Implicit function theorem for several complex variables

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the implicit function theorem for several complex variables, specifically regarding the conditions under which a unique analytic solution exists for the equations defined by analytic functions. It highlights the necessity of proving that the differential equations imply a relationship between the variables, specifically that if the differentials of the functions and variables vanish, the differentials of the solutions must also vanish. The conversation also touches on the importance of having an invertible submatrix in the Jacobian to ensure the solvability of the system. A clarification is made regarding a typo in the function notation, emphasizing the correct variables involved. Understanding these conditions is crucial for applying the implicit function theorem effectively in complex analysis.
Kalidor
Messages
68
Reaction score
0
This is the statement, in case you're not familiar with it.
Let ## f_j(w,x), \; j=1, \ldots, m ## be analytic functions of ## (w,z) = (w_1, \ldots, w_m,z_1,\ldots,z_n) ## in a neighborhood of ##w^0,z^0## in ##\mathbb{C}^m \times \mathbb{C}^n ## and assume that ##f_j(w^0,z^0)=0, \, j=1,\ldots,m ## and that \det \{\frac{\partial f_j}{\partial w_k}\}^m_{j,k=1} \neq 0<br />
at ##(w^0,z^0)##.
Then the equations ##f_j(w,z)=0 \; j=1,\ldots,m ##, have a uniquely determined analytic solution ## w(z) ## in a neighborhood of ##z_0 ##, such that ##w(z_0) = w_0##.
In the proof of this statement I find in Hormander's book he claims that in order to apply the usual implicit function theorem one must first prove that the equations ##df_j = 0## and ##dz_k=0## for ##j =1, \ldots, m ## and ##k = 1, \ldots, n## imply ##dw_j = 0## for ## j = 1, \ldots, m##. I don't understand what this condition means and why it is needed.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't edit anymore, but of course the x in in ## f_j(w,x) ## is a typo. It should read ## f_j(w,z). ##
 
you have an Mx(M+N) system. if the last N columns are all zero, then the first M columns are linearly independent if the first M rows are. you need an invertible MxM submatrix to solve for an M-vector of coefficients from this system. this an intermediate step and not necessary if one already knows that a nonzero jacobian determinant implies invertibility. the jacobian submatrix is not invertible if its columns are not linearly independent. hopefully this isn't too abstract.
 
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 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K