Complex Analysis 33 | Residue for Poles [dark version]
Based on The Bright Side of Mathematics's video on YouTube. If you like this content, support the original creators by watching, liking and subscribing to their content.
If f is bounded near an isolated singularity z0, then Res(f, z0) = 0 because the contour integral is bounded by C·2π ε and ε can go to 0.
Briefing
Residues at isolated singularities can be computed cleanly once the singularity is identified as a pole—and if the function stays bounded near the point, the residue must be zero. That boundedness principle is the first major takeaway: when a holomorphic function has an isolated singularity at z0 but does not “explode” near z0, the contour integral around a small circle shrinks to nothing, forcing the residue to vanish.
To justify that, the discussion starts from the residue definition via a small closed contour integral. For a holomorphic function f on a punctured disk around z0, the residue is tied to the value of ∮ f(z) dz around a circle of radius ε. If f remains bounded on that circle, then the integral is bounded by (maximum |f| on the circle) × (length of the circle), i.e., a constant times 2π ε. Since ε can be made arbitrarily small, the integral must be 0, so the residue is 0. This generalizes the earlier observation that if a function is entire and one artificially removes a point (creating an isolated singularity), the residue at that point still comes out zero.
The next step is to focus on poles, the main kind of isolated singularity that produces nonzero residues. A pole at z0 is characterized by the existence of a holomorphic function h on a small disk such that h(z) = 1/f(z) and h extends holomorphically at z0. Equivalently, a pole behaves like the inverse of a zero: the function blows up like a negative power of (z − z0). A canonical example is f(z) = 1/(z − z0), where the reciprocal is z − z0, holomorphic everywhere, confirming z0 as a pole.
Poles also come with an order n. The transcript gives an equivalent structural form: if z0 is a pole of order n, then f can be written as f(z) = (z − z0)^(−n) G(z), where G is holomorphic near z0 and does not vanish there. Expanding G into a power series yields a Laurent expansion for f with a nonzero coefficient at (z − z0)^(−n). The residue is identified as the coefficient of (z − z0)^(−1), often denoted a_(−1).
The practical payoff is a residue calculation rule for poles. If z0 is a pole of order n, then multiplying by (z − z0)^n produces a holomorphic function. Differentiating (n − 1) times and evaluating at z0 isolates the (z − z0)^(−1) term. The resulting formula is: Res(f, z0) = 1/(n − 1)! · lim_{z→z0} d^(n−1)/dz^(n−1) [(z − z0)^n f(z)].
An example seals the method: for f(z) = 1/(z^2(1+z)), the point z0 = 0 is a pole of order 2. Using n = 2, the rule requires only one derivative of (z − 0)^2 f(z) = 1/(1+z). Differentiation gives −1/(1+z)^2, and evaluating at z = 0 yields −1. That value is the residue at 0, setting up how contour integrals will later be evaluated via the residue theorem.
Cornell Notes
Residues are defined through contour integrals around isolated singularities. If a holomorphic function stays bounded near an isolated singularity z0, then the contour integral around a small circle shrinks to 0 as the radius ε → 0, forcing Res(f, z0) = 0. Nonzero residues typically arise when the singularity is a pole. A pole of order n means f(z) can be written as (z − z0)^(−n)G(z), with G holomorphic and nonvanishing at z0; the residue is the coefficient of (z − z0)^(−1) in the Laurent expansion. For poles, the residue can be computed by differentiating (n − 1) times after multiplying by (z − z0)^n, then dividing by (n − 1)! and taking the limit at z0.
Why must the residue vanish when f is bounded near an isolated singularity z0?
How does the definition of a pole relate to zeros of the reciprocal function?
What does it mean for a pole to have order n, and how is that reflected in the form of f?
How does the residue formula for poles work in practice?
In the example f(z) = 1/(z^2(1+z)), why is the residue at 0 equal to −1?
Review Questions
- State the boundedness criterion for when Res(f, z0) must be zero.
- Given f(z) = (z − z0)^(−n)G(z) with G(z0) ≠ 0, identify which coefficient equals the residue.
- How many derivatives are needed to compute the residue at a pole of order n using the differentiation rule?
Key Points
- 1
If f is bounded near an isolated singularity z0, then Res(f, z0) = 0 because the contour integral is bounded by C·2π ε and ε can go to 0.
- 2
Residues are defined via contour integrals around small circles centered at the isolated singularity.
- 3
A pole at z0 occurs when 1/f extends holomorphically to z0; poles are the inverse behavior of zeros of the reciprocal.
- 4
A pole of order n admits the factorization f(z) = (z − z0)^(−n)G(z) with G holomorphic and nonvanishing at z0.
- 5
The residue equals the coefficient of (z − z0)^(−1) in the Laurent expansion.
- 6
For a pole of order n, Res(f, z0) = 1/(n − 1)! · lim_{z→z0} d^(n−1)/dz^(n−1) [(z − z0)^n f(z)].
- 7
To apply the residue formula, the pole order must be identified first from the function’s singular structure.