95:
85:
64:
31:
1145:
areas of mathematics, often without the injectivity assumption, so the sensible terminology choice is to add the adjective "simple" every time we require it, and this is what texts on complex analysis do -at least all those i have read. Note also that the injectivity assumption is not necessary to define the line integral, thus attentive readers will also be confused by that superfluous assumption.
22:
693:). However, for now, considering their length I think this location is appropriate, especially considering that all related links currently direct readers to this page. Particular improvements I hope to do to these sections are to lengthen the conceptual discussion and add more references. Also, I would like to see the subsection
1144:
I noticed that the page calls "smooth curve" what is usually called "_simple_ (smooth) curve" or path, or Jordan curve, that is the image of an injective (smooth) map from an interval or a circle -or a parametrization thereof. This is unusual and will surely confuse some readers. Curves appear in all
722:
I agree. I think the article could be expanded further, resulting in a more complete description of contour integration accessible to the uninitiated. For example, a very simple proof of Cauchy integral/residue theorem could be included, obviating link to a more complete, yet abstruse article. The
527:
Actually, CMB vouching or not should be completely irrelevant. This article contains a large number of derivations which themselves cannot be directly sourced. Of course, it would be plaigiarism if they could be directly sourced. I think this article is fine. But according to
Headbomb's logic used in
640:
A prod was stuck on saying 'Knowledge is not meant to be a mathematical toolbox. That is true all right but I think all that is wrong with this article currently is the tone, That methods of contour integration is a notable subject in itself and most of the article could be kept. I think most of the
930:
This is a really strange way of introducing the notion. You don't need to insist on injectivity or equality of the derivative at the endpoints. The whole section could use some streamlining. Textbooks I've seen usually just rely on something like piecewise smoothness of the curve. And I have no
688:
There did not seem to be a page that appropriately introduces the contour integral on
Knowledge, so I started such sections here. I believe that they are of admissible quality, but will require a bit of work to become what I would consider complete. In the future I could see these sections, as well
206:
3. In fact, its not even clear what small circular arc we're looking at since the picture of the contour does not match up with the computation a few lines later. Judging from the computation, the contour should contain two segments parallel to the negative x-axis, but instead the picture shows two
1041:
which vanishes for all integer j except j = -1. This could then be a good point to introduce the idea of “n-th order poles” and to the central feature of contour integration, namely the ease in deforming closed contours with minor, if any, change in the integral result. The article would then be
912:
A directed smooth curve can be defined as a smooth curve together with direction defined by designation of the image of a or b in a specific parametrization as initial point. Then the parametrization defines ordering of points along the curve. For example, if the image of b is the initial point,
545:
B.t.w., I do think one needs to explain the residue at infinity either by giving a source for that specific statement or an argument that explains why it is defined in that way (no source would be ok with me in the latter case). I do myself understand this, but I know that many people who know the
213:
4. The word "or" is used indiscriminately in going from one line of computation to the next. In the first instance, it suggests equality, while in the second instance it seems to be saying "When we take the small-epsilon limit, we get..." Also, no justification is given for the limit taken in this
374:
I saw that there was no page for "Estimation lemma" which is linked to, so I created the page. It's the first one I've ever made so would appreciate help with it if you see room for improvement. For the example I used the same integral used in the example on this page, which I thought fit well.
655:
Nothing wrong with adding the occasional 'toolbox' article - the book-form
Britannica includes such articles too - it helps more people than are grievously offended by its existence, so this person can lighten up. Same goes for the article on vector calculus in various coordinate systems. I'm
253:
I have restored it, minus the Maple sentence (which is ridiculous). While I agree with most of your points, I do not agree that this makes it unhelpful; indeed, I found the section quite helpful, and think that cleanup is more appropriate than deletion. Leaving it here with a discussion here
989:, etc. That the result (2𝝅i) is independent of the radius of the circle is vital to other applications and also is a simple illustration of how such an integral is largely independent of path taken by the closed contour. In fact, it would be just as simple to evaluate the more general:
1199:
The integral over the curve is the limit of finite sums of function values, taken at the points on the partition, in the limit that the maximum distance between any two successive points on the partition (in the two-dimensional complex plane), also known as the mesh, goes to
322:
When it gives cos=(1/2)(z+1/z), it first states cos as (1/2)e^{i theta) +e^(-i theta). The 1/2 should multiply both exponents. Minor error, but worth fixing whenever anyone reads this that knows how to edit the math. And when you fix it, please delete my comment =)
198:
1. There is a completely irrelevant remark at the beginning about the computer program MAPLE. This has nothing to do with with the choice of branch cut in this example. The reason for choosing this particular branch cut is that the avoids the integration contour.
