9.4: Residues
( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)
In this section we’ll explore calculating residues. We’ve seen enough already to know that this will be useful. We will see that even more clearly when we look at the residue theorem in the next section.
We introduced residues in the previous topic. We repeat the definition here for completeness.
Consider the function
The residue of
What is the importance of the residue? If
This is easy to see by integrating the Laurent series term by term. The only nonzero integral comes from the term
has an isolated singularity at 0. From the Laurent series we see that
(i) Let
(ii) Suppose
where
(iii) Let
Then
(iv) Let
So,
Let
Find the poles and residues of
Solution
Using partial fractions we write
The poles are at
At
Therefore the pole is simple and
At
Therefore the pole is simple and
Let
then we have the following Laurent expansions for
On
Therefore the pole at
On
Even though this is a valid Laurent expansion you must not use it to compute the residue at 0. This is because the definition of residue requires that we use the Laurent series on the region
Let
This has a singularity at
Residues at Simple Poles
Simple poles occur frequently enough that we’ll study computing their residues in some detail. Here are a number of ways to spot a simple pole and compute its residue. The justification for all of them goes back to Laurent series.
Suppose
If the Laurent series for
then
If
is analytic at
- Proof
-
Directly from the Laurent series for
around .
If
This says that the limit exists and equals the residue. Conversely, if the limit exists then either the pole is simple, or
- Proof
-
Directly from the Laurent series for
around .
If
If
- Proof
-
Since
is a simple pole,Since
is analytic,where
. Multiplying these series together it is clear thatThe statement about quotients
follows from the proof for products because is analytic at .
If
- Proof
-
The algebra for this is similar to what we’ve done several times above. The Taylor expansion for
iswhere
. SoThe second factor on the right is analytic at
and equals 1 at . Therefore we know the Laurent expansion of isClearly the residue is
. .
Let
Show all the poles are simple and compute their residues.
Solution
The poles are at
This is analytic at
So the pole is simple and
Let
Find all the poles and their residues.
Solution
The poles of
the zeros are simple and by Property 5 above
Let
Identify all the poles and say which ones are simple.
Solution
Clearly the poles are at
At
is analytic at 0 and
At
is analytic at
At
At
is not analytic at 2, so the pole is not simple. (It should be obvious that it’s a pole of order 2.)
Let
Solution
Since
Since
Residues at finite poles
For higher-order poles we can make statements similar to those for simple poles, but the formulas and computations are more involved. The general principle is the following
If
is analytic at
then
- Proof
-
This is clear using Taylor and Laurent series for
and .
Let
and find the residue at
Solution
We know the Taylor series for
(You can find this using
We see
Note, we could have seen this by realizing that
Let
Find the residue at
Solution
It is clear that
So
Find the residue of
at
Solution
The function
- Proof
-
This has poles at the zeros of sin, i.e. at
. At poles is of the form where has a simple zero at and . Thus we can use the formulaIn our case, we have
as claimed.
Sometimes we need more terms in the Laurent expansion of
. There is no known easy formula for the terms, but we can easily compute as many as we need using the following technique.
Compute the first several terms of the Laurent expansion of
Solution
Since
We also know
Cross multiplying the two expressions we get
We can do the multiplication and equate the coefficients of like powers of
So, starting from
As noted above, all the even terms are 0 as they should be. We have

