MHB Holomorphic function and an open disc

  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen88
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Disc Function
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving that a holomorphic function f, with a constant real part in an open disc U, must also be constant throughout U. The proof utilizes the Cauchy-Riemann equations, demonstrating that if the real part is constant, the imaginary part must also be constant, leading to the conclusion that f is constant. The essential property of the open disc U is its connectedness, which ensures that local constancy implies global constancy. For the third part, an example of a disconnected set, such as the union of two disjoint open balls, is suggested to illustrate where the conclusion fails. Overall, the discussion emphasizes the importance of the connectedness of the domain in the behavior of holomorphic functions.
Stephen88
Messages
60
Reaction score
0
Now the function f is holomorphic in an open disc U and that Re( f ) is
constant in U. I'm trying to show that
1)f must be constant in U.
2) the essential property of the disc U that it used here
3) an example of an open set U for which the conclusion fails.

Let f=u+vi where u is a constant.Since f is holomorphic by the Cauchy–Riemann equations->
u_x=v_y and u_y=-v_x but since u is a constant u_x=u_y=0 => 0=v_y =-v_x...therefore f is constant.
The disc U has to be open,as in:U(a,r)={z:|z-a|<r}.
Is this correct?What should I do for the last part?
Thank you
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Note that your proof of 1) actually uses the fact that the disc is connected as well as the fact that it is open.

$U$ open implies that given $p\in U$ we must have $\varepsilon > 0$ such that $B_{\varepsilon} (p) \subseteq U$. But $B_{\varepsilon} (p)$ is convex , thus $v(x) - v(p) = \bigtriangledown v (c) \cdot (x-p) = 0$ for some $c\in B_{\varepsilon} (p)$ (*) and so $v(x) = v(p)$ for all $x\in B_{\varepsilon} (p)$. Thus $u$ is locally constant, and each set $v^{-1}\left(\{a\}\right)$ is open for $a\in \mathbb{R}$, so if $U$ were connected, $v$ can take only one value (because otherwise our connected set would be the union of 2 or more disjoint non-empty open sets, which is a contradiction).

So if you want to solve (3) look at a disconnected set (for instance, the union of 2 disjoint open balls).

Here: $B_{\varepsilon}(p) := \{z \in \mathbb{C} : |z-p| < \varepsilon\}$

(*) Mean value theorem for the function $g(t) = v\left(p\cdot (1-t) + x\cdot t\right) $ , $g: [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}$. This makes sense since we are working on the convex set $B_{\varepsilon} (p)$.
 
Last edited:
I want to add something to what PaulRS said.

Paul showed that f must be locally-constant. Here is a generalization of his statement.

Here is a purely topological exercise. Show that if f is locally constant on U then it must mean that f is constant on the connected component of U. In particular if U is connected then f is constant on U.
 
Last edited:
ThePerfectHacker said:
I want to add something to what PaulRS said.

Paul showed that f must be locally-constant. Here is a generalization of his statement.

Here is a purely topological exercise. Show that if f is locally constant on U then it must mean that f is constant on the connected component of U. In particular if U is connected then f is constant on U.
This is a good exercise because of how often it shows up in things like complex analysis/differential geometry. A similar exercise which is much simpler, but actually comes up even more than the exercise TPH suggested is the trivial matter that continuous maps from connected spaces to discrete spaces are constant. Useful for proving that different branches of the logarithm differ from each other by a constant multiple of $2\pi i$.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
8K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
19K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K