299:"In complex analysis, contour integration is a method of evaluating certain integrals along closed paths in the complex plane. This can be useful for evaluating integrals along the real line that are not readily found by using only real variables."
748:
I assume it was meant to be independent of PARAMETRIZATION, since the example just a little bit down shows the reader that the integral of 1/z over the complex unit circle is 2πi, contradicting the statement that there is an independence of PATH.
202:
2. It is claimed that the integral over the circular arcs tends to zero, but the only estimate actually shown in the article is the large R limit, and it's much less obvious that the integral over the small arc tends to zero as well.
238:
In summary, I find this example to be an embarrassing example of poor mathematical writing. I haven't read the rest of the article, but if it contains the same basic errors, then I think it may need attention from an expert.
1151:
In conclusion i think the editors of this page should remove the assumption of injectivity, just call "smooth curve" what everyone calls that, and if possible improve the phrasing of the paragraph defining "smooth curve".
744:
At the bottom of
Contour integrals, it states: That is, the result is independent of the curve chosen. In the case where the real integral on the right side does not exist the integral along γ is said not to exist.
1118:
697:
to be mathematically precise (and thus longer). Further results such as independence of path should be included, as well as a short discussion of other results which should link to appropriate pages (such as
291:"In complex analysis, contour integration is a method of evaluating certain integrals of real-valued functions along intervals on the real line that are not readily found by using only real variables."
1042:
more self-contained without the current heavy reliance on links to other articles, such as the "residue theorem". A good follow-up example could then be evaluation of the
Dirichlet integral,
192:
I'm going to go ahead and delete
Example V which has a number of serious problems. Later on, if I have the time, I'll replace it with another example demonstrating the use of keyhole contours.
151:
1242:
1037:
867:, this article is primarily about contour integration, and this is the main article about it. Specific methods are discussed, but they're not the main point of the article.
295:
This is an overly restrictive definition of what contour integration is, because it can be applied to complex-valued functions as well. I would suggest rewording this to
1232:
1247:
838:
339:
Here is my site with contour integration example problems. Someone please put this link in the external links section if you think it's helpful and relevant.
35:
783:
I think this would be useful, now some of the steps are a bit confusing. I've seen this convention in a couple books and also in some wikipedia articles.
528:
the infraparticle page discussion, this article should be very problematic. People who are not fluent in maths cannot verify this article from the sources.
678:
redirects here; yet the text appears to assume that the reader already knows what a contour integral is: the term is used without further explanation. --
1257:
141:
355:
Some of the text in this page doesn't wrap properly around the figures in my browser (Firefox 1.0.4). Anyone else see this problem/know how to fix it?
1227:
1237:
913:
then x is further along the curve than y if x < y. With the initial point fixed, the ordering is independent of the parametrization chosen.
117:
1252:
224:
378:
Who creates the graphics? The "estimation lemma" could use an upper half-circle contour of radius 'a' and Γ near it to name the contour. --
255:
254:
directing somebody to clean it up, change the image, etc., will be more helpful than removing it, since the core content is quite good. --
822:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a
1047:
940:
790:
240:
108:
69:
1222:
856:
694:
501:
424:
461:, this article seems to footnote several general sources on the first line that can be used to verify statements lower down.
173:
In my university's adv. calculus course number 4 was called "Pacman rule". Is it popular imformal name or just local name?
1130:
920:
769:
730:
44:
756:
581:
885:
813:
711:
641:
problems could be removed by changing the tone so the descriptive bits don't say things like 'we will evaluate'.
909:
The paragraph “The parametrization of a curve ….” is a little confusing. I think that more succinct would be:
345:
228:
1126:
916:
765:
726:
259:
794:
936:
872:
703:
699:
217:
5. I cant solve integral of (1+z)/z, where C is the right half of the circle |z| = 1 from z = -i to z = i.
1176:
752:
244:
994:
690:
393:
895:
823:
615:
577:
551:
444:
50:
1172:
94:
268:
Yes. Please don't delete things based on what they OMIT. That makes no sense whatsoever. Add to them.
210:
3. In the sixth line of displayed mathematics, the letter z is being used for three different things.
786:
707:
220:
1210:
I hope someone familiar with integration of complex functions can correct this erroneous statement.
360:
21:
864:
860:
661:
273:
470:
Unless there are specific concerns, I don't see any glaring difficulties with the sources. — Carl
116:
on
Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
1153:
932:
868:
308:
100:
84:
63:
723:
result could be a good introduction to the beauty of the basics and application of this field.
