Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Holomorphic function on a connected bounded open subset of the complex plane

+2
−0

Problem. Let $\Omega$ be a bounded open subset of $\mathbb{C}$, and $\varphi: \Omega \rightarrow \Omega$ a holomorphic function. Prove that if there exists a point $z_0 \in \Omega$ such that $$ \varphi\left(z_0\right)=z_0 \quad \text { and } \quad \varphi^{\prime}\left(z_0\right)=1 $$ then $\varphi$ is linear.

This exercise (Exercise 9 in Chapter 2) from Complex Analysis by Stein-Shakarchi is intended to be solved using Cauchy's Theorem or its corollaries presented in the chapter.

However, the authors omitted the assumption that $\Omega$ is connected. This assumption is necessary, as a counterexample can easily be constructed by defining $\varphi(z) = z^2$ on the connected components that do not contain $z_0$.

The textbook provides a critical hint for solving the problem:

Hint: Why can one assume that $z_0=0$ ? Write $\varphi(z)=z+a_n z^n+O\left(z^{n+1}\right)$ near 0 , and prove that if $\varphi_k=\varphi \circ \cdots \circ \varphi$ (where $\varphi$ appears $k$ times), then $\varphi_k(z)=$ $z+k a_n z^n+O\left(z^{n+1}\right)$. Apply the Cauchy inequalities and let $k \rightarrow \infty$ to conclude the proof. Here we use the standard $O$ notation, where $f(z)=O(g(z))$ as $z \rightarrow 0$ means that $|f(z)| \leq C|g(z)|$ for some constant $C$ as $|z| \rightarrow 0$.

Comments on the hint:

  • The reduction to assuming $z_0 = 0$ is a fairly standard step for experienced readers but may appear mysterious to beginners. Understanding the details of "WLOG" (Without Loss of Generality) part in various arguments is rewarding.

  • The hint mentions the standard big O notation in its asymptotic form. In number theory, a non-asymptotic form, where the inequality $|f(z)| \le C|g(z)|$ holds for all $z$ in the domain, is frequently used.


I will write my solution to the problem below. Alternative approaches or broader insights beyond the original question are also welcome.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

Is that hint really valid? (2 comments)

1 answer

+2
−0

First, as noted in the problem statement, we should explicitly assume that $\Omega$ is connected.

Now, let’s proceed with the reduction suggested in the hint, specifically assuming $z_0 = 0$.

If $z_0\ne 0$, we can consider the holomorphic function $\psi: \tilde{\Omega} \to \tilde{\Omega}$ where $$\psi(z) = \varphi(z + z_0) - z_0,$$ with $\tilde{\Omega} = \Omega - z_0 := \{z - z_0 : z \in \Omega\}$, which shifts the original domain. This transformation ensures that $\psi(0) = 0$ and $\psi'(0) = 1$. If we can show that $\psi$ is linear, i.e., $\psi(z) = z$, given the conditions at $0$, it follows that $\varphi(z) = \psi(z - z_0) + z_0 = z$, which is the desired result.

For beginners, it's important to avoid sloppy reasoning that does not properly extend the conclusion of the general case from the special case.

Another useful reduction is through analytic continuation, which allows us to restrict our proof to the neighborhood of $0$. If we can show that $\varphi(z) = z$ near $0$, the result holds for the entire domain.

Given the conditions, we can express $\varphi(z)$ near $0$ as: $$ \varphi(z) = z + a_n z^n + O(z^{n+1}), $$ where $a_n$ is the coefficient of the first nonzero higher-order term. We aim to show that $a_n = 0$, implying there can be no higher-order terms in the power series.

By induction, as suggested in the hint, we find: $$ \varphi_k(z) = z + k a_n z^n + O(z^{n+1}). $$

Assume this expansion holds in $\overline{D(0,R)}\subset \Omega$ where $D(0,R)$ is the open disc centred at $0$ with radius $R$.

Using the relation between the coefficients of a power series and its derivatives, along with Cauchy's inequalities, we can estimate $k a_n$ in terms of the norm of $\varphi_k$:

$$ |k a_n| = \left|\frac{\varphi_k^{(n)}(0)}{n!}\right| \le \frac{\|\varphi_k\|_{\partial D(0, R)}}{R^n} \le \sup_{z \in \Omega} |\varphi(z)| / R^n\ . $$

Since this holds uniformly in $k$, we conclude that $a_n = 0$, thereby completing the proof.

History
Why does this post require attention from curators or moderators?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »