0
$\begingroup$

Here are a few functions for reference purposes:

$f(z) = \frac{sin(2z)}{z^3}$, $ \space g(z) = \frac{sin(z)}{tan(z)}$, $ \space h(z) = z^2 sin(\frac{1}{z})$

Suppose I was calculating the singularities of these functions at $z_0 = 0$ and I had to find the order of each function at $z_0$

I understand what all the different singularities are:- removable, pole and essential.

If I plot the graph of say $f(z)$ in the real plane where $z$ is a real number, it looks like the singularity is a pole. This is only a visual guess. It's definitely not removable.

It seems correctable ("fixable"), by multiplying $f$ by $\frac{z^3}{sin(2z)}$, but this would imply any bijective function with a singularity that is not removable must be a pole, right?

I don't think the function is essential, but my understanding of essential singularities is very weak.

When it comes to orders of a function at $z_0$, I know how to factorize polynomials and determine the order but I'm a bit stuck on the trigonometric functions.

Do I need to represent them as a polynomial using Taylor Series, or Laurent Series?

Also, is it a bad idea visualizing these complex functions as real functions.

If anyone has any better examples for explanation purposes, that's fine, I only have the functions above for referencing in the question.

Thanks in advance for any help.


My guesses for $g$ and $h$ are pole and essential respectively.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ By representing the functions as their unique Laurent series, you can find the order easily (the order is the infimum $n \in \mathbb{Z}$ of the non-zero $c_n$'s of the Laurent series). Also, if you have the order, you can figure out the type of the singularity. $\endgroup$ – Helen Byrne May 1 '16 at 19:34
2
$\begingroup$

A singularity of a holomorphic function $w$ at a point $a$ is:

  • Removable if the limit of $w$ at $a$ exists, and if $w$ were extended to have the limit as its value at $a$, then the extended function is holomorphic at $a$. ("Holomorphic at $a$" = "analytic at $a$" = "derivative exists in some neighborhood of $a$".)
  • A pole, if it is not removable, but there is a positive integer $n$ such that $(z - a)^nw(z)$ has a removable singularity at $a$. The order of the pole (not the function) is the smallest value of $n$ that works.
  • Essential if it is not removable nor a pole.

I.e.,

  • A removable singularity is one that doesn't really need to be there. It is just an artifact of how the function is defined, not a natural part of the function's behavior.
  • A pole is a real singularity, but one that is well-behaved. In some neighborhood of the singularity, the function acts like $\frac1{z^n}$ does near $0$.
  • An essential singularity is not well-behaved. Unlike poles, it may not be isolated, and even when it is isolated, its behavior is complicated (per Picard's theorem, it is very complicated).

For your functions,

  • Note that multiplying $f(z)$ by $z^3$ gives a function with an obviously removable singularity, so $f(z)$ has a pole. The order of that pole is at most $3$, but in fact it is smaller (I'll let you try to figure out what it really is).
  • For $g(z)$, recall that $\tan z = \frac {\sin z}{\cos z}$ and simplify. How does $\cos z$ behave at $0$? (Note that $g(z)$ itself is not defined at $0$, so it does have a singularity there.)
  • While $\lim_{z\to0} h(z)$ exists, consider $\lim_{z\to0} h'(z)$. If it is analytic, all derivatives of $h$ would exist. Multiplying $h(z)$ by $z^n$ just puts off the derivative where the limit fails to exist. It does not solve the issue altogether.

Your concept on $f$ that it is fixable by multiplying by $\frac {z^3}{\sin 2z}$ is of no value. Every singularity of any analytic function is "fixable" by multiplying by the function's inverse! This is not a useful property.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer. I've a few questions. Isn't $g(z)$ basically $cos(z)$, in which case it has removable singularities at $\frac{\pi}{2}+n\pi$ ? But none at $0$? And for $h$, if the limit exists then it's not essential, so it has to be a pole or removable, right? But which one, and how do we know? $\endgroup$ – Gregory Peck May 2 '16 at 11:52
  • $\begingroup$ $g(z)$ is basically $\cos z$, but the "basically" is glossing over that they are defined on different sets. $\cos z$ is entire - it has no singularities. Equalling $0$ is not a singularity. $g(z)$ is not defined both when $\tan z$ is not defined, and when $\tan z = 0$, which includes $0$ itself. As for $h$, the limit existing is not sufficient to show that it is analytic at that point. To be removable, it has to be definable in such a way that it is analytic there - not possible. If it were a pole, then the limit would not exist here - not a pole either. So it is essential. $\endgroup$ – Paul Sinclair May 2 '16 at 14:57
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks. I didn't realize for it to be a pole, the limit could not exist $\endgroup$ – Gregory Peck May 2 '16 at 15:14
  • $\begingroup$ When it is a pole, the limit is $\infty$ (i.e., the modulus (absolute value) of the function increases without bound). If we are considering $\Bbb C$ as the codomain of the function, then it doesn't exist. (If we consider the Reimann sphere as the codomain, then it does exist, as the Riemann sphere includes $\infty$ as a point.) $\endgroup$ – Paul Sinclair May 2 '16 at 15:54

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.