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.

Let $f:X\rightarrow\mathbb{C}\cup\{\infty\}$ be a meromorphic function while $X$ is compact.

Must $f$ have same number of zeros and poles?

share|improve this question
1  
What about $f(z) = 0$ or $f(z) = z$? –  Carl Mummert Jan 9 '13 at 13:57
1  
It looks like it could be true if you specify that $X$ is not only compact but is actually the entire Riemann sphere, and you count zeroes and poles with multiplicity, and you exclude the constant zero function. –  Henning Makholm Jan 9 '13 at 14:10
    
Function $f(z)=\dfrac{z-2}{(z^4-1)^3}$ has one zero and four poles (with multiplicity 3) in $\mathbb{C}$ –  M. Strochyk Jan 9 '13 at 14:22
    
@M.Strochyk $f(\infty)=0$ and the zero has multiplicity 3 ;) –  N. S. Jan 9 '13 at 15:02
1  
@N. S. Precisely ;) –  M. Strochyk Jan 9 '13 at 15:35

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

I think that you mean $X$ is a compact Riemann surface rather that a compact subset of the complex plane. If $X$ is a compact Riemann surface, and $f:X\to \mathbb C\cup \{\infty\}$ is a meromorphic function, then indeed $f$ has the same number of zeros and poles, with multiplicity counted. In the more general case, let $X, Y$ be Riemann surfaces, $X$ compact and $f:X\to Y$ be a holomorphic map and $f(x)=y$. Then in properly chosen local coordinates around $x$ and $y$, we can write $f(z)=z^k$. Then we define the ramification index at the point $x$ to be $v_x=k$. It's easy to see that $f^{-1}(y)$ is a finite set for all $y\in Y$. The function $d(y)=\sum\limits_{f(x)=y}v_x$ is defined. Now I will show that $d$ is a locally constant function on $Y$ and hence it's a constant. Then your question will be answered.

For any $y\in Y$, let $f^{-1}(y)=\{x_1,\dots,x_m\}$. Choose a coordinate chart $U$ around $x$ and coordinate charts $V_i$ around $x_i$ such that $f(V_i)\subset U$. Via replacing $U$ by $\cap f(V_i)$ and replacing $V_i$ by $V_i\cap f^{-1}\left(\cap f(V_i)\right)$, we may assume that $f(V_i)=U$ for each $i$. Note that here I used the fact the holomorphic maps are open. By replacing $U$ by $U-f(X-\cup V_i)$, and intersecting $V_i$ with the preimage of the new $U$, we may assume that $f^{-1}(U)=\cup V_i$. (Here I used the fact that $f$ is a closed map.) Since locally a holomorphic map is $z\mapsto z^k$, by shrinking $U$ and intersecting $V_i$ and the preimage of the new $U$, finally we may assume that for each $y\neq y'\in U$, $y'$ has exactly $v_{x_j}$ preimages in $V_j$. Now clearly $d$ is constant in $U$.

share|improve this answer
    
Beautiful proof! But I still have a question, what if $X$ is just a compact subset of $\mathbb{C}$ rather a compact Riemann surface, what part of the proof fails? –  hxhxhx88 Jan 10 '13 at 2:04
    
@hxhxhx88: Dear hx, if $X$ is just a compact subset of $\mathbb C$, there will be a big problem on the boundary of $X$. A nonempty compact subset of $\mathbb C$ is a closed bounded subset. It cannot be open. How do you define "holomorphic" on such sets? –  Andrew Jan 10 '13 at 15:12
    
Oh yes, thank you very much! –  hxhxhx88 Jan 11 '13 at 1:13

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.