Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

This is a bit of a repost from an old question, but it doesn't seem like it was fully answered before and this is a bit of an abstraction from that post. I'm trying to show the following:

Let $f(z)$ be an entire function such that $f(z)=f(z+1)$ for all $z$. If there exists $c\in\mathbb{R}$ with $c$ not a multiple of $2\pi $ such that $|f(z)|\le e^{c|z|}$ for all $z$, then $f(z)=0$.

The previous post was here: Entire "periodic" function

I've tried using Zarrax's method in that post:

The periodicity of $f(z)$ allows us to write $f(z)=g(e^{2\pi i z})$, since $e^{2\pi i (x+iy)}=e^{2\pi i (x+1+iy)}$. Now we have: $$\left|g(e^{2\pi i z})\right|\le e^{c|z|}$$

Now make a change of variables, re-writing $z=(2\pi i)^{-1}\log z$: $$\left|g(z)\right|\le e^{c\left|\frac{\log z}{2\pi i}\right|}$$

Now assume $|z|\ge 1$: $$\left|g(z)\right|\le e^{\frac{c}{2\pi}(\log |z|+2\pi)}=|z|^\frac{c}{2\pi}e^c$$

So now I would say that this implies $g(z)$ has to be a polynomial, but I don't really see how I can derive a contradiction from that.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

Well, I might as well finish it up now. The result is only true if $c < 2\pi$, as $\sin(2\pi z)$ has period 1 and satisfies $|\sin(2\pi z)| \leq e^{c |z|}$ for any $c \geq 2\pi$.

You're on the right track; as you said up there $g(z)$ has to be a polynomial. Note that for $y > 0$ that $f(-iy) = g(e^{2\pi y})$. If $g(z)$ is of degree $n$, then $|f(-iy)|$ grows as $Ce^{2\pi ny}$ as $y \rightarrow \infty$. So if $n > 0$, $f(z)$ will violate the growth condition. Thus $n =0$, so that $g(z)$ (and therefore $f(z)$) is constant. Note that $f(z)$ doesn't have to be zero.

share|cite|improve this answer
Got it! Thank you; this has been racking my brain on and off for weeks now. – Connor May 22 '12 at 4:06
Sorry for commenting on an old post, but I believe this proof is subtly flawed. The problem is with "$g(z)$ has to be a polynomial." I don't see any obvious way to derive this simply from the growth condition $|g(z)| \leq e^c|z|^\frac{c}{2\pi}$ when $|z| \geq 1$. In fact, if $f(z) = \sin(2\pi z)$ then $g(z)$ is not a polynomial. – 4ae1e1 Dec 11 '13 at 21:07
Also, if we already have $g$ is a polynomial, then we do not even need to go back to $f$. $c/2\pi<1$ and $|g(z)| \leq e^c |z|^{c/2\pi}$ already shows that $g$ is a constant. – 4ae1e1 Dec 11 '13 at 23:24
It follows from the fact that $\left|g(z)\right|\le e^{c\left|\frac{\log z}{2\pi i}\right|}$. Replace $z$ by ${1 \over z}$ and you see that the Laurent expansion of $g(z)$ has no negative powers either. – Zarrax Dec 17 '13 at 4:44

It's not true. Note that $e^{c|z|} \ge e^{2\pi |z|}$ if $c > 2 \pi$.

share|cite|improve this answer
How is that a contradiction though? Maybe I'm missing your implication, but that's not an analytic function. – Connor May 22 '12 at 3:28
If $f(z)$ is a periodic function and there is $c$ such that $|f(z)| \le e^{c|z|}$ for all $z$, then this bound also works for all greater $c$. It can't just be true for multiples of $2 \pi$. – Robert Israel May 22 '12 at 3:52

Your Answer


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.