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:

    The fact that several men were able to become infatuated with that latrine is truly the proof of the decline of the men of this century.
    Charles Baudelaire (1821–1867)

    To cease to admire is a proof of deterioration.
    Charles Horton Cooley (1864–1929)

    The fact that several men were able to become infatuated with that latrine is truly the proof of the decline of the men of this century.
    Charles Baudelaire (1821–1867)

    Mistakes are made on two counts: an argument is either based on error or incorrectly developed.
    Thomas Aquinas (c. 1225–1274)

    Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.
    Paul Tillich (1886–1965)