If f is holomorphic, is Σf(z^k) holomorphic?

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

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around whether the series \( g(z) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} f(z^k) \) defines a holomorphic function in the unit disk \( D(0,1) \), given that \( f \) is holomorphic in \( D \) and \( f(0) = 0 \). Participants explore the implications of holomorphicity, power series representation, and convergence of the series.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants argue that since \( f \) is holomorphic, it can be expressed as a power series \( f(z) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n z^n \) due to \( f(0) = 0 \).
  • Others propose that the double summation \( g(z) = \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n z^{nk} \) can be simplified by interchanging the order of summation, leading to \( g(z) = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_n \frac{z^n}{1 - z^n} \), but question the conditions under which this interchange is valid.
  • A later reply discusses the absolute convergence required for interchanging summations, referencing a mathematical identity that necessitates certain conditions on the terms involved.
  • Some participants suggest using Schwarz's Lemma to argue that \( g(z) \) is holomorphic by bounding \( |f(z)| \) in smaller disks and showing uniform convergence of the series.
  • There is a question about the necessity of invoking Schwarz's Lemma, with some arguing that the reasoning could be simplified without it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the necessity of Schwarz's Lemma or the conditions for interchanging summations. Multiple viewpoints on the approach to proving the holomorphicity of \( g(z) \) remain present.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of absolute convergence for interchanging summations, but the specific series that guarantees this remains unresolved. The discussion also reflects varying interpretations of the implications of power series and the role of specific lemmas in the proof process.

pantboio
Messages
43
Reaction score
0
Let $D=D(0,1)$ be the unit disc centered at 0. Let $f$ be holomorphic in D, with $f(0)=0$. Show that

$g(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} f(z^k)$

defines an holomorphic function in $D$.

I've argued as follows: since $f$ is holomorphic, then $f$ is locally the sum of a power series

$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_n z^n$
and since $f(0)=a_0=0$ by assumption, we can write

$f(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_nz^n$which holds for all $z$ in $D$.
Hence

$g(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n z^{nk}$

How can i deal with this double index summation?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: if f is holomorphic, is $\sum f(z^k)$ holomorphic?

pantboio said:
Let $D=D(0,1)$ be the unit disc centered at 0. Let $f$ be holomorphic in D, with $f(0)=0$. Show that

$g(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} f(z^k)$

defines an holomorphic function in $D$.

I've argued as follows: since $f$ is holomorphic, then $f$ is locally the sum of a power series

$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_n z^n$
and since $f(0)=a_0=0$ by assumption, we can write

$f(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_nz^n$which holds for all $z$ in $D$.
Hence

$g(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n z^{nk}$

How can i deal with this double index summation?

Welcome on MHB!...

Inverting Your last relation You obtain...

$\displaystyle g(z)= \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_{n}\ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} (z^{n})^{k} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_{n}\ \frac{z^{n}}{1-z^{n}}$ (1)

Because $\displaystyle \lim_{ n \rightarrow \infty} 1-z^{n}=1$ for $|z|<1$, it exists an N for which forall n>N is...

$\displaystyle \frac{|z^{n}|}{|1-z^{n}|}< c\ |z^{n}|$ (1)

... where c> 1 is a constant, so that the series (1) converges for |z|<1 and g(z) is holomorphic...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Re: if f is holomorphic, is $\sum f(z^k)$ holomorphic?

chisigma said:
Welcome on MHB!...

Inverting Your last relation You obtain...

$\displaystyle g(z)= \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_{n}\ \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} (z^{n})^{k} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_{n}\ \frac{z^{n}}{1-z^{n}}$ (1)

Because $\displaystyle \lim_{ n \rightarrow \infty} 1-z^{n}=1$ for $|z|<1$, it exists an N for which forall n>N is...

$\displaystyle \frac{|z^{n}|}{|1-z^{n}|}< c\ |z^{n}|$ (1)

... where c> 1 is a constant, so that the series (1) converges for |z|<1 and g(z) is holomorphic...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

First of all, thank you for your help.
Secondly, i hope I've completely understood your argument. It is quite clear until you get the estimation

$|\frac{z^n}{1-z^n}|\leq c |z^n|$

where the RHS is the n-th term of a convergent series (geometric with $|z|<1$)

Then i think i can conclude the following

$|a_n||\frac{z^n}{1-z^n}|\leq c|a_n| |z^n|$

and RHS is the n-th term of a convergent series since

$f(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n z^n$

is convergent, and absolutely convergent, in the unit disc by assumption.

