Week 3 notes, Math 7651

1 Discussion on multi-valued functions

Log function : Note that if z is written in its polar representation: z = r eiθ , where
r = |z| and θ = arg z, then
log z ≡ log r + i θ + 2inπ (1)
for n ∈ Z is consistent with exp [log z] = z. This is easily shown through substitution.
However, (1) is not unambiguous on the plane. To make (1) a single-valued function (for
a particular n) on the complex plane, one needs to restrict
θ ∈ (θ0 , 2 π + θ0 ] , (2)
or
[θ0 , 2 π + θ0 ) where θ0 is some constant (3)

Remark 1 One might wonder if (1) provides the most general representation of the inverse
of exp function. The following lemma answers this in the positive.

Lemma 1 If log1 and log2 are two inverse functions of exp, then for any particular z,
log1 z − log2 z = 2 π i n (4)
for n ∈ Z.
Proof. Let w1 = log1 z and w2 = log2 z. Then, exp(w1 − w2 ) = ew1 /ew2 = 1. Since for
ζ = x + iy, eζ − 1 = 0 implies ex cos y − 1 = 0 and ex sin y = 0, we deduce y = 2nπ, and
x = 0, implying w1 − w2 = ζ = 2 π i n

Remark 2 : It is possible that log1 z = log2 z for some set of z ∈ C, not for others.
For instance, if we define
log1 z = log r + i θ, with θ in (−π, π] , (5)
log2 z = log r + i θ, with θ in [0, 2 π) , (6)
then clearly log1 z = log2 z for z in the first and second quadrant but not equal in the
third and fourth quadrant. In general, n ∈ Z appearing in (4) varies with choice of z unless
the choice of branch cut, i.e. choice of θ0 , is the same for log1 and log2 functions.

1
Definition 2 The particular choice n = 0 in (1), with θ0 = −π in (2) defines a particular
logarithmic function, called the principal branch of the logarithm, with the notation logp z
or Log z.

Definition 3 The set of all z for which log is undefined are called it’s branch points: (0
and ∞ in this case).

Definition 4 The set of points across which log function undergoes a discontinuity for a
particular restriction of the function in a plane is called a branch cut, i.e. {z | arg z = θ0 }
is the branch cut.

Definition 5 For specificied branch cut, i.e. θ0 , the value of n is referred to as the branch
of the logarithm.

Remark 3 Branch cuts (and therefore discontinuities) of log function cannot be avoided
if log z is to be uniquely defined in the complex plane. However, a branch cut is quite
arbitrary. It can be completely avoided if we equate the domain through the polar pair
(r, θ), with no restriction on θ. In that case, one can define uniquely

log z = ln r + iθ , with θ ∈ (−∞, ∞) (7)

In this representation, specification of z is not enough; we need to specify θ = θ0 at some

z = z0 and obtain the value of θ at other values from continuity along a path connecting
z0 to z. The identification of the complex domain, based on value of θ, is referred to a
Riemann surface. Note that while log z is not continuous (across cuts), when restricted on
the plane; it is indeed continuous on the Riemann surface.

Remark 4 Note that, for a general z1 , z2 ∈ C, logp (z1 z2 ) 6= logp z1 + logp z2 , though
this is true on the Riemann surface, since on a Riemann surface, with appropriate choice
of the argument,

log (z1 z2 ) = log r1 r2 ei(θ1 +θ2 ) = log r1 + log r2 + i θ1 + iθ2 = log z1 + log z2
 

Definition 6 A finite point z0 is a branch point of a function f (z) if for all sufficiently
small ǫ > 0,
f (z0 + ǫ ei(φ + 2π) ) 6= f (z0 + ǫ eiφ )
when f (z0 + ǫeiφ ) changes continuously with φ. This means that if we circle around z = z0
in a sufficiently small circle, we do not to the same value of f .

2
Eg. log (z + 1) at z = −1. If z + 1 = ǫ eiφ , then log (z + 1) = log ǫ + i φ + 2 i n π.
When φ is replaced by φ + 2 π, we do not return to the same value.

Definition 7 z = ∞ is a branch point of f (z) if f (1/w) has a branch point at w = 0.

