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 Cauchy Riemann equations in effect say that a function $f(z) = u(z)+iv(z)$ can be approximated as roughly a scaled rotation

$$f(c+h) \approx f(c) + f'(c)h = f(c) + \begin{bmatrix}u_x & -v_x\\v_x & u_x\end{bmatrix} \begin{bmatrix}h_x \\ h_y \end{bmatrix}$$

Informally, if $f$ has this kind of approximation at every point in a domain then it admits a power series representation at each point.

Intuitively why should having the scaled rotation approximation give a full power series representation? Suppose at some point $c$ the Cauchy Riemann equations are satisfied but there does not exist a power series representation at $c$, then presumably there should be a geometric point of view to see that this is ridiculous and leads to $f$ not satisfying the Cauchy Riemann equations elsewhere.

share|cite|improve this question
I am not sufficiently prepared to answer you now but I can point you to a book where you will find a very convincing treatment of your question: it is Visual Complex Analysis by Tristan Needham. – Giuseppe Negro Dec 17 '12 at 4:08

It is quite possible for the Cauchy-Riemann equations to be satisfied at a particular point, or even along a curve, without the function being analytic in a neighbourhood of the point. You only get analyticity if the equations are satisfied everywhere in an open set.

share|cite|improve this answer
For example, any non-holomorphic function satisfies the C-R equations at every point where is Jacobian is zero. – Mariano Suárez-Alvarez Dec 17 '12 at 4:13
up vote 0 down vote accepted

Another question asked essentially the question I was getting at. While the answers didn't make the existence of the 2nd derivative obvious they did give links to proofs of the existence of the 2nd derivative that don't use any notion of contour or line integral. Instead relying on just looking at difference quotients.

G.T. Whyburn, Developments in topological analysis, 1961

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.