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.

Given a holomorphic map $f: \Omega\to \Omega$, where $\Omega$ is a simply-connected domain in $\mathbb{C}$, is the number of fixed points at most $1$ if $f$ is not the identity map? How many could they be?

By the Riemann Mapping Theorem, I am able to reduce the problem to finding a fixed point of a holomorphic map from the unit disc to itself. How should I proceed?

Thanks.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 9 down vote accepted

If $\Omega=\mathbb{C}$, there can be arbitrarily many (consider $z\mapsto z^n$). (Edit: See also Leandro's answer for more about this case.)

However if we disallow this and require $\Omega\ne \mathbb{C}$, then unless f is the identity there can be at most 1. For if $\Omega \ne \mathbb{C}$ and f has a fixed point, then by the Riemann mapping theorem we can assume $\Omega=D$, the open unit disk, and applying fractional linear transformations we can assume the fixed point is 0. Then the Schwarz lemma shows that if there are any other fixed points, f must be of the form $z\mapsto cz$ for some c, and the only way this can have additional fixed points is for c to be 1, making f the identity.

share|improve this answer
    
that's really what I wanted. –  Herband Nov 27 '11 at 18:03

The number of fixed points for such a holomorphic map doesn't have to be finite.

Consider for instance the mapping $f : \mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ given by $f(z) = z\cos(z)$. Then a fixed point of $f$ is just a point $z$ where $\cos(z) = 1$, and we know there are infinitely many such $z$.

However, the set of fixed points cannot have an accumulation point, for otherwise the Identity Principle applies and $f$ must be the identity map. This at least implies that the number of fixed points must be countable, for every uncountable subset of $\mathbb{C}$ has an accumulation point.

share|improve this answer
    
@Leonardo, thank you very much. –  Herband Nov 27 '11 at 17:59
1  
You're welcome; but I think Harry answered your question more thoroughly. –  student Nov 27 '11 at 18:02
1  
Dear Leandro, your sense of modesty and fair-play is quite welcome, but your answer is very nice too: +1. –  Georges Elencwajg Nov 27 '11 at 21:05
    
Dear Leandro, Sorry, for unaccepting, but I have +'ed all your answers and your questions on MAth.SE to encourage you answering more... –  Herband Nov 28 '11 at 14:46

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.