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

This is an exercise in complex analysis:

Let $\Omega\subset{\Bbb C}$ be open and bounded, and $\varphi:\Omega\to\Omega$ a holomorphic function. Prove that if there exists a point $z_0\in\Omega$ such that $$ \varphi(z_0)=z_0\qquad\text{and }\qquad \varphi'(z_0)=1 $$ then $\varphi$ is linear.

I'm trying work out the case $z_0=0$ first, in which $$ \varphi(z)=z+\sum_{n=2}^{\infty}a_nz^2. $$ It suffices to show that $a_n=0$ for all $n\geq 2$. If let $$ \varphi(z)=z+a_2z^2+O(z^3) $$ then $$ \varphi^k(0)=z+ka_2z^2+O(z^3), $$ and $$ \varphi^k(0)=0,\quad (\varphi^k)'(0)=1. $$ If one can show that $\{ka_2\}_{k=1}^{\infty}$ is uniformly bounded, then one at least has $a_2=0$. But I don't know how to go on. Any idea?

share|cite|improve this question
Are you familiar with universal covering and uniformization theorem? By the way, $\Omega$ should be connected. – 23rd Jan 10 '13 at 17:33
Dear @richard, if you can solve this problem I would be grateful to you for posting an answer. I am not unacquainted with universal coverings and the uniformization theorem but I don't see how your hint suffices to answer the question. – Georges Elencwajg Jan 10 '13 at 18:10
@GeorgesElencwajg: $\varphi$ can be lifted to a holomorphic map $h$ from the unit disk to itself, which satisfies $h(0)=0$ and $h'(0)=1$. By Schwarz lemma, $h$ is the identity map. Then when $\Omega$ is connected, $\varphi$ is also the identity map. – 23rd Jan 10 '13 at 18:22
@GeorgesElencwajg: You may choose the covering map $p$ such that $p(0)=z_0$ and apply chain rule to $p\circ h=\varphi\circ p$ at $0$. – 23rd Jan 10 '13 at 18:38
@richard: ah yes, that's correct ( although surprizing to me, because étale maps don't preserve derivatives in general). I still believe that a full-fledged answer would be a welcome addition to your first comment, given that the various steps of the proof are not so evident . – Georges Elencwajg Jan 10 '13 at 19:07
up vote 9 down vote accepted

Following your thoughts, when $\Omega$ is connected, if $\varphi$ is not linear, then there exists $n\ge 2$ and $a_n\ne 0$, such that
$$\varphi(z)=z+a_n(z-z_0)^n+O((z-z_0)^{n+1}).$$ As you have noticed, by induction, it follows that for every $k\ge 1$, $$\varphi^k(z)=z+ka_n(z-z_0)^n+O((z-z_0)^{n+1}). \tag{1}$$

Let $r>0$ be such that when $|z-z_0|\le r$, then $z\in\Omega$. Then by $(1)$,

$$ka_n=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|z-z_0|=r}\frac{\varphi^k(z)}{(z-z_0)^{n+1}}dz.\tag{2}$$ Since $\varphi^k(\Omega)\subset\Omega$ and since $\Omega$ is bounded, there exists $M>0$, independent of $k$, such that $|\varphi^k|\le M$ on $\Omega$. Then by $(2)$, $$k|a_n|\le Mr^{-n}.$$ Since $k$ is arbitrary, $a_n=0$, a contradiction.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thank you very much! I didn't the key point that $\varphi^k$ is bounded since $\Omega$ is bounded and $\varphi^k(\Omega)\subset\Omega$. I haven't seen "universal coverings and the uniformization theorem" before. Is it an alternative quick approach for the proof? What's more, could you explain why $\Omega$ should be connected? Indeed, $\Omega$ is used as a region (connected open set) on the complex plane in some chapters of the textbook. But I don't see the explicit assumption of connectedness of $\Omega$ in this exercise. – Jack Jan 10 '13 at 21:42
@Jack: You are welcome! With the help of uniformization theorem, we may reduce $\Omega$ to the unit disk and apply Schwarz lemma. If $\Omega$ is disconnected, denote the connected component of $\Omega$ containing $z_0$ by $\Omega_0$. Then on $\Omega_0$, $\varphi$ is the identity map, but we know nothing about the behavior of $\varphi$ on $\Omega\setminus\Omega_0$. – 23rd Jan 11 '13 at 9:06
A different proof: this is even better than what I encouraged you to do! +1, of course. – Georges Elencwajg Jan 11 '13 at 9:28
I don't think this proof works, since the radius of convergence of $\varphi^k$'s power series expansion in (1) may (a priori) be smaller than $r$ (i.e. that of $\varphi^1$'s expansion)... (For example, for $k=2$, we can only expand $\varphi(\varphi(z))$ if $|z-z_0|\le r$ [to expand $\varphi(z)$] AND $|\varphi(z)-z_0| \le r$ [to expand $\varphi(\text{expansion of }\varphi(z))$].) (BTW, this is Ch. 2, Exercise 9 in Stein & Shakarchi, and they hint at a solution along these lines... but again, I don't think it works?) – Victor Wang Aug 7 '14 at 1:44
@VictorWang: Sorry, I just read your comment because it is very long time since the last time I visited this website. Please note that since $\varphi(\Omega)\subset \Omega$, $\varphi^k$ is a well-defined holomorphic function on $\Omega$ for every $k$. Then from the choice of $r$ we know the radius of convergence of the Taylor expansion of $\varphi^k$ around $z_0$ is no less than $r$. – 23rd Dec 25 '14 at 11:31

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.