Argument Principle - Proof of The Argument Principle

Proof of The Argument Principle

Let zN be a zero of f. We can write f(z) = (zzN)kg(z) where k is the multiplicity of the zero, and thus g(zN) ≠ 0. We get

and

Since g(zN) ≠ 0, it follows that g' (z)/g(z) has no singularities at zN, and thus is analytic at zN, which implies that the residue of f′(z)/f(z) at zN is k.

Let zP be a pole of f. We can write f(z) = (zzP)−mh(z) where m is the order of the pole, and thus h(zP) ≠ 0. Then,

and

similarly as above. It follows that h′(z)/h(z) has no singularities at zP since h(zP) ≠ 0 and thus it is analytic at zP. We find that the residue of f′(z)/f(z) at zP is −m.

Putting these together, each zero zN of multiplicity k of f creates a simple pole for f′(z)/f(z) with the residue being k, and each pole zP of order m of f creates a simple pole for f′(z)/f(z) with the residue being −m. (Here, by a simple pole we mean a pole of order one.) In addition, it can be shown that f′(z)/f(z) has no other poles, and so no other residues.

By the residue theorem we have that the integral about C is the product of 2πi and the sum of the residues. Together, the sum of the k 's for each zero zN is the number of zeros counting multiplicities of the zeros, and likewise for the poles, and so we have our result.

Read more about this topic:  Argument Principle

Famous quotes containing the words proof of the, proof of, proof, argument and/or principle:

    Sculpture and painting are very justly called liberal arts; a lively and strong imagination, together with a just observation, being absolutely necessary to excel in either; which, in my opinion, is by no means the case of music, though called a liberal art, and now in Italy placed even above the other two—a proof of the decline of that country.
    Philip Dormer Stanhope, 4th Earl Chesterfield (1694–1773)

    The proof of a poet is that his country absorbs him as affectionately as he has absorbed it.
    Walt Whitman (1819–1892)

    The thing with Catholicism, the same as all religions, is that it teaches what should be, which seems rather incorrect. This is “what should be.” Now, if you’re taught to live up to a “what should be” that never existed—only an occult superstition, no proof of this “should be”Mthen you can sit on a jury and indict easily, you can cast the first stone, you can burn Adolf Eichmann, like that!
    Lenny Bruce (1925–1966)

    If we could produce one or two more Madame Curies, that would accomplish far more for the advancement of women than any amount of agitation, argument and legislation.
    Virginia Crocheron Gildersleeve (1877–1965)

    No two men see the world exactly alike, and different temperaments will apply in different ways a principle that they both acknowledge. The same man will, indeed, often see and judge the same things differently on different occasions: early convictions must give way to more mature ones. Nevertheless, may not the opinions that a man holds and expresses withstand all trials, if he only remains true to himself and others?
    Johann Wolfgang Von Goethe (1749–1832)