3

I have been recently trying to review some topics on improper integrals. The Integral I am trying to solve is:
$$ \int_0^\infty {log(x) \over x^2 -1} dx $$

enter image description here

The branch cut of the $log(x)$ is excluded by rotating the red line by an infinitesimal angle M. The origin and the pole on the real axis are both excluded by going around them. I have denoted the semicircle around the origin with $S_{\epsilon}$ and the other semicircle around the pole at 1 with $S_\delta$. The large semicircle is $S_R$. $\epsilon$, $\delta$ and $R$ are the corresponding radii. On the described contour $\Gamma$ the integral should vanish. The integral is

$$ \int_\Gamma {log(x) \over x^2 -1} dx = \int_R^\epsilon {log(re^{i\pi})e^{i\pi} \over r^2 -1} dr + \int_\pi^0 {log(\epsilon e^{i\phi})\epsilon e^{i\phi} \over (\epsilon e^{i\phi})^2 -1} d\phi + \int_\epsilon^{1-\delta} {log(r) \over r^2 -1} dr + \int_\pi^0 {log(\delta e^{i\phi})\delta e^{i\phi} \over (\delta e^{i\phi})^2 -1} d\phi + \int_{1+\delta}^R {log(r) \over r^2 -1} dr + \int_\epsilon^{1-\delta} {log(r) \over r^2 -1} dr + \int_0^\pi {log(R e^{i\phi})R e^{i\phi} \over (R e^{i\phi})^2 -1} d\phi = 0 $$

Taking the limits $R \to \infty$, $\delta \to 0$ and $\epsilon \to 0$, the integrals over the semicircles $S_{\epsilon}$ , $S_\delta$ and $S_R$ vanish. Therefore we are left with:

$$ \int_0^\infty {log(r)+i\pi \over r^2-1}dr + \int_0^\infty {log(r) \over r^2-1}dr=2\int_0^\infty {log(r) \over r^2-1}dr+\int_0^\infty {i\pi \over r^2-1}dr = 0 $$

The last integral is divergent (Mathematica), however, again according to Mathematica the answer to my question is $\pi^2 \over 4$. I have tried to calculate the last integral by using the same contour as before without the indent contour $S_\epsilon$ around zero and including only the pole at $r=1$ with factor $\frac12$. This second contour I have denoted by $\gamma$. If I had tried to go a full half circle, I would have had both poles at $r=1$ and $r=-1$ included and the residue theorem would have given me zero. Therefore I have excluded one of them by the wedge and obtained $$ \int_\gamma {i\pi \over r^2-1}dr = \int_R^0 {i\pi e^{i\pi} \over r^2-1}dr + \int_0^R {i\pi \over r^2-1}dr = 2 \int_0^\infty {i\pi \over r^2-1}dr =i \pi Res({i\pi \over r^2-1},r=1) $$ Evaluating the residue I have obtained precisely $-{\pi^2 \over 2}$. Is this selection of contour allowed? Dropping one pole and keeping the other? Is the selection of the integration contour that arbitrary? I always have such moments doubt. This is why I would appreciate any ideas or comments.

Thanks, Alex

  • no the residue theorem wouldn't say anything if you take the full half circle. For the residue theorem you need that the rectifiable curve doesn't meet any of the poles. – Dominic Michaelis Sep 13 '13 at 10:29
  • Hi, you are wright. I overlooked this. Actually I can’t rotate the wedge past the negative real either due to the branch cut (I am using $ -\pi < Arg(z) \le \pi $). So this contour is pretty much OK. Thanks for the help. – Alexander Cska Sep 13 '13 at 11:38
  • The Maple 17 command $$int(ln(x)/(x^2-1), x = 0 .. infinity, CauchyPrincipalValue) $$ produces $\frac {\pi^2} 4 .$ – user64494 Sep 13 '13 at 11:48
  • @user64494: Cauchy PV is not necessary here. – Ron Gordon Sep 13 '13 at 12:19
  • @Ron Gordon: The asker wrote "The Integral I am trying to solve is:$$\int_0^\infty {log(x) \over x^2 -1} dx ". $$ – user64494 Sep 13 '13 at 12:32
  • @AlexanderCska: wrong. The question was about the original integral. Yes, that particular one indeed diverges, but as I took pains to state in my answer and here, this is nothing but a badly formed contour integral. It is actually the PV of that integral plus the integral about a small divot around the pole. Once you evaluate this, you get the result that Mathematica returns, as I illustrate. – Ron Gordon Sep 13 '13 at 12:58
  • @Ron Gordon Ok my mistake. – Alexander Cska Sep 13 '13 at 13:27
  • See this for a (imo) simpler solution. – mrf Sep 14 '13 at 22:49

