1
$\begingroup$

I have to classify the singularities (removable, pole and essential) of $\frac{1}{e^z-1}$.

I know that $e^z-1=0 \iff e^z=1 \iff z = 2\pi k i$ for each $k \in \mathbb{Z}$. Is there an easy to find out all type of singularity without passing through the Laurent series directly? (Please explain in details.)

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

For each $k\in\mathbb{Z}$, the expression $$ \frac{z-2\pi ik}{e^z-1} $$ is the reciprocal of the quotient which appears in the definition of the derivative of $e^z$ at $z=2\pi ik$. Since this derivative is equal to $1$, it follows that $$\lim_{z\to 2\pi ik}\frac{z-2\pi ik}{e^z-1}=1 $$ hence $\frac{1}{e^z-1}$ has a simple pole at $2\pi ik$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I am not so good with the notion of classification of singularities. I don't understand at all what you did. Could you explain to me in details please? Why do you take the derivative? Why do you use $\lim_{z\to 2\pi ik}\frac{z-2\pi ik}{e^z-1}=1$ to conclude? How do you get $\frac{z-2\pi ik}{e^z-1}$? $\endgroup$ – Taj Mohamed Bandalandabad Apr 2 '16 at 19:31
  • $\begingroup$ Since $\frac{1}{|e^z-1|}\to\infty$ as $z\to 2\pi ik$, there must be a pole. The question is what is the order of the pole. This can be found by finding the minimal $m$ such that $\frac{(z-2\pi ik)^m}{e^z-1}$ is holomorphic near $2\pi ik$, and the limit computation shows that $m=1$ works. $\endgroup$ – carmichael561 Apr 2 '16 at 19:42
  • $\begingroup$ Why do you think in term of the limit? I don't understand why $\frac{1}{|e^z-1|}\to\infty$ as $z\to 2\pi ik$, there must be a pole? Which result allow you this fact? $\endgroup$ – Taj Mohamed Bandalandabad Apr 2 '16 at 19:50
  • $\begingroup$ That's one way to define a pole: $f(z)$ has a pole at $z_0$ if $z_0$ is an isolated singularity and $\lim_{z\to z_0}|f(z)|=\infty$. $\endgroup$ – carmichael561 Apr 2 '16 at 19:51
  • $\begingroup$ I lot of books have as defintion : The singularity $z_0$ is a pole, of ordre $k$ iif $a_{-k} \not=0$ and $a_n=0$ for all $n < -k$. Could you tell me why both definitions are equivalent? $\endgroup$ – Taj Mohamed Bandalandabad Apr 2 '16 at 19:56
1
$\begingroup$

The series expansion for $e^z - 1$ is $$ e^z - 1 = \sum_{j=1}^\infty \frac{z^j}{j!} $$ so it has a simple zero (divide by $z$ to see this) at every $z = 2\pi i k$ by the periodicity of $\exp$. Hence the reciprocal $\frac{1}{e^z - 1}$ has a simple pole at every $z = 2\pi i k$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Which step does you not understand? $\endgroup$ – Henricus V. Apr 2 '16 at 19:35
  • $\begingroup$ Do you know how to obtain the series expansion for $e^z -1$? $\endgroup$ – Henricus V. Apr 2 '16 at 19:37
  • $\begingroup$ So which part does you not understand? $\endgroup$ – Henricus V. Apr 2 '16 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ Let do it, I'll do it another way. Thanks $\endgroup$ – Taj Mohamed Bandalandabad Apr 2 '16 at 19:44
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry, i am replying on a mobile device and it is difficult to read mathjax there. $\endgroup$ – Henricus V. Apr 2 '16 at 19:44

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.