Real integral using residue theorem - why doesn't this work?
$begingroup$
Consider the following definite real integral:
$$I = int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix} - e^{ix}}{x}$$
Using the $text{Si}(x)$ function, I can solve it easily,
$$I = -2i int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix} - e^{ix}}{-2ix} = -2i int_{0}^infty dx frac{sin{x}}{x} = -2i lim_{x to infty} text{Si}(x) = -2i left(frac{pi}{2}right) = - i pi,$$
simply because I happen to know that $mathrm{Si}(x)$ asymptotically approaches $pi/2$.
However, if I try to calculate it using the residue theorem, I get the wrong answer, off by a factor of $2$ and I'm not sure if I understand why. Here's the procedure:
$$I= int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix}}{x} - int_{0}^infty dx frac{ e^{ix}}{x} = color{red}{-int_{-infty}^0 dx frac{e^{ix}}{x}} - int_{0}^infty dx frac{ e^{ix}}{x}
= -int_{-infty}^infty dx frac{e^{ix}}{x} $$
Then I define $$I_epsilon := -int_{-infty}^infty dx frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon}$$ for $varepsilon > 0$ so that$$I=lim_{varepsilon to 0^+} I_varepsilon.$$
Then I complexify the integration variable and integrate over a D-shaped contour over the upper half of the complex plane. I choose that contour because
$$lim_{x to +iinfty} frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon} = 0$$ and it contains the simple pole at $x_0 = i varepsilon$. Using the residue theorem with the contour enclosing $x_0$ $$I_varepsilon = -2 pi i , text{Res}_{x_0} left( frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon}right) = -2 pi i left( frac{e^{ix}}{1} right)Biggrvert_{x=x_0=ivarepsilon}=-2 pi i , e^{-varepsilon}.$$
Therefore,
$$I=lim_{varepsilon to 0^+} left( -2 pi i , e^{-varepsilon} right) = -2pi i.$$
However, that is obviously wrong. Where exactly is the mistake?
integration residue-calculus
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider the following definite real integral:
$$I = int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix} - e^{ix}}{x}$$
Using the $text{Si}(x)$ function, I can solve it easily,
$$I = -2i int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix} - e^{ix}}{-2ix} = -2i int_{0}^infty dx frac{sin{x}}{x} = -2i lim_{x to infty} text{Si}(x) = -2i left(frac{pi}{2}right) = - i pi,$$
simply because I happen to know that $mathrm{Si}(x)$ asymptotically approaches $pi/2$.
However, if I try to calculate it using the residue theorem, I get the wrong answer, off by a factor of $2$ and I'm not sure if I understand why. Here's the procedure:
$$I= int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix}}{x} - int_{0}^infty dx frac{ e^{ix}}{x} = color{red}{-int_{-infty}^0 dx frac{e^{ix}}{x}} - int_{0}^infty dx frac{ e^{ix}}{x}
= -int_{-infty}^infty dx frac{e^{ix}}{x} $$
Then I define $$I_epsilon := -int_{-infty}^infty dx frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon}$$ for $varepsilon > 0$ so that$$I=lim_{varepsilon to 0^+} I_varepsilon.$$
Then I complexify the integration variable and integrate over a D-shaped contour over the upper half of the complex plane. I choose that contour because
$$lim_{x to +iinfty} frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon} = 0$$ and it contains the simple pole at $x_0 = i varepsilon$. Using the residue theorem with the contour enclosing $x_0$ $$I_varepsilon = -2 pi i , text{Res}_{x_0} left( frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon}right) = -2 pi i left( frac{e^{ix}}{1} right)Biggrvert_{x=x_0=ivarepsilon}=-2 pi i , e^{-varepsilon}.$$
Therefore,
$$I=lim_{varepsilon to 0^+} left( -2 pi i , e^{-varepsilon} right) = -2pi i.$$
However, that is obviously wrong. Where exactly is the mistake?
integration residue-calculus
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
$endgroup$
– Count Iblis
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Consider the following definite real integral:
$$I = int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix} - e^{ix}}{x}$$
Using the $text{Si}(x)$ function, I can solve it easily,
$$I = -2i int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix} - e^{ix}}{-2ix} = -2i int_{0}^infty dx frac{sin{x}}{x} = -2i lim_{x to infty} text{Si}(x) = -2i left(frac{pi}{2}right) = - i pi,$$
simply because I happen to know that $mathrm{Si}(x)$ asymptotically approaches $pi/2$.
