complex-analysis
Let $\Omega$ be a simply connected region in $\mathbb{C}$ and $\gamma$ a closed piecewise continuous differentiable path.
Is there an intuitive explanation why the winding number $\mathrm{ind}_\gamma(\alpha)=0$, $\alpha \in \mathbb{C}\backslash \Omega$, on simply connected regions?
Potato's answer gives you all you need. But I'd like to mention not why these facts are true, but why they should be true. So here's how I like to think about it (all of which can be made precise):
We know that the derivative of the natural log function is $z^{-1}$, so locally the antiderivative of $z^{-1}$ is $\ln$. But since the exponential function is $2\pi i$-periodic, $\ln$ is not well-definied: if we start by defining, say, $\ln(1)$, we have to choose which inverse function to use: should that be $0$, or $2\pi i$, or $-38\pi i$? So we make a choice, and continuing along the unit circle, we define natural log to be the function whose anti-derivative is $z^{-1}$ which is consistent with our original choice. (This can be made precise, and is an example of what is called analytic continuation.) Since the imaginary part of $\ln$ measures argument (angle), an we have been moving in the positive direction the whole time, we see that our function is not consistent: when we get back to $1$ we are $2\pi i$ more than where we started! So although we can locally define $\ln$, we run into trouble trying to define the function on all of $\mathbb{C}\backslash \{0\}$. This same inconsistency, via the fundamental theorem of calculus, explains the residue formula as well: one bound of the integral is given by one choice of $\ln(1)$, and the other bound is evaluated using another choice.
Beardon's book is sadly out of print, but detailed proofs of results concerning the winding number, or the index [incidentally, I don't think that one can distinguish these two terms, at least not in the way attempted in the question, although the same number associated with a plane curve is defined in the literature in two different ways, and the question is therefore an interesting one], can also be found in Chapter 3 of Ash and Novinger, Complex Variables (2004), which is downloadable here.
Because of the importance of the concept, I think it is worth giving a fairly short and straightforward proof from first principles, rather than appealing to a series of general theorems (although that is admittedly more efficient, and it would probably also be worth giving a direct proof of the "fundamental theorem of calculus" for rectifiable paths).
Digression: This is especially so as it is not easy even to find books that bother to treat the case of rectifiable curves. The best-known exception may be Conway, Functions of One Complex Variable I (2nd ed. 1978). Another exception is Garling, A Course in Mathematical Analysis, Vol. III (2014). But even these two books prove the equality in question by using piecewise continuously differentiable approximations to rectifiable curves; and so it is hard, for me at least, to see the wood for the trees. Rudin, in Principles of Mathematical Analysis (3rd ed. 1976), remarks of the concept of rectifiability: "The case $k = 2$ (i.e., the case of plane curves) is of considerable importance in the study of analytic functions of a complex variable." In contrast, in Real and Complex Analysis (3rd ed. 1987), the same author writes: "In this section the required integration theory will be developed; we shall keep it as simple as possible, and shall regard it merely as a useful tool in the investigation of properties of holomorphic functions. [...] A path is a piecewise continuously differentiable curve in the plane." It the latter, more utilitarian view of curves that seems to dominate the literature on complex analysis. (There are some remarks about this in Burckel, An Introduction to Classical Complex Analysis, Vol. 1; but I haven't got that book yet, so I can't say any more about it.) (End of amateur lecture.) :)
Let $[a, b]$ be a compact interval of $\mathbb{R}$, and $\gamma \colon [a, b] \to \mathbb{C}$ a continuous function. The image set $[\gamma] = \gamma([a, b])$ is a compact subset of $\mathbb{C}$, therefore it is closed. Suppose $0 \notin [\gamma]$. Because $[\gamma]$ is closed, there exists $R > 0$ such that the open disc $\mathbb{C}(0, R)$, with centre $0$ and radius $R$, does not intersect $[\gamma]$.
