Altanis

2.4Rational Functions

Updated 25 Jun 2026Chapter (PDF)

[2.4.1]Definition(Rational Function, Poles)#

A rational function R(z)R(z) is the quotient of two polynomials:

R(z)=P(z)Q(z).R(z) = \frac{P(z)}{Q(z)}.

For simplicity, suppose R(z)R(z) is simplified fully, and so PP and QQ share no common factors. We will say R(z)=R(z) = \infty at the zeros of Q(z)Q(z), where C^\infty \in \hat{\bC}. The zeros at Q(z)Q(z) are referred to as the poles of R(z)R(z), and the order of a pole is defined to be the order/multiplicity of the root of Q(z)Q(z).

[2.4.2]Remark(Differentiation Increments Order of Pole)#

Note that, for R(z)=P(z)/Q(z)R(z) = P(z)/Q(z), we have that

R(z)=P(z)Q(z)P(z)Q(z)[Q(z)]2.R'(z) = \frac{P'(z)Q(z) - P(z)Q'(z)}{[Q(z)]^2}.

Note that if z0z_0 is a pole of RR, then z0z_0 is also a pole for RR'—we seek to understand how differentiation affects the order of a pole. Write Q(z)=(zz0)nA(z)Q(z) = (z - z_0)^nA(z), where nn is the order of R(z0)R(z_0). Then note

R(z)=P(z)(zz0)nA(z)nP(z)(zz0)n1A(z)[Q(z)]2=(zz0)n1[P(z)(zz0)A(z)nP(z)A(z)](zz0)2nA2(z)=V(z)(zz0)n+1A2(z),\begin{align*} R'(z) &= \frac{P'(z)(z - z_0)^n A(z) - n P(z) (z - z_0)^{n - 1} A'(z)}{[Q(z)]^2} \\ &= \frac{(z - z_0)^{n - 1} [P'(z) (z - z_0) A(z) - n P(z) A'(z)]}{(z - z_0)^{2n} A^2(z)} \\ &= \frac{V(z)}{(z - z_0)^{n + 1} A^2(z)}, \end{align*}

where V(z)V(z) is the residual polynomial such that V(z0)0V(z_0) \ne 0. Thus R(z0)R'(z_0) has order n+1n + 1.

[2.4.3]Remark(Poles at Infinity)#

We note the value of a rational function at a pole is at C^\infty \in \hat{\bC}. But what about the behavior of a rational function at \infty? That is, how do we determine if a rational function R(z)R(z) has a pole at \infty?

We can let zz \to \infty and observe R(z)R(z), but this wouldn't determine the order of a pole at \infty. Instead, we define R1(z)=R(1/z)R_1(z) = R(1/z), and observe what happens to R1R_1 as z0z \to 0. This is perfect to determine the behavior of RR at \infty.

For some arbitrary rational function, note

R(z)=a0+a1z++anznb0+b1z++bmzmR1(z)=zmna0zn+a1zn1++anb0zn+b1zn1++bn.R(z) = \frac{a_0 + a_1 z + \dots + a_n z^n}{b_0 + b_1 z + \dots + b_m z^m} \qquad R_1(z) = z^{m - n} \frac{a_0 z^n + a_1 z^{n - 1} + \dots + a_n}{b_0 z^n + b_1 z^{n - 1} + \dots + b_n}.

Accordingly, if m>nm > n, then R()=0R(\infty) = 0 with order mnm - n. If m<nm < n, then R()R(\infty) has a pole of order nmn - m. If m=nm = n, then R()=an/bmR(\infty) = a_n / b_m.

[2.4.4]Remark(Number of Poles and Zeros Coincide)#

Again, write R(z)=P(z)/Q(z)R(z) = P(z)/Q(z) in its presentation as in the last remark, where deg(P)=n\deg(P) = n and deg(Q)=m\deg(Q) = m. In the finite plane C\bC, we note RR has nn zeros and mm poles.

Now let's consider this in the one-point compactification of the plane, C^=C{}\hat{\bC} = \bC \cup \{\infty\}. If m>nm > n, we have a zero at \infty of order mnm - n; if m<nm < n, we have a pole of order nmn - m; if m=nm = n, we have neither. In any case, it follows that the number of zeros and the number of poles of RR, as considered in the infinite plane, coincide and are equivalent to max(m,n)\max(m, n). We say that the order of a rational function is the number of zeros/poles it has in the infinite plane.

