Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Prove f(z) = |z| is not analytic

  1. Jan 24, 2015 #1
    [tex]z\in\mathbb C[/tex]

    I imagine it is not too difficult, I'm just missing something. I need to use the limit definition to prove it,

    [tex] lim_{Δz\rightarrow 0} \frac{f(z+Δz)-f(z)}{Δz} [/tex]

    Alternatively, using Cauchy-Riemann conditions, am I correct to assume

    [tex]u(x,y) = x^2 + y^2[/tex] and [tex] v(x,y) = 0 [/tex]

    Then,

    [tex]u_x ≠ v_y[/tex] and [tex]u_y ≠ - v_x[/tex]

    ?

    Thanks!

    Chad
     
    Last edited: Jan 24, 2015
  2. jcsd
  3. Jan 25, 2015 #2

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    Your u(x) is not correct, but you can use the Cauchy-Riemann equations, or show that the limit does not exist somewhere.
     
  4. Jan 25, 2015 #3
    Right, my bad!

    [tex] u(x) = \sqrt{x^2+y^2} [/tex]

    Correct?

    Any idea how to prove it using the limit approach?

    Chad
     
  5. Jan 25, 2015 #4
    Or rather, any idea how to prove it is differentiable nowhere?
     
  6. Jan 26, 2015 #5
    Try rewriting it in polar form centered around an arbitrary point. The limit exists if the value is the same for any path. Hence, the value of the limit should be independent of the angle.
     
  7. Jan 26, 2015 #6
    If you center around 0 you get independent of the angle but it is not differentiable (|r|)

    I would say it is rather the opposite : if it is differentiable then it does not depend on the path.

    There are examples where the function is differentiable along every direction but it is not differentiable.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015
  8. Jan 26, 2015 #7
    I'm not sure what you mean there. IIRC, a function is differentiable at a point if the derivative exists at that point and is continuous at that point. A derivative exists at a point if the limit, from the definition of a derivative, exists. A limit exists iff all one-sided limits exist and are the same value. So a polar form (in 2D case anyways) would consider all paths and, if the limit wrt to the radius exists and is independent of the angle, then the function is differentiable at that point, given that it is also continuous.

    EDIT: Granted, your statement isn't wrong from a logic standpoint. Of course differentiability implies path independence but it also implies continuity. I suppose I left out the latter in my previous post since I thought it was already understood.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015
  9. Jan 26, 2015 #8

    Svein

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Since |z| is real, [itex]\frac{\partial \lvert z \rvert}{\partial y} = 0 [/itex]. Cauchy-Riemann implies that [itex] \frac{\partial \lvert z \rvert}{\partial x} [/itex] must also be zero, which again means that for |z| to be analytic, it must be a constant. And since |z| obviously is not a constant...
     
  10. Jan 26, 2015 #9
    [tex]\lim_{\Delta z\to 0}\frac{|z_0+\Delta z|-|z_0|}{\Delta z}[/tex]

    By triangle inequality,

    [tex]|z_0+\Delta z|-|z_0| \leq |\Delta z|[/tex]

    Using special case where,

    [tex]|z_0+\Delta z|-|z_0| = |\Delta z|[/tex]

    Gives,

    [tex]\lim_{\Delta z\to 0}\frac{|\Delta z|}{\Delta z} [/tex]

    When approaching zero on positive real axis, this limit is equal to one. When approaching zero on negative real axis, this limit is equal to -1.

    Rigorous?

    Chad
     
  11. Jan 26, 2015 #10

    Svein

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Writing [itex] z=re^{i\phi}[/itex], [itex] \vert z \vert = r [/itex]. Thus [itex] \frac{\vert z \vert}{z} = e^{-i\phi} [/itex]....
     
  12. Jan 26, 2015 #11

    WWGD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Actually, it is differentiable at z=0 but nowhere analytic , because there is no open set where C-R is satisfied.
     
  13. Jan 26, 2015 #12

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    This is true on the real axis only, or for the imaginary part of the expression (I guess you mean that).
    What is its derivative? Not even the restriction to the real values is differentiable there.
     
  14. Jan 26, 2015 #13

    WWGD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    But it satisfies C-R there, doesn't that imply differentiability?
     
  15. Jan 26, 2015 #14

    mfb

    User Avatar
    2016 Award

    Staff: Mentor

    No it does not, the derivatives of the real part are not even defined.
     
  16. Jan 26, 2015 #15

    WWGD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Ah, right we must have that the partial derivatives exist and are continuous. EDIT I realized
    I was for some reason thinking about f(z)=z^ , i.e., f(x+iy)=x-iy for some reason instead.
     
    Last edited: Jan 26, 2015
  17. Jan 27, 2015 #16

    Svein

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    OK. I apologize. The full text should be: In order to use the Cauchy-Riemann test, you write [itex] f(z)=u(z) + iv(z)[/itex], with u and v both real. When [itex]f(z)=\vert z \vert [/itex], [itex]v=0 [/itex] for all z, therefore [itex]\frac{\partial v}{\partial y} = 0 [/itex] and [itex]\frac{\partial v}{\partial x} = 0 [/itex]. If [itex]\vert z \vert [/itex] were analytic, Cauchy-Riemann would force [itex]\frac{\partial u}{\partial y} = 0 [/itex] and [itex]\frac{\partial u}{\partial x} = 0 [/itex], which would imply that [itex]\vert z \vert [/itex] were a constant.
     
  18. Jan 28, 2015 #17

    WWGD

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    A correction of my last post, #15. I thought the function being used was ## f(z)=|z|^2## which is actually differentiable at ##z=0##, since the partials exist therein -- they are 2x and 2y respectively --and are continuous. Then ##f(z)## is differentiable at ##0## with derivative ## f'(z)=u_x(0,0)+iv_x(0,0)=0## but it is nowhere-analytic since , e.g., C-R is not satisfied in any open set.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Prove f(z) = |z| is not analytic
  1. How to draw z^(i+2) (Replies: 2)

Loading...