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

In Stein and Shakarchi's book, Chapter 1, Exercise 7 asks us to show that $$\left|\frac{w-z}{1-\overline{w}{z}}\right|<1$$ if $|z|<1$ and $|w|<1$, with equality if either $|z|=1$ or $|w|=1$. I was able to show this much, and for the second part of the question, most of it is immediate from the above, except showing that for a fixed $w\in\mathbb{D}=\{z\in\mathbb{C}:|z|<1\}$ $$F(z)=\frac{w-z}{1-\overline{w}{z}}$$ is holomorphic. I can do it if I completely expand everything and get it to the form $F(x,y)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y)$ (I haven't actually written everything out, only assured myself that I could actually get it to such a form). From here I should be able to check the Cauchy-Riemann equations and verify the partial derivatives are continuous, which is enough to show that $F$ is holomorphic, but I was wondering if there was a better/more elegant way of showing it? Thanks!

share|cite|improve this question
Quotients of holomorphic functions are holomorphic where they're defined. – Jesse Madnick Dec 28 '12 at 5:30
What is the definition of holomorphic that you're using? – Jonas Meyer Dec 28 '12 at 5:37
@JonasMeyer: The limit definition (mimics the definition of a derivative for real variables). – anon271828 Dec 28 '12 at 5:44
@anon271828: That isn't quite an answer to my question, but I take it you mean that a function is defined to be holomorphic if it is everywhere (complex) differentiable? Sometimes continuity of the derivative is also assumed (although it is redundant). In calculus, you know how to find the derivative of $f(x)=\dfrac{3-x}{1-3x}$? I just want to point out that this is very similar. – Jonas Meyer Dec 28 '12 at 5:49
up vote 7 down vote accepted

Quotients of holomorphic functions are holomorphic where they're defined -- that is, wherever the denominator is nonzero.

In your case, the denominator is never zero because.... (details left to you)

Edit: Of course, you do have to mention (or prove) that both the numerator and denominator are, in fact, holomorphic!

And if this fact about quotients hasn't been proven... well, I guess you'll have to do that, too. The proof is exactly the same as the real-variable case.

share|cite|improve this answer
Excellent! Thank you. Sometimes I just overthink things... Yes, it was a previous theorem that quotients of holomorphic functions are holomorphic. I didn't stick around to think about it much more than to observe the proof for real variables should suffice. Again, thanks for clearing up the minor confusion I had! – anon271828 Dec 28 '12 at 5:42
You're very welcome – Jesse Madnick Dec 28 '12 at 5:44

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.