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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pole
Click For Summary
There is no function \( f \) that is analytic on the punctured unit disc \( \mathbb{D} - \{0\} \) such that \( f' \) has a simple pole at 0. The derivative \( f' \) can be expressed as a quotient of functions, leading to poles of order 2, thus excluding the possibility of a simple pole at 0. The discussion highlights that if 0 is not a branch point, \( f \) can be represented by a Laurent series centered at 0, which confirms that \( f' \) cannot have a simple pole there. The counterexample of \( f(z) = \ln z \) is noted, but it is clarified that this function is not analytic at 0, making the branch point consideration relevant. Ultimately, the theorem's formulation must account for the nature of singularities at 0.
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
3K
  • · 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