Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am not able to deal with the following problem. Giving function $$G(x-\xi,y-\eta,k)=\frac{1}{4\pi^2i}\int_{-\infty}^\infty\int_{-\infty}^\infty\frac{e^{i\mu(x-\xi)-i\nu(y-\eta)}}{\nu-i\mu(\mu+2k)}d\nu d\mu$$ and to make clear, let $k=k_1+ik_2$, how to prove $$\frac{\partial G(x-\xi,y-\eta,k)}{\partial \bar k}=\frac{1}{2\pi}\text{sgn}(-k_1)e^{-2ik_1[(x-\xi)-2k_2(y-\eta)]}?$$ It seems to me that $\bar \partial \frac{1}{\pi(z-\zeta)}=\delta(z-\zeta)$ should be made use of, but I am not sure how to carry out that.

share|cite|improve this question
Is there a typo somewhere? The integrand doesn't seem to depend on $\bar k$, so the derivative of the integral w/r/t $\bar k$ will be zero. – Gunnar Þór Magnússon Jul 2 '11 at 17:57
up vote 2 down vote accepted

Sketch: Just take the differentiation inside.

$$ \bar{\partial}_k \frac{1}{\nu - i \mu^2 - 2i\mu k} = -2\pi i \mu \delta(\nu - i \mu^2 - 2i\mu k) $$

the delta function can be decomposed

$$ \delta(\nu - i \mu^2 - 2i\mu k) = \delta(\nu + 2\mu k_2) \delta(\mu(\mu + 2k_1)) $$

the rest follows from the usual change of variable formula involving the $\delta$ distribution. (Integrate first in $\mu$. Because of the $\mu$ outside already, the only root of $\mu(\mu+2k_1)$ that contributes is the one $\mu = -2k_1$.)

share|cite|improve this answer
It may be worth noting that $\overline{\partial}(1/z)$ isn't $0$, because $1/z$ is not holomorphic at $z=0$. Yes, the support of whatever $\overline{\partial}(1/z)$ is is $\{0\}$, etc. Also, given the delicate convergence of the integral at infinity, already that integral probably needs interpretation as Fourier transform of a tempered distribution, entailing some regularization. Then the "formal" riff as in the answer completely crushes it. – paul garrett Jul 2 '11 at 20:34
Many thanks to all! I've got the answer following Willie's approach. As to the chain rule of Wirtinger derivative, $\frac{\partial}{\partial\bar k}(f\circ g)=(\frac{\partial f}{\partial k}\circ g)\frac{\partial g}{\partial\bar k}+(\frac{\partial f}{\partial\bar k}\circ g)\frac{\partial\bar g}{\partial\bar k}$, the negative sign of the $\bar\partial_k$ formula should be removed, that is, $$\bar{\partial}_k\frac{1}{\nu-i\mu^2-2i\mu k}=0+\pi\delta(\nu-i\mu^2-2i\mu k)\cdot\frac{\partial \overline{-2i\mu k}}{\partial \bar k}= 2\pi i \mu\delta(\nu-i\mu^2-2i\mu k)$$ whereupon the result holds. – Ansel Jul 3 '11 at 16:34

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.