847:
679:
931:
idea why there's even a digression into the bit about ordering the points along the curve. –
1157:
675:
611:
547:
440:
181:
762:
Agreed! The result does not depend on restriction to the unit circle. See comment below.
401:
657:
646:
506:
429:
269:
178:
1216:
496:
477:
458:
419:
379:
304:
1140:
Why the unusual name for a simple curve ? And why the restriction to simple curves ?
1171:
The circle-integral-sign comes out of the blue. It needs to be explicitly defined.
844:
457:
The sources seem to be on-topic, professionally published sources. As described at
340:
689:
as some of the general discussion of the intro, becoming their own page (such as
113:
1180:
1161:
1134:
944:
924:
894:
Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a
876:
850:
798:
773:
734:
715:
682:
665:
650:
619:
585:
555:
510:
482:
448:
433:
405:
397:
382:
363:
312:
277:
263:
248:
232:
177:
Hehe. Sounds like it's an informal (and local - I've never heard of it) name.
90:
1122:
one of the simplest, yet most important application of contour integration.
642:
346:
http://www.exampleproblems.com/index.php/Complex_Variables#Complex_Integrals
473:
1148:
Also, the wording in the paragraph defining "smooth curve" is awkward.
214:
line, which requires interchanging a limit with an improper integral.
695:
Methods of contour integration#Generalization of the
Riemann Integral
576:
Please note that the article's verifiability is perfectly adequate.
1113:{\displaystyle \int _{-\infty }^{\infty }{\frac {sin(kx)}{x}}\,dx,}
330:
I thought I'd mention that this appears to have been fixed by now.
15:
955:
There’s no reason to restrict the the contour integral of
370:
Added page linked to for "Estimation lemma", please check
195:
The problems I see with this example are the following.
416:
1050:
997:
884:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a
779:
Use log for complex logarithm and ln for the real one
112:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
826:. No further edits should be made to this section.
1112:
1031:
898:. No further edits should be made to this section.
418:. The tags should remain until this is clarified.
1243:Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Mathematics
495:Alright, CBM's vouching is good enough for me.
207:lines emanating from the origin at an angle.
8:
1192:As a generalization of the Riemann integral
812:The following is a closed discussion of a
58:
1167:definition of circle-integral-sign needed
1069:
1063:
1055:
1049:
1012:
1002:
996:
656:thinking of adding a similar one myself.
1233:Knowledge vital articles in Mathematics
1099:
1018:
60:
19:
388:Redirecting "Complex Integration" here
1248:C-Class vital articles in Mathematics
7:
1032:{\displaystyle \oint _{C}z^{j}\,dz,}
831:The result of the move request was:
106:This article is within the scope of
546:basics of complex analysis do not.
49:It is of interest to the following
1206:This is blatantly false as stated.
1064:
1059:
14:
1258:Mid-priority mathematics articles
396:to this page. Hope it's alright.
126:Knowledge:WikiProject Mathematics
1228:Knowledge level-5 vital articles
975:to the unit circle. Simply let
283:The first sentence is inaccurate
129:Template:WikiProject Mathematics
93:
83:
62:
29:
20:
1186:Fundamental definition is false
759:) 06:02, 20 March 2013 (GMT+1)
146:This article has been rated as
1238:C-Class level-5 vital articles
1090:
1081:
857:Methods of contour integration
839:closed by non-admin page mover
1:
716:18:29, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
666:01:27, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
620:13:45, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
586:13:18, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
556:13:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
511:03:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
483:02:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
449:01:41, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
434:01:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
317:
278:01:29, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
182:10:22, 3 September 2005 (UTC)
120:and see a list of open tasks.
1253:C-Class mathematics articles
1135:22:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
945:22:43, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
925:22:02, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
774:22:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
735:22:46, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
683:21:06, 23 October 2011 (UTC)
406:22:31, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
359:Yeah I get the same problem.
233:15:42, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
671:What is a contour integral?
264:19:51, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
1274:
1181:11:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
805:Requested move 4 July 2017
636:Not a mathematical toolbox
364:02:07, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
335:Vote for new external link
313:16:49, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
249:20:42, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
168:
1162:10:14, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
851:07:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
651:16:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
383:07:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
145:
78:
57:
1194:contains this sentence:
891:Please do not modify it.
877:18:42, 4 July 2017 (UTC)
819:Please do not modify it.
799:20:43, 7 June 2014 (UTC)
392:I added a redirect from
351:Bad wrapping of figures?
