# Prove that this function is holomorphic

GwtBc

## Homework Statement

Prove that the function ## f(z)= 1/\sqrt{2}(\sqrt{\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}+x}+i*sgn(y)\sqrt{\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}-x})## is holomorphic on the domain ## \Omega = \left \{ z: z \neq 0, \left | \arg{z} \right | <\pi\right \} ## and further that in this domain ##f(z)^{2} = z. ##

## Homework Equations

if
## f(z) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y) ##
Then we have the Cauchy-Riemann relations for a holomorphic function
## \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial v}{\partial y},\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} = -\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}##

## The Attempt at a Solution

Essentially I've been trying to show that the function conforms with the Cauchy Riemann equations, but there are two issues. Firstly, the imaginary component seems not to be differentiable where y = 0. I tried invoking first principles but the limit doesn't exist. Second is that it's not immediately obvious that the Cauchy relations hold even where im{f} is differentiable. I could see this latter issue being resolved by some algebraic trick, but I'm kind of clueless about the first.

Homework Helper
Dearly Missed

## Homework Statement

Prove that the function ## f(z)= 1/\sqrt{2}(\sqrt{\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}+x}+i*sgn(y)\sqrt{\sqrt{x^{2}+y^{2}}-x})## is holomorphic on the domain ## \Omega = \left \{ z: z \neq 0, \left | \arg{z} \right | <\pi\right \} ## and further that in this domain ##f(z)^{2} = z. ##

## Homework Equations

if
## f(z) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y) ##
Then we have the Cauchy-Riemann relations for a holomorphic function
## \frac{\partial u}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial v}{\partial y},\hspace{0.3cm} \frac{\partial v}{\partial x} = -\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}##

## The Attempt at a Solution

Essentially I've been trying to show that the function conforms with the Cauchy Riemann equations, but there are two issues. Firstly, the imaginary component seems not to be differentiable where y = 0. I tried invoking first principles but the limit doesn't exist. Second is that it's not immediately obvious that the Cauchy relations hold even where im{f} is differentiable. I could see this latter issue being resolved by some algebraic trick, but I'm kind of clueless about the first.

Have you forgotten the restrictions placed on ##z##?

GwtBc
Have you forgotten the restrictions placed on ##z##?
I don't think so. So ##z## can be any number in the complex plane but the negative reals or zero. This still means the function has to be differentiable at any point ##(a,0)## where ##a \in \mathbb{R}## and ##a>0##

Homework Helper
Dearly Missed
I don't think so. So ##z## can be any number in the complex plane but the negative reals or zero. This still means the function has to be differentiable at any point ##(a,0)## where ##a \in \mathbb{R}## and ##a>0##

If ##z = r e^{i \theta},## then ##|arg(z)| < \pi## means ## 0 \leq \theta < \pi##. Together with ##z \neq 0##, this ensures that you will never have ##y = 0## when ##x \leq 0##. Certainly we have ##y > 0## in the interior of the region ##\Omega##. Is that enough? How do your course notes and/or textbook deal with the concept of differentiability at a boundary point of a region? (Back in the Stone Age when I took complex variables we did not let "holomorhpic" look at boundary points.)

Note added in edit: If you are using the convention that ##\theta \in (-\pi,pi]##, then, of course, the condition ##|\theta| < \pi## just eliminates the negative real axis, nothing more. However, if you use the convention that ##\theta \in [0,2 \pi)## then ##|\theta| < \pi## is the upper half-plane with the negative real axis removed.

Check your textbook or course notes to see which convention is assumed for ##\theta = \text{Arg}(z).##

Last edited:
GwtBc
Homework Helper
Check your textbook or course notes to see which convention is assumed for ##\theta = \text{Arg}(z).##

Since they specified ##|arg(z)|## I'm pretty sure they intend to cover negative values of ##arg(z)##. Also ##sgn(y) |y|## might not look differentiable, but it is. An easy way to show it's holomorphic is to show that if ##z = r e^{i \theta}## what you have there is a formula for ##\sqrt{r} e^{i \frac{\theta}{2}}##.

GwtBc
Homework Helper
Dearly Missed
Since they specified ##|arg(z)|## I'm pretty sure they intend to cover negative values of ##arg(z)##. Also ##sgn(y) |y|## might not look differentiable, but it is. An easy way to show it's holomorphic is to show that if ##z = r e^{i \theta}## what you have there is a formula for ##\sqrt{r} e^{i \frac{\theta}{2}}##.