Because $\gamma$ is a continuous function on a compact set, it is uniformly continuous. So there exists a partition of $[a, b]$, \begin{equation} \tag{1}\label{eq:3257640:part:2} a = t_0 < t_1 < \cdots < t_{n-1} < t_n = b, \end{equation} such that $$ |\gamma(t) - \gamma(t')| < R \quad (t_{j-1} \leqslant t < t' \leqslant t_j, \ 1 \leqslant j \leqslant n). $$ Therefore, each of the sets $\gamma([t_{j-1}, t_j])$ is contained in an open disc (of radius $R$) not containing the origin. Because there exists a continuous choice of logarithm on any such disc, a simple inductive proof shows that there exists a continuous function $\lambda \colon [a, b] \to \mathbb{C}$ such that $\gamma(t) = e^{\lambda(t)}$ for all $t \in [a, b]$.
Recall that $e^z = 1 + z + \rho(z)$, where $\rho(z)/z \to 0$ as $z \to 0$.
Take $\epsilon > 0$ such that $|\rho(z)| < |z|/2$ when $0 < |z| < \epsilon$. (For example, we could take $\epsilon = \tfrac{3}{4}$. Not that it matters, of course!) Because $\lambda$ is uniformly continuous, there exists $\delta > 0$ such that $|\lambda(t) - \lambda(t')| < \epsilon$ when $|t - t'| < \delta$. Therefore, \begin{align*} |\gamma(t) - \gamma(t')| & = |e^{\lambda(t)} - e^{\lambda(t')}| \\ & = |e^{\lambda(t')}||e^{\lambda(t) - \lambda(t')} - 1| \\ & = |\gamma(t')||\lambda(t) - \lambda(t') + \rho(\lambda(t) - \lambda(t'))| \\ & \geqslant \frac{R|\lambda(t) - \lambda(t')|}{2} \quad (|t - t'| < \delta). \end{align*} In a partition \eqref{eq:3257640:part:2} (not necessarily with the same values of $t_j$ as before, of course), if $|t_j - t_{j-1}| < \delta$ ($j = 1, \ldots, n$), then $$ \sum_{j=1}^n|\lambda(t_j) - \lambda(t_{j-1})| \leqslant \frac{2}{R}\sum_{j=1}^n|\gamma(t_j) - \gamma(t_{j-1})|. $$ If $\gamma$ is rectifiable, and has length $L \geqslant 0$, it follows that $\lambda$ is rectifiable, and has length at most $2L/R$.
The path integral \begin{equation} \tag{2}\label{eq:3257640:path:2} \int_\gamma \frac{dz}{z} = \int_a^b \frac{d\gamma(t)}{\gamma(t)} \end{equation} exists whenever the complex Riemann-Stieltjes integral on the right is defined. (For a general definition of complex Riemann-Stieltjes integrals, see e.g. Apostol, Mathematical Analysis (2nd ed. 1974).)
