- #1

- 68

- 0

## Main Question or Discussion Point

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 [tex] \det \{\frac{\partial f_j}{\partial w_k}\}^m_{j,k=1} \neq 0

[/tex]

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.

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 [tex] \det \{\frac{\partial f_j}{\partial w_k}\}^m_{j,k=1} \neq 0

[/tex]

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: