If is holomorphic on and inside a simple closed contour , then . If is inside ,
The value at an interior point is determined entirely by the boundary values.
Why this is asked: Pick the right tool: Cauchy's theorem (no singularities inside) vs the integral formula (one simple pole) vs residues (several). Simple connectedness is what makes ∮ = 0.
On a simply connected domain every closed contour integral of a holomorphic function vanishes, the single exception is where all the content lives, and the integral formula turns that exception into a machine for evaluating functions and their derivatives.
Because "simply connected" is the hypothesis candidates skip, and because almost every contour integral in the paper reduces to one computation — round a circle — which is for every integer except . A candidate who knows that one fact and where the singularities are can do most of this topic without integrating anything.
For a contour and continuous , .
The ML inequality bounds it: where bounds on and is the length. Crude, and it proves more of this topic than anything else.
Round , parametrise , so and
Note what is special: not that is negative — integrates to as well — but that is the one power whose antiderivative, , cannot be defined single-valuedly around the origin. Everything else has a single-valued antiderivative and so integrates to zero round any loop.
Cauchy–Goursat. If is holomorphic on a simply connected domain , then for every closed contour in .
The hypothesis is about the domain, not the function. is holomorphic on , perfectly well behaved everywhere it is defined, and . Nothing is wrong with ; the domain has a hole and the loop cannot be shrunk past it.
The practical consequence is deformation: a contour may be moved freely as long as it does not cross a singularity. So any loop winding once around the origin gives , whatever its shape, and this is what lets you replace an awkward contour with a circle.
If is holomorphic on and inside a positively oriented simple closed contour , and is inside , then
The values on the contour determine every value inside — a rigidity with no real-variable analogue. If lies outside, the integrand is holomorphic inside and the integral is instead. Which of the two applies is decided entirely by where sits, and that is the commonest way these questions are made.
Differentiating under the integral gives
and with it the fact that a holomorphic function is infinitely differentiable — one derivative buys all of them, which is false in every real-variable sense.
From the formula and ML, if on then
Everything in the next chapter — Liouville, the fundamental theorem of algebra, the characterisation of polynomials by growth — comes out of letting here.
With more than one bad point inside, split by partial fractions. For round : each term contributes times its coefficient, giving . This is the residue theorem arriving early, and partial fractions will answer most questions before you need it formally.
" is holomorphic on the domain, so ." on . The missing hypothesis is simple connectedness of the domain, and it is missing in the option rather than in the function. This is the topic's central hypothesis dropped.
" for some closed contour, so is holomorphic." , and on the unit circle , giving — but take round a contour not enclosing the origin and you get from a nowhere-holomorphic function. One vanishing integral proves nothing; Morera needs it for every triangle, plus continuity.
"The integral formula gives wherever is." Only for inside. Outside, the answer is . Half the options in this topic are the same integral with the point moved.
" because the exponent is negative." It is . Only survives, because only lacks a single-valued antiderivative.
" holomorphic inside is enough." The theorem asks for holomorphic on and inside. A singularity sitting on the contour itself invalidates it, and that case is set deliberately.
"Deformation lets me move the contour anywhere." Anywhere it does not cross a singularity. Crossing one changes the answer, which is precisely what the winding number counts.
See it move
More in Cauchy Theory
Take it further
Last revised . Found a mistake? Tell us — corrections are the fastest thing we act on.
Next: Liouville, Morera, maximum modulus principle
Create a free account to keep your place and have this feed your study plan.
Open this in the full syllabus view · Unit 2