I'm trying to solve inverse laplace transform using inversion formula and given by this integral: $$\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\gamma-i\infty}^{\gamma+i \infty} e^{st}\operatorname{Log}\left(\frac{s+1}{s}\right)\,\Bbb ds.$$

Here is my contour, since the branch points of $\operatorname{Log} \left(\frac{s+1}{s}\right)$ are $0$ and $-1$ enter image description here

First, i want to show integral on $L_u\cup L_d$ is $0$ by bounding the integral with ML and then take the limit when $R$ goes to $\infty$.

By letting $L_u,\, L_d: s= \xi\pm iR,0\leq \xi\leq \gamma$, where $\gamma$ is the real number that the vertical line of the given contour passed by.

Since the $L$ is $\lvert e^{t(\xi\pm iR)} \rvert$, then i have ML inequality as below:

$$\lvert F(s)e^{st} \rvert \leq M_R \lvert e^{t(\xi\pm iR)} \rvert = M_R e^{\xi t} \leq M_R e^{at}$$

Next, i need to find $M_R$ and take the limit. $$\begin{align} \left|F(s)\right| &= \left|\operatorname{Log}\left(\frac{s+1}{s}\right)\right|\\ &= \left|\operatorname{Log}\left(\frac{\xi\pm iR+1}{\xi\pm iR}\right)\right| = M_R \end{align}$$

And by taking the limit of the last expression when $R$ goes to infinity yields $0$. Meaning the integrals along those lines are $0$.

So, from here, am i doing this right? I'm not sure my work is correct. Maybe there are some mistakes there. Help me please!

Edit: Working with my $L_u$ with $ML$ inequality, i have $L=\gamma$. Assuming $-\pi<\operatorname{arg}{s}\leq \pi$ and parametrizing $s=-\xi+iR$, $\xi\in [-\gamma,0]$:

$\begin{align} \left|\int_{L_u}\right| &\leq \left|e^{st} \log\left(1 + \frac 1s\right)\right|\\ &\leq \left|e^{-\xi t}\right| \left|e^{iRt}\right|\left|\ln\left|1+ \frac{1}{-\xi+iR}\right| + i\pi\right|\\ &\leq 1\cdot 1 \cdot \ln\left(1+\frac 1R\right) + \pi\\ &\approx \frac 1R + \pi \end{align}$

Combining the $ML$ i have $$\frac{\gamma}{R} +\gamma\pi$$ Which does NOT approach to $0$. Why? Please spot my mistake. I can't think about how to make it goes to $0$ since yesterday. Hope you kind to help me.

New Edit: Now my main question is not about ML. I managed to set the big and small arc goes to $0$. My main question now is "is it possible to evaluate this by using inversion formula (without differentiate both sides) and use log form instead?"

What i mean by differentiate both sides is: $$\begin{align} \mathcal{L}^{-1} &= \operatorname{Log}\left(\frac{s+1}{s}\right)\\ (\mathcal{L}^{-1})' &= \frac{1}{1+s} - \frac{1}{s} \end{align}$$

I don't want this kind of solution. What i really want is evaluating $\operatorname{Log}\left(\frac{s+1}{s}\right)$ by inversion formula. That's it. because I keep getting integrals on the contour lines above and below the branch cut cancel each other and make everything 0, which of course I don't want it.

Attempt: enter image description here


$\newcommand{\bbx}[1]{\,\bbox[15px,border:1px groove navy]{\displaystyle{#1}}\,} \newcommand{\braces}[1]{\left\lbrace\,{#1}\,\right\rbrace} \newcommand{\bracks}[1]{\left\lbrack\,{#1}\,\right\rbrack} \newcommand{\dd}{\mathrm{d}} \newcommand{\ds}[1]{\displaystyle{#1}} \newcommand{\expo}[1]{\,\mathrm{e}^{#1}\,} \newcommand{\ic}{\mathrm{i}} \newcommand{\mc}[1]{\mathcal{#1}} \newcommand{\mrm}[1]{\mathrm{#1}} \newcommand{\on}[1]{\operatorname{#1}} \newcommand{\pars}[1]{\left(\,{#1}\,\right)} \newcommand{\partiald}[3][]{\frac{\partial^{#1} #2}{\partial #3^{#1}}} \newcommand{\root}[2][]{\,\sqrt[#1]{\,{#2}\,}\,} \newcommand{\totald}[3][]{\frac{\mathrm{d}^{#1} #2}{\mathrm{d} #3^{#1}}} \newcommand{\verts}[1]{\left\vert\,{#1}\,\right\vert}$ $\ds{\LARGE\left. a\right)}$