However, if I try to calculate it using the residue theorem, I get the wrong answer, off by a factor of $2$ and I'm not sure if I understand why. Here's the procedure:
$$I= int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix}}{x} - int_{0}^infty dx frac{ e^{ix}}{x} = color{red}{-int_{-infty}^0 dx frac{e^{ix}}{x}} - int_{0}^infty dx frac{ e^{ix}}{x}
= -int_{-infty}^infty dx frac{e^{ix}}{x} $$
Then I define $$I_epsilon := -int_{-infty}^infty dx frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon}$$ for $varepsilon > 0$ so that$$I=lim_{varepsilon to 0^+} I_varepsilon.$$
Then I complexify the integration variable and integrate over a D-shaped contour over the upper half of the complex plane. I choose that contour because
$$lim_{x to +iinfty} frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon} = 0$$ and it contains the simple pole at $x_0 = i varepsilon$. Using the residue theorem with the contour enclosing $x_0$ $$I_varepsilon = -2 pi i , text{Res}_{x_0} left( frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon}right) = -2 pi i left( frac{e^{ix}}{1} right)Biggrvert_{x=x_0=ivarepsilon}=-2 pi i , e^{-varepsilon}.$$
Therefore,
$$I=lim_{varepsilon to 0^+} left( -2 pi i , e^{-varepsilon} right) = -2pi i.$$
However, that is obviously wrong. Where exactly is the mistake?
integration residue-calculus
$endgroup$
Consider the following definite real integral:
$$I = int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix} - e^{ix}}{x}$$
Using the $text{Si}(x)$ function, I can solve it easily,
$$I = -2i int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix} - e^{ix}}{-2ix} = -2i int_{0}^infty dx frac{sin{x}}{x} = -2i lim_{x to infty} text{Si}(x) = -2i left(frac{pi}{2}right) = - i pi,$$
simply because I happen to know that $mathrm{Si}(x)$ asymptotically approaches $pi/2$.
However, if I try to calculate it using the residue theorem, I get the wrong answer, off by a factor of $2$ and I'm not sure if I understand why. Here's the procedure:
$$I= int_{0}^infty dx frac{e^{-ix}}{x} - int_{0}^infty dx frac{ e^{ix}}{x} = color{red}{-int_{-infty}^0 dx frac{e^{ix}}{x}} - int_{0}^infty dx frac{ e^{ix}}{x}
= -int_{-infty}^infty dx frac{e^{ix}}{x} $$
Then I define $$I_epsilon := -int_{-infty}^infty dx frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon}$$ for $varepsilon > 0$ so that$$I=lim_{varepsilon to 0^+} I_varepsilon.$$
Then I complexify the integration variable and integrate over a D-shaped contour over the upper half of the complex plane. I choose that contour because
$$lim_{x to +iinfty} frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon} = 0$$ and it contains the simple pole at $x_0 = i varepsilon$. Using the residue theorem with the contour enclosing $x_0$ $$I_varepsilon = -2 pi i , text{Res}_{x_0} left( frac{e^{ix}}{x-ivarepsilon}right) = -2 pi i left( frac{e^{ix}}{1} right)Biggrvert_{x=x_0=ivarepsilon}=-2 pi i , e^{-varepsilon}.$$
Therefore,
$$I=lim_{varepsilon to 0^+} left( -2 pi i , e^{-varepsilon} right) = -2pi i.$$
However, that is obviously wrong. Where exactly is the mistake?
integration residue-calculus
integration residue-calculus
asked 6 hours ago
Ivan V.Ivan V.
811216
811216
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
$endgroup$
– Count Iblis
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
$endgroup$
– Count Iblis
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
$endgroup$
– Count Iblis
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
$endgroup$
– Count Iblis
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You've replaced the converging integral $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{-mathrm{i} x} - mathrm{e}^{mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$ with two divergent integrals, $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{-mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$ and $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$. (That something divergent has been introduced is evident in your need to sneak up on a singularity at $0$ that was not in the original integral.)
Also, notice that your D-shaped contour does not go around your freshly minted singularity at $x = 0$. The singularity lands on your contour. See the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem to find that the multiplier for the residue of the pole is $pm pi mathrm{i}$, not $pm 2 pi mathrm{i}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You cannot shift the pole from the integration contour at will. Imagine that you shift it in the lower complex half-plane. Then instead of $-2pi i$ you would obtain for the integral the value $0$!
The correct way to handle the pole is to take the half of its residue value, which is equivalent to bypassing the pole along a tiny semicircle around it (observe that the result does not depend on the choice between upper and lower semicircle).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a problem at the very first step. You cannot split the integral because both integrals are divergent.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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%2f3167734%2freal-integral-using-residue-theorem-why-doesnt-this-work%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
You've replaced the converging integral $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{-mathrm{i} x} - mathrm{e}^{mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$ with two divergent integrals, $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{-mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$ and $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$. (That something divergent has been introduced is evident in your need to sneak up on a singularity at $0$ that was not in the original integral.)
