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.

$z_0 \in H:= \{z \in C: Im(z)>0\}$, $D:=\{z\in C:|z|<1\}$

Show that $f:H\to D$ , $f(z)=\frac{z-z_0}{z-\overline{z_0}}$ is bijective and conformal.

So I have to show surjective and injective and holomorphic?

Since z and $z_0$ have Im>0, $|z-z_0|<|z-\overline{z_0}|$=> $|\frac{z-z_0}{z-\overline{z_0}}|<1.$

How can I get surjective out of that?

Injective was easy. I just assumed $f(z_1)=f(z_2)$, plugged it in, and got $z_1=z_2$.

Im(z)>0 and Im($\overline{z_0}$)<0. Thus $z - \overline{z_0}\neq0$. That's why I can differentiate f? So I get

f'(z)=$\frac{z_0-\overline{z_0}}{(z-\overline{z_0})^2}$. Again $z-\overline{z_0}\neq0$. That's why it's conformal?

share|improve this question

3 Answers 3

up vote 2 down vote accepted

Bijectivity follows from a more general theorem. A linear fractional transformation, (also known as a Moebius transformation) $$ S(z)=\frac{az+b}{cz+d} $$ such that $ad-bc\neq 0$ has inverse $$ S^{-1}(z)=\frac{dz-b}{-cz+a}. $$ Notice this is very similar to the theory of invertibility for $2\times 2$ matrices. In your case, $ad-bc$ amounts to $-\overline{z_0}+z_0=2i\operatorname{Im}(z_0)$. This is nonzero since $z_0$ is a point in the upper half plane.

share|improve this answer
how can i show that $\overline{z_0}z-z_0<1$? –  Display Name Jan 23 '13 at 7:41
I have to show that $Im(f^{-1}(z))>0$, not the above, right? –  Display Name Jan 23 '13 at 7:51
@DisplayName Since $f$ is injective and maps $H$ onto $D$, it follows by definition of the inverse that $f^{-1}\colon D\to H$, in which case $\operatorname{Im}(f^{-1}(z))>0$ for $z\in D$. –  Ben West Jan 23 '13 at 8:38

The easiest way to show it is bijective is to present an inverse map: $$w=\frac{z-z_0}{z-\bar{z}_0}\Rightarrow w(z-\bar{z}_0)=z-z_0\Rightarrow z(w-1)=w\bar{z}_0-z_0\Rightarrow z=\frac{w\bar{z}_0-z_0}{w-1}$$ As $z\in \{\mathrm{Im}z>0\}$, $z-\bar{z}_0\neq0$; in the same way, as $w\in \mathbb{D}$, $w-1\neq0$. So this map $$w\mapsto\frac{w\bar{z}_0-z_0}{w-1}$$ is well defined and it is the inverse of the previous. For it being conformal, it is enough to notice that the map $f$ is holomorphic on $H$ as it is a ratio of two $1$st degree complex polynomials which do not vanish on $H$ and, as user32240 correctly pointed out, its derivative doesn't vanish: $$f'(z)=\frac{2\mathrm{Im}z_0}{(z-\bar{z}_0)^2}$$ is non-zero on the upper half-plane.

share|improve this answer
Great answer! It helped me with a similar question I'm asking: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1245940/… –  EthanAlvaree Apr 22 at 12:50

You are right that $f$ is well-defined, but to show it is conformal you need to show it is holomorphic and its derivative is non-zero everywhere. This is not difficult since $$\frac{z-z_{0}}{z-\overline{z_{0}}}=1-\frac{2Imz_{0}}{z-\overline{z_{0}}}$$is holomorphic everywhere in the upper half plane, and its derivative is nothing but $\frac{2Imz_{0}}{(z-\overline{z_{0}})^{2}}$ which cannot vanish.

The fact that $|z-z_{0}|<|z-\overline{z_{0}}|$ follows by the geometric picture. And the picture actually showed it is surjective. If you think geometrically, obviously $f(z)$ can obtain any value in $[0,1)$ by moving along the line connecting $z_{0}$ and $\overline{z_{0}}$. Now consider the points in $\mathbb{C}$ such that $|z-z_{0}|=p|z-\overline{z_{0}}|$ with $p$ fixed, it is an eclipse. With $z$ travelling in the eclipse its angle begin to change, and when it travels back it finishes 360 degrees. So the whole region in $D$ is being covered by $f(z)$.

This is not a brutal force type proof, and if one can show this algebraically I think it would be interesting to know.

share|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.