enter image description here

This theorem seems almost magical. The algebraic derivation doesn't really provide any insight into why it works.

So could someone give me a geometric interpretation of it?

This: Geometrical Interpretation of the Cauchy-Goursat Theorem? is a similar question but uses another, incorrect, definition of the theorem.

  • $\begingroup$ what kind of geometric interpretation are you expect? $\endgroup$ – van abel Dec 5 '14 at 4:32

Let's take the path integral around the origin at radius 1, for convenience. On this circle, we have $1/z = \bar{z}$, the complex conjugate of $z$. If $f(z) = 1/z$ then $z \cdot f(z) = 1$ is real, and if $w$ is any complex number on the same ray from the origin as $z$, then $w \cdot f(z)$ is also real. So in particular any infinitesimal step along the radius $z \to z(1 + \mathrm{d}r)$, with $\mathrm{d}r$ real, would make a purely real contribution to an integral of $f(z)\mathrm{d}z$.

Similarly (because $f$ is a conformal map) any infinitesimal step around the circumference of of the unit circle makes a purely imaginary contribution to the integral. As z goes about the circle anticlockwise, $f(z) = \bar{z}$ goes clockwise at just the right speed to keep up and make the contribution constant. These imaginary parts add up over the length of the circumference to $2 \pi i$. (Note that the scaling at this radius is exactly 1).

Now let's take $f(z) = 1/z^n$ for some higher $n$. Now the argument of $f(z)$ rotates at a higher frequency as we go around the unit circle; instead of all the contributions being (positive) imaginary and adding up, they point evenly in all directions. Indeed we get $n-1$ contributions in each direction from zero. So all the contributions cancel out and the integral is zero.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ What is $z \to z(1+dr)$ supposed to mean? $\endgroup$ – epimorphic Dec 4 '14 at 13:24
  • $\begingroup$ The directed infinitesimal segment $[z, z(1+\mathrm{d}r]$ of the domain of a putative integral along a path $w$ with, say, $w(0) = z$, $w(\mathrm{d}t) = z(1+\mathrm{d}r$. Read it as "from $z$ to $z(1+\mathrm{d}r$". I admit the notation is ad hoc but hoped it was clearer in the heuristic context than a precise but wordy description. $\endgroup$ – HTFB Dec 4 '14 at 13:37

The Cauchy(-Goursat) theorem deals with arbitrary analytic functions. Your formula in red is a simple particular instance.

When an analytic function $f:\>\Omega\to{\mathbb C}$ has a primitive $F:\>\Omega\to{\mathbb C}$ then automatically the integral $\int_\gamma f(z)\>dz$ is zero for all closed curves $\gamma \subset \Omega$, because the integral of $f$ along any arc from $p$ to $q$ is equal to the difference $F(q)-F(p)$.

Since $f(z):=(z-z_0)^n$, $\>n\ne-1$, has the primitive $F(z)={1\over n+1}(z-z_0)^{n+1}$ in $\Omega:={\mathbb C}\setminus\{z_0\}$ this principle takes care of the claim for all $n\ne-1$.

When dealing with the remaining case I shall assume $z_0=0$; so it's about the integral $$\int_C{dz\over z}\ .$$ By assumption the curve $C$ (assumed smooth for simplicity) goes once around the origin. Therefore it has a parametric representation of the form $$C:\quad t\mapsto z(t):=r(t)e^{i\phi(t)}\qquad(0\leq t\leq1)$$ with $r(t)>0$ for all $t$, $r(1)=r(0)$, and $$\phi(1)-\phi(0)=2\pi\ .$$ Note that $\phi(\cdot)$ need not be monotone. It follows that $$\int_C{dz\over z}=\int_0^1{z'(t)\over z(t)}\>dt=\int_0^1\left({r'(t)\over r(t)}+i\phi'(t)\right)\>dt=\left(\log\bigl(r(t)\bigr)+i\>\phi(t)\right)\biggr|_0^1=2\pi\>i\ .$$

| cite | improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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