonometric route, it was much longer. This is super fast. Isn't this correct too?
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I edited out my embarrassing mistake. The answer above is correct. For real measures we have $operatorname{re} (int f d mu) = int operatorname{re}(f) d mu$, but that does not apply here.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
59 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
${1 over 2 pi i} int_0^{2 pi} cos t ie^{it} dt = {1 over 2 pi} int_0^{2 pi} {1 over 2 } (e^{it} + e^{-it}) e^{it} dt = {1 over 2}$.
$endgroup$
${1 over 2 pi i} int_0^{2 pi} cos t ie^{it} dt = {1 over 2 pi} int_0^{2 pi} {1 over 2 } (e^{it} + e^{-it}) e^{it} dt = {1 over 2}$.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
copper.hatcopper.hat
127k559160
127k559160
$begingroup$
Not true - $dz$ isn't real.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I don't know what I was thinking.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
That was embarrassing.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Here $dz = ie^{it}$ right? And we can write $Re(z) = cos t = frac{(e^{it}+ e^{-it})}{2} $ all of this makes sense. So we have $int_0^{2pi} e^{2it} + 1 = 2pi$ because $cos 0 = cos 2pi$. So I don't see why this is wrong just because $dz$ is not real? This is almost the same way I solved it above in the question details, like I did via the trigonometric route, it was much longer. This is super fast. Isn't this correct too?
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I edited out my embarrassing mistake. The answer above is correct. For real measures we have $operatorname{re} (int f d mu) = int operatorname{re}(f) d mu$, but that does not apply here.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
59 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Not true - $dz$ isn't real.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I don't know what I was thinking.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
That was embarrassing.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Here $dz = ie^{it}$ right? And we can write $Re(z) = cos t = frac{(e^{it}+ e^{-it})}{2} $ all of this makes sense. So we have $int_0^{2pi} e^{2it} + 1 = 2pi$ because $cos 0 = cos 2pi$. So I don't see why this is wrong just because $dz$ is not real? This is almost the same way I solved it above in the question details, like I did via the trigonometric route, it was much longer. This is super fast. Isn't this correct too?
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I edited out my embarrassing mistake. The answer above is correct. For real measures we have $operatorname{re} (int f d mu) = int operatorname{re}(f) d mu$, but that does not apply here.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
59 mins ago
$begingroup$
Not true - $dz$ isn't real.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Not true - $dz$ isn't real.
$endgroup$
– jmerry
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I don't know what I was thinking.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I don't know what I was thinking.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
That was embarrassing.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
That was embarrassing.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Here $dz = ie^{it}$ right? And we can write $Re(z) = cos t = frac{(e^{it}+ e^{-it})}{2} $ all of this makes sense. So we have $int_0^{2pi} e^{2it} + 1 = 2pi$ because $cos 0 = cos 2pi$. So I don't see why this is wrong just because $dz$ is not real? This is almost the same way I solved it above in the question details, like I did via the trigonometric route, it was much longer. This is super fast. Isn't this correct too?
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Here $dz = ie^{it}$ right? And we can write $Re(z) = cos t = frac{(e^{it}+ e^{-it})}{2} $ all of this makes sense. So we have $int_0^{2pi} e^{2it} + 1 = 2pi$ because $cos 0 = cos 2pi$. So I don't see why this is wrong just because $dz$ is not real? This is almost the same way I solved it above in the question details, like I did via the trigonometric route, it was much longer. This is super fast. Isn't this correct too?
$endgroup$
– Aditya
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I edited out my embarrassing mistake. The answer above is correct. For real measures we have $operatorname{re} (int f d mu) = int operatorname{re}(f) d mu$, but that does not apply here.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
59 mins ago
$begingroup$
I edited out my embarrassing mistake. The answer above is correct. For real measures we have $operatorname{re} (int f d mu) = int operatorname{re}(f) d mu$, but that does not apply here.
$endgroup$
– copper.hat
59 mins ago
|
show 2 more comments
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.
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%2f3097060%2fintegral-of-real-part-of-z-around-the-unit-circle%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
2
$begingroup$
That’s the right answer, by a correct method.
$endgroup$
– Lubin
1 hour ago