I've come across the following derivation, for example here, for the following Laplace transform of a power:
L{ta}=Γ(a+1)sa+1
For Re(a)>−1,Re(s)>0. The proof I've seen does the following:
L{ta}:=∫→+∞0tae−stdt
=s−1∫?0(us)ae−udu
and so on.
The upperbound of the integral is what I'm questioning. The proofs I've seen have ∞ in the upper bound, but I don't see how you can replace the complex number st with a real number u without making the bounds of the integral complex. But that would turn the Riemann integral into a contour integral! How is that allowed? Is the proof wrong?
Answer
Let s=σ+iω∈C, where σ>0 and ω∈R.
Let I(a,s) be given by the integral
∫∞0tae−stdt=limL→∞∫L0tae−stdt
Now, enforcing the substitution z=st in the integral on the right-hand side of (1) reveals
∫L0tae−stdt=1sa+1∫Lσ+iLω0zae−zdz
Next, we move to the complex plane. Let f(z)=zae−z. If a is not an integer, then za is multivalued and has a branch point at z=0. If we cut the plane along the negative real axis, then za is holomorphic on C∖{z|Re(z)≤0,Im(z)=0}.
Using Cauchy's Integral Theorem, we have
∮Czae−zdz=0
where C is a closed contour, comprised of (i) the line segment from 0 to Lσ, (ii) the line segment from Lσ to Lσ+iLω, and (iii) the line segment from Lσ+iLω to 0. (We also need to deform the contour around the branch point, but the contribution to the integral can be made arbitrarily small).
Therefore, we can write (3) as
∫Lσ0zae−zdz+∫Lσ+iLωLσzae−zdz+∫0Lσ+iLωzae−zdz=0
As L→∞, the second integral on the left-hand side of (4) approaches zero. Therefore, letting L→∞ in (4) yields
∫∞0tae−tdt=limL→∞∫L(σ+iω)0zae−zdz
Putting together (1), (2), and (5) yields the coveted equality
∫∞0tae−stdt=1sa+1∫∞0tae−tdt
And we are done!
No comments:
Post a Comment