Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

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

Is it true that for complex $s$,

$$\lim_{s\to 1} \frac{2-2^s}{s-1}=-2\log (2)?$$

If so, prove it.

share|cite|improve this question
This is a piece of a problem from a Number Thoery book Im working through. I dont know much Complex Analysis. Any suggested books? – Jason Smith Sep 22 '11 at 21:53
Dunno, I've only picked it up here and there. It's possible you could get the fundamentals down through lecture notes and pdfs and Wikipedia and such. Number theory (of the not-elementary sort), especially analytic NT, utilizes complex analysis a lot. – anon Sep 22 '11 at 21:57

Yes it is true.

Added: The nicest solution is to just note that the above is the definition of the derivative.

Hint: Use l'Hopitals rule. Make sure you can justify why this is allowed now that we are dealing with complex numbers.

Alternative Hint: Use power series. Since $2^s$ is analytic everywhere, we can expand around $s=1$ and write it as $$2e^{(s-1)\log 2}=2+2(s-1)\log 2+2\frac{(s-1)^2}{2!}\log^2 2+\cdots $$ From this you can deduce the Laurent series around $s=1$ for $\frac{2-2^s}{s-1}.$

share|cite|improve this answer
Since the limit we're trying to calculate is, by definition, the derivative of $-2^s$ at 1, it seems silly to use a method that requires you already to know this derivative. – Chris Eagle Sep 22 '11 at 20:40
Dear Eric, To amplify @Chris's point, one can see that this is (by definition) computing the derivative of $-2^s$ at $s = 1$, and hence compute it directly. There is no need to mention L'Hopital. Regards, – Matt E Sep 22 '11 at 20:58
The factor of $2$ seems to have disappeared from all but the lead term of your series. I would have answered as in your Alternate Hint. However, for analytic functions, l'Hopital's rule is indeed valid. – robjohn Sep 22 '11 at 21:38

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.