Eg. log z has a branch point
at ∞ since log 1/w = − log w + 2inπ has a branch point
z+1
at w = 0. However, log z−1 has no branch points at z = ∞.

Recall, we mentioned for a specific branch and branch-cut choice, it is not always true

log(z1 z2 ) = log(z1 ) + log(z2 ) (8)

However, if we do not assign any explicit restriction on arg (z1 z2 ), but instead define it
as:
arg (z1 z2 ) = arg z1 + arg z2 (9)
then (8) will hold. For instance, if we take arg (−1) = π, and apply definition (9)
arg (−1)2 = 2 arg(−1) = 2 π and hence log (−1)2 = 2 i π and not 0.
In defining a composite function involving logarithm, say. log (z 2 − 1), it is convenient
to place a 2 π interval restriction on arg (z − 1) and arg (z + 1), but not on arg (z 2 − 1);
instead we require

arg (z 2 − 1) = arg (z − 1) + arg(z + 1) , (10)

in accordance to (9) Thus, if z − 1 = r1 eiθ1 and z2 = r2 eiθ2 , then, using (10),

log (z 2 −1) = log (r1 r2 ) + i arg(z 2 −1) + 2inπ = log r1 + log r2 + i(θ1 + θ2 ) + 2inπ
(11)
2
If θ1 θ2 ∈ (−π, π], the branch cuts for log (z −1) will be those shown in Fig.1. z = ±1 and
z = ∞ are branch points as may be readily checked. There is of course a denumerably
infinite set of branches of the function, corresponding to differing integral values of the
integer n.
Alternately, if we restricted θ1 ∈ [0, 2 π), θ2 ∈ (−π, π], then the corresponding branch
cuts are as given below in Fig.1. Once again we have infinitely many branches characterized
by integer n in (11)
Consider another example of of a composite function involving logarithm:
 
z−1
log (12)
z+1

3
 Im z

θ2 θ1
-1 1 Re z

Figure 1: Branch cuts for log (z 2 − 1)

In this case, let z −1 = r1 ei θ1 and z +1 = r2 eiθ2 . Then, if we put

2 π interval restriction
on arg(z ± 1), but avoid putting direct restrictions on arg z−1 z+1
itself, then if is possible
to define  
z−1
arg = arg (z − 1) − arg (z + 1) (13)
z+1
Then  
z−1
log = log r1 − log r2 + i(θ1 − θ2 ) + 2 i n π (14)
z+1
If θ1 , θ2 ∈ (−π, π], then the corresponding branch cut is shown in Fig. 1.
Note that there is no cut on the real axis, left of z = − 1. The reason in this case
is that the two cuts, for log (z − 1) and log (z + 1) have cancelled each other out. To
see this, note that if we approach from the top a point on the real axis to the left of -1,
θ1 , θ2 = π; approaching from below, one gets θ1 , θ2 = − π. In either case, (θ1 − θ2 )
appearing in (14) is equal to 0. So, for any fixed branch n, the function as defined in (14)
has no discontinuity on the real axis to the left of −1 and hence no cut over there. Note if
we instead restrict θ1 , θ2 ∈ [0, 2π), then the branch cut situation is still the same as in Fig.
1. In this case, the branch cut cancellation is on the positive real axis to the right of the
branch point z = 1.
On the other hand if we restrict θ1 ∈ [0, 2π) and θ2 ∈ (− π, π], then the corresponding
branch cut situation is described by Fig. 1.

4
 Im z

-1 1

Figure 2: Another choice of cuts for log (z 2 − 1)

Im z

-1 1 Re z

z−1


Figure 3: Branch cuts for log z+1

It is to be noted that the branch cut situation described in Fig. 1 and Fig. 1 are not
the only ones possible. One can have other 2 π interval restrictions on θ1 and θ2 that will
give rise to other kinds of branch cuts for the function in (5). In practice, specific choices
are made according to the requirement that the function be continuous in some part of the
complex plane.

z k for nonintegral k

Definition 8 For nonintegral k

z k = exp[k log z] = exp[k (log r + iθ + 2 i n π)] (15)

5
 Im z

-1 1

z−1


Figure 4: Another possible cut for log z+1

where for the purposes of uniqueness on the plane for fixed n,

θ ∈ [θ0 , 2 π + θ0 ) or (θ0 , 2 π + θ0 ] (16)

