Problem with Complex Polynomial

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that an analytic function of two variables, represented as f(z) = c_{00} + c_{10}x + c_{01}y + ... + c_{nm}x^n y^m, must also be expressible as a polynomial in z. The key conclusion is that if f is analytic and its (m+1)th derivative vanishes, then f is a polynomial of degree at most n-1. The participants emphasize the relationship between the derivatives of f and the conditions for it to be a polynomial, specifically noting that f^{(n+1)}(z) = 0 is crucial for the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of analytic functions and their properties
  • Familiarity with polynomial functions in multiple variables
  • Knowledge of partial derivatives and their notation
  • Basic concepts of complex analysis, particularly in relation to functions of complex variables
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of analytic functions in complex analysis
  • Learn about the implications of the Cauchy-Riemann equations on derivatives
  • Explore the relationship between analytic functions and power series expansions
  • Investigate the role of higher-order derivatives in determining the nature of functions
USEFUL FOR

Students of complex analysis, mathematicians working with polynomial functions, and anyone interested in the properties of analytic functions and their derivatives.

xman
Messages
92
Reaction score
0
I am trying to figure out this old homework problem I haven't been able to solve. The problem goes like this:

Let [tex]f(z)=c_{00}+c_{10}x+c_{01}y+\cdots + c_{nm}x^{n}y^{m}[/tex] be a polynomial function of x and y. If, in addition, f is analytic function, show that f has to be a polynomial in z. Specifically, show that [tex]f(z)=a_0+a_1 z+\cdots +a_n z^n[/tex] where [tex]a_k=\frac{1}{k!} \frac{\partial^k f}{\partial x^k} (0)[/tex]

Solution: Now I know that if f is an analytic function in an open set, then f and its derivatives of order n are also analytic. Moreover, I know that if a function is n times differentiable and [tex]f^{(n)}(z)=0[/tex] for every z in some domain where f is analytic, then f in this domain is a polynomial of degree at most n-1.

Moreover, we also know that [tex]f^{\prime}(z) =f_{x}=-i f_y[/tex] where the subscripts on f represent derivatives with respect to that variable and f is assumed of the form [tex]f=u+i\,v[/tex]

My thoughts were, if I take say m+1 derivatives of f, then we satisfy [tex]f^{(m+1)}(z)=0[/tex] which guarantees we have a polynomial. Then, we we can rewrite by integrating each term pairwise, since we will have constants for each integration. But, this does not lead to an expression of the form we want to show.

So, I then tried writing f in terms of [tex]z, \overline{z}[/tex] but the cancellation of the [tex]\overline{z}[/tex] doesn't happen as I hoped and I again do not get the desired form.

I have tried a couple other algebra tricks, but fail to get the desired form. I was hoping someone could point me in the right direction to finally solve this problem.

Thanks in advance for any available help.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't say right off the top of my head, but I definitely noticed that [tex]f^{(m+1)}(z)=0[/tex] should be [tex]f^{(n+1)}(z)=0[/tex]

I'll think about it if nobody else comes up with an answer
 
Office_Shredder said:
I can't say right off the top of my head, but I definitely noticed that [tex]f^{(m+1)}(z)=0[/tex] should be [tex]f^{(n+1)}(z)=0[/tex]

I'll think about it if nobody else comes up with an answer
Thanks for taking a look!

I don't believe it should matter, since m and n are just the order of the derivatives. So, I believe that in any three cases, i.e. m=n, m<n, and m>n, if f is analytic, and if the expressions of the higher order derivatives are of the form [tex]f^{(j)}(z)= f_{x^{(j)}} = (-1)^{j} f_{y^{(j)}}[/tex] then I believe if you can obtain derivatives with respect to either variable will eventually be zero, since derivatives of analytic functions are again analytic, then you can obtain the case where [tex]f^{(whatever)}(z)=0[/tex]
At least this is what I am assuming.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K