I'm trying to understand the proof for this theorem:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

The function f(x) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y) is differentiable at a point z= x +iy of a region in the complex plane if and only if the partial derivatives [tex]U_{x}[/tex],[tex]U_{y}[/tex],[tex]V_{x}[/tex],[tex]V_{y}[/tex] are continuos and satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann conditions.

Everything was going GREAT untill I got to this part:

This shows that C-R is necessary, but now we much show that it is also sufficient: that is we must show that if the partials meet the C-R condition then f(z) is differentiable. Once we show this we will have proved the theorem.

If [tex]U_{x}[/tex],[tex]U_{y}[/tex],[tex]V_{x}[/tex],[tex]V_{y}[/tex] are continuous at the point (x, y) then:

[tex]\Delta u = u_{x} \Delta x + u_{y} \Delta y + \epsilon_{1}| \Delta z|[/tex]

[tex]\Delta v = v_{x} \Delta x + v_{y} \Delta y + \epsilon_{2}| \Delta z|[/tex]

Where [tex]| \Delta z|=\sqrt{\Delta x^{2}+\Delta y^{2}}[/tex]

[tex]\mathop{\lim}\limits_{\Delta z \to 0}\epsilon_{1} =\mathop{\lim}\limits_{\Delta z \to 0}\epsilon_{2}=0[/tex]

and

[tex]\Delta u = u(x+ \Delta x, y+ \Delta y)-u(x,y)[/tex]

[tex]\Delta v = v(x+ \Delta x, y+ \Delta y)-v(x,y)[/tex]

Calling [tex]\Delta f = \Delta u + i \Delta v[/tex], we have

[tex]\frac{\Delta f}{\Delta z}=\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta z}+i\frac{\Delta v}{\Delta z}[/tex]

[tex]=u_{x}\frac{\Delta x}{\Delta z}+u_{y}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta z} + iv_{x}\frac{\Delta x}{\Delta z}+iv_{y}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta z}+ (\epsilon_{1} +i\epsilon_{2})\frac{|\Delta z|}{\Delta z}[/tex]

... I was able to make sense of the proof from this point.

I don't see this connection between "If [tex]U_{x}[/tex],[tex]U_{y}[/tex],[tex]V_{x}[/tex],[tex]V_{y}[/tex] are continuous at the point (x, y)" and

[tex]\Delta u = u_{x} \Delta x + u_{y} \Delta y + \epsilon_{1}| \Delta z|[/tex]

[tex]\Delta v = v_{x} \Delta x + v_{y} \Delta y + \epsilon_{2}| \Delta z|[/tex]

So everything after that is just moving deltas around... and I wish I knew why.

Where is this coming from? My book says it's a "famous result from analysis" but that just made me feel dumber for not knowing what it was. (I have not had real analysis, I'm taking it next term.) I looked in a real analysis book but I don't know what to look for... so that didn't work.

Can someone help me understand this step in the proof in a simple way that gets at the big idea behind the step? I have 16 more proofs to study for this midterm, so I don't want to get too bogged down... at the same time I don't want to resort to rote memorization that won't serve me well later when I take analysis and learn what the heck this is all about.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Cauchy-Riemann conditions proof

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**