This commit is contained in:
Zheyuan Wu
2025-03-27 11:57:16 -05:00
parent 2ed300e35e
commit 1165614cab
3 changed files with 77 additions and 2 deletions

View File

@@ -0,0 +1,74 @@
# Math416 Lecture 19
## Continue on the Laurent series
### Laurent series
If $f$ is holomorphic in $A(z_0;R_1,R_2)$ then $f=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} a_n (z-z_0)^n$ where the Laurent series converges on the annulus $A(z_0;R_1,R_2)$
$$
\int_{C(z_0,r)} f(z)(z-z_0)^{-k-1} dz = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} a_n \int_{C(z_0,r)} (z-z_0)^{n-k-1} dz=a_k 2\pi i
$$
> $C(z_0,r)$ is a circle centered at $z_0$ with radius $r$
### Isolated singularities
A punctured disk at $z_0$ is $A(z_0;0,R)=\{z:0<|z-z_0|<R\}$
Say a function $f$ has an isolated singularity at $z_0$ if it is holomorphic in a punctured disk $A(z_0;0,R)$
$f$ has a Laurent series in $A(z_0;0,R)$
$$
f(z) = \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} a_n (z-z_0)^n
$$
that converges in $A(z_0;0,R)$
#### Principal part of a Laurent series
The principal part of a Laurent series is the sum of the terms with negative powers of $(z-z_0)$
$$
\sum_{n=-\infty}^{-1} a_n (z-z_0)^n
$$
Say the isolated singularity is
- removable if $a_n=0$ for all $n<0$
- If $f(z)$ has a removable singularity at $z_0$, then extend $f$ to $\mathbb{D}_{z_0,R}$ by defining $f(z_0)=a_0$. This extended $f$ is holomorphic on $\mathbb{D}_{z_0,R}$ and $f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n (z-z_0)^n$ for $z\in \mathbb{D}_{z_0,R}$
- pole if $a_{-k}\neq 0$ and $a_n=0$ for all $n<-k$
- A pole with order $1$ is a simple pole
- essential if the cases above are not true
Example:
1. $f(z)=\frac{\sin z}{z}$ has a removable singularity at $z=0$.
the power series is
$$
\sin z = z - \frac{z^3}{3!} + \frac{z^5}{5!} - \cdots
$$
So the Laurent series is
$$
\frac{\sin z}{z} = 1 - \frac{z^2}{3!} + \frac{z^4}{5!} - \cdots
$$
The singularity is removable by defining $f(0)=1$
2. $f(z)=\frac{z^2-1}{(z-1)(z-3)}=\frac{(z-1)(z+1)}{(z-1)(z-3)}$
There are two poles at $z=1$ and $z=3$
the singularity at $z=1$ is removable by defining $f(1)=1$
the singularity at $z=3$ is a simple pole with order 1 $f(z)=\frac{z+1}{z-3}=\frac{(z-3)+4}{z-3}=4(z-3)^{-1}+1$
3. $f(z)=\frac{(z+1)^2(z+2)^3}{(z-1)^2(z-5)^6(z-8)}$
there are three poles at $z=1,5,8$, the order of the poles are 2, 6, 1 respectively.

View File

@@ -22,4 +22,5 @@ export default {
Math416_L16: "Complex Variables (Lecture 16)", Math416_L16: "Complex Variables (Lecture 16)",
Math416_L17: "Complex Variables (Lecture 17)", Math416_L17: "Complex Variables (Lecture 17)",
Math416_L18: "Complex Variables (Lecture 18)", Math416_L18: "Complex Variables (Lecture 18)",
Math416_L19: "Complex Variables (Lecture 19)",
} }

View File

@@ -3,13 +3,13 @@
Complex variables. This is a course that explores the theory and applications of complex analysis as extension of Real analysis. Complex variables. This is a course that explores the theory and applications of complex analysis as extension of Real analysis.
The course is taught by Professor. The course is taught by Professor.
John E. McCarthy <mccarthy@math.wustl.edu> John E. McCarthy <mailto:mccarthy@math.wustl.edu>
Some interesting fact is that he cover the lecture terribly quick. At least for me. I need to preview and review the lecture after the course ended. The only thing that I can take granted of is that many theorem in real analysis still holds in the complex. By elegant definition designing, we build a wonderful math with complex variables and extended theorems, which is more helpful when solving questions that cannot be solved in real numbers. Some interesting fact is that he cover the lecture terribly quick. At least for me. I need to preview and review the lecture after the course ended. The only thing that I can take granted of is that many theorem in real analysis still holds in the complex. By elegant definition designing, we build a wonderful math with complex variables and extended theorems, which is more helpful when solving questions that cannot be solved in real numbers.
McCarthy like to write $\zeta$ for $z$ and his writing for $\zeta$ is almost identical with $z$, I decided to use the traditional notation system I've learned to avoid confusion in my notes. McCarthy like to write $\zeta$ for $z$ and his writing for $\zeta$ is almost identical with $z$, I decided to use the traditional notation system I've learned to avoid confusion in my notes.
I will use $B_r(z_0)$ to denote a disk in $\mathbb{C}$ such that $B_r(z_0) = \{ z \in \mathbb{C} : |z - z_0| < r \}$ I will use $B_r(z_0)$ to denote a disk in $\mathbb{C}$ such that $B_r(z_0) = \{ z \in \mathbb{C} : |z - z_0| < r \}$. In the lecture, he use $\mathbb{D}(z_0,r)$ to denote the disk centered at $z_0$ with radius $r$. If $\mathbb{D}$ is used, then it means the unit disk $\mathbb{D}=\{z:|z|<1\}$. You may also see the closure of the disk $\overline{B_r(z_0)}$ and $\overline{\mathbb{D}}$, these are equivalent definition.
I will use $z$ to replace the strange notation of $\zeta$. If that makes sense. I will use $z$ to replace the strange notation of $\zeta$. If that makes sense.