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.

In a proof of Schwarz's Lemma (Sarason, "Complex Function Theory", pp. 91-92) the function $g$ is defined in the disk by

$$g(z) = \begin{cases}\frac {f(z)}z&\mbox{ for } 0 < |z| < 1\\ f'(0)&\mbox{ for } z = 0.\end{cases}$$

The proof goes on to say that for $0 < r <1$, $g$ is bounded by $\frac {1}{r}$ on the circle $|z| = r$ and thus has the same bound in the disk $|z| \le r$ by the maximum modulus principle.

This being true for all $r$ in $(0,1)$, $g$ is bounded in absolute value by $1$.

This makes perfect sense formally.

Here are my questions:

1) Intuitively when I see something is bounded by $\frac {1}{r}$ and $r$ has values in $(0,1)$, I would naturally think of $r$ being close to $0$, and $\frac {1}{r}$ getting quite large. Then along comes the max. modulus principle and shuts it all down to a bound of $1$.

How can I think intuitively about complex analysis to see how my naive instinct does not apply here?

2) In the statement of the Lemma, we are given that $f(0) = 0$. It seems to me that this comes into play in defining $g$.

Again, how can I get an intuitive insight as to the power this stipulation has in providing the criterium for the conclusion of the Lemma.

And on a larger scale, how do I train myself to "think more complex"?

Thanks

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

You'd like to say $|g(z)| \le 1$ on $|z|=1$, except that $g$ is only defined for $|z| < 1$, so you have to use $r$ slightly less than 1, then take the limit as $r \to 1-$. Bigger $r$'s produce better bounds.

Of course, $f(0)=0$ is needed for the conclusion of the Lemma to be true. There is a slightly more general version of the Lemma where you assume $|f(z)| \le 1$ for $|z| < 1$ and $f(c) = 0$ for some $c$ with $|c| < 1$, and conclude $|f(z)| \le \left| \frac{z-c}{1-\overline{c}z}\right|$ (this follows from the ordinary Lemma after composing $f$ with a fractional linear transformation). On the other hand, if $f(z)$ is never 0 for $|z| < 0$, I don't know what kind of a bound you could hope for: e.g. $f$ could be constant.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks for your help. –  Andrew Sep 15 '11 at 23:12

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.