How to Proceed with Analytical Functions Proof?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around analytical functions and their properties, particularly focusing on the Cauchy-Riemann equations and the relationships between derivatives of complex functions. Participants are attempting to understand how to relate derivatives of functions evaluated at complex conjugates.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are exploring the relationships between partial derivatives of functions at points involving complex conjugates. There are attempts to clarify notation and the implications of differentiating functions with respect to complex variables.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with various participants providing insights and corrections. Some guidance has been offered regarding notation and the application of the Cauchy-Riemann equations, but there is still uncertainty and differing interpretations present.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating complex notation and definitions, which has led to confusion regarding the evaluation of derivatives. There is an acknowledgment of the need for clarity in the expressions used, particularly when dealing with complex variables and their conjugates.

malawi_glenn
Science Advisor
Messages
6,735
Reaction score
2,436

Homework Statement



See pdf - file



Homework Equations



See pdf - file

The Attempt at a Solution



See pdf - file

Is it right so far? How can I proceed?
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Can you relate [itex]\partial u(\bar z)/\partial x[/itex] and [itex]\partial u(z)/\partial x[/itex], or [itex]\partial u(\bar z)/\partial y[/itex] and [itex]\partial u(z)/\partial y[/itex]?
 
yeah, that is what I am trying to figure out HOW :P

[itex]\partial u(\bar z)/\partial x[/itex] = [itex]\partial u(z)/\partial x[/itex]

I think

and

[itex]\partial u(\bar z)/\partial y[/itex] = [itex]- \partial u(z)/\partial y[/itex]



?? =)
 
Not quite. The notation is a little confusing here, since the same symbol is used to show the variable being differentiated and the place the derivative is evaluated. To be clear, you should specify where the derivative is evaluated separately.

In this case we have:

[tex]\frac{\partial u(\bar z)}{\partial x} =\frac{\partial u(x-iy)}{\partial x}[/tex]

Now we should rewrite this as:

[tex]= \frac{\partial u(x'-iy')}{\partial x'} \left|_{x'=x, y'=y}[/tex]

This might seem stupid, but it allows us to get what you need as follows:

[tex]= \frac{\partial u(x'+iy')}{\partial x'} \left|_{x'=x, y'=-y}[/tex]

[tex]= \frac{\partial u(z')}{\partial x'} \left|_{z'=\bar z}[/tex]

and similarly for the derivative with respect to y, although there's one more step there.
 
StatusX said:
Not quite. The notation is a little confusing here, since the same symbol is used to show the variable being differentiated and the place the derivative is evaluated. To be clear, you should specify where the derivative is evaluated separately.

In this case we have:

[tex]\frac{\partial u(\bar z)}{\partial x} =\frac{\partial u(x-iy)}{\partial x}[/tex]

Now we should rewrite this as:

[tex]= \frac{\partial u(x'-iy')}{\partial x'} \left|_{x'=x, y'=y}[/tex]

This might seem stupid, but it allows us to get what you need as follows:

[tex]= \frac{\partial u(x'+iy')}{\partial x'} \left|_{x'=x, y'=-y}[/tex]

[tex]= \frac{\partial u(z')}{\partial x'} \left|_{z'=\bar z}[/tex]

and similarly for the derivative with respect to y, although there's one more step there.

I am sorry, the notation really confused me :S
 
Try think of it this way. If f(z)=f(x+iy)=u(x,y)+i*v(x,y). So g(z)=u(x,-y)-i*v(x,-y). So using the CR equations for u and v, prove the CR equations for U(x,y)=u(x,-y) and V(x,y)=-v(x,-y).
 
I still don't get it, what is worng? :S

[tex]U(x,y)=u(x,-y) and V(x,y)=-v(x,-y)[/tex]

[tex]\dfrac{\partial U(x,y)}{\partial x} =\dfrac{\partial u(x,-y)}{\partial x} = \dfrac{\partial u(x,y)}{\partial x}[/tex]

[tex]\dfrac{\partial U(x,y)}{\partial y} =\dfrac{\partial u(x,-y)}{\partial y} = - \dfrac{\partial u(x,y)}{\partial y}[/tex]

[tex]\dfrac{\partial V(x,y)}{\partial x} =\dfrac{\partial (-v(x,-y))}{\partial x} = -\dfrac{\partial v(x,y)}{\partial x}[/tex]

[tex]\dfrac{\partial V(x,y)}{\partial y} =\dfrac{\partial (-v(x,-y))}{\partial y} = \dfrac{\partial v(x,y)}{\partial y}[/tex]

Is apparently wrong, how would you do this Dick? Dont show me all, just show for one of them, then I try more myself.

thanks.
 
