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

Post History

66%
+2 −0
Q&A Holomorphic function on a connected bounded open subset of the complex plane

1 answer  ·  posted 4mo ago by Snoopy‭  ·  last activity 4mo ago by Snoopy‭

Question complex-analysis
#4: Post edited by user avatar Snoopy‭ · 2024-08-16T02:17:10Z (4 months ago)
  • > **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](https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691113852/complex-analysis) 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 O notation in its asymptotic form. In number theory, a non-asymptotic form, where the inequality $|f(z)| \le Cg(z)$ 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.
  • > **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](https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691113852/complex-analysis) 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.
#3: Post edited by user avatar Snoopy‭ · 2024-08-15T23:34:08Z (4 months ago)
  • holomorphic function on a connected bounded open subset of $\mathbf{C}$
  • Holomorphic function on a connected bounded open subset of the complex plane
#2: Post edited by user avatar Snoopy‭ · 2024-08-15T21:33:10Z (4 months ago)
  • > **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 O notation in its asymptotic form. In number theory, a non-asymptotic form, where the inequality $|f(z)| \le Cg(z)$ 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.
  • > **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](https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691113852/complex-analysis) 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 O notation in its asymptotic form. In number theory, a non-asymptotic form, where the inequality $|f(z)| \le Cg(z)$ 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.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Snoopy‭ · 2024-08-15T21:25:56Z (4 months ago)
holomorphic function on a connected bounded open subset of $\mathbf{C}$
 > **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 O notation in its asymptotic form. In number theory, a non-asymptotic form, where the inequality $|f(z)| \le Cg(z)$ 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.