2.4Rational Functions
Chapter (PDF)A rational function is the quotient of two polynomials:
For simplicity, suppose is simplified fully, and so and share no common factors. We will say at the zeros of , where . The zeros at are referred to as the poles of , and the order of a pole is defined to be the order/multiplicity of the root of .
Note that, for , we have that
Note that if is a pole of , then is also a pole for —we seek to understand how differentiation affects the order of a pole. Write , where is the order of . Then note
where is the residual polynomial such that . Thus has order .
We note the value of a rational function at a pole is at . But what about the behavior of a rational function at ? That is, how do we determine if a rational function has a pole at ?
We can let and observe , but this wouldn't determine the order of a pole at . Instead, we define , and observe what happens to as . This is perfect to determine the behavior of at .
For some arbitrary rational function, note
Accordingly, if , then with order . If , then has a pole of order . If , then .
Again, write in its presentation as in the last remark, where and . In the finite plane , we note has zeros and poles.
Now let's consider this in the one-point compactification of the plane, . If , we have a zero at of order ; if , we have a pole of order ; if , we have neither. In any case, it follows that the number of zeros and the number of poles of , as considered in the infinite plane, coincide and are equivalent to . We say that the order of a rational function is the number of zeros/poles it has in the infinite plane.
Note that if has order , then obviously also has order .
We seek to show that any rational function has a partial fraction decomposition. Partial fraction decomposition is a method to encode the behavior of at its poles.
To start, suppose has a pole at . Then , and so by long division, we have that
where . What we have done is split as the sum of two parts: one part that blows up at (this encodes the behavior of at ), and one part that is finite at . After normalizing so that , we say is the singular part of at , whereas is the finite part at . This terminology applies to other poles, as we will soon see.
Now let denote the distinct, finite poles of . To create a decomposition similar to the one at , we use a transformation that sends to . is the appropriate transformation, since when writing , the point corresponds to a pole at . We now apply this type of decomposition
where is the singular part of at and is the finite part.
Finally, we seek to show
Define
We will first show has no poles. We notice immediately the only candidates at which has a pole are .
We first observe how behaves at each . First, write
Note the first term reduces to , which is finite at the pole, and and the sum do not diverge at . Thus does not have a pole at . Now, observe how behaves at . Note , which is finite, and the other terms are also finite as . Thus has no pole at and thus has no poles at all.
The only rational functions that have no poles are identically constant. Absorbing this constant into , we have proven