Rouche's Theorem, Alternate Proof

In summary: Omega.Since 0 \not\in W and 0 lies in the unbounded component of \mathbb{C} \setminus \mbox{image } \gamma, it follows that \mbox{Ind}(\gamma,0)=0. Therefore, there exists a branch of the logarithm L in W, holomorphic in W.Now, consider the function h=f/g. Since f and g satisfy |f(z)-g(z)| < |f(z)|+|g(z)| for all z \in \mbox{image } \gamma, we have |h(z)-1| < 1 for all z \in \mbox{image } \gamma. This
  • #1
dmdmd
1
0

Homework Statement



Prove Rouche's Theorem using the existence of a branch of the logarithm in the slit plane [tex] W=\mathbb{C} \setminus (-\infty, 0] [/tex].

Homework Equations



I suppose Rouche's Theorem might be relavent: Let [tex]\gamma[/tex] be a smooth closed curve in the open set [tex]V[/tex], and let [tex]\Omega=\{z \in V | \mbox{Ind}(\gamma,z)=1\}[/tex] ([[tex]\mbox{Ind}(\gamma,z)[/tex] is the winding number of [tex]\gamma[/tex] about [tex]z[/tex]). Then if f,g are holomorphic in [tex]V[/tex] and satisfy [tex]|f(z)-g(z)| < |f(z)|+|g(z)|[/tex] for all [tex]z \in \mbox{image } \gamma[/tex], then f and g have the same number of zeroes in [tex]\Omega[/tex].

The Attempt at a Solution



Since [tex]0 \not\in W[/tex] and 0 lies in the unbounded component of [tex]\mathbb{C} \setminus \mbox{image } \gamma[/tex], it follows that [tex]\mbox{Ind}(\gamma,0)=0[/tex]. Therefore, there exists a branch of the logarithm L in W, holomorphic in W. Now if I could show that there is an open set O containing [tex]\mbox{image } \gamma[/tex] such that [tex]f(z)/g(z) \in W[/tex] for every [tex]z \in O[/tex], then I would be done. This is because it would imply that [tex]F:=L \circ (f/g)[/tex] is holomorphic in O, so by Cauchy's Theorem, [tex]\int_{\gamma} F'(z) \, dz =0[/tex]. But [tex]F'(z)=f'(z)/f(z)-g'(z)/g(z)[/tex] and [tex]\int_{\gamma} f'(z)/f(z) \, dz - \int_{\gamma} g'(z)/g(z) \, dz[/tex] is precisely the number of zeroes of f in [tex]\Omega[/tex] minus the number of zeroes of g in [tex]\Omega[/tex]. My problem is showing the existence of such an O. I only can show that [tex]f(z)/g(z) \in W[/tex] for [tex]z \in \mbox{image } \gamma[/tex]. Please help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2




Thank you for your question. Rouche's Theorem is indeed a powerful tool in complex analysis, and it can be proven using the existence of a branch of the logarithm in the slit plane. Let me guide you through the proof step by step.

First, let's recall the statement of Rouche's Theorem: Let \gamma be a smooth closed curve in the open set V, and let \Omega=\{z \in V | \mbox{Ind}(\gamma,z)=1\}. Then if f and g are holomorphic in V and satisfy |f(z)-g(z)| < |f(z)|+|g(z)| for all z \in \mbox{image } \gamma, then f and g have the same number of zeroes in \Omega.

To prove this theorem using the existence of a branch of the logarithm in the slit plane, we will need to use the following lemma:

Lemma: Let \gamma be a smooth closed curve in the open set V, and let \Omega=\{z \in V | \mbox{Ind}(\gamma,z)=1\}. If f is holomorphic in V and has a zero of order n at a point z_0 \in \Omega, then there exists an open set O containing \mbox{image } \gamma such that f(z) \neq 0 for all z \in O.

Proof of Lemma: Since f is holomorphic, it can be written as a power series around z_0: f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n(z-z_0)^n. Since z_0 is a zero of order n, we have a_n \neq 0. Now, by continuity of f, there exists an open set O containing \mbox{image } \gamma such that |f(z)-a_n(z-z_0)^n| < |a_n(z-z_0)^n| for all z \in O. This implies that f(z) \neq 0 for all z \in O.

Now, let's use this lemma to prove Rouche's Theorem. Let f and g be holomorphic functions in V that satisfy |f(z)-g(z)| < |f(z)|+|g(z)| for all z \in \mbox{image } \gamma. We want to show that f and g have the
 

What is Rouche's Theorem, Alternate Proof?

Rouche's Theorem is a mathematical theorem used in complex analysis to prove the number of zeros of a complex polynomial within a given region. The alternate proof of Rouche's Theorem is a different method of proving this theorem.

What is the significance of Rouche's Theorem, Alternate Proof?

Rouche's Theorem, Alternate Proof is significant because it provides an alternative method for proving the number of zeros of a complex polynomial within a given region. It can also be used to prove other theorems in complex analysis.

What is the main difference between Rouche's Theorem and its alternate proof?

The main difference between Rouche's Theorem and its alternate proof is the approach used in the proof. While Rouche's Theorem uses the concept of analytic functions, its alternate proof uses the concept of homotopy.

What are the conditions for applying Rouche's Theorem, Alternate Proof?

In order to apply Rouche's Theorem, Alternate Proof, the region in question must be simply connected and the complex polynomial must be analytic within that region. Additionally, there must be a "dominating" function and a "smaller" function, both of which must have the same number of zeros within the region.

Can Rouche's Theorem, Alternate Proof be used for polynomials with multiple variables?

Yes, Rouche's Theorem, Alternate Proof can be generalized to polynomials with multiple variables. However, the proof becomes more complicated and requires additional conditions to be met.

Similar threads

  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
868
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
934
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
516
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
14
Views
462
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
640
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
16
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top