http://i55.tinypic.com/wlf901.jpg
Hey guys,
I need to solve the above problem. I think I need to use Laurent's theorem but I am unsure how to proceed with it.
Thanks
http://i55.tinypic.com/wlf901.jpg
Hey guys,
I need to solve the above problem. I think I need to use Laurent's theorem but I am unsure how to proceed with it.
Thanks
Hi,
I think your idea is good.
You can use the fact that the function is analytic in the punctured disk to obtain a Laurent series (in (z-a)) that converges in the punctured disk. You can then argue that as and all the negative order contribution must vanish, since they would otherwise asymptotically beat .
Let's suppose [without loss of generality..] that so that we can use the same approach used for the 'Riemann zeta function' in...
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...on-186544.html
The function is analytic in and here its Taylor expansion is...
(1)
The Taylor expansion (1) converges of course inside a circle centered in with radious r=1. Now , as illustrated in the figure...
... we can proceed as in the post about the Riemann zeta function and extend the region in which is analytic 'everywhere around' the point ...
Kind regards
By the way, with the precise purpose to avoid waste of time, I suggest to read the following recent post...
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...es-186754.html
Here for the computation of the integral....
(1)
... has been proposed the integration of the complex function along the path in the figure...
Now it is evident that if is not analytic inside the 'circular proximity' of of radious r the method fails and the computation of the integral (1) becomes [really...] 'impossible'... fortunately that is not the case ...
Kind regards
I don't know what you're trying to get at with this but your counterexample, as I said, doesn't work because the function is not analytic there: A function is analytic in a neighbourhood of if and only if it has a Laurent expansion around , and as you pointed out here such an expansion of the logarithm doesn't exist.
... the procedure requires f(z) to be analytic on the integration path if and ... then, non considering the poles with negative real part of f(z), must be analytic for ...
The proof that is analytic in with the only exception of the point is given in...
http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-he...st-167358.html
... thread the reading of which I strongly recommend...
Kind regards
What for?. We are talking about a simple question: is analytic in ? (of course when the notation appears without any particular logarithm having been specified, it is generally assumed that the principal value is intended). The answer is no and this is related with the objection of Jose27 to your counterexample, so I think that it is useless to continue with this discussion.