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.

Prove that if $ f : D(0,1) \to D(0,1) $ is analytic with $ f(0) = 0 $, then $ g(z) = \frac{f(z)}{z} $ has a removable singularity at 0.

My thoughts so far:

Is this even a question? If $f$ is analytic, then we can write $ f(z) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n z^n $ valid for all $ z \in D(0,1) $. Then $ f(0) = 0 $ gives that $ a_0 = 0 $. Then we can write a Laurent series $ g(z) = \frac{a_0}{z} + \sum_{n = 0}^\infty a_{n+1} z^n $, and as $ a_0 = 0 $, the point 0 is necessarily a removable singularity (and it's already been removed by setting $ f(0) = 0 $!) Am I missing something?

Thanks

share|improve this question
4  
I don't think your missing anything. By the way, I can't see any point in requiring $f$ to take values in $D(0,1)$. Also, a related problem is to show that if $f : \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{C}$ is $\mathcal{C}^{\infty}$ with $f(0) = 0$, then $x \mapsto f(x)/x$ is also $\mathcal{C}^{\infty}$ . –  Joel Cohen May 8 '11 at 0:29
add comment

4 Answers

up vote 4 down vote accepted

Yes, that's one way to see it. In general, if $f$ has a zero of order $m$ at $a$, then $f(z)=(z-a)^mg(z)$ for some analytic function $g$ with $g(a)\neq 0$, and $g$ is the analytic extension of $\frac{f(z)}{(z-a)^m}$ whose domain includes $a$. The statement that $f$ maps into the unit disk is irrelevant.

In this case, you could also use the definition of the derivative to observe that $\displaystyle{\lim_{z\to 0}g(z)=f'(0)}$.

You write, "it's already been removed." That is not quite accurate, but this is just a technicality due to the fact that $\frac{f(z)}{z}$ can't be evaluated directly at $0$; you would get $\frac{0}{0}$. It is removable because there is a limit at $0$, and defining $g(0)$ to be that limit gives the unique analytic extension to all of $D(0,1)$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks. I'm looking at a solution to part of a follow up question: is it obvious that $ |f(z)| < 1 $? –  user938272 May 8 '11 at 0:40
    
@user938272: Do you mean $|g(z)|<1$? If so, it is true (unless $f(z)=z$) but requires proof. (That would explain why the codomain of $f$ was stated to be $D(0,1)$.) It's a good idea to know how to prove it before calling it "obvious". If you really mean $f$, then yes it is obvious because it is part of the hypothesis. –  Jonas Meyer May 8 '11 at 0:44
    
I did mean $ f $, and so am an idiot. Thank you! –  user938272 May 8 '11 at 0:46
add comment

I think what you are missing is that, basically, $ f(z) =1$ and $g(z)=z/z$ are not the same functions ("though" they agree everywhere except at $0$). $g$ is not defined at $0$ because its value must be evaluated as $0/0$ at $0$ which is not defined.

However, clearly, $g$ has a removable singularity at $0$ and its analytic extension is $f$.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Let $g(z)= \frac{f(z)}{z}$. By a known result we can say $0$ is a removable singularity for $g(z)$ if and only if $\lim_{z\rightarrow0} g(z) $ finite. Here we have $\lim_{z\rightarrow0} g(z)=f'(0)$ and is finite as f is analytic at zero, so $0$ is a removable singularity of $\,g$ .

share|improve this answer
add comment

The function $f(z)/z$ is holomorphic on the punctured unit ball and so the singularity at $0$ is either removable, a pole of essential. It can't be essential by Big Picard, and it can't be a pole because the Schwarz lemma gives that $|f(z)| \leq |z|$ for all $z \in D$. Thus the singularity is removable.

share|improve this answer
add comment

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.