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

It is known that for a holomorphic function $f$ over $\Omega$, if $C$ is a circle inside $\Omega$, then:
$$f^{(n)}(z) = \frac{n!}{2\pi i}\int_C \frac{f(s)}{(s-z)^{n+1}} \, ds$$

A textbook makes the following claim :
where $\mathbb{D}$ is the unit disc, and $$2f'(0) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{C_r} \frac{f(s)-f(-s)}{(s-z)^2} \, ds$$

Here $C_r$ is a circle about the origin whose radius is $r$.
The second formula seems to follow easily from the first by setting $n=1$ and summing two identical integrals where a simple change of variable is made to one of the summands. Here is where it gets weird.

The text says that the second formula only holds whenever $0 \lt r \lt 1$. I see no reason for imposing $r \lt 1$. Why would the text go out of its way to make sure $r \neq 1$? I don't see what is so special about this case.

Additional Info: The statement is made in reference to an exercise problem. The text is Stein & Shakarchi: Princeton Lectures in Analysis II Complex Analysis. You can find the statement on page 65, in Chapter 2, exercise 7 where it says "Hint". At this time, the question and a solution can be found at on page 5 of the pdf under "Exercise 7". The author of the solution also goes out of his way to assure $r \neq 1$ and uses a limit argument to compensate.

share|cite|improve this question
Could give the textbook and page number? – Potato Jun 16 '12 at 1:25
I agree there is no good reason for imposing that restriction, unless there is some other condition the text has imposed. – Potato Jun 16 '12 at 1:26
I added additional information. There was the additional condition that $f$ is holomorphic on the unit disc. – Mark Jun 16 '12 at 1:58
The link in the post is broken. – Jack Feb 17 at 22:05
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Note that in the statement of the Cauchy Integral Formula (which share the same necessary conditions as the resulting differentiation formulae), the closure of the disk $D$ must lie completely within the domain of holomorphicity $U.$ Since we don't know that $f$ is holomorphic on an open set containing the entire unit disk, the limit argument has to be used.

share|cite|improve this answer

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.