Proving No Simple Pole at 0 for $f'$ on $\mathbb{D} - \{0\}$

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pole
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the question of whether there exists a function \( f \) that is analytic on the punctured unit disc \( \mathbb{D} - \{0\} \) such that the derivative \( f' \) has a simple pole at 0. Participants explore the implications of singularities, particularly branch points, on the analyticity of \( f \) and the nature of \( f' \).

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that if \( f \) is analytic on \( \mathbb{D} - \{0\} \), then \( f' \) cannot have a simple pole at 0, as it can be expressed as a quotient of functions leading to poles of order 2.
  • Another participant presents \( f(z) = \ln z \) as a counterexample, noting that \( f' = \frac{1}{z} \) has a simple pole at 0, suggesting that the original claim may need refinement regarding the conditions on \( f \).
  • There is a repeated emphasis on the concept of branch points, with a participant arguing that if 0 is not a branch point, then \( f \) can be expressed as a Laurent series centered at 0, leading to the conclusion that \( f' \) cannot have a simple pole at 0.
  • Some participants question the relevance of branch points in the context of the theorem, suggesting that the conditions may not be adequately addressed in the original formulation.
  • There is a discussion about the uniform convergence of the Laurent series derived from \( f \), with participants seeking clarification on this aspect.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the existence of functions that meet the criteria outlined in the original question. While some support the idea that \( f' \) cannot have a simple pole at 0, others provide counterexamples and challenge the assumptions regarding branch points, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the importance of defining branch points and the implications of singularities on the analyticity of functions. There is an ongoing debate about the conditions under which the original claim holds, particularly regarding the nature of \( f \) and its derivative.

Dustinsfl
Messages
2,217
Reaction score
5
Prove that there is no function $f$ such that $f$ is analytic on the punctured unit disc $\mathbb{D} - \{0\}$, and $f'$ has a simple pole at 0.

Let $f$ be analytic on the punctured disc $\mathbb{D} - \{0\}$.
$$
f(z) = \frac{g(z)}{h(z)}
$$
such that $h(z)\neq 0$.

Then
$$
f'(z) = \frac{g'(z)h(z) - g(z)h'(z)}{(h(z))^2}
$$

So $f'(z)$ has only poles of order 2. Therefore, $f'$ can't have a simple pole at 0.

How is this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Counterexample: $\displaystyle f(z)=\ln z$ is analytic in $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$ and is $\displaystyle f'(z)=\frac{1}{z}$...

... the exact formulation of the theorem should be: prove that there is no function f(*) so that f(*) in analytic in the punctured disk $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$, $\{0\}$ is not a brantch point, and f'(*) has a simple pole at $\{0\}$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
Counterexample: $\displaystyle f(z)=\ln z$ is analytic in $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$ and is $\displaystyle f'(z)=\frac{1}{z}$...

... the exact formulation of the theorem should be: prove that there is no function f(*) so that f(*) in analytic in the punctured disk $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$, $\{0\}$ is not a brantch point, and f'(*) has a simple pole at $\{0\}$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

Giving that caveat. Would I be correct then?
 
chisigma said:
The existence of singularities called brantch points is too often forgotten. For more information see...

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BranchPoint.html

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

Is what I have correct if I add the branch put argument in then?
 
If $\{0\}$ is not a brantch point, then f(*) can be written as Laurent series 'centered' in $z=0$...

$\displaystyle f(z)= \sum_{n=- \infty}^{+ \infty} a_{n}\ z^{n}$ (1)

Now if we derive (1) we obtain in any case a Laurent series in which is $a_{-1}=0$ so that f'(*) has no single pole in $\{0\}$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
chisigma said:
If $\{0\}$ is not a brantch point, then f(*) can be written as Laurent series 'centered' in $z=0$...

$\displaystyle f(z)= \sum_{n=- \infty}^{+ \infty} a_{n}\ z^{n}$ (1)

Now if we derive (1) we obtain in any case a Laurent series in which is $a_{-1}=0$ so that f'(*) has no single pole in $\{0\}$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

So we can assume the series is uniformly convergent?
 
chisigma said:
Counterexample: $\displaystyle f(z)=\ln z$ is analytic in $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$ and is $\displaystyle f'(z)=\frac{1}{z}$...

... the exact formulation of the theorem should be: prove that there is no function f(*) so that f(*) in analytic in the punctured disk $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$, $\{0\}$ is not a brantch point, and f'(*) has a simple pole at $\{0\}$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

But the theorem says f has to be analytic on the punctured disc isn't ln z not analytic on it. So the branch point part would be irrelevant.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K