A little last remark; i think the possibility to invert the order of summations is granted by some absolute convergence, but in this case which is the absolutely convergent series which allows me to reverse indexes?

Best regards
 
Last edited:
Re: if f is holomorphic, is $\sum f(z^k)$ holomorphic?

pantboio said:
... a little last remark... i think the possibility to invert the order of summations is granted by some absolute convergence, but in this case which is the absolutely convergent series which allows me to reverse indexes?...

Effectively this 'little last remark' is very 'insidious'(Evilgrin)... searching on 'Monster Wolfram'...

General Mathematical Identities for Analytic Functions: Summation

... I found that the identity...

$\displaystyle \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} a_{k,n} = \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} a_{k,n}$ (1)

... is subject to the restriction...

$\displaystyle a_{k,n} = \mathcal {O} \{(k^{2}+ n^{2})^{- r}\},\ r>1$ (2)

... for the absolute convergence of (1)...

A very interesting problem that requires a little time!(Nerd) ...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Re: if f is holomorphic, is $\sum f(z^k)$ holomorphic?

pantboio said:
Let $D=D(0,1)$ be the unit disc centered at 0. Let $f$ be holomorphic in D, with $f(0)=0$. Show that

$g(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty} f(z^k)$

defines an holomorphic function in $D$.

I've argued as follows: since $f$ is holomorphic, then $f$ is locally the sum of a power series

$f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}a_n z^n$
and since $f(0)=a_0=0$ by assumption, we can write

$f(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_nz^n$which holds for all $z$ in $D$.
Hence

$g(z)=\sum_{k=1}^{\infty}\sum_{n=1}^{\infty}a_n z^{nk}$

How can i deal with this double index summation?
Another way to prove this would be to use the proof of Schwarz's Lemma to say that the function $h(z) = \begin{cases}f(z)/z&(z\ne0) \\ f'(0)&(z=0)\end{cases}$ is holomorphic in $D$ and therefore bounded in any smaller disc $D_r = \{z:|z|<r\}$, where $|r|<1.$ Say $|h(z)|\leqslant M_r$ whenever $|z|\in D_r.$

Thus $|f(z)|\leqslant M_r|z|\ (z\in D_r).$ Therefore $$|g(z)| \leqslant \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}|f(z^k)| \leqslant \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}M_r|z|^k = \frac{M_r|z|}{1-|z|} \leqslant \frac{M_rr}{1-r}\ (z\in D_r).$$ Hence $g(z)$ is a uniform sum of holomorphic functions on $D_r$ and therefore holomorphic there. Since $r<1$ is arbitrary it follows that $g(z)$ is holomorphic on the whole of $D$.
 
Re: if f is holomorphic, is $\sum f(z^k)$ holomorphic?

Opalg said:
Another way to prove this would be to use the proof of Schwarz's Lemma to say that the function $h(z) = \begin{cases}f(z)/z&(z\ne0) \\ f'(0)&(z=0)\end{cases}$ is holomorphic in $D$ and therefore bounded in any smaller disc $D_r = \{z:|z|<r\}$, where $|r|<1.$ Say $|h(z)|\leqslant M_r$ whenever $|z|\in D_r.$

Thus $|f(z)|\leqslant M_r|z|\ (z\in D_r).$ Therefore $$|g(z)| \leqslant \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}|f(z^k)| \leqslant \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}M_r|z|^k = \frac{M_r|z|}{1-|z|} \leqslant \frac{M_rr}{1-r}\ (z\in D_r).$$ Hence $g(z)$ is a uniform sum of holomorphic functions on $D_r$ and therefore holomorphic there. Since $r<1$ is arbitrary it follows that $g(z)$ is holomorphic on the whole of $D$.

Thans for the response. I have understood your answer but i can't see the role played by schwartz's lemma in it. I mean, do i actually need Schwartz' lemma to state that? is it equivalent if i say:

$f(z)=a_0+a_1z+a_2z^2+\ldots$

but

$f(0)=0=a_0$

hence

$f(z)=a_1z+a_2 z^2+\ldots$

Therefore

$\frac{f(z)}{z}=a_1+a_2 z+...$

is holomorphic in $D(0,1)$ hence is continuous on compact sets $\overline{D(0,r)}$ and so it is bounded and so on...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K