One idea, in this particular case, is to get rid of the $\ds{\ln}$-function by introducing an integral representation of it. Namely, \begin{align} &\bbox[5px,#ffd]{\left.{1 \over 2\pi\ic} \int_{\gamma\ -\ \ic\infty}^{\gamma\ +\ \ic\infty} \expo{st}\ln\pars{s + 1 \over s} \,\dd s\,\right\vert_{\,\gamma\ >\ 0}} \\[5mm] = &\ \int_{\gamma\ -\ \ic\infty}^{\gamma\ +\ \ic\infty} \expo{st}\ \overbrace{\int_{0}^{1}{\dd x \over x + s}} ^{\ds{\ln\pars{s + 1 \over s}}}\ \,{\dd s \over 2\pi\ic} \\[5mm] = &\ \int_{0}^{1}\int_{\gamma\ -\ \ic\infty}^{\gamma\ +\ \ic\infty} {\expo{st} \over s + x}\,{\dd s \over 2\pi\ic}\,\dd x \\[5mm] = &\ \int_{0}^{1}\bracks{t > 0}\expo{-xt}\,\dd x = \bbx{\bracks{t > 0}\,{1 - \expo{-t} \over t}} \\ & \end{align}

$\ds{\LARGE\left. b\right): {\large Contour Integration}}$'

Note that $\ds{{s + 1 \over s} < 0}$ whenever $\ds{s \in \pars{-1,0}}$: It indicates that the $\mbox{$\ds{\ln}$-branch-cut}$ lies along $\ds{\bracks{-1,0}}$. Also, $\ds{{s \pm \ic\epsilon + 1 \over s \pm \ic\epsilon} \,\,\,\stackrel{{\rm as}\ \epsilon\ \to\ 0^{+}}{\sim} \,\,\, \pars{1 + s \over s} \mp {\epsilon \over s^{2}}\,\ic}$ such that the $\ds{\ln}$-$\ds{arg}$ is $\pars{-\pi}$ when $\ds{s}$ is above the real axis and $\ds{\pi}$ when it's below the real axis. \begin{align} &\bbox[5px,#ffd]{\left.{1 \over 2\pi\ic} \int_{\gamma\ -\ \ic\infty}^{\gamma\ +\ \ic\infty} \expo{st}\ln\pars{s + 1 \over s} \,\dd s\,\right\vert_{\,\gamma\ >\ 0}} \\[5mm] = &\ -\int_{-\infty}^{-1}\ln\pars{s + 1 \over s}\expo{ts} {\dd s \over 2\pi\ic}\label{1}\tag{1} \\[2mm] - &\ \int_{-1}^{0}\bracks{\ln\pars{-s - 1 \over s} - \ic\pi}\expo{ts} {\dd s \over 2\pi\ic} \\[2mm] - &\ \int_{0}^{-1}\bracks{\ln\pars{-s - 1 \over s} + \ic\pi}\expo{ts} {\dd s \over 2\pi\ic} \\[2mm] - & \int_{-1}^{-\infty}\ln\pars{s + 1 \over s}\expo{ts} {\dd s \over 2\pi\ic}\label{2}\tag{2} \end{align} I included (\ref{1}) and (\ref{2}) "by completeness" but, indeed, it's not necessary because the $\ds{\ln}$-branch-cut lies along $\ds{\bracks{-1,0}}$ albeit it guarantees the vanishing out of the integration along the"big-arc".

