Is f(z)=x differentiable with respect to z?

  • Thread starter Thread starter inurface323
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Differentiable
inurface323
Messages
1
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



The only thing given is f(z)=x. However, I am under the assumption that z is a complex variable where z=x+iy. I'm also assuming that x is a real variable.

In this example, I know that f(z)=x is not differentiable with respect to z because it does not satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann Equations but I need to prove this using the limit definition of the derivative.

Homework Equations



I used the definition of the limit i.e. limit as h→0 [f(x+h)-f(x)]/h however I'm not quite sure what f(x+h) translates into in this problem.

The Attempt at a Solution



this may be a straight forward question that I'm over thinking but I get lim Δz→0 [Δx/Δz] which does not exist. Is that correct?

This is my first post. I don't know how to enter math notation that is easier to read. Help with that would also be appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Remember that z is a complex number so the limits are taken in the complex plane. That is two-dimensional so there are an infinite number of ways of taking a limit, not just "from below" and "from above".

The derivative at, say, z_0= x_0+ iy_0, is given by \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f(z_0+ h)- f(z_0)}{h} and h itself is a complex number.

Suppose we take the limit as h approaches 0 along the a line parallel to the real axis. Write f(z)= u(x,y)+ iv(x,y), we have u(x,y)= x and v(x,y)= 0.

\lim{h\to 0}\frac{u(x_0+h,y_0)+ iv(x_0+h,y_0)- u(x_0,y_0)- iv(x_0,y_0}{h}= \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{x_0+ h- x_0}{h}= 1

Now take the limit as h goes to 0 parallel to the imaginary axis: h is now ih:
\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{u(x_0, y_0+ h)+ iv(x_0, y_0+h)- u(x_0,y_0)- iv(x_0,y_0)}{ih}= \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{x_0- x_0}{ih}= 0
since those are not the same, the limit as h goes to 0 along different paths is different. The limit itself does not exist.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top