Question about branch of logarithms

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MathLearner123
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Analysis Complex Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the existence of a branch of the logarithm in an open subset of the complex plane, specifically under the conditions outlined in a proof from "Complex Made Simple" by David C. Ullrich. Participants explore the implications of the proof, the requirements for the domain, and the behavior of holomorphic functions related to the logarithm.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants question how a constant ##c \in \mathbb{C}## can be chosen to define a branch of the logarithm when it is only shown to hold for a specific point ##z_0##.
  • Others argue that if two functions ##f, g \in H(V)## agree at a single point and have identical derivatives, the conclusion about their equality depends on whether ##V## is connected.
  • Some participants suggest that the statement about the existence of a branch of the logarithm is incorrect unless ##V## is a domain (connected and open set).
  • There is a proposal that a connected, simply-connected set is necessary for the logarithmic integral to be well-defined.
  • It is noted that if ##V## is not connected, a branch of the logarithm can still be defined in each connected, open part of ##V##, although the definitions may not be unique.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about whether all properties of the logarithm can remain true across different sections of ##V## unless the definitions are compatible.
  • There is a discussion about the implications of branch cuts and discontinuities in relation to the logarithm when encircling the point ##z=0##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the conditions necessary for the existence of a branch of the logarithm, particularly concerning the connectivity and simply-connected nature of the domain. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the implications of the proof or the requirements for the domain.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the definitions of connected and simply-connected sets, as well as the unresolved mathematical steps regarding the choice of constants and the behavior of holomorphic functions in disconnected domains.

MathLearner123
Messages
25
Reaction score
4
I've read a proof from Complex Made Simple (David C. Ullrich)
Proposition 4.3. Suppose that ##V## is an open subset of the plane. There exists a branch of the logarithm in ##V## if and only if there exists ##f \in H(V)## with ##f'(z) = \frac{1}{z}## for all ##z \in V##.

Proof: One direction is trivial and the other is very easy: Suppose that ##f \in H(V)## and ##f'(z) = \frac{1}{z}## for all ##z \in V##. Choose ##z_0 \in V##. Note that ##z_0 \ne 0##, so ##z_0## has a logarithm. Hence we can choose a constant ##c \in \mathbb{C}## such that ##e^{c+f(z_0)} = z_0##, and now ##L## is a branch of the logarithm in ##V##, if ##L(z) = c+f(z)## for all ##z \in V##.

I don't understand how we can choose that constant ##c \in \mathbb{C}## and how it is a branch of logarithm if we know that ##e^{L(z)} = z## only for ##z = z_0##.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Suppose two functions, ##f, g \in H(V)## agree at a single point and have identical derivatives in ##V##. What can you conclude?
 
FactChecker said:
Suppose two functions, ##f, g \in H(V)## agree at a single point and have identical derivatives in ##V##. What can you conclude?
I don't know if they are equal if ##V## is not connected.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
MathLearner123 said:
I don't know if they are equal if ##V## is not connected.
Very good point. I stand corrected. In addition to that, I'm not sure that my comment gets you any farther. It just seems that the derivative ##1/z## has not been adequately used yet.
 
FactChecker said:
Very good point. I stand corrected. In addition to that, I'm not sure that my comment gets you any farther. It just seems that the derivative ##1/z## has not been adequately used yet.
I think that the statement is incorrect, and ##V## needs to be a domain (i.e. connected and open set), and this will make the statement true. But I still waiting for answers. I really need an answer :smile:
 
IIRC, we need a connected , simply-connected set, so that ##\int_{\gamma}\frac{dz}{z}##
Is well-defined, i.e., independent of path.
 
MathLearner123 said:
I've read a proof from Complex Made Simple (David C. Ullrich)
Proposition 4.3. Suppose that ##V## is an open subset of the plane. There exists a branch of the logarithm in ##V## if and only if there exists ##f \in H(V)## with ##f'(z) = \frac{1}{z}## for all ##z \in V##.

Proof: One direction is trivial and the other is very easy: Suppose that ##f \in H(V)## and ##f'(z) = \frac{1}{z}## for all ##z \in V##. Choose ##z_0 \in V##. Note that ##z_0 \ne 0##, so ##z_0## has a logarithm. Hence we can choose a constant ##c \in \mathbb{C}## such that ##e^{c+f(z_0)} = z_0##, and now ##L## is a branch of the logarithm in ##V##, if ##L(z) = c+f(z)## for all ##z \in V##.

I don't understand how we can choose that constant ##c \in \mathbb{C}## and how it is a branch of logarithm if we know that ##e^{L(z)} = z## only for ##z = z_0##.

Thanks!
The issue with ##z_0## is that it's arbitrary, and as long as ##z_0 \neq 0##, the rest will hold. I assume we define a log of ##z## to be a holomorphic function ##f(z)## with ##e^{f(z)}=z##. Then ##\frac{d}{dz}(e^{f(z)})=e^{f(z)}f'(z)=1##, so that ##f'(z)=\frac{1}{z}##
Edit: The remainder of the argument involves the use of an auxiliary function ##g(z):=ze^{-f(z)}##, differentiate it, show it's constant, and the rest will follow.
 
Last edited:
@WWGD if derivative of ##g## is constant, I still need to have that ##V## is domain to show that. So I also need that ##V## is connected.
 
MathLearner123 said:
@WWGD if derivative of ##g## is constant, I still need to have that ##V## is domain to show that. So I also need that ##V## is connected.
If ##V## is not connected, you can still define a branch of a logarithm in each connected, open part of ##V##. The derivative is still 1/z in each part. The definitions will not be unique, but the original statement does not insist on a unique solution.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mathwonk
  • #10
FactChecker said:
If ##V## is not connected, you can still define a branch of a logarithm in each connected, open part of ##V##. The derivative is still 1/z in each part. The definitions will not be unique, but the original statement does not insist on a unique solution.
Oh so it will be a branch of logarithm in each connected, open part, and it will be something like a piecewise branch of logarithm on ##V##?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: FactChecker
  • #11
And note that, as you realize, the proof as given is incorrect, as it assumes V is connected; so the argument, and the choice of a fixed point z0, and constant c, should be extended to separate such choices in every connected component of V. I.e., as stated, the function L(z) will usually not be a logarithm in any connected component other than the one containing z0.

I am just stating explicitly what you and Factchecker have pointed out.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: MathLearner123
  • #12
Not just connected, but simply-connected, for the logarithmic integral to be well-defined. The standard motivation is ##\int_ {\gamma} \frac{dz}{z}=i2\pi \neq 0##
 
  • #13
MathLearner123 said:
Oh so it will be a branch of logarithm in each connected, open part, and it will be something like a piecewise branch of logarithm on ##V##?
I am not sure if all the normal properties of the logarithm can remain true unless the definitions in different sections are compatible.
 
  • #14
WWGD said:
Not just connected, but simply-connected, for the logarithmic integral to be well-defined. The standard motivation is ##\int_ {\gamma} \frac{dz}{z}=i2\pi \neq 0##
The OP specified that there would be a branch of the logarithm. I assumed that it would allow a branch cut and the associated discontinuity at the branch cut for any part of the domain that encircled z=0.
 
  • #15
FactChecker said:
The OP specified that there would be a branch of the logarithm. I assumed that it would allow a branch cut and the associated discontinuity at the branch cut for any part of the domain that encircled z=0.
I think the condition generalized to simply-connected regions, as the issue is that of winding around points not in the region.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K