Argument principle: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
|||
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
<math>n(f \circ c; 0) = \sum ord(z_j)n(c;z_j)</math> | <math>n(f \circ c; 0) = \sum ord(z_j)n(c;z_j)</math> | ||
Where the sum is taken over all zeros/poles <math>z_j</math> for <math>f</math> and <math>ord(z_j)</math> is the unique integer <math>n</math> such that <math>(z - z_j)^ | Where the sum is taken over all zeros/poles <math>z_j</math> for <math>f</math> and <math>ord(z_j)</math> is the [[order of zero for function at point|order]] of <math>f</math> at </math>z_j</math>: the unique integer <math>n</math> such that <math>(z - z_j)^{-n}f(z)</math> has neither a zero nor a pole at <math>z_j</math>. | ||
Equivalently, we can write this as: | Equivalently, we can write this as: |
Revision as of 22:35, 26 April 2008
This article gives the statement, and possibly proof, of a basic fact in complex analysis.
View a complete list of basic facts in complex analysis
This fact is an application of the following pivotal fact/result/idea: residue theorem
View other applications of residue theorem OR Read a survey article on applying residue theorem
Statement
Suppose is an open subset and is a 0-homologous cycle in . Suppose is a meromorphic function on such that no zero or pole of lies in . Then we have:
Where the sum is taken over all zeros/poles for and is the order of at </math>z_j</math>: the unique integer such that has neither a zero nor a pole at .
Equivalently, we can write this as:
where the first summation is for zeros, counted with multiplicity, and the second summation is for poles, counted with multiplicity.