Limits of Complex Functions .... Example from Palka ....

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the limits of complex functions as presented in Bruce P. Palka's "An Introduction to Complex Function Theory," specifically Chapter 2, Section 2.2. The participants analyze the expression $$\lvert ( z + 1 + z \text{ Log } z) -1 \lvert$$ and its simplifications, focusing on the equality $$\lvert z + z \text{ Log } z \lvert = \lvert z + z \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert + i z \text{ Arg } z \lvert$$. They explore the application of the extended triangle inequality and seek clarification on discrepancies in terms related to logarithmic functions and the argument of complex numbers. Key insights include the importance of recognizing $$\lvert i \rvert = 1$$ and the bounds on the argument of z.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex numbers and their properties
  • Familiarity with logarithmic functions in the context of complex analysis
  • Knowledge of the extended triangle inequality in mathematical analysis
  • Basic grasp of plane topology as it relates to complex functions
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of complex logarithms and their applications in complex analysis
  • Learn about the extended triangle inequality and its implications in complex function theory
  • Explore the concept of limits in complex functions, particularly in relation to topology
  • Review examples from Palka's book to deepen understanding of complex function limits
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of complex analysis, and educators seeking to enhance their understanding of complex functions and their limits, particularly those referencing Palka's work.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Bruce P. Palka's book: An Introduction to Complex Function Theory ...

I am focused on Chapter 2: The Rudiments of Plane Topology ...

I need help with some aspects of a worked example in Palka's remarks in Section 2.2 Limits of Functions ...

Palka's remarks in Section 2.2 which include the example read as follows:View attachment 7366
In the above text from Palka Section 2.2 we read the following:" ... ... We need only observe that for $$z \neq 0 $$

$$ \lvert ( z + 1 + z \text{ Log } z) -1 \lvert = \lvert z + z \text{ Log } z \lvert = \lvert z + z \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert + i z \text{ Arg } z \lvert $$

$$\le \lvert z \lvert + \lvert \lvert z \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert + \lvert z \lvert \lvert \text{Arg } z \lvert \le \lvert z \lvert + \lvert \lvert z \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert + \pi \lvert z \lvert $$ ... ...

... ... ... "
My questions relate to the above quoted equations/inequalities ... ...Question 1How does Palka get $$\lvert z + z \text{ Log } z \lvert = \lvert z + z \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert + i z \text{ Arg } z \lvert$$?Well ... my take ... ... Following Palka's definition of $$\text{ Log } z = \text{ ln } \lvert z \lvert + i \text{ Arg } z
$$
we get ...

$$\lvert z + z \text{ Log } z \lvert = \lvert z + z \text{ ln } \lvert z \lvert + i z \text{ Arg } z \lvert $$

BUT ...

$$\text{ln } \lvert z \lvert = \text{Log } \lvert z \lvert$$ since $$\text{Arg } \lvert z \lvert = 0$$ ... ... is that correct?

Question 2

How did Palka get

$$\lvert z + z \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert + i z \text{ Arg } z \lvert \le \lvert z \lvert + \lvert \lvert z \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert + \lvert z \lvert \lvert \text{Arg } z \lvert \le \lvert z \lvert + \lvert \lvert z \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert + \pi \lvert z \lvert$$ ... ...
Well ... my take ... only up to a point .. then ?

Using the extended triangle inequality $$\lvert z_1 + z_2 + z_3 \lvert \le \lvert z_1 \lvert + \lvert z_2 \lvert + \lvert z_3 \lvert$$ we get ...

$$\lvert z + z \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert + i z \text{ Arg } z \lvert \le \lvert z \lvert + \lvert z \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert + \lvert i z \text{Arg } z \lvert = \lvert z \lvert + \lvert z \lvert \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert + \lvert i z \text{Arg } z \lvert$$ ... ... (*)

But how do we proceed from here ...?

