Complex Analysis 16 | Isolated Singularities

Поділитися
Вставка
  • Опубліковано 21 жов 2024

КОМЕНТАРІ • 22

  • @Heisenberg8307
    @Heisenberg8307 2 роки тому +26

    When we needed him the most, he comes back.

  • @jaimelima2420
    @jaimelima2420 2 роки тому +6

    sin(z)/z^n, sin(1/z) ... These are famous functions! Thanks for putting this course together.

  • @gabrielluiz1768
    @gabrielluiz1768 2 місяці тому

    This channel is a treasure

    • @brightsideofmaths
      @brightsideofmaths  2 місяці тому

      Thank you very much :) And thank you for your support!

  • @wocalssss
    @wocalssss 7 місяців тому +2

    Thank you father,you save my exam

  • @kaspernordenram7832
    @kaspernordenram7832 2 роки тому +4

    Amazing series! Please keep making the videos :)

  • @mnada72
    @mnada72 2 роки тому +1

    Thank you for the great series here 💯

  • @premkumar-so3ff
    @premkumar-so3ff Рік тому +2

    Amazing but in definition of isolated singularity your showing the point z0 doesn't belong to open set U but in picture you drawn inside domain U? Or you meant the empty part as U?

  • @nohaivce2614
    @nohaivce2614 Рік тому +1

    these videos are so great and super helpful! thank you so much:))

  • @hasithanipun4609
    @hasithanipun4609 Рік тому +1

    Thank you so much!!!!!

  • @luismaestres5050
    @luismaestres5050 6 місяців тому

    Hello. Once I saw this video, I had a question, why does 1/z^2 has a pole in z = 0 of order 2 since the principal part of its Laurent series is 1/z^2?

    • @brightsideofmaths
      @brightsideofmaths  6 місяців тому +1

      Yes, the Laurent series is 1/z^2, so it's a pole of order 2.

    • @luismaestres5050
      @luismaestres5050 6 місяців тому

      @@brightsideofmaths But why is that true? Sorry for asking.

    • @brightsideofmaths
      @brightsideofmaths  6 місяців тому

      What do you mean? It's just the definition :)

    • @luismaestres5050
      @luismaestres5050 6 місяців тому

      @@brightsideofmaths Yes, I misread the definition, since the order is the greatest k such that c_-k is zero without including that maximum (assuming it exists). Thanks for clarify it.

    • @brightsideofmaths
      @brightsideofmaths  6 місяців тому +1

      @@luismaestres5050 You did it by yourself :)