2 Answers2

4

Unfortunately, the divergent integral is part of the integration process. Fortunately, it all works out. Personally, I do not like semicircular contours with logs, although sometimes they do work out. I prefer using keyhole contours on modified integrands. Thus, consider the integral

$$\oint_C dz \frac{\log^2{z}}{z^2-1}$$

where $C$ is a keyhole contour about the positive real axis (where I am taking the branch cut), modified with semicircular divots above and below the real axis at $z=1$. Because the singularity at $z=1$ is removed, the integrals about those divots will vanish. Also, as you point out, the integrals about the circular contours about the origin, both small and large, also vanish as radii go to $0$ and $\infty$, respectively. Thus we have

$$\int_0^{1-\epsilon} dx \frac{\log^2{x}}{x^2-1} + i \epsilon \int_{\pi}^{0} d\phi \, e^{i \phi} \frac{\log^2{(1+\epsilon e^{i \phi})}}{(1+\epsilon e^{i \phi})^2-1}+\\ \int_{1+\epsilon}^{\infty} dx \frac{\log^2{x}}{x^2-1} + \int^{\infty}_{1+\epsilon} dx \frac{(\log{x}+i 2 \pi)^2}{x^2-1}+\\ i\epsilon \int_{2 \pi}^{\pi} d\phi \, e^{i \phi} \frac{[\log{(1+\epsilon e^{i \phi})}+i 2 \pi]^2}{(1+\epsilon e^{i \phi})^2-1}+ \int_{1+\epsilon}^{\infty} dx \frac{(\log{x}+i 2 \pi)^2}{x^2-1}$$

being equal to $i 2 \pi$ times the residue of the integrand at the pole $z=-1$. Thus, with a little algebra, we have

$$-i 4 \pi \int_0^{\infty} dx \frac{\log{x}}{x^2-1} + 4 \pi^2 PV \int_0^{\infty} dx \frac{1}{x^2-1} - 4 \pi^2 i\epsilon \int_{2 \pi}^{\pi} d\phi \, e^{i \phi} \frac{1}{(1+\epsilon e^{i \phi})^2-1} = i 2 \pi \frac{(i \pi)^2}{2 (-1)}$$

Now the last two terms on the RHS are equal to

$$4 \pi^2 \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \left [\int_0^{1-\epsilon} dx \frac{1}{x^2-1}+ \int_{1+\epsilon}^{\infty} dx \frac{1}{x^2-1}\right ] -i 4 \pi^2 \lim_{\epsilon \to 0} \, \epsilon \int_{2 \pi}^{\pi} d\phi \, e^{i \phi} \frac{1}{(1+\epsilon e^{i \phi})^2-1} $$

For the integrals in the bracket, you can see they sum to zero by substituting $x=1/u$ in the second integral:

$$\int_{1+\epsilon}^{\infty} dx \frac{1}{x^2-1} = \int_{1/(1+\epsilon)}^{\infty} \frac{du}{u^2} \frac{1}{(1/u^2)-1} =\int_0^{1-\epsilon} du \frac{1}{1-u^2} $$

Thus we have

$$-i 4 \pi \int_0^{\infty} dx \frac{\log{x}}{x^2-1} - 4 \pi^2 \left ( -i \frac{\pi}{2}\right) = i \pi^3$$

or

$$\int_0^{\infty} dx \frac{\log{x}}{x^2-1} = \frac{\pi^2}{4}$$

Note that I did not invoke residues technically, although it did work out that way. Rather, I got the result from a careful treatment of the integration contour in the face of a seemingly-divergent integral which is really just a badly expressed contour integral.

ADDENDUM

The integral may be evaluated using real techniques as well. You should be able to show, by splitting the integration interval into $[0,1]$ and $[1,\infty]$ and using a substitution trick similar to the one I used above in showing that the Cauchy PV is zero, to show that

$$\int_0^{\infty} dx \frac{\log{x}}{x^2-1} = -2 \int_0^1 dx \frac{\log{x}}{1-x^2}$$

Now Taylor expand the denominator of the integrand to get

$$-2 \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \int_0^1 dx \, x^{2 k} \, \log{x}$$

Use the fact that

$$\int_0^1 dx \, x^{2 k} \, \log{x} = -\frac{1}{(2 k+1)^2}$$

and get

$$\int_0^{\infty} dx \frac{\log{x}}{x^2-1} = 2 \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{(2 k+1)^2} = \frac{\pi^2}{4}$$