287:The first sentence says
152:project's priority scale
704:Cauchy integral theorem
700:Cauchy integral formula
109:WikiProject Mathematics
1223:C-Class vital articles
1114:
1033:
905:Directed smooth curves
1115:
1034:
318:there's a minor error
36:level-5 vital article
1048:
995:
740:Independent of path?
132:mathematics articles
1127:David in Cincinnati
1068:
917:David in Cincinnati
861:Contour integration
766:David in Cincinnati
727:David in Cincinnati
691:Contour Integration
394:Complex Integration
1110:
1100:
1051:
1029:
1019:
101:Mathematics portal
45:content assessment
1097:
842:
789:comment added by
753:Svein Olav Nyberg
481:
223:comment added by
169:What's in a name?
166:
165:
162:
161:
158:
157:
1265:
1119:
1117:
1116:
1111:
1098:
1093:
1070:
1067:
1062:
1038:
1036:
1035:
1030:
1017:
1016:
1007:
1006:
988:
974:
973:
971:
970:
965:
962:
893:
836:
821:
801:
676:Contour integral
578:Charles Matthews
471:
235:
134:
133:
130:
127:
124:
103:
98:
97:
87:
80:
79:
74:
66:
59:
42:
33:
32:
25:
24:
16:
1273:
1272:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1264:
1263:
1262:
1213:
1212:
1188:
1169:
1142:
1120:
1071:
1046:
1045:
1039:
1008:
998:
993:
992:
976:
966:
963:
960:
959:
957:
956:
953:
907:
902:
889:
817:
807:
784:
781:
742:
708:Brent Perreault
673:
638:
504:
427:
413:
390:
372:
353:
337:
320:
285:
225:174.117.247.151
218:
190:
171:
131:
128:
125:
122:
121:
99:
92:
72:
43:on Knowledge's
40:
30:
12:
11:
5:
1271:
1269:
1261:
1260:
1255:
1250:
1245:
1240:
1235:
1230:
1225:
1215:
1214:
1187:
1184:
1168:
1165:
1141:
1138:
1125:
1109:
1106:
1103:
1096:
1092:
1089:
1086:
1083:
1080:
1077:
1074:
1066:
1061:
1058:
1054:
1044:
1028:
1025:
1022:
1015:
1011:
1005:
1001:
991:
952:
949:
948:
947:
906:
903:
901:
900:
886:requested move
880:
854:
829:
828:
814:requested move
808:
806:
803:
780:
777:
741:
738:
721:
719:
718:
672:
669:
637:
634:
633:
632:
631:
630:
629:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
610:I agree 100%.
597:
596:
595:
594:
593:
592:
591:
590:
589:
588:
565:
564:
563:
562:
561:
560:
559:
558:
536:
535:
534:
533:
532:
531:
530:
529:
518:
517:
516:
515:
514:
513:
500:
488:
487:
486:
485:
465:
464:
463:
462:
452:
451:
423:
412:
409:
389:
386:
371:
368:
367:
366:
352:
349:
336:
333:
332:
331:
319:
316:
301:
300:
293:
292:
284:
281:
256:74.196.121.135
189:
186:
185:
184:
170:
167:
164:
163:
160:
159:
156:
155:
144:
138:
137:
135:
118:the discussion
105:
104:
88:
76:
75:
67:
55:
54:
48:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1270:
1259:
1256:
1254:
1251:
1249:
1246:
1244:
1241:
1239:
1236:
1234:
1231:
1229:
1226:
1224:
1221:
1220:
1218:
1211:
1208:
1207:
1203:
1201:
1195:
1193:
1185:
1183:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1166:
1164:
1163:
1159:
1155:
1149:
1146:
1139:
1137:
1136:
1132:
1128:
1123:
1107:
1104:
1101:
1094:
1087:
1084:
1078:
1075:
1072:
1056:
1052:
1043:
1026:
1023:
1020:
1013:
1009:
1003:
999:
990:
987:
983:
979:
969:
950:
946:
942:
938:
934:
933:Deacon Vorbis
929:
928:
927:
926:
922:
918:
914:
910:
904:
899:
897:
892:
887:
882:
881:
879:
878:
874:
870:
869:Deacon Vorbis
866:
862:
858:
853:
852:
849:
846:
840:
834:
827:
825:
820:
815:
810:
