2
$\begingroup$

I have a question on biholomorphic functions. I saw the following theorem in lecture:

Let $U,V\subseteq \mathbb{C}$ open subsetes and $f:U\to V$ holomorphic, bijective and $f'(z)\neq 0$ for all $z\in U$. Then $f$ is biholomorphic and it is $$(f^{-1})'=\frac{1}{f'(f^{-1}(w))}$$ for all $w\in V$.

My question is: I thought that holomorphic+bijective is enough to say that $f$ is biholomorphic. Do I need the condition $f'(z)\neq 0$ for all $z\in U$ that the inverse map is holomorphic too? I first thought if a function is holomorphic and bijective, then it follows automatically, that the inverse map is holomorphic.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I changed the title $\endgroup$ – dgl Jan 8 '16 at 7:57
  • $\begingroup$ If $f'(z_0) = 0$ for some $z_0 \in U$, then there exists a $w_0 \in V$ with $f^{-1}(w_0) = z_0$ and therefore the denominator is not defined for $w = w_0$. $\endgroup$ – user302234 Jan 8 '16 at 8:20
  • $\begingroup$ Related: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1048204/… $\endgroup$ – Watson Nov 24 '18 at 16:36
1
$\begingroup$

The assumption $f'(z) \neq 0$ is indeed superfluous. If $f'(a) = 0$, then locally near $a$, $f(z) = z^k\,g(z)$ for some holomorphic $g$ with $g(a) \neq 0$ and $k > 1$ which implies that $f$ is locally $k$-to-$1$ (in particular, not bijective).

$\endgroup$

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.