Cauchy principal value ($\mathrm{PV}\int$)

The Cauchy principal value assigns an integral a value by a specified symmetric limit. Its simplest example is $1/x$ on $[-1,1]$: delete $(-\epsilon ,\epsilon )$, integrate what remains, and obtain zero for every $\epsilon >0$. The positive signed area under a graph cancels the negative one, although each grows without bound as the gap closes. This is a useful cancellation rule, but it does not make the ordinary improper integral exist.

Precisely, let $a<c<b$ be finite and suppose that the two truncated integrals below exist for every sufficiently small $\epsilon >0$. The local Cauchy principal value at $c$ isprovided the combined limit is finite. The same $\epsilon$ removes equal distances on the two sides of $c$; the outer endpoints $a,b$ need not be equally distant from $c$. By contrast, the ordinary improper integral requires both one-sided limits to be finite separately before adding them. Whenever those separate limits exist, the Cauchy principal value agrees with their sum.^[ref]

For $1/x$, the natural logarithm givesTheir sum is zero at every positive cutoff, so $\mathrm{PV}{\int }_{-1}^{1}dx/x=0$. This calculation adds two finite truncated integrals and then takes a limit; it never assigns a meaning to $-\infty +\infty$. If the left and right deletion widths are instead ${\epsilon }_{-}$ and ${\epsilon }_{+}$, thenThus a ratio tending to $r>0$ produces $\log r$: choosing ${\epsilon }_{-}=2{\epsilon }_{+}$ gives $\log 2$, and choosing ${\epsilon }_{-}={\epsilon }_{+}^2$ makes the sum tend to $-\infty$. Both widths can tend to zero without selecting a unique answer. The local Cauchy principal value selects the ratio $1$.

Unequal outer endpoints leave a finite contribution even with symmetric local deletion. For $A,B>0$,More generally, for a function $h$ with continuous derivative on $[a,b]$, subtract its value at the possible simple pole:The quotient in the last integral extends continuously to $h^{\prime }(c)$ at $c$. This formula explains both the cancellation and a practical way to compute it: integrate a continuous remainder instead of subtracting two large, nearly equal divergent contributions.

A finite Cauchy principal value is weaker than absolute convergence. Indeed,Taking the absolute value destroys the cancellation. Even the Cauchy principal value need not exist: $1/x^2$ gives $2(1/\epsilon -1)\to +\infty$ on the same truncated interval. Absolute integrability makes the cutoff prescription unnecessary; an ordinary improper integral can also converge without absolute convergence, as the Dirichlet integral illustrates. The three notions should therefore be checked separately.

There is an independent Cauchy principal value at infinity. For a function integrable on every finite interval, definewhen the limit is finite. The ordinary improper integral instead requires convergence of the two tails separately.^[ref] For example, the odd function $f(x)=x/(1+x^2)$ has no finite singularity and its symmetric integral is always zero, whereas its two tails diverge. Unequal truncations giveLetting $B/A\to r>0$ as $A,B\to \infty$ yields $\log r$. Symmetry at infinity is therefore a separate choice from symmetry near a finite pole. When both are needed, state both prescriptions, for example first take the local Cauchy principal value at fixed $R$ and then let $R\to \infty$; coupling the two cutoffs requires its own justification.

The local cancellation also defines the principal-value reciprocal distribution. Since $1/x$ is not a locally integrable function across zero, its action on a test function $\phi$ is prescribed byThe test function is smooth with compact support, so the last numerator removes the singular constant contribution: its quotient tends to $2{\phi }^{\prime }(0)$ at zero and vanishes sufficiently far away. This defines a distribution, not a finite pointwise value of $1/x$ at zero. It extends to Schwartz functions as a tempered distribution, and is also the distributional derivative of the logarithmic modulus.^[ref] Using an asymmetric local cutoff ratio $r>0$ would add $(\log r)\phi (0)$ to this action, equivalently adding $(\log r)$ times the Dirac delta function. Thus the cutoff choice matters even after passing to distributions.

Why keep this prescription? A Fourier transform naturally encounters such a kernel. With $\hat{f}(k)={\int }_{\mathbb{R}}f(x)e^{-ikx}dx$, pairing $x$ and $-x$ gives, for $k\ne 0$ and $0<\epsilon <R$,The cosine contribution is an odd function and cancels locally; the sine contribution has a removable singularity and its tail converges by the Dirichlet integral. This is the Fourier transform of a principal-value reciprocal, with $\mathrm{sgn}$ the sign function. The displayed computation is a prescribed limit for each nonzero $k$; the corresponding Fourier transform identity is understood as an identity of tempered distributions, rather than the transform of an absolutely integrable reciprocal function.

The Hilbert transform uses exactly this principal-value reciprocal distribution as a convolution kernel. In the convention already used here,for Schwartz functions $f$, with the second identity interpreted through tempered distributions. Hence the singular integral has a simple description as a Fourier multiplier.^[ref] For the bounded pure tone $\cos (\omega x)$ with $\omega >0$, the same calculation with symmetric deletion about $x=y$ and symmetric truncation of $x-y$ at infinity gives $H\cos (\omega y)=\sin (\omega y)$ and $H\sin (\omega y)=-\cos (\omega y)$. These tones lie outside the Schwartz space; their prescribed Cauchy principal values explain the quarter-cycle shift in the figure. Both figures are calculated mathematical illustrations. Reversing the Hilbert denominator reverses these signs; NIST uses that opposite convention.^[ref]

Suppose $q(t)=A/(t-c)+r(t)$, where $r$ is continuous, the pole $c$ is fixed, and differentiable endpoints obey $a(x)<c<b(x)$ locally. ThenApply the chain rule and the fundamental theorem of calculus to getThe same boundary expression as in the Leibniz integral rule thus applies to this explicitly specified Cauchy principal value. If $A\ne 0$, the two ordinary one-sided improper integrals diverge, so their sum is not an ordinary integral. A finite boundary derivative alone does not make that divergent integral meaningful.

For $0<s<a$,