Proving Equality of Analytic Functions on a Simple Loop

Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
5 replies · 3K views
Warr
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Here's my question:

Let f and g be analytic inside and on the smple loop [tex]\Gamma[/tex]. Prove that if f(z)=g(z) for all z on [tex]\Gamma[/tex], then f(z)=g(z) for all z inside [tex]\Gamma[/tex].

Don't really know where to start on this one. This comes from the section 'Cauchy's Integral Formula'.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
well it states that for a point z0 inside gamma,

[tex]f(z_0)=\frac{1}{2\pi\i}{\int_\Gamma}\frac{f(z)}{z-z_0}dz[/tex]

But where do I go from there. I think I'm missing something big and obvious :x

k here is my guess:

since [tex]f(z_0)=g(z_0)[/tex] for all [tex]z_0[/tex] on [tex]\Gamma[/tex], then we know

[tex]\frac{1}{2\pi\i}{\int_\Gamma}\frac{f(z)}{z-z_0}dz=\frac{1}{2\pi\i}{\int_\Gamma}\frac{g(z)}{z-z_0}dz[/tex], and therefore f(z)=g(z) for all z in [tex]\Gamma[/tex] since this formula is ambiguous whether z_0 is on [tex]\Gamma[/tex] or inside of it.

Problem is this seems like I'm missing something. For this case, even if I write that shouldn't it still only apply to the loop itself and not what is inside. Is there some subtle thing I am missing that would allow me to actually say what I just said?
 
Last edited:
That's a perfectly valid proof. However, it's not true that "this formula is ambiguous whether z_0 is on or inside of it". It requires that z0 be inside the loop so that [itex]\frac{f(z)}{z-z_0}[/itex] be defined for all x on the loop.
 
Warr said:
since [tex]f(z_0)=g(z_0)[/tex]

How can you start the proof with this statement? That is what you are trying to prove!

Warr said:
for all [tex]z_0[/tex] on [tex]\Gamma[/tex]

Ummmm...NO. As Halls pointed out, z0 is a point INSIDE gamma, not on it.

Warr said:
[tex]\frac{1}{2\pi i}{\int_\Gamma} \ \frac{f(z)}{z-z_0} \ dz \ = \ \frac{1}{2\pi i}{\int_\Gamma} \ \frac{g(z)}{z-z_0} \ dz[/tex]

I think this is the statement you start the proof with. It follows immediately from the fact that f(z) = g(z) on Gamma. From there the proof is as straightforward as applying the formula.
 
Sorry, I don't think I was thinking too clearly when I wrote that. Thanks for the advice.