1
$\begingroup$

I had to show what a one-to-one analytic function from the plane to itself could possibly be.

So, I studied the behavior of such a function at infinity:

Case 1: Such a function cannot have no singularity (or a removable singularity) at infinity, since then the function would be entire and bounded, and by Liouville's Theorem, is constant, which contradicts the one-to-one assumption of f(z).

Case 2: Such a function cannot have an essential singularity at infinity, since then the function would attain every complex value (except for maybe one value) infinitely often in a (every) neighborhood of infinity, which again contradicts the one-to-one assumption of f(z). This comes from Picard's theorem.

Cases 1 & 2 imply that the function must have a pole at infinity.

We conclude that f(z) must be a polynomial.

Is this ok?

My concern is that I feel that I've made a jump from saying that a 1-1 entire function with a pole at infinity is a polynomial -- as if it were a definition. Can I treat this property of a polynomial as a definition? (Which would then make my proof complete.)

Thanks,

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Related: math.stackexchange.com/q/29758 (there are also 21 questions linked to or from that one). $\endgroup$ – Jonas Meyer Jul 13 '15 at 23:16
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, thanks for the link, @JonasMeyer! $\endgroup$ – User001 Jul 13 '15 at 23:20
1
$\begingroup$

A meromorphic function over the Riemann sphere is necessarily a rational function (subtract its Laurent pieces and apply Liouville to the resulting function), so indeed, if your entire function is meromorphic at infinity, it should have a pole at infinity, and is hence a polynomial.

You may want to see it as a meromorphic function that is holomorphic at infinity: then it has a finite number of poles, which lie on the complex plane. This you can do by simple inversion ($z\mapsto 1/(z-\alpha)$).

Then you might want to see it as a differentiable automorphism of the Riemann sphere, and its degree is exactly the degree of the polynomial. C'est fini!

I forgot to say that, given a rational function $f(z)=P(z)/Q(z)$ with irreducible fraction, one can see that the degree of $f$ as an analytic map of the Riemann sphere onto itself is precisely $\mbox{max}(\mbox{deg }P,\mbox{deg }Q).$ In fact, Lüroth's theorem (which is an exercise in Elementary Abstract Algebra) shows precisely that in terms of field extensions: if $T$ is a transcendental variable over a field $k,$ then every subextension $$k(T)|L|k$$ is either trivial or $L=k(\frac{P(T)}{Q(T)})$ with $P$ or $Q$ nonconstant, where the degree $$[k(T):L]=\mbox{max}(\mbox{deg }P,\mbox{deg }Q).$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thus, Lüroth's theorem shows that an automorphism of the Riemann sphere is necessarily given by a Möbius transformation. This you can obtain also by the complex-analytic arguments provided. $\endgroup$ – Theon Alexander Jul 13 '15 at 23:33
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, got it. Thanks so much @TheonAlexander!! :-) $\endgroup$ – User001 Jul 13 '15 at 23:34

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.