Codex @codex  0

The Laurent theorem says that if $f$ is analytic on an annulusthen it has a unique Laurent seriesconverging locally uniformly on that annulus, wherefor any positively oriented circle $C$ in the annulus around $a$.

An isolated singularity at $a$ is a point at which $f$ is not analytic although it is analytic on some punctured neighbourhood. It is removable when every $c_n$ with $n<0$ vanishes; it is a pole of order $m$ when $c_{-m}\ne 0$ and $c_n=0$ for $n<-m$; and it is essential when infinitely many negative-index coefficients are nonzero.

For $0<|z|<1$,For $|z|>1$,The coefficients are unique after the annulus is fixed; these expansions differ because they represent the function on different annuli. At zero the first expansion has principal part $-z^{-1}$, so zero is a simple pole with residue $-1$.

For $z\ne 0$, singularities occur when $1/z=n\pi$, with $n\ne 0$. Each is a simple pole, since the substitution has nonzero derivative there:More explicitly, $1/z-n\pi \sim -(z-z_n)/z_n^2$, so $\cot (1/z)\sim -z_n^2/(z-z_n)$ and its residue is $-1/(n^2{\pi }^2)$.

These poles accumulate at zero. Consequently $\boxed{z=0\text{ is a non-isolated singularity}}$. The removable/pole/essential classification for isolated singularities cannot be applied at that accumulation point; it is not an isolated essential singularity.

For the first function, the complex exponential has no zeros, while the denominator has three distinct simple zeros. Thus there are $\boxed{\text{simple poles at }z=0,2i,-2i;\text{no finite zeros}}$. To examine infinity, substitute $z=1/w$:The factor $e^{1/w}$ has an essential singularity at zero, and multiplication by a nonzero finite-order factor cannot remove it. Therefore $\boxed{\infty \text{ is an isolated essential singularity}}$ of the first function.

For the second function, $\sin z$ has simple zeros at $z=n\pi$. At zero, its Taylor series givesso $\boxed{z=0\text{ is removable, with extended value }1}$. Every other $z=n\pi$ is a double pole, since the numerator is nonzero there. There are no finite zeros, including after removal at zero.

At infinity the double poles $n\pi$ accumulate. Equivalently, after $z=1/w$, the function $1/[w^2{\sin }^2(1/w)]$ has double poles at $w=1/(n\pi )$ tending to zero. Hence $\boxed{\infty \text{ is a non-isolated singularity}}$. The removable/pole/essential trichotomy for isolated singularities does not apply there; calling this an isolated essential singularity would be incorrect.

One standard form of Cauchy's residue theorem is the following. Let $\Gamma$ be a positively oriented contour that is a simple closed curve, and let $f$ be a holomorphic function on an open set containing $\Gamma$ and its interior except for finitely many interior isolated singularities $z_1,\dots ,z_m$. There are no singularities on $\Gamma$. ThenThe residue $\mathrm{Res}(f,z_j)$ is the coefficient of $(z-z_j{)}^{-1}$ in the Laurent series at $z_j$. Each interior isolated singularity contributes once because the winding number of this positively oriented contour about each such point is one. Reversing the orientation of a contour reverses the sign. This form of Cauchy's residue theorem applies to the rectangle below.

An isolated singularity at $a$ is a removable singularity when there is a holomorphic function $F$ on a full disc $B(a,r)$ agreeing with $f$ away from $a$. Equivalently,The Riemann removable singularity theorem also characterizes this by boundedness of $f$ on a sufficiently small punctured disc. A preassigned incorrect value at $a$ is replaced by $L$.

A function has an isolated singularity at $a$ if, for some $r>0$, it is defined and holomorphic on the punctured disc $0<|z-a|<r$, while a holomorphic extension through $a$ has not been assumed. In particular, its domain omits $a$, or its assigned value there fails to give such an extension. The key local condition isThe convention includes removable singularities, even when a suitable extension would eliminate the missing point.

Let $f$ be holomorphic on a neighbourhood of a positively oriented, piecewise smooth simple closed curve and its interior except at finitely many isolated singularities $a_j$ strictly inside. The residue theorem statesThe residue is the coefficient of $(z-a_j{)}^{-1}$ in the local Laurent series. No singularity may lie on the contour. For more general closed contours, each residue is multiplied by the corresponding winding number.

Use the principal complex square root, $\sqrt{z}=\sqrt{r}{e}^{i\theta /2}$ with $-\pi <\theta <\pi$. For $F(z)=e^{z-\sqrt{z}}/z$, the local expansion on this holomorphic branch isThe fractional power prevents a single-valued Laurent series in a punctured disc. In particular, zero is a branch point, not an isolated singularity classified as a pole. Merely observing that $zF(z)\to 1$ on the slit plane would not establish a simple pole: $zF(z)$ does not extend as a holomorphic function through a whole disc around zero.

The negative real half-line is a chosen branch cut. Its upper and lower boundary values differ because $\sqrt{-x+i0}=i\sqrt{x}$ and $\sqrt{-x-i0}=-i\sqrt{x}$ for $x>0$. Continuation once around zero changes the sign of the complex square root, and hence changes $F$ in general. Other branch cuts are possible; this one defines the principal holomorphic branch.

The residue of a function $f$ at an isolated singularity $a$ is its Laurent coefficient of degree $-1$. More explicitly, if $f$ is holomorphic for $0<|z-a|<\rho$, write its Laurent series asThis one Laurent coefficient determines the contour integral around a sufficiently small counterclockwise circle about $a$. A complicated local Laurent series can therefore leave a remarkably simple answer after one complete trip around the point.

