Complex Variables - Zeros of Analytic Functions

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of analytic functions, specifically focusing on the extension of the argument principle and the behavior of inverse functions in complex analysis. Participants explore the implications of these principles in proving certain integral identities and the analyticity of inverse functions.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks clarification on extending the argument principle to show a relationship involving analytic functions and their zeros and poles.
  • Another participant proposes a method of proof involving factorization of the function and integration, suggesting that this leads to the desired result.
  • A later reply expresses understanding of the previous explanation.
  • Another participant raises a question about showing that the inverse function is analytic, providing a series of substitutions and reasoning about the zeros of the function.
  • One participant challenges the assumption that the inverse function is necessarily analytic, noting that analytic functions with analytic inverses are specifically biholomorphic, and discusses the implications of injectivity on the existence of unique zeros.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the analyticity of the inverse function and the conditions under which the argument principle applies. There is no consensus on the final characterization of the inverse function's analyticity.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the injectivity of the function and the specific conditions under which the argument principle is applied. The discussion also highlights the need for careful consideration of the properties of analytic functions and their inverses.

joypav
Messages
149
Reaction score
0
Studying for my complex analysis final. I think this should be a simple question but wanted some clarification.

"Extend the formula

$$\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_\omega \frac{h'(z)}{h(z)}\, dz = \sum_{j=1}^N n_j - \sum_{k=1}^M m_k$$

to prove the following.

Let $g$ be analytic on a domain containing $\omega$ and its inside. Then

$$\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_\omega \frac{h'(z)}{h(z)}g(z)dz = \sum_{i=1}^N g(z_i) - \sum_{j=1}^M g(w_j)$$

where $z_1,...,z_N$ are the zeros of h and $w_1,...,w_M$ are the poles of h inside $\omega$, each listed according to its multiplicity."

Does this just utilize the theorem that states that

$\displaystyle \frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_\omega \frac{h'(z)}{h(z)}\, dz =$ number of zeros of h inside $\omega$ - number of poles of h inside $\omega$?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi joypav,

A method of proof used to prove the argument principle applies to the generalized theorem. Namely, factorize

$$h(z) = \frac{(z - z_1)\cdots (z - z_N)}{(z - w_1)\cdots (z - w_M)} f(z)$$

where $f$ is analytic and zero-free on an open neighborhood of $\omega$.

$$\frac{h'(z)}{h(z)}g(z) = \sum_{i = 1}^N \frac{g(z)}{z - z_i} - \sum_{j = 1}^M \frac{g(z)}{z - w_j} + \frac{f'(z)}{f(z)}g(z)$$

Integrate both sides over $\omega$, divide by $2 i\pi$, and use Cauchy's integral formula and Cauchy's theorem to establish

$$\frac{1}{2i\pi} \int_\omega \frac{h'(z)}{h(z)} = \sum_{i = 1}^N g(z_i) - \sum_{j = 1}^M g(w_j)$$
 
Got it... thank you
 
Following this same question... I want to show that
$$\displaystyle f^{-1}(w)=\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_\omega \frac{zf'(z)}{f(z)-w}\, dz $$
where f is analytic and one to one on a domain D.

What I have:

$\omega$ is a piecewise smooth closed curve in D whose inside lies in D. Say $\Omega=f(D)$.
(the final goal is to show that $f^{-1}$ is analytic on $\Omega$)

Let w be a point of $\Omega$.
Let $g(z)=z$ and $h(z)=f(z)-w$.

We know from the previous question,
$$\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_\omega \frac{h'(z)}{h(z)}g(z)dz = \sum_{i=1}^N g(z_i) - \sum_{j=1}^M g(w_j)$$

By making substitutions we get,
$$\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_\omega \frac{f'(z)}{f(z)-w}zdz = \sum_{i=1}^N z_i - \sum_{j=1}^M w_j$$Now it seems like I am almost done. Is this correct so far?
I'm not sure how why the right side is equivalent to $f^{-1}(w)$, or if I am even on the right track.
We know,
$$h(z)=f(z)+w$$
$$f(z)=h(z)-w$$
$$f^{-1}(z)=h^{-1}(z-w)$$
$$f^{-1}(w)=h^{-1}(0)$$
And h has zeros ${z_1,...,z_N}$
I thought that may be how I can show their equivalence?
 
The inverse function $f^{-1}$ need not be analytic. In fact, analytic functions with analytic inverses are called biholomorphisms (some call them analytic isomorphisms).

The injectivity of $f$ implies $f(z) - w$ has a unique zero, say $z_0$. Since $f$ is analytic, $f(z) - w$ has no poles. Furthermore, $f'(z)$ equals the derivative of $f(z) - w$. So by the generalized argument principle, your integral equals $z_0$, which is $f^{-1}(w)$.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K