Analytic mapping from disk to disk must be rational

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Grothard
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disk Mapping Rational
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of analytic functions defined on the open unit disk that map the disk onto itself multiple times. Participants explore whether such functions must be rational and the implications of the number of preimages under these mappings.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that if an analytic function f(z) maps the unit disk onto itself k times, it must be proven that f(z) is a rational function and that the degree of its denominator cannot exceed k.
  • Another participant suggests that under the given conditions, k might only be 1, leading to a focus on automorphisms of the unit disk, specifically fractional linear transformations.
  • A participant questions whether the function f(z) = z^2 meets the conditions, noting that it has two preimages for some points but only one for zero, raising the issue of whether multiplicities should be considered.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the consideration of multiplicities in counting preimages, with a participant expressing uncertainty about how to demonstrate that any arbitrary analytic function covering the unit disk must be rational.
  • Another participant mentions the absence of multiplicities in their counting of preimages, indicating a potential point of contention in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of k being equal to 1 and the implications of multiplicities in counting preimages. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the proof that an arbitrary analytic function under the given conditions must be rational.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the assumptions made about the nature of preimages and the definitions of rational functions in this context. The discussion does not resolve the mathematical steps needed to prove the claims made.

Grothard
Messages
26
Reaction score
0
Let f(x) be a function which is defined in the open unit disk (|z| < 1) and is analytic there. f(z) maps the unit disk onto itself k times, meaning |f(z)| < 1 for all |z| < 1 and every point in the unit disk has k preimages under f(z). Prove that f(z) must be a rational function. Furthermore, show that the degree of its denominator cannot exceed k.

If this was limited to k=1 I think we could use the Riemann mapping theorem, but for larger k I am quite lost. How does one go about proving that an arbitrary analytic function with these givens must be rational? I've seen a form of this question in several places, but I still can't grasp how one would tackle such a problem.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think under these hypotheses, probably k must be 1. and then we are concerned with automorphisms of the unit disc, all fractional linear transformations.
 
mathwonk said:
I think under these hypotheses, probably k must be 1. and then we are concerned with automorphisms of the unit disc, all fractional linear transformations.

What about f(z)=z^2. This seems to satisfy the conditions? Except of course that 0 only has 1 preimage. It does have 2 preimage counting multiplicity, so I wonder whether to count the preimages with multiplicity or not.
 
micromass said:
What about f(z)=z^2. This seems to satisfy the conditions? Except of course that 0 only has 1 preimage. It does have 2 preimage counting multiplicity, so I wonder whether to count the preimages with multiplicity or not.

I do believe we should consider the multiplicity; my language was imprecise as I was paraphrasing the problem I've encountered in several sources before. I think f(z)=z^n are precisely the types of functions we are looking for. But I have no clue how to show that any arbitrary analytic function that covers the unit disk in this way must be rational. I feel like there's a theorem I'm missing.
 
i was using the fact that he did not use multiplicities for counting preimages.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
8K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K