4
$\begingroup$

A function that is analytic in the whole plane and which vanishes along with all its derivatives at any one point in the plane is identical to $0$. Now consider a function $f(z)$, which is supposedly analytic everywhere such that $$\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}f^{(n)}(z)=0$$ for $n=0, 1, 2...$ Is the conclusion that $f(z)$ is identical to $0$ the only possibility?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

Yes. $\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}f(z)=0$ already implies that $f \equiv 0$.

That follows from the maximum modulus principle, or from Liouville's theorem.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ That's Liouville, not maximum principle. $\endgroup$ – zhw. Dec 20 '15 at 22:45
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, but the answer did remind me that $f$ would be bounded. $\endgroup$ – vnd Dec 20 '15 at 22:47
  • $\begingroup$ @zhw.: Thanks! My impression was that the maximum modulus principle implies Liouville, but after reading math.stackexchange.com/questions/894304/… I understand that this is not completely correct. $\endgroup$ – Martin R Dec 20 '15 at 22:56
  • $\begingroup$ @zhw.: But the conclusion $\lim_{z\rightarrow\infty}f(z)=0 \Longrightarrow f \equiv 0$ would also follow from the maximum principle, without using Liouville, doesn't it? $\endgroup$ – Martin R Dec 20 '15 at 23:03
  • $\begingroup$ Yes it would ... $\endgroup$ – zhw. Dec 20 '15 at 23:04

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.