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.

If the 'right' one is bijective then this holds, however assume that $g,f$ and $w$ are holomorphic and $w$ is not bijective. Perhaps it is only onto.

edit: Assume further that they are non-constant. Ideally we are talking about them on compact Riemann surfaces (so the fact they are onto is given by virtue of being non-constant).

share|improve this question
2  
Suppose for a moment that $g = 0$, and $z(0) = 0$ (just to give you a silly example so that you can adjust your hypotheses). –  t.b. Aug 1 '11 at 2:11
    
What if $g$ and $z$ are both constants? Then there's not much you can conclude about, say $f$, even knowing a lot about $w$. –  Jason DeVito Aug 1 '11 at 2:11
    
@GottfriedLeibniz: Here's another simple counterexample. Let $X$ be the Riemann sphere—so a compact Riemann surface, like you ask. Let $f(x) = x^{1/2}$, $g(x) = x^2$ and $z = w = \mathrm{id}$. Then $f$ is not even continuous, so how could it be holomorphic? However, I think you will find no counterexamples when $f$ is a surjective continuous map and the rest are holomorphic. (This intuition comes from thinking of Riemann surfaces as locally ringed spaces, but I may be mistaken!) –  Zhen Lin Aug 1 '11 at 2:50

1 Answer 1

up vote 5 down vote accepted

On $\mathbb{C}$, holomorphic functions coincide with analytic functions. Wikipedia therefore intimates that (a) two holomorphic functions composed are holomorphic, and (b) the functional inverse of a holomorphic function is also holomorphic provided the function's derivative vanishes nowhere.

Without loss of generality, suppose $g$ and $f$ are two of the three holomorphic functions. If $z$ is holomorphic and $z'$ vanishes nowhere, it then follows that $w=z^{-1}\circ g\circ f$ is holomorphic. If $w$ is holomorphic and $w'$ vanishes nowhere, then $z=g\circ f\circ w^{-1}$ is holomorphic. However, if one of the functions on the other side, $z$ or $w$, is the third holomorphic function and has a derivative that vanishes somewhere, then it stands to reason the fourth function might not be holomorphic.

share|improve this answer

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.