Note that if R(z)R(z) has order pp, then R(z)aR(z) - a obviously also has order pp.

[2.4.5]Remark(Partial Fraction Decomposition in the Infinite Plane)#

We seek to show that any rational function R(z)=P(z)/Q(z)R(z) = P(z)/Q(z) has a partial fraction decomposition. Partial fraction decomposition is a method to encode the behavior of RR at its poles.

To start, suppose RR has a pole at \infty. Then deg(P)>deg(Q)\deg(P) > \deg(Q), and so by long division, we have that

R(z)=G~(z)+S(z)Q(z)=G(z)+(c0+S(z)Q(z))=G(z)+H(z),R(z) = \tilde{G}(z) + \frac{S(z)}{Q(z)} = G(z) + \left(c_0 + \frac{S(z)}{Q(z)} \right) = G(z) + H(z),

where c0=G(0)c_0 = G(0). What we have done is split R(z)R(z) as the sum of two parts: one part that blows up at \infty (this encodes the behavior of RR at \infty), and one part that is finite at \infty. After normalizing GG so that G(0)=0G(0) = 0, we say GG is the singular part of R(z)R(z) at \infty, whereas HH is the finite part at \infty. This terminology applies to other poles, as we will soon see.

Now let λ1,,λn\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_n denote the distinct, finite poles of RR. To create a decomposition similar to the one at \infty, we use a transformation that sends λk\lambda_k to \infty. ζ=(zλk)1\zeta = (z - \lambda_k)^{-1} is the appropriate transformation, since when writing z=λk+ζ1z = \lambda_k + \zeta^{-1}, the point λk\lambda_k corresponds to a pole at \infty. We now apply this type of decomposition

R(λk+1ζ)=Gk(ζ)+Hk(ζ)    R(z)=Gk(λk+1ζ)+Hk(λk+1ζ),R\left(\lambda_k + \frac{1}{\zeta}\right) = G_k(\zeta) + H_k(\zeta) \implies R(z) = G_k\left(\lambda_k + \frac{1}{\zeta}\right) + H_k\left(\lambda_k + \frac{1}{\zeta}\right),

where GkG_k is the singular part of R(z)R(z) at λk\lambda_k and HkH_k is the finite part.

Finally, we seek to show

R(z)=G(z)+k=1nGk(1zλk).R(z) = G(z) + \sum_{k = 1}^n G_k\left(\frac{1}{z - \lambda_k}\right).

Define

f(z)=R(z)G(z)k=1nGk(1zλk).f(z) = R(z) - G(z) - \sum_{k = 1}^n G_k\left(\frac{1}{z - \lambda_k}\right).

We will first show ff has no poles. We notice immediately the only candidates at which ff has a pole are λ1,,λn,\lambda_1, \dots, \lambda_n, \infty.

We first observe how ff behaves at each λk\lambda_k. First, write

f(z)=[R(z)Gk(1zλk)]G(z)k=1,jknGj(1zλk).f(z) = \left[ R(z) - G_k\left(\frac{1}{z - \lambda_k}\right) \right] - G(z) - \sum_{k = 1, j \ne k}^n G_j\left(\frac{1}{z - \lambda_k}\right).

Note the first term reduces to Hk((zλk)1)H_k((z - \lambda_k)^{-1}), which is finite at the pole, and G(z)G(z) and the sum do not diverge at λk\lambda_k. Thus ff does not have a pole at λk\lambda_k. Now, observe how ff behaves at \infty. Note limzR(z)G(z)=limzH(z)\lim_{z \to \infty} R(z) - G(z) = \lim_{z \to \infty} H(z), which is finite, and the other terms are also finite as zz \to \infty. Thus ff has no pole at \infty and thus has no poles at all.

The only rational functions that have no poles are identically constant. Absorbing this constant into G(z)G(z), we have proven

R(z)=G(z)+k=1nGk(1zλk).R(z) = G(z) + \sum_{k = 1}^n G_k\left(\frac{1}{z - \lambda_k}\right).