Basic Complex Analysis: Maximum Modulus?

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that two holomorphic functions, f and g, in the unit disc are identical given certain conditions, including that their magnitudes are equal on the boundary and they share a value at a specific point. The user suggests defining a new function h = f/g, noting that h(1) = 1 and |h(z)| = 1 on the boundary. They express uncertainty about applying the maximum modulus principle to conclude that h(z) must equal 1 throughout the disc. The conversation touches on the implications of the maximum modulus and minimum modulus theorems, particularly in relation to the non-vanishing property of h. The user also references a separate mathematical problem, indicating a broader engagement with complex analysis topics.
snipez90
Messages
1,095
Reaction score
5

Homework Statement


Let f and g be two holomorphic functions in the unit disc D1 = {z : |z| < 1}, continuous in D1, which do not vanish for any value of z in the closure of D1. Assume that |f(z)| = |g(z)| for every z in the boundary of D1 and moreover f(1) = g(1). Prove that f and g are the same function.


Homework Equations


Maximum modulus?


The Attempt at a Solution


Last one for now.

Okay I had enough sense to gather from the hint that f and g don't vanish that I should define h = f/g. Then h(1) = 1, |h(z)| = 1 for z on the boundary of D1. Now I feel like maximum modulus will give that h(z) = 1 on D1, but I'm making a logical leap. Can someone help me out here? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Since |h(z)|=1 on the boundary, what does that tell you about |h(z)| in the interior? Since |h(z)| then achieves its maximum in the interior, what does that tell you about h(z)? Now use h(1)=1.
 
By maximum modulus, |h(z)| \leq 1 in the interior. But why does |h(z)| achieve a maximum in the interior?
 
There's an analogous minimum modulus theorem as well isn't there? Since h(z) doesn't vanish, replace h(z) with 1/h(z).
 
Gotcha, I considered 1/|h| and things came together, but yes that does give you minimum modulus I guess. Thanks.

If you don't mind could you take a look at

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=484067

to spot check the proof? The method I chose seemed like the easiest way to estimate the derivatives.

Also that Frobenius eigenvalue problem that I showed you awhile back had a deeper solution than the method we agreed on (which was like raising the linear operator to the 7th power). I think I also made a miscalculation but I might post again if I get around to thinking about it again. Of course nothing of the sort actually showed up on the final.
 
I don't remember any Frobenius eigenvalue thing. Can you remind me?
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
723
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K