Also, notice that your D-shaped contour does not go around your freshly minted singularity at $x = 0$. The singularity lands on your contour. See the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem to find that the multiplier for the residue of the pole is $pm pi mathrm{i}$, not $pm 2 pi mathrm{i}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You've replaced the converging integral $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{-mathrm{i} x} - mathrm{e}^{mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$ with two divergent integrals, $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{-mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$ and $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$. (That something divergent has been introduced is evident in your need to sneak up on a singularity at $0$ that was not in the original integral.)
Also, notice that your D-shaped contour does not go around your freshly minted singularity at $x = 0$. The singularity lands on your contour. See the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem to find that the multiplier for the residue of the pole is $pm pi mathrm{i}$, not $pm 2 pi mathrm{i}$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You've replaced the converging integral $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{-mathrm{i} x} - mathrm{e}^{mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$ with two divergent integrals, $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{-mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$ and $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$. (That something divergent has been introduced is evident in your need to sneak up on a singularity at $0$ that was not in the original integral.)
Also, notice that your D-shaped contour does not go around your freshly minted singularity at $x = 0$. The singularity lands on your contour. See the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem to find that the multiplier for the residue of the pole is $pm pi mathrm{i}$, not $pm 2 pi mathrm{i}$.
$endgroup$
You've replaced the converging integral $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{-mathrm{i} x} - mathrm{e}^{mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$ with two divergent integrals, $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{-mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$ and $int_0^infty frac{mathrm{e}^{mathrm{i} x}}{x} ,mathrm{d}x$. (That something divergent has been introduced is evident in your need to sneak up on a singularity at $0$ that was not in the original integral.)
Also, notice that your D-shaped contour does not go around your freshly minted singularity at $x = 0$. The singularity lands on your contour. See the Sokhotski–Plemelj theorem to find that the multiplier for the residue of the pole is $pm pi mathrm{i}$, not $pm 2 pi mathrm{i}$.
answered 5 hours ago
Eric TowersEric Towers
33.3k22370
33.3k22370
$begingroup$
Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
Ah, of course! And thank you for the additional info, very useful.
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You cannot shift the pole from the integration contour at will. Imagine that you shift it in the lower complex half-plane. Then instead of $-2pi i$ you would obtain for the integral the value $0$!
The correct way to handle the pole is to take the half of its residue value, which is equivalent to bypassing the pole along a tiny semicircle around it (observe that the result does not depend on the choice between upper and lower semicircle).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You cannot shift the pole from the integration contour at will. Imagine that you shift it in the lower complex half-plane. Then instead of $-2pi i$ you would obtain for the integral the value $0$!
The correct way to handle the pole is to take the half of its residue value, which is equivalent to bypassing the pole along a tiny semicircle around it (observe that the result does not depend on the choice between upper and lower semicircle).
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You cannot shift the pole from the integration contour at will. Imagine that you shift it in the lower complex half-plane. Then instead of $-2pi i$ you would obtain for the integral the value $0$!
The correct way to handle the pole is to take the half of its residue value, which is equivalent to bypassing the pole along a tiny semicircle around it (observe that the result does not depend on the choice between upper and lower semicircle).
$endgroup$
You cannot shift the pole from the integration contour at will. Imagine that you shift it in the lower complex half-plane. Then instead of $-2pi i$ you would obtain for the integral the value $0$!
The correct way to handle the pole is to take the half of its residue value, which is equivalent to bypassing the pole along a tiny semicircle around it (observe that the result does not depend on the choice between upper and lower semicircle).
edited 5 hours ago
answered 6 hours ago
useruser
6,09811031
6,09811031
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a problem at the very first step. You cannot split the integral because both integrals are divergent.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a problem at the very first step. You cannot split the integral because both integrals are divergent.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
There is a problem at the very first step. You cannot split the integral because both integrals are divergent.
$endgroup$
There is a problem at the very first step. You cannot split the integral because both integrals are divergent.
answered 5 hours ago
Kavi Rama MurthyKavi Rama Murthy
71.1k53170
71.1k53170
add a comment |
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.
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%2f3167734%2freal-integral-using-residue-theorem-why-doesnt-this-work%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
1
$begingroup$
math.stackexchange.com/a/2270510/155436
$endgroup$
– Count Iblis
5 hours ago
$begingroup$
@CountIblis Didn't catch that one before, thank you!
$endgroup$
– Ivan V.
5 hours ago