This post makes notes on residue theorem and its application,
since most non-mathematicians only need to remember this after learning complex analysis.
Some definitions may be not defined very rigorously from a complex analysis view.
The residue is the coefficient of −1 term of the Laurent expansion (c=∞):
resf(c)=a−1iff(z)=n=−∞∑+∞an(z−c)n
Let U be a simply connected open set, f be analytic in U∖{c1,…,cm} and continuous in Uˉ,
C be the boundary of U which is a closed rectifiable curve.
Then,
∮Cf(z)dz=2πik=1∑mresf(ck)
If c is a pole of order m, then the residue at c is
resf(c)=z→clim(m−1)!1dzm−1dm−1(z−c)mf(z)
Especially, when m=1:
resf(c)=z→clim(z−c)f(z)
Proof (sketch):
Break C into multiple loops that enclose a pole each.
By the coefficient of Laurent expansion:
an=2πi1∮C(z−c)n+1f(z)dz
Another way to look at this is that zn1 is single-valued and goes to 0 along a loop.
But lnz increases by 2πi.
Suppose the target series to calculate is ∑n=−∞∞f(n), with f(n)=O(n1).
Let G(z)=πcotπz. Note that G is analytic in C∖Z and
resG(n)=1 for all n∈Z.
Take curve CN be the square [−N−21,N+21]×[(−N−21)i,(N+21)i].
Theorem:
If f(z) has finitely many poles in C and analytic in the rest of the complex plane, then
N→∞lim∮CNG(z)f(z)dz=0
Proof:
∣πcotπz∣≤2π on the curve CN.
Theorem:
If f(z) satisfies all conditions above and all poles {c1,…,cm} are non-integer, then
Def: {an} is of exponential orderKn if for any ϵ>0,
∣an∣ exceeds (K−ϵ)n infinitely often and is dominated by (K+ϵ)n cofinitely.
an⋈Knifflimsup∣an∣1/n=K
This can be rephrased as an=Knθ(n) where limsup∥θ(n)∥1/n=1.
Exponential Growth Formula: If the radius of convergence of the series fn=[zn]f(z) at 0 is
Rconv(f;0)=R, then
fn⋈(R1)n
Proof:
By the definition of radius of convergence, ∥fn∥(R−ϵ)n→0.
If ∥fn∥(R+ϵ)n were bounded, then ∥fn∥(R+21ϵ)n would converge.
So ∥fn∥(R+ϵ)n is unbounded.
Note: for a complex series f(z), R is the modulus of a singularity nearest to the origin.
Example: The EGF of the number of surjections (surjections from [n] to [m] for some m),
and the EGF of the number of chains in Boolean lattice Bn, are
R(z)=2−ez1
By the proposition, we have n!rn⋈(ln2)n1.
Saddle-point bound: Let M(f;r):=sup∣z∣=r∣f(z)∣ (the maximum modulus on a ring) for r<R.
Then, for any r∈(0,R), the family of saddle point bounds
One can show that if singularities of f(z) are polar, then θ(n) is a polynomial.
Def: If f(z)=D(z)N(z) with N,D being polynomials, f(z) is a rational function.
Coefficients of rational functions satisfy linear recurrence relations with constant coefficients:
[zn]f(z)D(z)=j=0∑mdjfn−j=0for alln>deg(N)
Rational Function Case: If f(z)=D(z)N(z) is a rational function that is analytic at 0 and
has poles at a1,…,am, then its coefficients are a sum of exponential–polynomials.
That is, for n larger than n0:=deg(N)−deg(D):
fn:=[zn]f(z)=j=1∑mPj(n)aj−n
Furthermore, the degree of Pj is equal to the order of the pole of f at aj minus one.
This is a direct result of the theorem. (The book has a typo)
For r=1, one can verifies:
x−ac=−1−axac=−aca−nxn
Example: Fibonacci numbers have OGF F(z)=1−z−z2z.
The poles are a1=−φ=−25+1 and a2=ψ=25−1.
resF(ψ)=105−5, resF(−φ)=10−5−5.
Thus,
fn∼51ψ−n(1+O(1/n))=51φn(1+O(1/n))
Actually,
fn=51(φn−(−φ)−n)
Analytic Function Case:
If f(z) is analytic at ∥z∥≤R except for poles a1,…,am.
Then, there exist m polynomials Pj s.t.
fn:=[zn]f(z)=j=1∑mPj(n)aj−n+O(R−n)
Furthermore, the degree of Pj is equal to the order of the pole of f at aj minus one.
Proof: (The 1st one by the book)
Take the Laurant expansion of f(z) at a:
f(z)=k≥r∑ca,k(z−a)k=Sa(z)+Ha(z)
where Sa is the principal part and Ha is the regular part.
Note that Sa is polynomial.
Let S=∑jSaj.
Observe that and f−S is analytic for ∥z∥≤R.
Then.
fn:=[zn]f(z)=[zn]S(z)+[zn](f−S)(z)
The coefficient of S is obtained by the polynomial theorem.
And, by saddle-point bound at z=R,