Remark 5 Since k is not an integer, exp[2 i n k π] 6= 1; hence z k can have more than
one values for the same z, depending on n. A fixed choice of n in (15) and θ0 in (16)
specifies as unique function z k on the plane. The value of n characterizes the branch, and
the choice θ0 defines the branch cut. However, note that, unlike the case of log , z k need not
have infinite set of distinct branches since differing values of n can give the same value of
exp[2 i n k π]. In particular, if k = p/q, p and q being integers, then clearly exp[2 i n k π]
can have q distinct values corresponding to the choice n = 0, 1, 2, .., (q − 1). Note that n = q
gives rise to the same value as n = 0, n = q + 1 the same as n = 1 and so on. For instance
z 1/2 has only two distinct branches corresponding to even and odd n in (15)

z 1/2 = r 1/2 eiθ/2 , (17)

or
z 1/2 = − r 1/2 eiθ/2 (18)

Remark 6 We note that for a particular choice of n (i.e. branch) and a specific 2π
restriction on the arg (·), generally,

(z1 z2 )k 6= z1k z2k (19)

On the other hand, if we only impose 2 π interval restriction on arg z1 and arg z2 , and
not on arg (z1 z2 ), then as before in the context of log function, it is possible to define
arg (z1 z2 ) so that
(z1 z2 )k = z1k z2k (20)

6
Exercise for reader: Determine appropriate branch cuts and branches for (i) (z 2 − 1)1/2
z+1 1/2


and (ii) z−1 . Suppose we have a branch for which f (2) > 0. Determine what is
the value of f (−2) consistent with a choice of cut such that f (z) changes continously from
z = 2 to z = −2 on a path connecting the two points.
Remark: Sometimes in determining branch cuts and branches of a composite function,
involving logarithm and nonintegral powers in a complicated manner, it is useful to intro-
duce suitable intermediate transformation w = g(z) and determine the branch cut in the w
variable. The pre-image of that cut in the z-variable gives the cut location in the z-plane.
The example below illustrates this point.
Example: Describe the branch cuts, branch points and branches for the function

f (z) = log (1 + z 1/2 )

Solution: Let w = g(z) = z 1/2 . Then f (z) = log [1 + g(z)]. If we restrict arg z = θ
to (−π, π] (corresponding cut shown in Fig. 1), then there are two distinct possibilities for
g(z):
g1 (z) = r 1/2 eiθ/2 , g2 (z) = − r 1/2 eiθ/2 (21)
where r = |z|. There is a branch point of each of g1 (z) and g2 (z) at z = 0 and z = ∞.
These are clearly branch points of f (z) = log(1 + g(z)) as well.

Im z

Figure 5: Branch cuts for z 1/2 and f1,m (z). A cut-crossing path also shown

We also note that w = −1 is not in the range of g1 , but it is of g2 (since g2 (1) = −1).
Now, consider log (1 + w). We choose the restriction arg (1 + w) ∈ (−π, π], with the cut

7
in Fig. 1. we define

log(1 + w) = log |1 + w| + i arg(1 + w) + i 2 m π (22)

Im w

-1

Figure 6: Branch cut in the w plane for log (1 + w)

Since no point on the chosen cut in the w plane is in the range of g1 , it is clear that

f1,m (z) = logm (1 + g1 (z)) (23)

will have no branch points and cuts in the z plane corresponding to the branch point and
cut in the w-plane. So, the only branch point and branch cut for the function f1,m (z) are
those shown in Fig. 1– only the ones corresponding to g1 (z).
However, the pre-image in the z-plane of the chosen branch cut in the w-plane under
g2 is the positive real z axis, to the right of the branch point z = 1 (corresponds to the cut
in the w-plane in Fig. 1). Thus, the function

f2,m (z) = logm (1 + g2 (z)) (24)

will have branch cuts shown in Fig. 1.

