I noted that if [itex]f : C \to C[\itex] is holomorphic in a subset [itex]D \in C[\itex], then [itex]\nabla \by \hat{f} = 0, \nabla \dot \hat{f} = 0[\itex]. Moreover, those two expressions are equivalent to the Cauchy-Riemann equations.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'm rewriting this in plaintext, in case latex doesn't render properly. I'm not sure if I'm using it correctly.

If f : C -> C is holomorphic in a subset D in C, then div conj(f) = 0, and rot conj(f) = 0, where conj(f) is the complex conjugate of f. These expressions should be though of formally, admitting that f(x+iy) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y) "=" (u(x, y), v(x, y)). Note that this is exactly the same as saying that the Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied.

So does this show up somewhere? Is it an important consequence? Does it have any physical interpretation?

**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!

# Curl and divergence of the conjugate of an holomorphic function

Can you offer guidance or do you also need help?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

Loading...

Similar Threads for Curl divergence conjugate |
---|

I Divergent series question |

A Angular Moment Operator Vector Identity Question |

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