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.

The exercise I try to solve states: "Let $\,f\,$ be analytic in $\,D:=\{z\in\mathbb{C}\;|\;|z|<1\}\,$ , and such that $$|f'(z)-1|<\frac{1}{2}\,\,\,\forall\,z\in D$$

Prove that $\,f\,$ is $\,1-1\,$ in $\,D\,$.

My thoughts: The condition $$|f'(z)-1|<\frac{1}{2}\,\,\,\forall\,z\in D$$

means the range of the analytic function $\,f'\,$ misses lots of points on the complex plane, so applying Picard's Theorem (or some extension of Liouville's) we get that $\,f'(z)=w=\,$ constant, from which it follows that $\,f\,$ is linear on $\,D\,$ and thus $\,1-1\,$ there.

Doubts: $\,\,(i)\,\,$ This exercise is meant to be from an introductory first course in complex functions, so Picard's theorem seems overkill here...yet I can't see how to avoid it.

$\,\,(ii)\,\,$ Even assuming we must use Picard's Theorem, the versions of it I know always talk of "entire functions", yet our function $\,f\,$ above is analytic only in the open unit disk. Is this a problem? Perhaps it is and thus something else must be used...?

Any help will be much appreciated.

share|improve this question
3  
Yes, it is a problem to use Picard's theorem here. The function $f(z) = z^2$ misses lots of points if you restrict it to a unit disk, but it certainly is not constant! You would have a case if $f$ had an essential singularity, but this is certainly not true here. –  Erick Wong Jun 18 '12 at 3:06

2 Answers 2

up vote 10 down vote accepted

There is a very similar answer here (feel free to ignore the question if it looks intimidating). The basic idea is to use the triangle inequality applied to $f(z)-z$ to show that $|f(x)-f(y)| > 0$ for any distinct $x,y$. More precisely your assumption allows us to show $|f(x)-f(y)| \ge \frac12 |x-y|$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thank you @Erick. Very nice link and very nice answer there. +1 –  DonAntonio Jun 18 '12 at 3:40
2  
Thanks for the link. I left the final step there to the reader's imagination. It could be the triangle inequality, but it could also be pure logic: $|g(z)-g(\zeta)|<|z-\zeta|$ implies $g(z)-g(\zeta)\ne z-\zeta$, which is the same as $f(z)\ne f(\zeta)$. –  user31373 Jun 18 '12 at 23:30

Use the fact that the inverse of $f$ is holomorphic in every disk centered at some $w_0 \in f(D)$ since $$ \lim_{w \to w_0} \frac{f^{-1}(w) - f^{-1}(w_0)}{w-w_0} = \lim_{z \to z_0} \frac{z - z_0}{f(z) - f(z_0)} \to \frac{1}{f'(z_0)}, $$ and the condition $|f'(z)-1| < \frac 12$ ensures that $f'(z_0) \neq 0$. Therefore $f$ is injective. If you fill in the blanks this is all you need.

EDIT : Yeah... I thought I had it. But as comments noticed I don't think my approach is so straight forward. As requested, I'll fill in some blanks that I thought helped. Recall that $$ \frac 1{2\pi i} \int_C \frac{f'(z)}{f(z)} \, dz = Z_f - P_f $$ for a meromorphic function, $Z_f$ standing for the number of zeros of $f(z)$ in the interior of $C$ and $P_f$ the number of poles (assuming there are no zeros/poles on the contour). Since in our context the function is analytic, it is in particular holomorphic, hence has no poles over $D$, so that this integral counts the number of zeros. Let $z_0 \in D$, and in the above integral, define $N(w)$ by substituting $f(z)$ above by $f(z) - w$ :
$$ N(w) = \frac 1{2 \pi i} \int_{C_r} \frac{f'(z)}{f(z) - w} \, dz $$ where $C_r$ stands for a circle of sufficiently small radius around $z_0$ (small enough so that $N(f(z_0)) = 1$), so that the integral counts how many $z$ are such that $f(z) = w$ close enough to $z_0$. You can show that $N(w)$ is continuous, so that since $N(f(z_0)) = 1$, $N(w) = 1$ by continuity for all $w$ such that $|w-f(z_0)| < r$. This means $f$ is locally injective, and furthermore $f(D)$ is open since $|f'(z) - 1| < 1/2$ implies $f'(z) \neq 0$, hence $f(z)$ is not constant (this would be the only case where $f(D)$ would not be open).

Hope that helps,

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks a lot, @Patrick. Very nice trick. +1 –  DonAntonio Jun 18 '12 at 3:43
3  
Could you fill in some of the blanks? The function $f(z) = e^z$ satisfies $f'(z) \ne 0$ for all $z$, but it isn't injective at all. –  Erick Wong Jun 18 '12 at 5:08
1  
Note that $f'(z) \neq 0$ only gives local injectivity. –  mrf Jun 18 '12 at 8:56
    
Another doubt after thinking over this stuff: can we freely talk of $\,f^{-1}\,$ to evaluate the limit in the above answer before we even know $\,f\,$ is $\,1-1\,$ ? I don't mean the set theoretical $\,f^{-1}\,$ but actually the inverse function, which requires injectivity, at least locally if I'm not wrong... –  DonAntonio Jun 18 '12 at 16:13
1  
@Erick : I didn't notice it was your answer! I +1'ed it by the way. –  Patrick Da Silva Jun 19 '12 at 2:04

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.