[Help]Cauchy-Riemann Equations Proof

  • Thread starter kostas230
  • Start date
  • #1
96
3

Main Question or Discussion Point

Can someone give me a proof of the of Cauchy-Riemann equations? I understand how a differentiable complex function f(x,y)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y) satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann equations. How do we prove that if a complex function satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann equations, then it's differentiable. I didn't quite get the proof of Churchill's book, and I'm looking for a more elegant thought. Thanks in advance :)
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
136
1
Well. I'm only familiar with the proof in the: if f is differentiable, then f satisfies cauchy riemann equations. The converse, Is actually a bit more complicated.
 
  • #3
86
0
Eh a not so delicate way is:
[itex]u(x + dx, y + dy) - u(x, y)= \frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{x}}dx + \frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{y}}dy[/itex]. The same can be written for v.
Then using the Equation to write [itex]df = (\frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{x}} + i\frac{\partial{v}}{\partial{x}})(dx + idy)[/itex]. then we can see [itex](\frac{\partial{u}}{\partial{x}} + i\frac{\partial{v}}{\partial{x}})[/itex] is independent of the direction you choose, hence differentiable.

Don't know if it is completely correct...
 
Last edited:
  • #4
150
0
How do we prove that if a complex function satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann equations, then it's differentiable.
This as stated is actually not true. We also need to assume that the partial derivatives are continuous.
 
  • #5
96
3
This as stated is actually not true. We also need to assume that the partial derivatives are continuous.
My bad. Sorry :shy:
OK, let's assume that its partial derivatives are continuous. How do we prove that it's differentiable? I was thinking a straightforward proof using the definition of the derivative, but I don't think it's gonna give me any good result...
 
  • #6
1,763
124
Well, the big idea here is that a linear transformation acts on R^2, just like multiplication by a complex number does if it satisfies the Cauchy-Riemann equations. So, basically, it's condition for a linear transformation to be a dilation (i.e. a rotation composed with rescaling). That's probably the main thing to understand. You're just applying this fact to the differential of a function from R^2 to R^2.

Going from complex differentiability to this condition isn't too bad. The converse has some technical details to prove rigorously. If you want more intuition, read Visual Complex Analysis.
 

Related Threads on [Help]Cauchy-Riemann Equations Proof

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
873
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
776
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
23
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Top