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.

Let $f(z)=u(x,y)+ i v(x,y)$ be a holomorphic function. I often find it difficult to deduce the form of $f$ as a function of $z=x+i y$ only (for example: $f=\sin x \cosh y + i \cos x \sinh y$ cas be written as $f(z)=\sin z$).

However, my book states that given $u$ and $v$ or even $u$ or $v$ only we can deduce the $z$-dependance of $f$ using the following relations:

$f(z)=u(z,0)+i v(z,0)$

$f(z)= 2 u (z/2, -i z/2)$

$f(z)= 2 i v(z/2, -iz/2)$

Can anyone help me understand how they come about?

share|improve this question
    
Hmm. I tried to answer this, but I'm now confused. Take $f(z) = \sin z + 1$. Then $u(x,y) = \sin x \cosh y + 1$, and $v(x,y) = \cos x \sinh y$, unless I'm very much mistaken. But then $f(0) = 1 \not= 2u(0,0)$ as the second equation suggests it should. Is there some condition you're missing here? –  Ben Millwood Jun 10 '12 at 12:19
    
I think it works. $2u(0,0)=2 \sin(0) \cosh(0) + 1 = 1$ as $\sin(0)=0$ –  malina Jun 10 '12 at 12:59
    
No, $2u(0,0)=2(\sin 0\cosh 0 + 1) = 2$. –  Ben Millwood Jun 10 '12 at 14:08
    
Okay, simpler example: $f(z) = 1$. Then $u(x,y) = 1$ and $v(x,y) = 0$, and $2u(z/2,-iz/2) = 2\not=f(z)$. –  Ben Millwood Jun 10 '12 at 14:09
    
You're absolutely right, thanks :) –  malina Jun 10 '12 at 15:17
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 2 down vote accepted

For a start, it's worth mentioning that you kind of already have $f$ as a function of $z$ only, just using the real part and imaginary part functions a lot. So it's a slightly non-obvious question what we're really trying to achieve here – basically, we want a "neat" expression for $f$, but that's not a terribly mathematical concept. With that in mind, I'll go ahead and see if I can work out what the relations mean.

  • $f(z) = u(z,0) + iv(z,0)$: This is a bit of a cheat. A priori, $u$ and $v$ need not be capable of taking a complex argument at all. But if they do extend to complex-differentiable functions on $\mathbb C$, then they extend to a function that agrees with $f$ on the real line (because on the real line, the equation is completely straightforward), and it is a general theorem that if two complex-differentiable functions agree on any non-discrete set then they must be equal (as a consequence of the fact that the zeroes of a nonzero complex differentiable function are isolated, so if $f$ and $g$ agree on non-isolated points, then $f-g$ is zero on non-isolated points, so $f - g = 0$, i.e. $f = g$).
  • The latter two equations do not hold. For example, take $f(z)=1$, so that $u(x,y)=1$ and $v(x,y)=0$. Then $f(0)=1$, but $2u(0,0)=2$ and $2v(0,0)=0$.
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.