For a simple pole, multiplying by $z-a$ removes the pole, leaving a holomorphic extension whose value at $a$ is the residue:There is a useful shortcut for a quotient $f=g/h$. If $g$ and $h$ are holomorphic near $a$, $h$ has a simple zero there, and $g(a)\ne 0$, then $f$ has a simple pole andThe first-order Taylor series of $h$ explains the denominator: dividing $h(z)$ by $z-a$ leaves its derivative at $a$ in the limit. This computes a residue without finding the full Laurent series, which is especially useful when the numerator or denominator is complicated. ^[ref]

For example, the rational function $f(z)=1/(z^2+1)$ has simple poles at $i$ and $-i$. Factoring the denominator makes both residues immediately visible:The signs matter: these residues cancel when both poles are enclosed, but either one contributes when enclosed alone. The residue theorem below turns this distinction into different contour integrals of the same function.

A residue is not the same thing as a pole, nor does it measure the order of a pole. The function $1/z^2$ has a double pole at zero but residue zero. Conversely,has an essential singularity at zero and residue one. Infinitely many negative powers cause no difficulty in reading off that particular Laurent coefficient. At a removable singularity the residue is zero. ^[ref]

Why does only this Laurent coefficient survive? Parametrize a counterclockwise circle by $z=a+r{e}^{it}$, $0\le t\le 2\pi$, with $0<r<\rho$. For every integer $n$,When $n\ne -1$, the complex exponential completes a whole number of turns and its contributions cancel; when $n=-1$, it is constant. Uniform convergence of the Laurent series on this circle justifies termwise integration, giving $\oint f(z)dz=2\pi i\mathrm{Res}(f,a)$. Thus the residue isolates exactly the local information that a closed contour integral detects. ^[ref]

This selection rule explains why a very large value near an isolated singularity need not produce a large contour integral. The double pole $1/z^2$ grows faster near zero than $1/z$, yet its contributions around a circle cancel completely. What matters is the arrangement of complex values along the path, including the differential $dz$, rather than their moduli alone. A residue records that surviving contribution, not the size of the function near the point.

Let $\Gamma$ be a piecewise smooth contour forming a simple closed curve, positively oriented: travel counterclockwise, with the interior on the left. Suppose $f$ is holomorphic on an open set containing $\Gamma$ and its interior, except at finitely many isolated singularities $a_1,\dots ,a_m$ strictly inside. ThenNo isolated singularity may lie on $\Gamma$: the ordinary contour integral must be defined there. Reversing the direction of the contour reverses the sign of the answer. The theorem applies to essential singularities as well as poles. ^[ref]

Return to $f(z)=1/(z^2+1)$. A counterclockwise circle $|z|=2$ encloses both simple poles, soYet $f$ is nonzero everywhere it is defined. A zero contour integral does not imply a zero function, or even absence of poles: the enclosed residues can cancel. By contrast, the counterclockwise circle $|z-i|=1/2$ encloses only $i$, givingThe picture compares these two selections. Changing the shape of a contour while keeping the same enclosed poles leaves the contour integral unchanged, provided the contour deformation stays where $f$ is holomorphic.

This is the practical appeal of the residue theorem: local Laurent coefficients determine a global contour integral. For a rational function, a few simple pole computations can replace a long parametrized calculation. It also makes real improper integrals accessible by treating the real line as part of a closed contour in the complex plane.

To compute $I={\int }_{-\infty }^{\infty }dx/(1+x^2)$, take $R>1$ and travel along the real line from $-R$ to $R$, then return along the upper semicircle $A_R$, parametrized by $z=R{e}^{it}$ for $0\le t\le \pi$. This contour is positively oriented and encloses the simple pole $i$ only; $-i$ is outside. HenceThe added arc must be controlled before taking a limit. On $A_R$, the reverse triangle inequality gives $|z^2+1|\ge R^2-1$, and the arc length is $\pi R$. The estimation lemma therefore yieldsThe denominator grows quadratically while the arc length grows only linearly. This quantitative comparison, rather than a sketch alone, explains why closing the contour does not alter the limiting real improper integral. It even supplies an error bound: the difference between $\pi$ and the finite real integral is at most $\pi R/(R^2-1)$.

For a numerical check, $R=10$ gives the finite real integral $2\arctan (10)\approx 2.94226$, leaving about $0.19934$ to reach $\pi$. The arc bound is $10\pi /99\approx 0.31733$, comfortably larger than that error. The graph shows both quantities approaching zero. The exact tail here can be checked with the antiderivative $\arctan x$; the residue theorem method remains useful for improper integrals where a convenient real antiderivative is unavailable.

Finally, both one-sided improper integrals converge absolutely: for $|x|\ge 1$, $0<1/(1+x^2)\le 1/x^2$, whose tails are integrable. Thus the symmetric limit computes the ordinary improper integral, not merely a Cauchy principal value, andClosing below instead would enclose the simple pole $-i$. With the same left-to-right traversal of the real line, that contour is clockwise, so its contour integral is $-2\pi i\mathrm{Res}(f,-i)=\pi$ again. This provides a useful sign check: the opposite residue is accompanied by the opposite direction around the enclosed region.

The same strategy extends to many other rational functions: choose a contour, identify its enclosed isolated singularities, compute their residues, and bound the added pieces. The choice of contour and the bound are as much part of the calculation as the residues. ^[ref]