Holomorphic Function Continuity and Holomorphicity on Real Interval [2,5]

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of a complex function \( f:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C} \) that is continuous everywhere and holomorphic except possibly on the real interval \([2,5]\). Participants explore the implications of these conditions, particularly focusing on proving that \( f \) must be holomorphic at every point of \( \mathbb{C} \) and the methods to demonstrate this, including the use of Cauchy-Goursat and Morera's Theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that if \( f \) is continuous everywhere and holomorphic except on \([2,5]\), it implies \( f \) is continuous in \( \mathbb{C} \) and holomorphic in \( \mathbb{C} - [2,5] \).
  • Others question how to show that \( f \) is holomorphic on \([2,5]\) given the conditions, suggesting the need for a proof strategy.
  • One participant proposes using Morera's Theorem, stating that if \( f \) is continuous on an open set and the integral of \( f \) along the boundary of every closed rectangle in that set is zero, then \( f \) is holomorphic.
  • Another participant raises concerns about modifying existing proofs for finite points to accommodate infinitely many points in the interval \([2,5]\).
  • There is a discussion about handling closed curves that may or may not contain points from \([2,5]\) in their interior, with suggestions on how to divide rectangles for analysis.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on how to approach the proof of holomorphicity on the interval \([2,5]\). There is no consensus on a single method or solution, and multiple strategies are proposed and debated.

Contextual Notes

Participants note limitations in their approaches, such as the need to handle infinitely many points and the specifics of integrating over regions that include or exclude the interval \([2,5]\).

Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
$f:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$ is continuous everywhere, and holomorphic at every point except possibly the points in the interval $[2,5]$ on the real axis. Prove that $f$ must be holomorphic at every point of $\mathbb{C}$.

If it isn't continuous and holomorphic on $[2,5]$, then how can it be holomorphic at every point?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dwsmith said:
If it isn't continuous and holomorphic on $[2,5]$, then how can it be holomorphic at every point?

The hypothesis:

Continuous everywhere, and holomorphic at every point except possibly the points in the interval $[2,5]$ on the real axis.

simply means: continuous in $\mathbb{C}$ and holomorphic in $\mathbb{C}-[2,5]$ .
 
Fernando Revilla said:
The hypothesis:

Continuous everywhere, and holomorphic at every point except possibly the points in the interval $[2,5]$ on the real axis.

simply means: continuous in $\mathbb{C}$ and holomorphic in $\mathbb{C}-[2,5]$ .

So I only need to show it is holomorphic on $[2,5]$ then correct? How do I start showing that?
 
Ok so I know this done by using Cauchy-Goursat rectangle proof, but I am not sure how to proceed.
 
morphism said:
Yes, something like that would work.
So I am trying to use Morera's Theorem:
Let U be an open set in C and let f be continuous on U. Assume that the integral of f along the boundary of every closed rectangle in U is 0. Then f is holomorphic.So let $U = \mathbb{C} - [2,5]$ Let R be rectangles in U which are parallel to the coordinate axes. So $\int_{\partial R} f = 0$.
Now how can I use this?
 
I have this proof for finite points but how would I modify it for infinite many points between [2,5]?

Assume $q(z)$ is any function that is holomorphic on a disc U except at a finite number of points $\xi_1,\ldots, \xi_n\in U$, and assume $\lim_{z\to\xi_j}(z-\xi_j)q(z)=0$ for $1\leq j\leq n$. Let $U'=U-\{\xi_1,\ldots\xi_n\}$. Then q is holomorphic on U'.
Note $F(z)=q(z)-f'(a)$ so $q(z)=\frac{f(z)-f(a)}{z-a}$

Step 1 is the Cauchy-Goursat argument:
$\int_{\partial R}q(z)dz=0$ for all rectangles R in U such that $\xi_j\notin\partial R$ for j.

proof:

Let R be a rectangle with the boundary of R in U'. First subdivide R into sub-rectangles so that each sub-rectangle has at most one $\xi_j$ inside it. By Cauchy-Goursat, $\int_{\partial R}=\sum_i\int_{\partial R_i}$. So it suffices to show $\int_{\partial R}q=0$ if R contains at most one $\xi_j$.
If R contains no $\xi_j$, then we are done by Cauchy-Goursat. Assume $\xi=\xi_j$ is inside R. Let $\epsilon>0$ be given. Put $\xi$ in a square of size x at the center of this where x is chosen small enough so that $|(z-\xi)q(z)|<\epsilon$ for z in and on this square. Subdivide this rectangle so the square which is x by x is its own rectangle around $\xi$. As before, the integrals of the sub-rectangles that don't contain $\xi$ are 0. So $\int_{\partial R}q=\int_{\text{square with xi}}q$.
$$
\left|\int_{\text{square with xi}}q\right|\leq \underbrace{||q||_{\text{square with xi}}}_{\frac{\epsilon}{\min\{|z-\xi|\}}}\times \underbrace{(\text{length of square with xi}}_{4x}\leq\frac{\epsilon}{x/2}4x=8\epsilon
$$
So $\left|\int_{\text{square with xi}}q\right|=0$.

Step 2 is to use step one to create a primitive for q on all of U.
Define $g(a)=\int_{z_0}^{z_1}q(z)dz$ where the path is from $z_0$ horizontal and then vertical. So $g(a)$ is well-defined. If a point is not unreachable, then $\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{g(a+h)-g(a)}{h}=q(a)$ by exactly the same means as before. Unreachable are the points vertical above $\xi$.
When computing $\frac{g(a+h)-g(a)}{h}$, only consider h in C with $|h|<\frac{\delta}{2}$. The path for computing g(a+h) also misses $\xi$. Then for these h $g(a+h)-g(a)=\int_a^{a+h}q$ so the same reason as before show $\frac{g(a+h)-g(a)}{h}-g(a)\to 0$ as $h\to 0$.

To handle all the bad exception.
Pick $\epsilon\geq 0$ such that the point $z_1=z_0+\epsilon(1+i)$ is not on any of the same vertical or horizontal lines as any $\xi_j$. Of course epsilon is really small compared to the radius of U.
Define $g_1(a)=\int_{z_1}^aq(z)dz$. This defines a primitive for q(z) on all of the disc except on the unreachable regions.
Define $g_2(a)=\int_{z_1}^aq(z)dz$ but this time move vertical and then horizontal. So $g_2(a)$ is also a primitive for q on U except at the its unreachable points (but g_1 reaches those points and vice versa). On the overlap, $g_1$ and $g_2$ are primitives for the same q. They differ only by a constant. But $g_1(z_1)=0=g_2(z_1)$ so $g_1=g_2$ on the overlap. For a small enough epsilon,
$$
g(z)=\begin{cases}g_1(z)\\g_2(z)\end{cases}
$$ is defined on all of U' and is a primitive for q.

How do I extend this to my problem?
 
Let $\gamma$ be a closed curve in $\mathbb{C}$. If $\gamma$ doesn't contain any point from [2,5] in its interior, then $\int_{\gamma}f=0$ since f is holomorphic away from [2,5]. Suppose that $\gamma$ contains [2,5] in its interior. Let R be a rectangle oriented with the coordinate axes in $\gamma$ such that [2,5] is in R such that $[2,5]\notin\partial R$. Divide the rectangle into two sub rectangles of length $1-\epsilon$ and $\epsilon$ such that [2,5] is contained in one the sub rectangles. WLOG suppose [2,5] is the rectangle of length $\epsilon$. Then the over f of the rectangle of length $1-\epsilon$ is zero.

Now how should the rectangle containing the interval be handled?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K