Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Doing a bit of self study, and I'm unsure about a problem. It says,

Suppose $f(z)$ (a complex valued function) is analytic and satisfies the condition $|f(z)^2-1|<1$ in a region $\Omega$. Show that either $\Re f(z)>0$ or $\Re f(z)<0$ throughout $\Omega$.

I write $f=u+iv$ and suppose to the contrary that $\Re f(z)=0$ at some point $z_0$. Then $f(z_0)^2=-v(z_0)^2$. But $v$ is real valued, and so $$ |f(z_0)^2-1|=|-v(z_0)^2-1|\geq 1 $$ a contradiction.

What makes me uneasy is I don't see if I used that fact that $f$ is analytic. Did I interpret the question correctly, or did it mean that $\Re f(z)>0$ on all of $\Omega$ or $\Re f(z)<0$ on all of $\Omega$, but doesn't take both positive and negative values? Thanks.

share|improve this question
    
Is $\Omega$ connected? –  anon Feb 3 '12 at 7:22
    
@anon Yes, $\Omega$ is assumed to be connected. –  Dedede Feb 3 '12 at 7:24
2  
Dear Dedede: +1 for your perfect solution and above all for your sense of self-criticism.You are right that your proof only uses that $Re(f)=u$ is continuous and that $\Omega$ and thus its image inder $u$ are connected, so that both interpretations of the question are equivalent. Since you don't use analyticity, I conjecture that your proof is cleverer than the author's! Who was that, by the way? –  Georges Elencwajg Feb 3 '12 at 7:29
    
Dear @Georges, thanks for the upvote. The author is Lars Ahlfors, this is just problem 3 on page 72 of his Complex Analysis. Do you mind saying in a bit more detail how the two interpretations are equivalent? –  Dedede Feb 3 '12 at 7:35
1  
Ahlfors, eh? Now you can boast that your solution is better than that of the first ever Fields medalist ! –  Georges Elencwajg Feb 3 '12 at 8:46

2 Answers 2

up vote 5 down vote accepted

I don't think $f$ even needs to be analytic - only continuous on $\Omega$. In any case, I think the latter interpretation you pose is the correct one: the problem wants an either-or on all of $\Omega$, i.e.

$$\left(\;\forall z\in\Omega:\operatorname{Re} f>0 \;\right)\text{ or }\left(\;\forall z\in\Omega:\operatorname{Re} f<0 \;\right).$$

This isn't too much more work than what you've already done. You've shown the real part can't be zero; now assume there are two arguments $z$ and $w$ in $\Omega$ with $\operatorname{Re} f(z)<0<\operatorname{Re}f(w)$. Since $\Omega$ is connected, there is a path going from $z$ to $w$ contained in $\Omega$. Consider how $\operatorname{Re}f$ looks on this path...

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks anon. I think I see what you're getting at, but I don't know how to express it formally. I visualize this in $\mathbb{R}^3$, identifying $\Omega$ as some subset of the plane, and the image of $\Re f$ on $\Omega$ as the image $(x,y,0)\mapsto (x,y,\Re f(x,y))$ when $z=x+iy$. Since $\Re f(z)<0$ the path starts out at $z$ underneath $\Omega$, and since $\Re f(w)>0$, the path ends above $\Omega$ so it must go through $\Omega$ at some point, in which case $\Re f=0$ at some point, contradiction. How can I say this better? –  Dedede Feb 3 '12 at 7:43
    
Actually, Georges points out $\operatorname{Im}f$ need not be continuous at all and this still works. –  anon Feb 3 '12 at 7:44
    
Dedede: Identify the path with an interval on the real line and invoke the intermediate value theorem from real calculus. –  anon Feb 3 '12 at 7:46
    
If I identify the path as some function $\gamma$ on an integer $[a,b]$, with $\gamma(a)=\Re f(z)$ and $\gamma(b)=\Re f(w)$, then there is some $c$, $a,c<b$ such that $\gamma(c)=0$ by IVT. By how do I know $\gamma(c)=\Re f(t)$ for some $t\in\mathbb{C}$ to get the desired contradiction? –  Dedede Feb 3 '12 at 7:54
    
@Dedede: The path will have a parametrization $$\gamma:[a,b]\to\text{path}$$ with $\gamma(a)=z,\gamma(b)=w$. Then use IVT on the real function $$\operatorname{Re}f\circ\gamma:[a,b]\to\mathbb{R}.$$ –  anon Feb 3 '12 at 8:02

Let $D$ be the open disk centered at $1$ and with radius $1$, and let $D'=\{w:w^2\in D\}$. Since $f(z)^2\in D$ for all $z\in\Omega$, $f(z)\in D'$. What do we know about $D'$? The following two facts are easy to prove:

  1. $D'$ is symmetric with respect to the imaginary axis;
  2. no point in the imaginary axis is in $D'$.

Thus, $\{w\in D':\Re z>0\}\ $ and $\{w\in D':\Re z<0\}\ $ are disconnected; since $f(\Omega)$ is connected, it must be contained in one of them.

In fact, $D'$ is the interior of a lemniscate.

share|improve this answer
    
+1: the description of $D'$ as the interior of a lemniscate is nice and interesting. You are describing how the covering map $\mathbb C^*\to \mathbb C^*: z\mapsto z^2$ is trivial over the disc $D$ by exhibiting the two disjoint pieces of its inverse image $D'$. –  Georges Elencwajg Feb 3 '12 at 11:14

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.