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.

If $f$ is analytic on $B(R,z_0)$ with $z_0 $ on the real axis and if $ \forall \zeta \in \mathbb{R} \cap B(R,z_0), \Im f(\zeta) = 0 $ then $ \partial _z f (\zeta) = 0 $.

I can write $f = u + iv$ with $u,v : \mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} \leadsto \partial _z f = \frac{1}{2} (\partial_x - i \partial_y) (u + iv) \stackrel{\text{Cauchy-Riemann}}{=} (\partial_y + i \partial_x) v $. But since $\Im f(\zeta) = 0 $ then $ v(\zeta) = 0 $ and so $\partial _z f (\zeta) = 0$.

Is this true? I don't think so but can't figure why...

share|improve this question
    
Please, write quantifiers correctly: your first line doesn't make sense, especially that implication sign. Under my interpretation of your question, what you sk about is indeed not true. –  Georges Elencwajg Jun 8 '12 at 12:55
    
Is it clearer now? –  User11111 Jun 8 '12 at 14:22
    
Yes, perfectly clear, and I have answered your question. –  Georges Elencwajg Jun 8 '12 at 16:41
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 0 down vote accepted

No, this is false: the function $f(z)=z$ gives a counterexample, since for all $\zeta \in \mathbb R$ you have $Im(f)(\zeta)=0$ but nevertheless $(\partial_zf)(\zeta)=1$ for those $\zeta$.

Your argumentation in the general case is correct up to the equality $\partial _z f = (\partial_y + i \partial_x) v $.
But you may not argue that since $v(\zeta)=0$ then $[(\partial_y + i \partial_x) v](\zeta)=0$.
This is like falsely arguing that

"Since $\frac {\operatorname d}{\operatorname dx}sin =cos$ and since $\operatorname {sin}(0)=0$, then $ \frac {\operatorname d}{\operatorname dx}sin(0)=cos(0)=0$"

The gist of the matter is that in any context you care to consider, there is no relation between the value of a function at a point and that of some derivative of that function at that same point.

share|improve this answer
add comment

$f(z)=z$ is a counterexample. The mistake is in concluding from $v(\zeta)=0$ that $\partial _z v(\zeta)=0$. A function of two variables may well vanish on a line but have a nonzero gradient there: $v(x,y)=y$ is an example of such function.

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.