MHB How does Conway's Theorem 2.29 Derive the Simplified Expression for f(z)?

Click For Summary
Conway's Theorem 2.29 provides a framework for understanding the behavior of analytic functions through the Cauchy-Riemann equations. The discussion centers on deriving the expression for the difference quotient of a complex function, specifically how it simplifies to include terms involving the partial derivatives of the real and imaginary components. The participants confirm that the steps taken to arrive at the simplified expression are correct, emphasizing the importance of rigor in the derivation process. The conversation highlights the necessity of understanding the underlying principles of analytic functions to fully grasp the theorem's implications. This rigorous approach aids in achieving a deeper comprehension of complex variable theory.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading John B. Conway's book, "Functions of a Complex Variable I" (Second Edition) ...

I am currently focussed on Chapter III Elementary Properties and Examples of Analytic Functions ... Section 2: Analytic Functions ... ...

I need help in fully understanding aspects of Theorem 2.29 ...

[NOTE: Notice that the statement of Theorem 2.29 follows the proof ... see below ... ]

Theorem 2,29 and its proof read as follows:

View attachment 7402
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7403

In the above text by Conway, we read the following:

" ... ... Using the fact that $$u$$ and $$v$$ satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann equations it is easy to see that

$$\frac{ f( z + s + it ) - f(z) }{ s + it } = u_x(z) + iv_x(z) + \frac{ \phi(s, t) + i \psi(x, t) }{ s + it }$$ ... ... ... "

My question is as follows:

What is the (rigorous) process by which we arrive at

$$\frac{ f( z + s + it ) - f(z) }{ s + it } = u_x(z) + iv_x(z) + \frac{ \phi(s, t) + i \psi(x, t) }{ s + it }$$ ...?

That is ... why/how exactly does this follow ...
Hope someone can help ... I am aiming to have a rigorous understanding of the above proof ...

Peter***EDIT***I have been reflecting on the issue/problem above ...

Part of the answer may well be as follows:

$$\frac{ f(z + s + it) - f(z) }{ s + it } $$$$= \frac{ f(x + iy + s + it) - f(x + iy) }{ s + it }$$ $$= \frac{ [ u( x + s, y + t ) + iv( x + s, y + t ) ] - [ u(x, y) + iv(x, y) ] }{ s + it }$$


$$= \frac{ [ u( x + s, y + t ) - u(x, y) ] + i [ v( x + s, y + t ) - v(x, y) ] }{ s + it }$$$$= \frac{ [ u_x ( x, y )s + u_y (x, y)t + \phi (s, t) }{ s + it } + i \frac{ [v_x ( x, y )s + v_y (x, y)t + \psi (s, t) }{ s + it }$$$$ = \frac{ [ u_x ( x, y )s - v_x (x, y)t + \phi (s, t) }{ s + it } + i \frac{ [v_x ( x, y )s + u_x (x, y)t + \psi (s, t) }{ s + it }$$ $$= \frac{ [ u_x ( x, y )s + i u_x (x, y)t ] }{ s + it } + i \frac{ [v_x ( x, y )s + i v_x (x, y)t ] }{ s + it } + \frac{ [ \phi (s, t) + i \psi (s, t)] }{ s + it } $$$$= u_x(z) + iv_x(z) + \frac{ [ \phi (s, t) + i \psi (s, t)] }{ s + it }$$Is that correct?

======================================================================================It may help readers of the above post to have access to Conway's introduction to the Cauchy-Riemann conditions (necessity case) ... so I am providing the same ... as follows:
View attachment 7404
View attachment 7405
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: Cauchy Riemann Equations - Proof of Sufficinecy ... Conway Theorem 2.29 ... Proof ...

Peter said:
***EDIT***I have been reflecting on the issue/problem above ...

Part of the answer may well be as follows:

$$\frac{ f(z + s + it) - f(z) }{ s + it } $$$$= \frac{ f(x + iy + s + it) - f(x + iy) }{ s + it }$$ $$= \frac{ [ u( x + s, y + t ) + iv( x + s, y + t ) ] - [ u(x, y) + iv(x, y) ] }{ s + it }$$


$$= \frac{ [ u( x + s, y + t ) - u(x, y) ] + i [ v( x + s, y + t ) - v(x, y) ] }{ s + it }$$$$= \frac{ [ u_x ( x, y )s + u_y (x, y)t + \phi (s, t) }{ s + it } + i \frac{ [v_x ( x, y )s + v_y (x, y)t + \psi (s, t) }{ s + it }$$$$ = \frac{ [ u_x ( x, y )s - v_x (x, y)t + \phi (s, t) }{ s + it } + i \frac{ [v_x ( x, y )s + u_x (x, y)t + \psi (s, t) }{ s + it }$$ $$= \frac{ [ u_x ( x, y )s + i u_x (x, y)t ] }{ s + it } + i \frac{ [v_x ( x, y )s + i v_x (x, y)t ] }{ s + it } + \frac{ [ \phi (s, t) + i \psi (s, t)] }{ s + it } $$$$= u_x(z) + iv_x(z) + \frac{ [ \phi (s, t) + i \psi (s, t)] }{ s + it }$$Is that correct?

It's correct! (Yes)
 
Re: Cauchy Riemann Equations - Proof of Sufficinecy ... Conway Theorem 2.29 ... Proof ...

Euge said:
It's correct! (Yes)
Thanks Euge ...

I needed the confirmation!

Peter
 
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
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
772
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
19K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
973
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
346
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K