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.

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

I am asked to prove this theorem:

If $f:U \rightarrow C$ is holomorphic in $U$ and invertible, $P\in U$ and if $D(P,r)$ is a sufficently small disc about P, then

$$f^{-1}(w) = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \oint_{\partial D(P,r)}{\frac{sf'(s)}{f(s)-w}}ds$$

The book says to "imitate the proof of the argument principle" but I am not seeing the connection.

share|cite|improve this question
You should assume that $|f^{-1}(w)-P|<r.$ – P.. Nov 12 '12 at 7:06

Hint: Since $f$ is holomorphic and invertible, for each $w\in f(D(P,r))$, $f(z)-w$ has a unique zero $f^{-1}(w):=z_0$ in $U$; moreover, $z_0\in D(P,r)$. Therefore, $f(z)=w+(z-z_0)h(z)$ on $U$, where $h$ is holomorphic and has no zero on $U$.

share|cite|improve this answer

After some thought, it makes sense after applying the Cauchy Integral Formula to the inverse function and then making the substitution $ f^{-1}(s) = t $ where t is taken along the path given by $f^{-1}(s)$ where s is along $\partial D(P,r)$.

The problem is being able to deform that curve into a circle which goes around $f^{-1}(w)$. This can be done if we can show the path only goes around $f^{-1}(w)$ once.

I still have no idea how the argument principle is involved

share|cite|improve this answer
It's just something very similar to the argument principle (in particular the proof), eg, see the answer. Or just look at the special case $w = 0$, and compare the statements and the proofs of this and argument principle. – user27126 Nov 15 '12 at 17:59
I would but I still don't have a proof of this, can you direct me to one? – Mathstudent Nov 15 '12 at 18:15
What's wrong with the other answer? – user27126 Nov 15 '12 at 18:57
The other answer is a hint, not a proof of the the above, which I am still confused on. – Mathstudent Nov 19 '12 at 2:17
OK. Use Cauchy's integral formula. There is only one pole to be picked up on the right hand side, which is at $z_0 = f^{-1}(w)$. So we only need to compute the residue. Near $z_0$, write $f(z)$ as $w + (z-z_0)^k h(z)$, where $h(z_0) \neq 0$. Then $f'(z) = k(z-z_0)^{k-1} (h(z) + (z-z_0)h'(z)/k)$, where the thing inside the bracket does not vanish at $z_0$. Can you see what the residue at $z_0$ is now? – user27126 Nov 19 '12 at 6:53

I had a similar problem:

  1. $f(z)$ has local inverse $f^{-1}(w) = z$. Write down an integral formula that gives $f^{-1}(w)$ in terms of $f(z)$.

My solution:

  1. Apply Cauchy Integral formula: Since $f^{-1}(w)$ is analytic by the inverse function theorem, we can say:

$$f^{-1}(w) = \frac{1}{2\pi i }\oint_{f(\partial D(P,r))}\frac{f^{-1}(u)}{u-w}du$$ 2. Using Substitution: $u=f(z)$ for $z$ on $\partial D(P,r) \implies du = f'(z)dz$

3.Rewrite: $$f^{-1}(w) = \frac{1}{2\pi i }\oint_{\partial D(P,r)}\frac{zf'(z)}{f(z)-w}dz$$

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.