Ron Gordon
  • 138,521
  • Well I used a simpler and less elegant approach. Sometimes keyhole contours might cause problems. Consider your integral with the $log^2(z)$ and denominator $x^2 +1$. In general just as a question regarding understanding. How flexible is the definition of the contour. Suppose you would widen the opening of your keyhole form $0$ to $-{\pi \over 2}$. This should also work. – Alexander Cska Sep 13 '13 at 12:11
  • @AlexanderCska: There are times when the keyhole is not appropriate, but this is not one of those times. Why would I widen the keyhole as you proposed? – Ron Gordon Sep 13 '13 at 12:21
  • I was just curious how arbitrary the choice of the integration contour is.Actually it correct to say, that for $\int_0^\infty {i\pi \over r^2-1}dr $ , one chooses the integration contour independently on what was chosen for $\int_0^\infty {log(x) \over x^2 -1} dx$ – Alexander Cska Sep 13 '13 at 12:45
  • For the divergent integral $\int_0^\infty {i\pi \over r^2-1} dr $ actually the singularity can be moved by small amount $i \mu$ ant the same can be obtained. I am only not sure, but I assume it is correct that for $\int_0^\infty {i\pi \over r^2-1}dr $ , one chooses the integration contour independently on what was chosen for $\int_0^\infty {log(x) \over x^2 -1} dx$ – Alexander Cska Sep 13 '13 at 14:07
  • @AlexanderCska: I think that ends up giving you the correct answer, albeit not in any way that I could justify. – Ron Gordon Sep 13 '13 at 14:12
  • Hi, it is nothing special; it is in every book on QM. This is why they always define the propagators as $\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}{e^{iqx} \over q^2 –k^2 +i\epsilon} dq$. However, I would like to hear your opinion on my comment form above. Are the two integrals evaluated independently, i.e. using different contours? Since they are just summands I would guess so. – Alexander Cska Sep 13 '13 at 14:24
  • @AlexanderCska: being a physicist I am familiar, but I always hated this. In any case, I assert that they are not independent in my solution - thinking they are independent leads to the divergent integral. – Ron Gordon Sep 13 '13 at 14:29
  • @AlexanderCska: you do not need a divot above the real axis, just below because of the $i 2 \pi$ added to the log. On top, you have a log term, so you should have a $\log{(1+\epsilon e^{i \phi})}$ which goes as $\epsilon e^{i \phi}$ and forces the integral to zero. I will edit my solution to include the divots and make the whole thing more clear. – Ron Gordon Sep 14 '13 at 11:12
  • I have re-examined your solution and tried to compute the divergent integral $ i \pi \int_0^{\infty} {dr \over r^2 -1} $. I think that the divergent integral is computed independently, by using the Cauchy PV and has nothing to do with the integral over the closed contour $\Gamma$. Since I have my divot above the positive real axis: $ i \pi \int_{\pi}^0 { \epsilon e^{i \phi} d \phi \over (1+ \epsilon e^{i \phi})^2 -1} = {{\pi}^2 \over 2} $ . Wrong sign ! My idea was to remove the singularities, and have the integral over the closed contour equal zero. I think that I did something wrong.. – Alexander Cska Sep 14 '13 at 11:13
  • I do not understand where the $2 i \pi$ comes from when you integrate around the lower divot, this factor is present only for the line segments. I also think when you are on the line below the positive real axis, you should have for the line segments, limits of the sort $ \int_0^{1 - \epsilon}$ and $\int_{1 + \epsilon}^{\infty}$. Is there a chance that you have a mistake in the newly included part? – Alexander Cska Sep 14 '13 at 11:57
  • @AlexanderCska: on the lower branch, $z=x e^{i 2 \pi}$ so that $\log{z}=\log{x}+i 2 \pi$. On the divot, it must remain so for continuity. It's really $e^{i 2 \pi}+\epsilon e^{i (\phi+2 \pi)}$ – Ron Gordon Sep 14 '13 at 12:18
0

I have finally figured out how to solve the integral in a very simple way. Take a keyhole contour as suggested by Ron Gordon. It is easy to see that the contributions from the divots round 1 are zero. This is due to the fact that the integrand function $ {log(z) \over z^2 - 1} $, i.e. the $log(z)$ is analytic near 1, and the integrand can be expressed as $$ {log(z) \over z^2 - 1} = {a_{-1} \over z – 1} +\phi(z) $$ Where $\phi(z)$ is an analytic function in the neighborhood of 1. Now since $\phi(z)$ is analytic and therefore bounded, the integral of it along the divots I zero. The remaining part also vanishes. The trick is to use $log^2(z)$. So what we get is $$ (\int_{\epsilon}^{1-\epsilon} + \int_{1+\epsilon}^R) {(log(r)+2 i \pi)^2 \over z^2 -1 } -(\int_{\epsilon}^{1-\epsilon} + \int_{1+\epsilon}^R) {log^2(r) \over z^2 -1 } = {2 i \pi (i\pi)^2 \over -2} $$ This is equal to: $$ -4 i \pi \int_0^{\infty} + V.P. \int_0^{\infty} {4\pi^2 \over z^2 – 1} = {2 i \pi (i\pi)^2 \over -2} $$

Equating the real and the imaginary parts we get the results. Note that the $V.P.$ is automatically equal to zero.

Thanks for the help.