Talk:Positive-real function

Rational or irrational
Whatever way modern authors may define PR, it is pretty clear that Brune was dealing with rational functions only, and I think the same goes for Cauer, at least in this context.  Sp in ni ng  Spark  23:16, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly Brune explicitly stated that rationality is a requirement of PR. However, the article originally said A function is defined to have the PR property if it has a positive real part and is analytic in the right halfplane of the complex plane and takes on real values on the real axis. This makes no mention of rationality. Also if this is applied to rational functions, then the analytic requirement is entirely redundant (if it's rational and satisfies the positive-real-part condition then it's analytic (because rational implies meromorphic, and positive real part implies no poles, so it's holomorphic, so it's analytic)). The implication was that PR functions do not have to be rational. I'd have followed Brune and said that PR does require rationality, and that the definition originally given in this article was some sort of generalization to non-rational functions. To resolve this apparent difference of opinion, I decided to go to the sources and report what I found. Unfortunately, with some authors I find it very hard to decide whether they intend rationality to be part of the PR definition or a separate condition. They say things like a rational function is PR if..., or refer to rational PR functions. Also some use analytic in the right half plane. Do please help to clarify this. --catslash (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2010 (UTC)