|
|
Re: Elementary complex analysis
Posted:
Mar 9, 2013 11:35 AM
|
|
On Fri, 08 Mar 2013 13:00:32 -0800, W^3 <82ndAve@comcast.net> wrote:
>Another proof: Let f(z) = sum(n=0,oo) a_nz^n. Then f(1/z) =
>sum(n=0,oo) a_n/z^n. Now f(1/z) -> oo as z -> 0. Hence by
>Casatori-Weierstrass, f(1/z) has a pole at 0. Thus f(1/z) = sum(n=0,N)
>a_n/z^n => f(z) = sum(n=0,N) a_nz^n.
Aargh. Me stupid this last week, thanks.
Another version of more or less this argument:
If f is not a polynomial then f has an essential singularity
at infinity. So C-W says the image of every nbd of
infinity is dense, in particular f does not tend to
iinfinity at infinity.
Aargh. I've been wondering why I said that
stupid thing about Little Picard. This explains that:
(i) Hmm, it's obvious from Big Picard.
(ii) But I _know_ that it's also obvious from much
less then Big Picard.
(iii) (without thinking) so it must be obvious from Little Picard.
But of course, C-W is another thing that's sort of in
the direction of Big Picard but much more elementary;
C-W is what was actually lurking in my head somewhere.
Aargh. Time to clean out my desk...
|
|
