1
$\begingroup$

Case $1$

In order to evaluate the Dirichlet integral $$I_1=\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{\sin x}{x}dx=\pi,$$ we can consider another integral $$I_1^\prime=\oint_C\frac{e^{iz}}{z}.$$ Now, we can choose a semicircular contour C of radius $R$ to close in the upper half-plane and make another small semicircular indentation around $z=0$ (of radius $\varepsilon$) to avoid the pole at $z=0$. In this problem, the little semicircle about $z=0$ does contribute and it cannot be neglected.

Case $2$

Now consider the integral $$I_2=\int\limits_{-\infty}^{+\infty}\frac{e^{ix}}{x-x_0}=2\pi i e^{ix_0}$$ with $x_0>0$. Let us make it a closed contour integral by regarding $x$ to be complex, choosing a large semicircle enclosed in the upper half-plane and a smaller semicircular indentation (of radius $\varepsilon$) in the lower half-plane about $x=x_0$. If we want to do this using residue theorem, picking up the residue at $x=x_0$, the small semicircular contribution does not matter.

Why does the smaller semicircular contribution matter in the first case but not in the second case?

$\endgroup$
8
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ at a glance it is beacuse in $I_1$ there is no singularity at zero in the original integral, while the complex integral $I_1'$ has a singularity there, so the small circle compensates for that; $I_2$ already has a singularity, so the big circle already accoounts for it $\endgroup$
    – Conrad
    Jul 28 '20 at 2:08
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, but how could you know (without evaluating) that the small semicircular contribution around $x=x_0$ vanishes in the limit $\varepsilon\to 0$ for the second case? Don't you need to check that explicitly? Sorry if I am asking a blunt question. $\endgroup$ Jul 28 '20 at 2:16
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I thought a little more and I believe we are both wrong - first $I_1=\pi$ (the residue gives $2\pi$ and the small indentation takes $\pi$ away) but the second integral has to be interpreted in some way (the integrand is not absolutely convergent at $x_0$) and I think the Cauchy PV is actually $\pi i e^{ix_0}$ so indeed the small semicircle contributes too - assuming one interpretes $I_2$ that way of course - so it may be a matter of defintions if something else is meant by $I_2$ ($I_1$ being convergent there is no ambiguity) $\endgroup$
    – Conrad
    Jul 28 '20 at 3:04
  • $\begingroup$ You are right! $I_1$ has value $\pi$. Will correct it. $\endgroup$ Jul 28 '20 at 3:10
  • $\begingroup$ what is your meaning for $I_2$? $\endgroup$
    – Conrad
    Jul 28 '20 at 3:11
3
$\begingroup$

You shouldn't ever "neglect" a piece of the contour: what you may do is estimate its contribution and show that it goes to $0$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, this is what I expected. But in physics textbooks, I often see that authors do not clearly mention this which leads me confusion. $\endgroup$ Jul 28 '20 at 2:30
  • $\begingroup$ Is the small semicircle contribution actually zero in the Case 2? I don't get it and might have made a mistake $\endgroup$ Jul 28 '20 at 2:32
  • $\begingroup$ It is not $0$ in Case 2. $\endgroup$ Jul 28 '20 at 3:37

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.