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.

My professor says given the real part $u$ of an analytic function $f$ defined on a domain $D\subset \mathbb{C}$, that we can't rule out the possibility that there could exist some other analytic function $g$, distinct from $f$ beyond just the addition of a constant, defined on a domain $E\subset \mathbb{C}$ either disjoint from, or not homeomorphic to, $D$, provided that $f$ is not analytic on $E$.

Since differentiating $u$ with respect to one variable and then integrating it with respect to the other completely determines the imaginary part, what this says to me is that $u$ would have to either produce different partial derivatives on $D$ and $E$ respectively, or $\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}$ different primitives.

The case of D and E being disjoint is trivial, but can anyone give me an example for D and E overlapping but non-homeomorphic?

share|improve this question
    
Since the domains $D$ and $E$ can be disjoint I can't seem to see what is the problem. How can the functions have the same real part if they are not defined on the same domain? –  Beni Bogosel Apr 23 '12 at 16:23
    
Ya I considered that and added an edit. I'll probably change the post to ask for the case of overlapping but non-homeomorphic. –  cactuar Apr 23 '12 at 16:23
    
This question does not make much sense to me. What does it mean for two functions defined on disjoint domains to "have the same real part"? –  t.b. Apr 23 '12 at 16:32
    
Well I guess knowing they are defined on disjoint domains doesn't necessarily rule out that they could both in fact be defined on, for example, all of $\mathbb{C}$, it's possible I'm being a bit sloppy. –  cactuar Apr 23 '12 at 16:34
    
@t.b. Ok. Sorry about that. –  Beni Bogosel Apr 23 '12 at 16:36

1 Answer 1

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Let $f$ and $g$ be two analytic functions defined on the domains $D$ and $E$, respectively, and suppose $A=D\cap E$ is nonempty and connected. Suppose that $\Re f(z) = \Re g(z)$ for all $z\in A$. Then I claim that $f$ and $g$ differ by an additive (imaginary) constant, that is, $f(z) = g(z) + i\alpha$ for some $\alpha\in\mathbb R$. (Furthermore, by the uniqueness of analytic continuation, this relationship continues to hold wherever $f$ and $g$ are both defined.)

To prove the claim, we set $h=f-g$; then $\Re h(z)=0$ for all $z\in A$, and we need to show that $h$ is constant. But this follows immediately from the Cauchy-Riemann equations (the integral of the derivative of $0$ is constant), since the difference of two analytic functions is also analytic. (More precisely, the derivative being zero forces $h$ to be locally constant; since $A$ is connected, that implies that $h$ is constant.)

In particular, suppose that $g(z)$ were an analytic function defined on the annulus such that $\Re g(z) = \log |z|$ everywhere in the annulus. In particular, on the slit annulus, $\Re g(z) = \Re(\log z)$ (for your favorite branch of $\log$ defined on that slit annulus). Then on the slit annulus, $g(z) = \log z + i\alpha$ for some $\alpha\in\mathbb R$. However, the function $\log z + i\alpha$ is not continuous on the slit, contradicting the analyticity of $g$ there; hence there can be no such $g$.

share|improve this answer
1  
But if $A = D \cap E$ is not connected, $f - g$ could be different constants in different components of $A$. For example, let $f(z)$ be the principal value of $\ln(z)$, analytic in $D = {\mathbb C} \backslash (-\infty,0]$, and $g(z)$ the branch of $\ln(z)$ with imaginary part in $(0,2\pi)$, defined in $E = {\mathbb C} \backslash [0,+\infty)$. Then $f(z)-g(z) = 0$ in the upper half plane and $-2\pi i$ in the lower half plane. –  Robert Israel Apr 23 '12 at 17:26
    
My objection does not apply to the case of the annulus and the slit plane, because there the intersection (the slit annulus) is connected. –  Robert Israel Apr 23 '12 at 17:30
    
Ok thanks Greg, this makes sense, it was certainly misleading of my professor to state things like he did. –  cactuar Apr 23 '12 at 18:00

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.