Maxmimum\Minimum modulus principle

Click For Summary
The discussion addresses a complex analysis exam question regarding the maximum and minimum modulus principles. The assertion that |f(z)| is bounded between 1 and 2 in the ring defined by 1 ≤ |z| ≤ 3 is deemed false. The reasoning highlights that the maximum modulus principle applies only when maximum and minimum values are defined on the same boundary, which is not the case here. Additionally, the absence of a minimum modulus principle is emphasized, illustrated by a counterexample where a function achieves a minimum modulus on the boundary but has a lower value inside the domain. Even with the condition that f(z) is never zero, the original statement remains false.
MMS
Messages
146
Reaction score
4
Hey guys,

I'm studying for an exam that I have in Complex Analysis and I got stuck at the following question.

Question: True/False
f(z) is an analytical function in the ring 1 =< z =< 3. Also, the minimum of |f(z)| on |z|=1 equals to 1 and the maximum of |f(z)| on |z|=3 equals to 2.
Therefore, 1 =< |f(z)| =< 2 for every z in the ring 1 =< z =< 3.

the actual answer is false even though I don't get why I can't apply the maximum\minimum principle.

Here's my argument:

f is analytic in the ring and on its boundary (hence, bounded domain). Therefore, it is also continuous in the ring and up to its boundary. Then by the maximum modulus principle, it attains its maximum modulus on the boundary.
In other wording, |f(z)| on the boundary >= |f(z)| in the domain.
Same thing goes for the minimum modulus ---> |f(z)| on the boundary <= |f(z)| in the domain.
We're given that the maximum of the modulus is at |z|=3 and the minimum is at |z|=1. Hence, since those are the maximum and minimum of the modulus and it satisfies the principle,
1 =< |f(z)| =< 2 for every z in the ring 1 =< z =< 3.What am I missing out here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
First, you are not given maximum and minims on the boundary, you are given max on one part of the boundary and min on another part. So, maximum modulus principle does not apply.

Second, there is no "minimum modulus principle": consider function ##f(z)=z## on the unit disc ##|z|<1##. Minimum of ##|f(z)|## of the circle ##|z|=1## is ##1##, but ##f(0)=0##.

Of course, to show that the statement is false, you need to construct a counterexample.
 
  • Like
Likes MMS
just to get an idea, notice that for the function f(z) = z-2, |f(z)| has minimum equal to 1 on |z| = 1, and maximum equal to 5 on |z| = 3. but f(2) =0.

by the way do you suppose it changes anything if we assume also that f(z) is never zero?
 
Last edited:
mathwonk said:
by the way do you suppose it changes anything if we assume also that f(z) is never zero?
Do you mean the original question? For the original question, even if we require that ##f(z)## is never zero, the statement is still false, so nothing changes.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K