4
$\begingroup$

Just based on some reading, I know that every Möbius transformation is a bijection from the Riemann sphere to itself.

I'm curious about the converse. For any holomorphic bijection on the sphere, why is it necessarily a Möbius transformation? Is there a proof or reference of why this converse is true? Thanks.

(I would appreciate an explanation at the level of someone whose just self-studying complex analysis for the first time.)

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If you added 'holomorphic' to your title, your post would be more precise. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Mar 9 '12 at 1:52
6
$\begingroup$

Suppose $f$ is an holomorphic bijection of the sphere to itself. There is a Moebius transformation $g$ which maps $f(\infty)$ to $\infty$. Let $h=g\circ f$, which is again an holomorphic bijective map of the sphere to itself, and which maps $\infty$ to $\infty$. It follows that $h(\mathbb C)\subseteq\mathbb C$, because of injectivity, and the restriction $h|_{\mathbb C}:\mathbb C\to\mathbb C$ is a injective entire function.

Now, the big theorem of Picard, or several others, imply that $h|_\mathbb C$ is necessarily linear. It follows that $h$ itself is linear, and then $f=g^{-1}\circ h$ is a Moebius transformation.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks Mariano. Is there a more elementary way to see that $h|_\mathbb{C}$ is linear from the fact that $h|_\mathbb{C}:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$ is injective and entire? I looked up a proof of Picard's theorem, and it seems to rely on Montel's theorem. If not, that's fine. $\endgroup$ – Dedede Mar 10 '12 at 1:01
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Nevermind, there is some good discussion about that here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/29758/entire-1-1-function. $\endgroup$ – Dedede Mar 10 '12 at 1:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.