Prove: f(z) = log z cannot be analytic

  • Thread starter Thread starter Tsunoyukami
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Log
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
7 replies · 16K views
Tsunoyukami
Messages
213
Reaction score
11
I'm having difficulty completing the last problem of an assignment due tomorrow evening. I feel as if I'm missing something; every time I attempt the problem I get stuck or confused.

"22. Use the conclusion of Exercise 21 and Example 13 of Section 6, Chapter 1, to prove that f(z) = log z cannot be analytic on any domain D that contains a piecewise smooth simple closed curve [itex]\gamma[/itex] that surrounds the origin. (Hint: What is the value of [itex]\int_{\gamma} f'(z) dz[/itex]?) (from Complex Variables, 2nd. edition by Stephen D. Fisher)


As this problem refers to both Exercise 21 and Example 13 I will summarize them here as well:

"21. Let [itex]\gamma[/itex] be a piecewise smooth simple closed curve, and suppose that F is analytic on some domain containing [itex]\gamma[/itex]. [Then] [itex]\int_{\gamma} F'(z) dz = 0[/itex]"

"Example 13 Suppose that [itex]\gamma[/itex] is a piecewise smooth positively oriented simple closed curve. The value of the integral

[itex]\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma} \frac{dz}{z - p}[/itex] , p not in [itex]\gamma[/itex] is

[itex]\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma} \frac{dz}{z - p} = 0[/itex], p is outside [itex]\gamma[/itex], or

[itex]\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma} \frac{dz}{z - p} = 1[/itex], p is inside [itex]\gamma[/itex]
"



I attempted to show that f(z) = log z is analytic by applying the Cauchy-Riemann equations.

[itex]f(z) = log z = ln|z| + iarg(z) = ln|(x^2 + y^2)^\frac{1}{2}| + i arctan(y/x)[/itex]
[itex]f(z) = u + iv[/itex] with
[itex]u = ln|(x^2 + y^2)^\frac{1}{2}|[/itex] and
[itex]v = arctan(y/x)[/itex]

I then computed the partial derivatives of both u and v with respect to x and y and showed that u and v satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann equations. As a result, I expect f(z) = log z to be analytic.

However, the question asks me to show that f(z) is not analytic...

If I follow the hint given in the question:

[itex]\int_{\gamma} f'(z) dz[/itex]
[itex]\int_{\gamma} (log z)' dz[/itex]
[itex]\int_{\gamma} \frac{1}{z} dz[/itex]

I'm not too sure where I should go from here...if I simply integrate this I "just" get f(z) back (I'm not sure how to account for integrating over the path...should I write:

[itex]\int_{\gamma} \frac{1}{z} dz = \int_{a}^{b} \frac{1}{\gamma(t)} \gamma'(t) dt[/itex]

But then how should I proceed? I need to show that such an integral does not equal 0, because by exercise 21 if the integral equals 0 the function is analytic...


Any help will be greatly appreciated! Thanks a lot in advance! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Tsunoyukami said:
prove that f(z) = log z cannot be analytic on any domain D that contains a piecewise smooth simple closed curve γ that surrounds the origin.
Tsunoyukami said:
If I follow the hint given in the question:
[itex]\int_{\gamma} f'(z) dz = \int_{\gamma} \frac{1}{z} dz[/itex]
Tsunoyukami said:
"Suppose that [itex]\gamma[/itex] is a piecewise smooth positively oriented simple closed curve. The value of the integral
[itex]\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma} \frac{dz}{z - p} = 1[/itex], p is inside [itex]\gamma[/itex]"
Tsunoyukami said:
"21. Let [itex]\gamma[/itex] be a piecewise smooth simple closed curve, and suppose that F is analytic on some domain containing [itex]\gamma[/itex]. Then [itex]\int_{\gamma} F'(z) dz = 0[/itex]"
The answers are there. What is the value of p for the function in your question?
 
Oh! The value of p is 0. Then, since the origin (ie. 0) is interior to [itex]\gamma[/itex] by example 13 the value of the integral is non-zero and therefore f(z) = log z is not analytic by exercise 21!
 
Yup, you've got it :)
 
I kinda get what yall are sayin but...

where did this example 13 business come from? I have to answer the same question but I don't think we ever learned that relation.
 
diggory said:
where did this example 13 business come from? I have to answer the same question but I don't think we ever learned that relation.

It's the Cauchy Integral Theorem. You've got to have seen it.
 
Aw dang well okay. Thanks for the help though
 
Some other ideas, just to illustrate:

1)Notice that the argument is not even continuous in the plane, let alone analytic.

2)If you accept that Logz and e^z are" inverses " , then notice that e^z is not 1-1 in the plane ( it is actually oo->1), so that it cannot have a global inverse in the plane.