Proof of Liouville's theorem - simple question

  • Thread starter Thread starter stgermaine
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof Theorem
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of Liouville's theorem as presented in Fisher's "Complex Variables." The key point is the definition of the function g(z) = (F(z) - F(0)) / z, which is stated to be entire. The confusion arises from the potential singularity at z=0, where the limit leads to an indeterminate form 0/0. However, the theorem asserts that g(z) can be analytically continued to be entire, resolving the singularity at that point.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of complex analysis concepts, specifically Liouville's theorem.
  • Familiarity with entire functions and their properties.
  • Knowledge of limits and indeterminate forms in calculus.
  • Basic comprehension of analytic continuation in complex functions.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of Liouville's theorem in detail, particularly in the context of entire functions.
  • Learn about analytic continuation and how it applies to functions with singularities.
  • Explore the concept of limits and indeterminate forms, focusing on techniques to resolve them.
  • Review Fisher's "Complex Variables" for a deeper understanding of complex function theory.
USEFUL FOR

Students of complex analysis, particularly those studying Liouville's theorem, and anyone seeking to understand the properties of entire functions and their singularities.

stgermaine
Messages
45
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


i'm using Fisher's Complex Variables for my complex analysis class and there is a proof for Liouville's theorem. It says "Set g(z)=(F(z) - F(0)) / z; Then g is an entire function"


Homework Equations


N/A


The Attempt at a Solution


I am confused by that statement. Doesn't g have a singularity at z=0? How can it be analytic over the entire complex plane?

Thank you and sorry if it seems like a very stupid question.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't have that particular complex book. So, I am not sure about that particular proof. But do you think that for the simple reason that as z tends to 0 you will end up with the indiscriminate form 0/0 has something to do with it?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
5K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
8K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K