Largest set on which the function is analytic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jon.G
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Set
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The function f(z) = (z² - 2)e^(-x)e^(iy) is analyzed for its analyticity based on the Cauchy-Riemann (CR) equations. The discussion emphasizes that f(z) is analytic if the CR equations Ux = Vy and Uy = -Vx are satisfied. The user is guided to utilize Euler's Formula and the Taylor series expansion for e^(iθ) to separate the function into real and imaginary components, which is crucial for determining the largest set of analyticity.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex functions and analyticity
  • Familiarity with Cauchy-Riemann equations
  • Knowledge of Euler's Formula
  • Ability to work with Taylor series expansions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of Cauchy-Riemann equations in complex analysis
  • Learn about Euler's Formula and its implications in complex functions
  • Explore Taylor series expansions for complex exponentials
  • Investigate conditions for analyticity in complex functions
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying complex analysis, as well as anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of analytic functions and their properties.

Jon.G
Messages
43
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Determine the largest set on which the function is analytic.
f(z) = (z2-2)e-xe-iy

Homework Equations


z=x+iy
f(x+iy) = U(x,y) + iV(x,y)
Ux=Vy
Uy=-Vx

The Attempt at a Solution


I think I'm right in saying that f(z) is analytic if the CR equations (provided above) are satisfied.
So I would write f(z) as f(x+iy) to find U and V.

f(x+iy) = (x2-y2+i2xy-2)e-xeiy
This is where I am up to. I can't seem to think of how to split this into parts with and without i. (The exponential with i is what throws me).

Any advice on where to go next?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Jon.G said:
The exponential with i is what throws me
Your text or notes should have given you a formula for ##e^{i\theta}##. If not, look up Euler's Formula. Or better still, expand the Taylor series for ##e^{i\theta}## and compare it to the Taylor series for ##\cos\theta## and ##\sin\theta##
 
oh wow I actually can't believe I didn't see that.
I am familiar with Euler's Formula and don't know why I didn't think of it in this situation.
When I'm home I'll try using that and then post how I get on.

Thanks for your time
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K