Is not wrong. Is right! I'll do one. Since du(x,y)/dy=-dv(x,y)/dx or du(x,-y)/dy=dv(x,-y)/dx (CR for f), from what you've sent, dU(x,y)/dy=du(x,-y)/dy=dv(x,-y)/dx=-dV(x,y)/dx which is the second CR for g.
 
Last edited:
Well, almost correct. Change things like
[tex]\dfrac{\partial U(x,y)}{\partial x} =\dfrac{\partial u(x,-y)}{\partial x} = \dfrac{\partial u(x,y)}{\partial x}[/tex]
to:
[tex]\dfrac{\partial U(x,y)}{\partial x} =\dfrac{\partial u(x,-y)}{\partial x} = \dfrac{\partial u(x,-y)}{\partial x}[/tex]

You can't just ignore the -y's, the U and V need them.
 
  • #10
and for the thoughest one: ?

[tex]\dfrac{\partial V(x,y)}{\partial y} =\dfrac{\partial (-v(x,-y))}{\partial y} = (-1)(-1)\dfrac{\partial (-v(x,-y))}{\partial x}[/tex]
 
  • #11
dV(x,y)/dy=d(-v(x,-y))/dy=-dv(x,-y)/dy=du(x,-y)/dx=dU(x,y)/dx. Since du(x,y)/dx=dv(x,y)/dy implies du(x,-y)/dx=-dv(x,-y)/dy.
 
  • #12
hmm why is

dV(x,y)/dy=d(-v(x,-y))/dy=-dv(x,-y)/dy

?

I still think it is:

[tex]\dfrac{\partial}{\partial y}\left( V(h(x,y),g(x,y))\right) = \dfrac{\partial h(x,y)}{\partial y}\dfrac{\partial V}{\partial y}+ \dfrac{\partial g(x,y)}{\partial y}\dfrac{\partial V}{\partial y}[/tex]

[tex] V(h(x,y),g(x,y)) = -v(x,-y)[/tex]

[tex] h(x,y) = x[/tex]

[tex] g(x,y)=-y[/tex]

gives

[tex] \dfrac{\partial h(x,y)}{\partial y}\dfrac{\partial V}{\partial y}+ [/tex]

[tex]\dfrac{\partial g(x,y)}{\partial y}\dfrac{\partial V}{\partial y}= [/tex]

[tex]\dfrac{\partial g(x,y)}{\partial y}\dfrac{\partial V}{\partial y}=\\[/tex]

[tex] -1\dfrac{\partial V}{\partial y}= -1\dfrac{\partial (-v(h,g))}{\partial y}\\[/tex]

[tex] =(-1)(-1)\dfrac{\partial (v(x,-y))}{\partial y}\\[/tex]

where am I wrong about this? Sorry for being noob :P
 
  • #13
Since du(x,y)/dx=dv(x,y)/dy implies du(x,-y)/dx=-dv(x,-y)/dy

is due to:

d/dy(v(x,h(y)) = (dh/dy)*(dv(x,h)/dy) = -1(dv(x,h)/dy)

?

So why not chain rule when differentiating V(x,y)= -v(x,-y) ?
 
  • #14
Never mind, my teacher will help me tomorrow. Thanks for all help!
 
  • #15
malawi_glenn said:
hmm why is

dV(x,y)/dy=d(-v(x,-y))/dy=-dv(x,-y)/dy

?

This is not a chain rule. I'm just substituting equals for equals. V(x,y) is DEFINED to be -v(x,-y). Similarly using:

du(x,y)/dx=dv(x,y)/dy

I just SUBSTITUTE -y for y getting du(x,-y)/dx=dv(x,-y)/d(-y). If you want to appeal to the one-dimensional chain rule now dv(x,-y)/d(-y)=(dv(x,-y)/dy)*(dy/d(-y))=-dv(x,-y)/dy. Just a change of variable in y.
There is no use of the chain rule for partial derivatives here (which I don't think you are stating quite correctly). Does that help? I sympathize here, this can be confusing.
 
  • #16
I think I got it now, will show my teacher my thougts and work tomorrow. Thanks for all the help guys!

see ya
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 81 ·
3
Replies
81
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K