Given a partition \eqref{eq:3257640:part:2} - again, it has no necessary relation to previous such partitions - "tagged", as they say, with values $s_j \in [t_{j-1}, t_j]$ ($j = 1, \ldots, n$), the Riemann-Stieltjes sum for the integral on the right of \eqref{eq:3257640:path:2} is: \begin{align} & \phantom{={}} \sum_{j=1}^n\frac{\gamma(t_j) - \gamma(t_{j-1})}{\gamma(s_j)} \notag \\ & = \sum_{j=1}^n\frac{e^{\lambda(t_j)} - e^{\lambda(t_{j-1})}} {e^{\lambda(s_j)}} \notag \\ & = \sum_{j=1}^n\left(e^{\lambda(t_j) - \lambda(s_j)} - e^{\lambda(t_{j-1}) - \lambda(s_j)}\right) \notag \\ & = \sum_{j=1}^n\left[\lambda(t_j) - \lambda(t_{j-1}) + \rho(\lambda(t_j) - \lambda(s_j)) - \rho(\lambda(t_{j-1}) - \lambda(s_j))\right] \notag \\ & = \tag{3}\label{eq:3257640:sum:log} [\lambda(b) - \lambda(a)] + \sum_{j=1}^n\rho(\lambda(t_j) - \lambda(s_j)) - \sum_{j=1}^n\rho(\lambda(t_{j-1}) - \lambda(s_j)). \end{align} To prove that the Riemann-Stieltjes integral \eqref{eq:3257640:path:2} exists, and that it is equal to $\lambda(b) - \lambda(a)$, it is enough (see e.g. Exercise 7.3 of Apostol) to prove that for every $\epsilon' > 0$ there exists $\delta' > 0$ such that if $t_j - t_{j-1} < \delta'$ ($j = 1, \ldots, n$), then \begin{equation} \tag{4}\label{eq:3257640:integral} \left\lvert \sum_{j=1}^n\frac{\gamma(t_j) - \gamma(t_{j-1})}{\gamma(s_j)} - [\lambda(b) - \lambda(a)] \right\rvert < \epsilon'. \end{equation}
If $L = 0$, i.e. if $\gamma$ is constant (a point "curve"), then $\lambda$ is also constant, and \eqref{eq:3257640:integral} is trivially satisfied; so, suppose from now on that $L > 0$; then at least some of the "error" terms in \eqref{eq:3257640:sum:log} are non-zero. Let $\eta > 0$ be such that $$ \frac{|\rho(z)|}{|z|} < \frac{R\epsilon'}{2L} \quad (0 < |z| < \eta). $$ Let $\delta' > 0$ be such that $$ |\lambda(t) - \lambda(t')| < \eta \quad (|t - t'| < \delta'). $$ Then, for any partition \eqref{eq:3257640:part:2} satisfying $t_j - t_{j-1} < \delta'$ ($j = 1, \ldots, n$), tagged with values $s_j \in [t_{j-1}, t_j]$ ($j = 1, \ldots, n$), the "error" in \eqref{eq:3257640:sum:log} is bounded above, thus: \begin{align*} & \phantom{={}} \left\lvert\sum_{j=1}^n\rho(\lambda(t_j) - \lambda(s_j)) - \sum_{j=1}^n\rho(\lambda(t_{j-1}) - \lambda(s_j))\right\rvert \\ & \leqslant \sum_{j=1}^n\left(|\rho(\lambda(t_j) - \lambda(s_j))| + |\rho(\lambda(t_{j-1}) - \lambda(s_j))|\right) \\ & < \frac{R\epsilon'}{2L} \sum_{j=1}^n\left(|\lambda(t_j) - \lambda(s_j)| + |\lambda(t_{j-1}) - \lambda(s_j)|\right) \\ & \leqslant \epsilon'. \end{align*}
We have thus proved $$ \int_\gamma \frac{dz}{z} = \lambda(b) - \lambda(a), $$ on the assumption only that $\gamma$ is rectifiable. If also $\gamma$ is closed, i.e. $\gamma(a) = \gamma(b)$, then $\operatorname{re}\lambda(a) = \operatorname{re}\lambda(b)$, and $\operatorname{im}\lambda(t)$ is a choice of $\operatorname{arg}\gamma(t)$ for $t \in [a, b]$, therefore: $$ \int_\gamma \frac{dz}{z} = 2\pi{i}n(\gamma, 0), $$ where I have used what seems to be the nearest thing to a standard notation for the index, or winding number, of $\gamma$ about $0$.
Best Answer
I assume you mean simply connected rather than "simple", and also that you mean $\mathbb C\setminus \Omega$ rather than the other way around.
In that case it is because by definition of "simply connected" any closed path in a simply connected region is homotopic to a point. The winding number is a continuous function of the curve, and since for a closed curve it is always an integral multiple of $2\pi$ the winding number cannot change during a homotopy, provided that it exists at every intermediate step -- such as here when $\alpha\notin \Omega$.
Since a point (i.e., a constant curve) obviously has winding number 0, so has any closed curve that is homotopic to it.