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

The Casorati Weierstrass Theorem: Let $f:X\subseteq \mathbb{C}\to \mathbb{C}$ have an essential singularity at $w\in \mathbb{C}$. Then, \begin{equation}\forall \epsilon,\delta>0,\zeta\in \mathbb{C}\ \exists z\in B(w,\delta)\setminus\left\{w\right\}: f(z)\in B(\zeta,\epsilon) \end{equation}

The proof of this I found here pg 215 goes something like this:

Let $\epsilon,\delta>0$ and $\zeta\in \mathbb{C}$. Suppose that \begin{equation}0<\left|z-w\right|<\delta\Rightarrow\left|f(z)-\zeta\right|\ge\epsilon\end{equation} The function $g:B(w,\delta)\setminus\left\{w\right\}\to \mathbb{C}$, \begin{equation}g(z)=\frac{1}{f(z)-\zeta}\end{equation} is holomorphic and bounded. Thus, $w$ is a removable singularity of $g$ and so, \begin{equation}\hat{g}(z)=\phi(z)(z-w)^k\end{equation} for some holomorphic function $\phi:B(w,r)\to \mathbb{C}$ so that $\phi(w)\neq 0$. Therefore the function \begin{equation}f(z)=\zeta+\frac{1}{\phi(z)(z-w)^k}\end{equation} either has a removable singularity at $w$ ($k=0$) or a pole ($k>0$) at $w$ which is a contradiction.

My questions on the bold face sentences: 1)"And so". Don't we also need $\lim_{z\to w}g(z)=0$ for that? (this can be derived easily, I am just asking if it is neccessary).

2) How can $k=0$? Since $\lim_{z\to w}g(z)=0$ the holomorphic extension $\hat{g}$ must have $\hat{g}(w)=0$ and so $k>0$. Thank you in advance

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 1 down vote accepted

You do not need $\lim_{z\to w} g(z) = 0$ to use the Riemann extension theorem. You just need that $g$ be bounded near $w$ to conclude that $g$ extends to a holomorphic function $\hat{g}$ at $w$. In fact, there is no way to conclude that $\lim_{z\to w} g(z) = 0$ (I'm not sure what your derivation for this is, but I would check it). This limit will hold if and only if $k > 0$, but there is a possibility that $\lim_{z\to w} g(z)\neq 0$, and in this case $k = 0$.

share|cite|improve this answer
I don't have that. Sorry. – Nameless Nov 17 '12 at 16:54

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.