Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -¹ ² ³ °

You are not logged in.

- Topics: Active | Unanswered

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,380

Can somebody explain contour integration to me a little bit?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,526

Do you want to see it work or you want a theoretical discussion?

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,380

An example would be nice.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,526

Please integrate that.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**ShivamS****Member**- Registered: 2011-02-07
- Posts: 3,518

Stefy, check this out:

http://walet.phy.umist.ac.uk/MaMe/MMA/Contour.pdf

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,380

bobbym wrote:

Please integrate that.

How do I do that?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most. ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,526

Get the poles first.

**In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them.I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.**

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,380

Okay, that is the easy part.

*Last edited by anonimnystefy (2013-03-27 03:45:16)*

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,526

Take the positive 2, do you know why?

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,380

No...

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,526

The limits of integration are positive so we only take the positive poles.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,380

Since when can complex numbers be positive and negative? Do you want their real parts to be positive or...?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,526

I get the poles like this

You take the ones that do not have a minus sign in front. See the drawing provided later to tell which poles to use.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,380

I think those are the 1. and 3. in my list.

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,526

Now get the residue of those two poles. This is done in a couple of ways. I prefer the formula. If you like your own way use it.

If you chose the right ones (the ones in red ) you will get:

Once you have the residues you are almost done. Tell me when you get mine.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,311

hi bobbym,

Would you mind explaining how to get the 'residues' ? Thanks.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,526

Hi;

One way uses the Laurent series. I do not know it offhand. The other way zetafunc and I were using just a couple of days ago. It is just a formula. Hold on while I get it.

As usual I did not write it down but Wiki has it:

where c is a pole and n is its order.

Ex:

has 2 poles i and -i. To get the residue of i we say n =1 and c = i.

The whole formula simplifies to

which equals - i / 2

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**bob bundy****Moderator**- Registered: 2010-06-20
- Posts: 6,311

Many thanks.

Give me a week or so to get my brain around all of this and I may have more questions.

Bob

You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,526

Hi;

I added some stuff to post #17.

Give me a week or so to get my brain around all of this

If you can get it in a week then you will have far surpassed me. I never did get it, despite having it explained to me at least 5 times!

Rule 1 of my signature applies! To some, it only applies maybe 3 or 4 times. For me I stopped counting after 10000.

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,380

Hi bobbym

Yes, I am getting those residues. What now?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**zetafunc.****Guest**

Sum the residues, and multiply the sum by 2iπ.

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,526

Hi zeta;

I was going to ask you to come in here and help out. We were just working on this!

Hi anonimnystefy;

Normally 2 π i but here we are only taking half the contour so it is π i

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,380

pi*sqrt(2)/4?

*Last edited by anonimnystefy (2013-03-27 23:40:39)*

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline

**bobbym****Administrator**- From: Bumpkinland
- Registered: 2009-04-12
- Posts: 84,526

Correct! Wunderbar!

I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it.

All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof.

Offline

**anonimnystefy****Real Member**- From: The Foundation
- Registered: 2011-05-23
- Posts: 15,380

Yes, I have. Did you see post #23?

Here lies the reader who will never open this book. He is forever dead.

Offline