Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: analytic function problem
Replies: 76   Last Post: Oct 28, 1996 11:08 AM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 David Ullrich Posts: 1,252 Registered: 12/6/04
Re: analytic function problem
Posted: Oct 1, 1996 10:45 AM

Hunter James D. STA x4202 wrote:
>
> In article <324FEC1A.4533@math.okstate.edu>,
> David Ullrich <ullrich@math.okstate.edu> wrote:

> >Christopher wrote:
> >>
> >> Hello,
> >> Please tell me how to prove simply that an analytic function is a function of
> >> z only, no z_bar.

> >
> > Using z* for the conjugate of z:
> >
> > You need to state the conclusion more precisely before this can be
> >proved. We all agree that f(z) = z^2 is analytic, but f(z) = g(z*) for a
> >certain function g , so f _is_ "a function of z*".

>
> Yes, of course this is right.
>
> For any function of z, say, y = f(z) = f(conj(z*)).
>
> So, how about the following way to say this.
>
> If y = f(z) is an analytic function of z then y is necessarily
> not an analytic function of z*, and
> if y = g(z*) is an analytic function
> of z*, then y is necessarily not a function of z.
>
> In either case, I think you could use chain rule would show that dz*/dz exists,
> which can be easily shown to be false.
>
> If y is an analytic function of z then
> dy/dz = f'(z)
>
> and if y is an analytic function of z*
>
> dy/dz* = f'(z)dz/dz*
>
> Does this do it?

This occurred to me. It's not _quite_ correct, as Kastrup points out,
but it's easily correctable.
However I decided not to mention it because it seems circular, in a moral
if not formal sense: The question is why can an analytic function depend only
on z and not z*. This seems like we're sort of trying to determine what the
phrase "analytic function" really means, and if that's what we're trying to
do then an explanation that includes the phrase "analytic function" seems
a little off.

Seems like the "right" answer might have to do with power series:
Say you have a real-analytic function in the plane. This says it has a
power series expansion as a function in R^2, ie a power series expansion
in terms of x and y. It's easy to change that to a series in terms of
z and z*, and then it turns out the function is complex-analytic if and
only if there are no z*'s in the expansion. (The Cauchy-Riemann equations
say df/d(z*) = 0 (where the d's are supposed to be curly partial-derivative
things), and it turns out that if you have a power series in z and z* you
can calculate the "partial wrt z*" exactly as though z and z* were independent
variables and it was a real partial derivative...)

Hmm, I just realized I'm using different notation than you were here.
One often defines df/dz = (df/dx - i df/dy)/2 and df/d(z*) = (df/dx + i df/dy)/2.
Now these operators are defined for "any" f , and f is analytic if and only if
df/d(z*) = 0, in which case f' = df/dz . (Must not be exactly the notation
you had in mind, because, although I hesitate to mention this where people
might hear it, now d(z*)/dz certainly does exist, in fact d(z*)/dz = 0.
I hope nobody gets the idea I'm claiming z* is analytic...)

--
David Ullrich

?his ?s ?avid ?llrich's ?ig ?ile
(Someone undeleted it for me...)

Date Subject Author
9/30/96 Christopher
9/30/96 David Ullrich
9/30/96 Hunter James D. STA x4202
10/1/96 David Ullrich
9/30/96 ilias kastanas 08-14-90
9/30/96 Dik T. Winter
10/1/96 David Kastrup
10/1/96 Hunter James D. STA x4202
9/30/96 Zdislav V. Kovarik
9/30/96 Anne DeCampo
10/2/96 Christopher
10/1/96 Tleko
10/2/96 David Kastrup
10/3/96 Dik T. Winter
10/3/96 Tleko
10/3/96 David Ullrich
10/3/96 Tleko
10/3/96 Dik T. Winter
10/3/96 Tleko
10/3/96 Zdislav V. Kovarik
10/5/96 Tleko
10/5/96 Dik T. Winter
10/6/96 Tleko
10/6/96 David Ullrich
10/7/96 ilias kastanas 08-14-90
10/7/96 Tleko
10/7/96 Andreas Leitgeb
10/7/96 Andreas Leitgeb
10/7/96 ilias kastanas 08-14-90
10/8/96 Tleko
10/8/96 Zdislav V. Kovarik
10/8/96 ilias kastanas 08-14-90
10/9/96 David Ullrich
10/8/96 Jim Hunter
10/8/96 Tleko
10/9/96 David Kastrup
10/9/96 Ilias Kastanas
10/11/96 Tleko
10/12/96 ilias kastanas 08-14-90
10/12/96 Dik T. Winter
10/11/96 Tleko
10/11/96 Tleko
10/11/96 Tleko
10/11/96 Tleko
10/11/96 Tleko
10/12/96 Tleko
10/12/96 Sue Franklin
10/13/96 Ilias Kastanas
10/13/96 Tleko
10/13/96 Tleko
10/13/96 ilias kastanas 08-14-90
10/14/96 Dik T. Winter
10/13/96 Tleko
10/13/96 Tleko
10/14/96 ilias kastanas 08-14-90
10/14/96 Dik T. Winter
10/15/96 Tleko
10/15/96 David Kastrup
10/15/96 Ilias Kastanas
10/16/96 Tleko
10/16/96 Dik T. Winter
10/17/96 Raymond DeCampo
10/18/96 Ariel Scolnicov
10/19/96 Tleko
10/19/96 Dik T. Winter
10/20/96 Terry Moore
10/21/96 Dik T. Winter
10/22/96 Ariel Scolnicov
10/20/96 Tleko
10/21/96 Terry Moore
10/22/96 David Kastrup
10/23/96 Tleko
10/24/96 Gunter Bengel
10/28/96 David Kastrup
10/28/96 David Ullrich