809:
804:
802:
800:
796:
792:
791:94.112.136.34
788:
778:
776:
775:
771:
767:
763:
760:
758:
754:
750:
746:
739:
737:
736:
732:
728:
724:
717:
713:
709:
705:
701:
696:
692:
687:
686:
685:
684:
681:
677:
670:
668:
667:
663:
659:
653:
652:
648:
644:
635:
621:
617:
613:
609:
608:
607:
606:
605:
604:
603:
602:
601:
600:
599:
598:
587:
583:
579:
575:
574:
573:
572:
571:
570:
569:
568:
567:
566:
557:
553:
549:
544:
543:
542:
541:
540:
539:
538:
537:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
512:
508:
503:
498:
494:
493:
492:
491:
490:
489:
484:
479:
475:
469:
468:
467:
466:
460:
456:
455:
454:
453:
450:
446:
442:
438:
437:
436:
435:
431:
426:
421:
417:
411:NPOV/Accuracy
410:
408:
407:
403:
399:
395:
387:
385:
384:
381:
376:
369:
365:
362:
358:
357:
356:
350:
348:
347:
343:
342:
334:
329:
328:
327:
324:
315:
314:
310:
306:
298:
297:
296:
290:
289:
288:
282:
280:
279:
275:
271:
266:
265:
261:
257:
251:
250:
246:
242:
236:
234:
230:
226:
222:
215:
211:
208:
204:
200:
196:
193:
187:
183:
180:
176:
175:
174:
153:
149:
143:
140:
139:
136:
119:
115:
111:
110:
102:
96:
91:
89:
86:
82:
81:
77:
71:
68:
65:
61:
56:
52:
46:
38:
37:
27:
23:
18:
17:
1209:
1205:
1204:
1198:
1196:
1191:
1190:The section
1189:
1173:Kontribuanto
1170:
1150:
1147:
1143:
1124:
1121:
1040:
985:
981:
977:
967:
954:
915:
911:
908:
890:
883:
865:WP:PRECISION
855:
832:
830:
818:
811:
785:— Preceding
782:
764:
761:
751:
747:
743:
725:
720:
674:
654:
639:
414:
391:
377:
373:
354:
344:
338:
325:
321:
302:
294:
286:
267:
252:
241:208.46.240.2
237:
219:— Preceding
216:
212:
209:
205:
201:
197:
194:
191:
188:Embarrassing
172:
148:Mid-priority
147:
107:
73:Mid‑priority
51:WikiProjects
34:
896:move review
824:move review
612:Count Iblis
548:Count Iblis
441:Count Iblis
123:Mathematics
114:mathematics
70:Mathematics
1217:Categories
833:page moved
507:WP Physics
439:Nonsense!
430:WP Physics
658:Harsimaja
361:ACielecki
270:Harsimaja
179:Dysprosia
39:is rated
787:unsigned
502:κοντριβς
497:Headbomb
425:κοντριβς
420:Headbomb
380:Menorman
305:Plasma g
221:unsigned
951:Example
680:Lambiam
341:Tbsmith
326:Nelson
150:on the
41:C-class
1154:Plm203
941:videos
937:carbon
863:– Per
459:WP:SCG
47:scale.
1200:zero.
398:Etnoy
28:This
1177:talk
1158:talk
1131:talk
984:) =
921:talk
873:talk
845:Guan
795:talk
770:talk
757:talk
731:talk
712:talk
702:and
662:talk
647:talk
643:Dmcq
616:talk
582:talk
552:talk
478:talk
445:talk
415:See
402:talk
309:talk
274:talk
260:talk
245:talk
229:talk
888:.
848:aco
474:CBM
142:Mid
1219::
1202:"
1179:)
1160:)
1133:)
1065:∞
1060:∞
1057:−
1053:∫
1000:∮
986:re
943:)
939:•
923:)
875:)
859:→
835:.
816:.
797:)
772:)
733:)
714:)
706:).
664:)
649:)
618:)
584:)
554:)
509:}
505:–
476:·
447:)
432:}
428:–
404:)
311:)
303:--
276:)
262:)
247:)
231:)
1197:"
1175:(
1156:(
1129:(
1108:,
1105:x
1102:d
1095:x
1091:)
1088:x
1085:k
1082:(
1079:n
1076:i
1073:s
1027:,
1024:z
1021:d
1014:j
1010:z
1004:C
982:t
980:(
978:z
972:
968:z
964:/
961:1
958:
935:(
919:(
871:(
843:—
841:)
837:(
793:(
768:(
755:(
729:(
710:(
660:(
645:(
614:(
580:(
550:(
499:{
480:)
472:(
443:(
422:{
400:(
307:(
272:(
258:(
243:(
227:(
154:.
53::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