The function f (z) has two set of infinite number of branches given by (23) and (24),
corresponding to integer m. The cuts are different for (23) and (24). The reader might be

8
 Im z

Figure 7: Branch cut for f2,m (z), as given by (24)

interested to note that if we start from z = 1 where f (1) = log 2, i.e. choose f1,0 (z)
for this point evaluation, and follow the change of f (z) on the Riemann surface along the
path shown in Fig. 1, then on crossing the cut in Fig. 1, f (z) ceases to be f1,0 (z). Instead,
it becomes f2,0 (z) for which Fig. 1 describes the branch cuts and points. We have used
dotted lines on the path in Fig. 1 to denote our journey to the other sheet for which Fig.
1 is applicable.

9
2 Contour Integration
Remark 7 Cauchy’s theorem and its extension are of course directly related to determi-
nation of closed contour integrals of analytic functions that contain only isolated singular-
ities within the contour. We simply use the Residue theorem and compute the sum of the
residues. However, it can also be used to compute:
1. Certain definite integrals
2. Principal value integrals
The main objective in such exercises is to relate the desired integral to some closed contour
in the complex plane, either by appending additional open contours to the original open
contour so as to make the union closed. This is helpful if the answer on the additional open
contours are known independently or can be related to the original open contour contribu-
tion. Sometimes, change of variables relates the contour integration to a complex closed
path integration.
R∞
Eg. 1: Compute I = 0 x4 dx+ 1
Solution: Consider the closed path contribution from the contour shown in Fig. 2.

iR

0 +R
Figure 8: Closed contour C for evaluation of Eg. 1

R π/2 0
dz dx i R eiθ dθ i dr
I Z Z Z
= + + (25)
C 1 + z4 0 1 + x4 0 1 + R4 e4iθ R 1 + r4

10
It is to the noted that the first and third integral on the right side of (25) combine to give
us, in the limit R → ∞, (1 − i) I. Now, as far as the second integral, we note that
π/2 π/2
i R eiθ dθ R dθ
Z Z
| | < → 0 as R → ∞
0 1 + R4 e4iθ 0 R4 − 1

Thus, from (25), as R → ∞

dz
I
4
= (1 − i) I = 2π Residue at z = ei π/4
(26)
C 1 + z

1
since z = eiπ/4 is the only contour within C. Residue at that point found to be 4 ei 3 π/4 .
So, from (26),
1 π
I = 2 π i e−i 3 π/4 = √
4(1 − i) 2 2

Remark 8 For integrands of the type 1 +1 xp , it is prudent, to choose closed path with a leg
on the real axis, another one a straight line, at an angle 2π/p with respect to the real axis
while the third is a circular arc of radius R, which is found not to contibute as R → ∞.

Lemma 9 Jordan’s Lemma If |g(R eiθ )| → 0 as R → ∞ for θ in [0, π], then

Z
dz g(z) eiα z → 0 as R → ∞
CR

where α > 0 and CR is a semi-circle in the upper-half plane of radius R about the origin.
Proof. We note that on CR , z = R eiθ = R cos θ + i R sin θ, dz = i R eiθ dθ. Further
for any ǫ, there exists R (independent of θ) so that |g(R eiθ | < ǫ. Further, we note from
the graph of sin θ that on the interval [0, π/2], sin θ ≥ π2 θ Using these information, we
get for sufficiently large R,
Z Z π Z π/2
iα z −α R sin θ R sin θ
| dz g(z) e | < R dθ ǫ e = 2ǫR dθ e−α
CR 0 0
π/2
2 ǫπ
Z
< 2ǫR dθ exp[−α R θ] < [1 − exp[−α R]] (27)
0 π α
Hence the lemma follows.

11
Corollary 10 If |g(R eiθ )| → 0 as R → ∞ for θ in [−π, 0], then
Z
dz g(z) e−i α z → 0 as R → ∞
CR

where α > 0 and CR is a semi-circle in the lower-half plane of radius R about the origin.
The proof The proof is very similar to previous Lemma, and left to the reader.

Corollary 11 If |g(R eiθ )| → 0 as R → ∞ for θ in [−π/2, π/2], then

Z
dz g(z) e−α z → 0 as R → ∞
CR

where α > 0 and CR is a semi-circle in the righthalf plane of radius R about the origin.
Proof is left to the reader.

Corollary 12 If |g(R eiθ )| → 0 as R → ∞ for θ in [π/2, 3π/2], then

Z
dz g(z) eα z → 0 as R → ∞
CR

where α > 0 and CR is a semi-circle in the left-half plane of radius R about the origin.
Proof is left to the reader.