Particular worries are as follows:

(1) In (*) above after using the equation $$\lvert z w \lvert = \lvert z \lvert \lvert w \lvert $$ I get the term $$\lvert z \lvert \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert$$ ... but Palka gets $$\lvert \lvert z \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert$$ ... how does Palka get this expression in (*) ... what explains the discrepancy between my term and Palka's ... ?

(2) How do I deal with the term $$\lvert i z \text{Arg } z \lvert$$ in order to get $$\lvert z \lvert \lvert \text{Arg } z \lvert$$ on the right hand side of the inequality as Palka does ... ? In other words how do we demonstrate that $$\lvert i z \text{Arg } z \lvert \le \lvert z \lvert \lvert \text{Arg } z \lvert$$ ... ?Help will be much appreciated ... ...Peter=======================================================================================

I believe it would be helpful for readers of the above post to have access to Palka's definition and introductory discussion of logarithms of complex numbers ... so I am providing the same ... as follows ... https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7367
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7368
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
Question 1How does Palka get $$\lvert z + z \text{ Log } z \lvert = \lvert z + z \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert + i z \text{ Arg } z \lvert$$?Well ... my take ... ... Following Palka's definition of $$\text{ Log } z = \text{ ln } \lvert z \lvert + i \text{ Arg } z
$$
we get ...

$$\lvert z + z \text{ Log } z \lvert = \lvert z + z \text{ ln } \lvert z \lvert + i z \text{ Arg } z \lvert $$

BUT ...

$$\text{ln } \lvert z \lvert = \text{Log } \lvert z \lvert$$ since $$\text{Arg } \lvert z \lvert = 0$$ ... ... is that correct?

In the section that you posted, Palka writes "From now on we shall write $\operatorname{Log} x$ instead of $\ln x$ when $x > 0$.
Peter said:
Question 2

How did Palka get

$$\lvert z + z \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert + i z \text{ Arg } z \lvert \le \lvert z \lvert + \lvert \lvert z \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert + \lvert z \lvert \lvert \text{Arg } z \lvert \le \lvert z \lvert + \lvert \lvert z \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert + \pi \lvert z \lvert$$ ... ...
Well ... my take ... only up to a point .. then ?

Using the extended triangle inequality $$\lvert z_1 + z_2 + z_3 \lvert \le \lvert z_1 \lvert + \lvert z_2 \lvert + \lvert z_3 \lvert$$ we get ...

$$\lvert z + z \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert + i z \text{ Arg } z \lvert \le \lvert z \lvert + \lvert z \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert + \lvert i z \text{Arg } z \lvert = \lvert z \lvert + \lvert z \lvert \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert + \lvert i z \text{Arg } z \lvert$$ ... ... (*)

But how do we proceed from here ...?

Particular worries are as follows:

(1) In (*) above after using the equation $$\lvert z w \lvert = \lvert z \lvert \lvert w \lvert $$ I get the term $$\lvert z \lvert \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert$$ ... but Palka gets $$\lvert \lvert z \lvert \text{ Log } \lvert z \lvert \lvert$$ ... how does Palka get this expression in (*) ... what explains the discrepancy between my term and Palka's ... ?

(2) How do I deal with the term $$\lvert i z \text{Arg } z \lvert$$ in order to get $$\lvert z \lvert \lvert \text{Arg } z \lvert$$ on the right hand side of the inequality as Palka does ... ? In other words how do we demonstrate that $$\lvert i z \text{Arg } z \lvert \le \lvert z \lvert \lvert \text{Arg } z \lvert$$ ... ?

You overlooked $\lvert i \rvert = 1$ and $-\pi < \operatorname{Arg}(z) \le \pi$. Now try to proceed.
 
Euge said:
In the section that you posted, Palka writes "From now on we shall write $\operatorname{Log} x$ instead of $\ln x$ when $x > 0$.

You overlooked $\lvert i \rvert = 1$ and $-\pi < \operatorname{Arg}(z) \le \pi$. Now try to proceed.
Thanks for the help, Euge ...

Working on the example now ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K