This is the statement, in case you're not familiar with it.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

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.

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Implicit function theorem for several complex variables

Loading...

Similar Threads for Implicit function theorem |
---|

I Does the Integral of Riemman Zeta Function have a meaning? |

I Question about inverse function |

I Elementary question on composition of functions |

I Distributions (generalised functions) basics |

I Weak Convergence of a Certain Sequence of Functions |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**