Then, \begin{align} &\bbox[5px,#ffd]{\left.{1 \over 2\pi\ic} \int_{\gamma\ -\ \ic\infty}^{\gamma\ +\ \ic\infty} \expo{st}\ln\pars{s + 1 \over s} \,\dd s\,\right\vert_{\,\gamma\ >\ 0}} \\[5mm] = &\ -\int_{0}^{1}\bracks{\ln\pars{-s + 1 \over s} - \ic\pi}\expo{-ts} {\dd s \over 2\pi\ic} \\[2mm] &\ \,\, + \int_{0}^{1}\bracks{\ln\pars{-s + 1 \over s} + \ic\pi}\expo{-ts} {\dd s \over 2\pi\ic} \\[5mm] = &\ \int_{0}^{1}\expo{-ts}\,\dd s = \bbx{1 - \expo{-t} \over t} \\ & \end{align}

  • $\begingroup$ (+1) Thanks. But i'm afraid it still doesn't answer my question about using my contour to perform the ILT. Because the new integrand inside the integral w.r.t $s$ has different contour with mine. Maybe if you can explain why i can't use my contour i'll accept this answer, though i already upvote your answer. Still many thanks for the answer! $\endgroup$
    – user516076
    Jan 20 '21 at 4:25
  • $\begingroup$ @user516076 I just included the contour integration. $\endgroup$ Jan 20 '21 at 5:53
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your wonderful answer! $\endgroup$
    – user516076
    Jan 20 '21 at 7:02
  • $\begingroup$ @user516076 Thanks. Glad to see it's useful. $\endgroup$ Jan 20 '21 at 21:28
  • $\begingroup$ Hi, Felix. It's been a while since you posted your answer, hope I don't interrupt you. Anyway, the term $\ln$ on the last paragraph about contour integration, can I replace the bracket with absolute value? Just in case when I'm evaluating and do u-subs I wouldn't get negative inside $\ln$? $\endgroup$
    – user516076
    Jan 23 '21 at 0:24

Let's pick a sufficiently large $\gamma$ such that $|s|>1$, so that we can plug in

$$ \log\left(1+\frac1s\right)=\sum_{k=1}^\infty{(-1)^{k+1}\over ks^k} $$

and get

$$ \begin{aligned} f(t) &={1\over2\pi i}\int_{\gamma-i\infty}^{\gamma+i\infty}\sum_{k=1}^\infty{(-1)^{k+1}e^{st}\over s^k}\mathrm ds \\ &=\sum_{k=1}^\infty{(-1)^{k+1}\over k}{1\over2\pi i}\int_{\gamma-i\infty}^{\gamma+i\infty}{e^{st}\over s^k}\mathrm ds \end{aligned} $$

Provided that

$$ \mathcal L\{t^{k-1}\}(s)={(k-1)!\over s^k} $$

we can deduce

$$ \begin{aligned} f(t) &=\sum_{k=1}^\infty{(-t)^{k-1}\over k!} \\ &=-\frac1t\left[\sum_{k=0}^\infty{(-t)^k\over k!}-1\right] \\ &={1-e^{-t}\over t} \end{aligned} $$

where the final step follows from the fact that

$$ e^z=\sum_{n=0}^\infty{z^k\over n!} $$

  • $\begingroup$ Ok. Nice and thanks . Actually i know the ILT already, But sorry, my question is why did I fail to perform complex inversion formula to logarithm directly? Without splitting the log term, is that "doable"? $\endgroup$
    – user516076
    Jan 20 '21 at 2:14
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @user516076 I am unsure about that since most of the texts I have found often differentiate to eliminate logarithms in the integrand (perhaps to avoid dealing with logarithmic branch point) $\endgroup$
    – TravorLZH
    Jan 20 '21 at 2:28
  • $\begingroup$ Ok. Still seeking my answer. Btw i still (+1) for your kindly giving another approach. $\endgroup$
    – user516076
    Jan 20 '21 at 2:32

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.