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.

I am reading Rudin's book, Real and Complex Analysis, and face a problem about the proof of Theorem 14.18. Here is my problem:

The hypothesis of the theorem is "$f$ is a conformal mapping of $\Omega$ onto $U$". However, in the proof, it seems that the author blindly assumed $f$ is one-to one, because he said "Let $g$ be the inverse of $f$".

I don't know why $f$ has a inverse, so I check the definition of conformal mappings. In the book, conformal mappings are defined as holomorphic functions with nonvanishing derivative. I know a one-to-one holomorphic function must have a nonvanishing derivative. However, nonvanishing derivative generally cannot imply a holomorphic function is one-to-one, but imply it is locally one-to-one.

Maybe it's a very stupid problem. Any explanations will be appreciated.

BTW: I've checked lots of textbooks relevant to the theorem. However, some books define confomal mappings as one-to one holomorphic functions with nonvanishing derivative. Others state $f$ is biholomorphic in the hypothesis of the theorem. Nothing is helpful for me to understand the theorem in Rudin's book.

share|improve this question
    
Considering "one-to-one" to be a part of the definition of "conformal mapping from one region to another", even if not part of the definition of "conformal mapping", seems to be a cultural convention. Or could that be an impression I somehow formed mistakenly? –  Michael Hardy Dec 11 '11 at 17:28
    
@MichaelHardy: I think you raise a good point. But as Y. Fan says, that convention conflicts with the actual definition that Rudin gives in the book, and he never mentions a switch to adopting the convention. Therefore it is in my opinion an actual oversight, albeit an understandable and easily fixable one. –  Jonas Meyer Dec 11 '11 at 20:45

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

One-to-one is supposed to be part of the hypothesis. There are a few times in that section where "one-to-one" is intended but not stated. This could be included in an errata list for the book if or when one exists.

share|improve this answer
    
So, do you actually mean that the so-called problem I mentioned is somewhat a little "bug" of Rudin's book? –  Y. Fan Dec 11 '11 at 6:01
    
Yes.----------- –  Jonas Meyer Dec 11 '11 at 6:03

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.