MHB Why is a complex function analytic if it has a non-zero imaginary component?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ognik
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the conditions under which the function log(z^2 + 2) is analytic, specifically addressing the requirement that z^2 + 2 must be greater than zero. Participants clarify that a complex function is analytic if it has a derivative, and the logarithm is defined and analytic on the complex plane excluding the negative real axis. The conversation highlights the importance of understanding the definition of complex logarithms and the notation used, emphasizing that expressions like z > 0 are not applicable in the context of complex numbers. Additionally, there is a focus on the misconception that having a non-zero imaginary component guarantees analyticity for all complex functions. Overall, the thread provides insights into complex analysis and the nuances of its terminology.
ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2
Been working through videos on complex analysis, just when I thought I had a good grasp of the basics, I came across an example that I don't follow.

Where is $ log(z^2 + 2) $ analytic?
The presenter stated, it will be analytic unless $ z^2 + 2 \le 0$. I can't find a property like this anywhere, so where does he get that?

He then expands $ z^2 + 2 $ and states that if both x,y are non-zero, then we will have an imaginary part and the function will be analytic because we are not on the real axis. Again I can't find this property - that a complex function will be analytic if it has a non-zero imaginary component?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi ognik,

Start by answering the following questions. How is $\log(z)$ defined? Where is $\log(z)$ analytic?
 
Hi Euge, by definition do you mean from z=$ e^w $, so that w = ln(z)?

A function is analytic at z if it has a derivative there, so with f(z) = ln(z), f'(z) = 1/z. So I can see z cannot = 0. And you can't have log of a negative, so $ z > 0 $

For f(z)=$ ln(z^2 + 2) , f'(z) = \frac{2z}{z^2 + 2} $, so $ z^2 + 2 \:must \:> 0. $ Of course I see it now. But then $ ln(z^2 + 2) $ is analytic for $ z^2 > -2 $ isn't it? Whether on real axis or with imaginary part?
 
Assume $z \neq 0$. The principal logarithm of $z$, typically denoted $Log\, z$, is defined as $\ln|z| + i\operatorname{arg}(z)$ were $-\pi < \arg(z) \le \pi$. It is defined and analytic on $\Bbb C \setminus (-\infty, 0]$. Note that some define $Log\, z$ be to the logarithm with $0 < \arg(z) \le 2\pi$.

Please show more care when discussing order with complex numbers. The complex numbers do not form an ordered field, so expressions like $z > 0$ and $z^2 > -2$ do not make sense. You could say $z$ is positive real number or $z^2 + 2$ lies on the positive real axis instead of these inequalities.

One minor note to add: do not write $ln(z)$ for the complex logarithm; use $log(z)$ instead. Keep in mind that you're not dealing with the natural logarithm of a real number.
 
Thanks as always Euge, all understood. (Just FYI, this is not part of my course, I just decided I'd to explore complex analysis a bit deeper than the text does; I'm doing maths for Physicists, apparently we are not pure :-) ). The text also does not cover ordered fields - but I did a bit more browsing.

I am still coming to grips with notation, for example I thought using log implied base 10, (which is why I wrote ln) - so log(z) implies base e 'cos z is complex?

Back to the main point - is it correct to say "the function will be analytic because we are not on the real axis" - for any complex function?

(I'd like to express again my profound gratitude for this forum, my 'lecturer' does not answer a lot of my emails, so forums are in practice the only interaction I have.)
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K