I guess you are right on that score. Anyway, ##\text{sgn}(y) |y| = y,## so of course it is smooth.

GwtBc
If ##z = r e^{i \theta},## then ##|arg(z)| < \pi## means ## 0 \leq \theta < \pi##. Together with ##z \neq 0##, this ensures that you will never have ##y = 0## when ##x \leq 0##. Certainly we have ##y > 0## in the interior of the region ##\Omega##. Is that enough? How do your course notes and/or textbook deal with the concept of differentiability at a boundary point of a region? (Back in the Stone Age when I took complex variables we did not let "holomorhpic" look at boundary points.)

Note added in edit: If you are using the convention that ##\theta \in (-\pi,pi]##, then, of course, the condition ##|\theta| < \pi## just eliminates the negative real axis, nothing more. However, if you use the convention that ##\theta \in [0,2 \pi)## then ##|\theta| < \pi## is the upper half-plane with the negative real axis removed.

Check your textbook or course notes to see which convention is assumed for ##\theta = \text{Arg}(z).##

If ##f(z)## is defined in a nbd of ##z_{0}## we say that ##f(z)## is differentiable at ##z_{0}## if we have that ##f(z) = f(z_{0})+L(z-z_{0})+\eta## where the complex number ##L## is independent of ##z## and ##\frac{\eta}{\left |z-z_{0} \right |} \rightarrow 0## as ##z \rightarrow z_{0}##. I take this to mean that a function cannot ever be differentiable at a boundary point i.e. it cannot be differentiable on a close set, but that's ok cause this one is open.

edit: Still not sure why I can't differentiate at ##(a,0)##. Mathematica also outputs indeterminate for the limit defining the derivate at such points. My expression for it was ##\lim_{h \to 0}\frac{\sqrt{\sqrt{x^{2}+h^{2}}-x}}{h}##

edit #2: I was wrong. The equality where ## y \neq 0## is pretty much immediately obvious

Last edited:
GwtBc
Since they specified ##|arg(z)|## I'm pretty sure they intend to cover negative values of ##arg(z)##. Also ##sgn(y) |y|## might not look differentiable, but it is. An easy way to show it's holomorphic is to show that if ##z = r e^{i \theta}## what you have there is a formula for ##\sqrt{r} e^{i \frac{\theta}{2}}##.
I did show this and it pretty much solves the second half of the question, but I don't see how it helps with the first.

Homework Helper
I did show this and it pretty much solves the second half of the question, but I don't see how it helps with the first.

If you write ##\sqrt{r} e^{i \frac{\theta}{2}}## as ##z^\frac{1}{2}## it's pretty clearly holomorphic, isn't it?

GwtBc
If you write ##\sqrt{r} e^{i \frac{\theta}{2}}## as ##z^\frac{1}{2}## it's pretty clearly holomorphic, isn't it?
Well you can write ##z^{1/2}## as ##\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} z}(\frac{2}{3}z^{3/2})## which I do believe means it must be holomorphic, but then my question is, is this true ##\forall z \in \mathbb{C}## ? so Why would they specify the set ##\Omega##?

edit: Actually then you would have to show that ##z^{3/2}## is holomorphic (either way a proper proof is required for this question) but again I can't understand why this would only be true on ##\Omega##

Homework Helper
Well you can write ##z^{1/2}## as ##\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} z}(\frac{2}{3}z^{3/2})## which I do believe means it must be holomorphic, but then my question is, is this true ##\forall z \in \mathbb{C}## ? so Why would they specify the set ##\Omega##?

edit: Actually then you would have to show that ##z^{3/2}## is holomorphic (either way a proper proof is required for this question) but again I can't understand why this would only be true on ##\Omega##

Because ##z^\frac{1}{2}## isn't well defined over all of ##\mathbb{C}##. Every number has two different square roots. You need to pick a continuous branch of the function to say it's holomorphic. You can do that by omitting the negative real axis.

GwtBc
Homework Helper
Well you can write ##z^{1/2}## as ##\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} z}(\frac{2}{3}z^{3/2})## which I do believe means it must be holomorphic

I was thinking more of a proof using the difference quotient.

GwtBc
I was thinking more of a proof using the difference quotient.
As in a difference quotient w.r.t. ##z## directly?

Homework Helper
As in a difference quotient w.r.t. ##z## directly?

Sure, why not? Use the usual 'conjugate' trick.

aheight
Can we not show ##f(z)^2=z## then ##f(z)=\sqrt{z}## and thus ##f(z)## is analytic in ##\Omega##?