Complex Analysis and Mobius Transformation.

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof that a Mobius transformation with three fixed points must be the identity transformation. This conclusion is derived from the properties of the group of linear fractional transformations, denoted as 𝓐 (mathcal{M}). The participants reference "Complex Made Simple" by David C. Ullrich, specifically Exercise 8.5, to explore the implications of defining a transformation φ as the composition of inverses of two transformations φ1 and φ2. The argument hinges on the uniqueness of the identity element within the group.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Mobius transformations and their properties
  • Familiarity with group theory concepts, particularly identity and inverse elements
  • Basic knowledge of complex analysis, specifically fixed points
  • Experience with linear fractional transformations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Mobius transformations in detail
  • Explore group theory, focusing on identity and inverse elements
  • Review fixed point theorems in complex analysis
  • Examine additional exercises from "Complex Made Simple" by David C. Ullrich
USEFUL FOR

Students of complex analysis, mathematicians interested in group theory, and anyone studying Mobius transformations and their applications in mathematical proofs.

BrainHurts
Messages
100
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



If \phi \in \mathcal{M} (group of all linear fractional transformations or Mobius Transformations has three fixed points, then it must be the identity. (The proof should exploit the fact that \mathcal{M} is a group.





The Attempt at a Solution



Hi all,

So the book I'm reading is "Complex Made Simple" by David C. Ullrich. and this is Exercise 8.5 if anyone has done this.

Anyway this is what I was thinking.

Let \phi_j \in \mathcal{M} where j = 1,2 and let \phi_j(z_i) = z_i for i = 1,2,3

So we see that z_i = \phi_{j}^{-1}(z_i), we know that \phi_{j}^{-1} since their elements of the group \mathcal{M}

My question would be this, if I define a map \phi = \phi_{2}^{-1} \circ \phi_{1} and show that that \phi_1 = \phi_2 is that enough to show that \phi is the identity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think it is because the identity element and the inverse element is unique.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
905
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K