Corollary 13 If | g(R eiθ ) |/Rp−1 → 0, as R → ∞ for θ in [0, π/p], then

Z
p
dz g(z) ei α z → 0 as R → ∞
CR

where α > 0 and CR is an arc of a circle of radius R about the origin, starting on the
positive real axis and subtending an angle π/p at the origin.
Proof. This follows simply using from Jordan’s Lemma, after we substitute z1 = z p .
Exercise 2: Compute Z ∞
cos ax
I(a) = dx
0 1 + x2
Solution: Note that, without loss of generality, a > 0. Further,
Z ∞
1 cos ax 1
I(a) = 2
dx = Re I1 (a) , (28)
2 −∞ 1 + x 2

12
 C
R

-R R
Figure 9: Closed contour C for (29)

where ∞
eiax dx
Z
I1 (a) = (29)
−∞ 1 + x2
Now consider the integral on the closed path C, shown in Fig. 2.
The round trip contour integral can be broken up into parts:
Z R
ei a z dz ei a x ei a z
I Z
2
dz = 2
dx + 2
dz (30)
C 1 + z −R 1 + x CR 1 + z
R
In the limit R → ∞, from Jordan’s Lemma, there is no contribution from CR
. On the
other hand from (30), in this limit, we get I1 (a). So

e−a
I1 (a) = 2πi (Residue at z = i) = 2 π i = π e−a
2i
π
Hence I(a) = 2
e−a .

Remark 9 : Note if we were to consider the complex integral C 1cos+ az

H
z2
dz instead of
the chosen integrand in (6), we could not chose a convenient contour, since Jordan type
lemma is invalid for cos; it does not go to zero in the upper-half or lower-half plane at large
distances.
Exercise 7.2 Evaluate ∞
x−p
Z
dx (31)
0 1+x

13
In this case, it is prudent to consider
z −p dz
I
where arg z is in [0, 2π) , (32)
C 1 + z

and C is the contour shown in Fig. 2.

CR

L
1
Cε L
2

Figure 10: Contour C for Exercise 7.2

The contour C consists of straight segments L1 , L2 and near circles of radius R and
ǫ. Note that the cut from 0 to ∞ along the positive real axis is being avoided. Now, as
ǫ → 0, Z 0
z −p dz dθ ei(1−p)θ ǫ1−p
Z
| | < | i ǫ1−p | ≤ 2 π → 0
Cǫ 1 + z 2π 1 + ǫ eiθ |1 − ǫ|
Further, as R → ∞,
Z 2π
z −p dz dθ ei(1−p)θ R1−p
Z
| | < | i R1−p | ≤ 2 π → 0
CR 1 + z 0 1 + R eiθ R−1
Further, we note that on the straightline segment L1 ,
Z R −p
z −p dz x dx
Z
=
L1 1 + z ǫ 1 + x
while on L2 ,
ǫ
z −p dz r −p e−i2πp dr
Z Z Z
= = − e−2πip
L2 1 + z R 1 + r L1

14
Therefore, as ǫ → 0 and R → ∞,

z −p dz
I
= (1 − e−2πip ) I = 2π i residue at z = eiπ = 2 π i e−iπp


C 1 + z

Therefore,
e−iπp π
I=2πi =
1 − e−2 π i p sin π p
Remark R10 The method of calculating above also tells us that I exists in a limiting process
R −p
involving ǫ x 1+xdx , with ǫ → 0 and R → ∞.

Remark 11 It is to be noted from this exercise that if we have contour integration around
a small circular arc of radius ǫ around a branch point point z0 , where the integrand is like
(z − z0 )−p for p < 1, then there is no contribution from such an integral as ǫ → 0. This
fact will simplify future calculations of such integral.

