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.

I would like to show that $\operatorname{Arg}z$ is not an analytic function by using the Cauchy–Riemann differential equations.

After a quick search I've found this:

From Wikipedia: Alternatively, the principal value can be calculated in a uniform way using the tangent half-angle formula, the function being defined over the complex plane but excluding the origin:

$ \operatorname{Arg}(x + iy) = \begin{cases} 2 \arctan \left( \frac{y}{\sqrt{x^2+y^2}+x} \right) & \qquad x > 0 \text{ or } y \ne 0 \\ \pi & \qquad x < 0 \text{ and } y = 0 \\ \text{undefined} & \qquad x = 0 \text{ and } y = 0 \end{cases} $

Unfortunately, I was not able to make further progress. My question: Is it possible to show that $\operatorname{Arg}z$ is not an analytic function by using the Cauchy–Riemann differential equations?

share|improve this question
3  
$\operatorname{Arg}:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{R}$ ... –  Neal Mar 26 '12 at 23:20
    
What is your definition of $arg(z)$? does it take values in $S^1$ or in $\mathbb{R}$ or in $\mathbb{R}\subset \mathbb{C}$? The way I think of the Cauchy-Riemann equations, you need to be able to apply them to functions with values in $\mathbb{C}$. On the other hand, I think of $arg(z)$ as taking values in $S^1$. Once this definition problem has been settled, I would sidestep this formula nonsense and compute Cauchy-Riemann on the composition $arg( \operatorname{e}^{s+it} ) = t$ or $=t (mod 2\pi)$. –  Sam Lisi Mar 26 '12 at 23:26
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 7 down vote accepted

As Neal points out in the comments, there's no need to use an explicit formula for $\arg$ because there is a more general, and very simple, principle at work here. Any complex-analytic function $\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{R}$ must be constant, but the argument function is nonconstant. The Cauchy-Riemann equations tell us, because the imaginary part $v:=0$ is constant, that $u_x$ and $u_y$ are also $0$ and hence $u$ (the real part) is constant. This sidesteps any formal or technical work you would otherwise need to do here.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.