Remark 12 The contour C in Fig. 2 can be used to calculate

Z ∞
dx
0 Polynomial in x of degree ≥ 2
by considering
log z dz
I

C Polynomial in z
Exercise 7.3 Compute Z ∞
a x2
I(a) = ei dx (9)
0
Solution: Consider I
a z2
dz ei , (33)
C
where C is the contour shown in Fig. 2. R
Note from a corollary of Jordan’s lemma, the contribution for CR must go to zero
as R → ∞. Also, the contribution from the straightline segment along the real axis as
R → ∞ is clearly I. Also, on the straightline, where arg z = π/4, since i a z 2 = i a (r eiπ/4 )2 = −
a r 2 ,, the contribution, as R → ∞ is
Z 0 √
iπ/4 −a r 2 iπ/4 π
dr e e → −e √ (34)
R 2 a

15
 i π/4
Re

CR

0 R
Figure 11: Contour for exercise 7.3

from well known calculus result about area under a Gaussian. Since (33)Hinvolves an integral
of an analytic function without any singularity on and within C, the C = 0. Combining
with (34), we therefore get I(a) to be negative of the answer in (34). So,
√
iπ/4 π
I(a) = e √ (35)
2 a

Remark 13 If a in exercise 7.3 were negative, we would have chosen a contour to return
to the origin at an angle −π/4, so as to allow use of Jordan’s lemma for a < 0 to conclude
no contribution from the circular arc.

Remark
R∞ 14 On takingR the real and imaginary parts of the (??), it is possible to compute
∞
0
cos a x2 dx and 0 sin a x2 dx.
Exercise 7.4 Compute Z ∞ ix
e
I = − dx (36)
−∞ x

Solution: It is prudent to choose a contour as shown in Fig. 2.

It is clear there are no singularities within the contour, So,
Z −ǫ Z R  ix
eiz e dx eiz eiz
I Z Z
0 = dz = = + + dz + dz (37)
C z −R ǫ x CR z Cǫ z

16
 CR

Cε
0
Figure 12: Contour C for Exercise 7.4

From Jordan’s lemma, there is no contribution from CR as R → ∞. Further, as ǫ → 0,

since on Cǫ , ei z → 1, Z 0
i ǫ eiθ dθ
Z
→ = −π i (15)
Cǫ π ǫ eiθ
Therefore, from (37), in the limit R → ∞, ǫ → 0,
Z −ǫ Z R  ix
e dx
+ → πi (38)
−R ǫ x
But the integral in (38) in this limit is precisely I.

Remark 15 By taking the imaginary part of (38), and using the even nature of the inte-
grand, it is clear that Z ∞
sin x π
=
0 x 2
Note in this case, the principal value integral reduces to a regular integral, since the inte-
grand has a finite limit as x → 0.

Remark 16 On taking the real part of (38), it follows that

Z ∞
cos x
− = 0
−∞ x
Exercise 7.5 For −π < α < π,
∞
eαx
Z
I(α) = dx (39)
−∞ cosh π x

17
Solution: It is to be noted that if the integrand in (39) is denoted by f (x), then it has
the property (using representation of cosh interms of exp) that
f (x + i) = − eiα f (x) (40)
From property (40), it is prudent to consider
eαz
I
dz (41)
C cosh π z

where C is a rectangular contour, shown in Fig. 2.

-R+i R+i

i /2

-R R
Figure 13: Contour C for Exercise 7.5

Since the integrand

e±αR eiαy
f (±R + iy) =
eπR eiπy + e−πR e−iπy
|α|R
is bounded in absolute value by eeπR −1 , which tends to zero as R → ∞. In this limit,
there is no contribution from the vertical segments of C (since the integration is over a
fixed range in y, independent of R). Thus, in this limit, using (40), we get
I
= (1 + ei α ) I (42)
C

Now consider the residues within the contour C. This is where cosh π z = 0. From
the exponential representation, it is clear that this happens where e2πz = − 1, i.e.
z = i (1/2 + n) for integer n. The only one inside the contour is at i/2, where the residue
is
eiα/2 eiα/2
lim (z − i/2) f (z) = = (43)
z → i/2 π sinh (i π/2) iπ
So, from residue theorem and (42),
eiα/2 1
I = (1 + eiα )−1 2πi = (44)
iπ cos (πα/2)

18
Remark 17 The result (44) is independent of the sign of α. Hence it follows that
Z ∞
cosh αx 1
dx =
−∞ cosh π x cos (α/2)

and ∞
cosh αx 1
Z
dx =
0 cosh π x 2 cos (α/2)

19