4
$\begingroup$

In reference to this question, I tried to prove that $\bar{z}$ cannot be uniformly approximated by complex polynomials in $z$ on the closed unit disc $D$. I came up with a proof, but I'm not entirely sure whether it's correct.

Here's how the proof goes: Assume it can be done. Pick an $\varepsilon < 0.1$ and then you'll have a polynomial $p$ such that $|p(z) - \bar{z}| < \varepsilon$ for all $z \in D$. Multiply both sides by $z$ to get: $$|zp(z) - z\bar{z}| < |z|\varepsilon$$ Now if we just look at the points where $|z| = 1$, the inequation becomes: $$|zp(z) - 1| < \varepsilon$$

Now I'll show on some point on the unit circle $C$, $zp(z)$ has a non-positive real part, which will lead to a contradiction because then $|zp(z) - 1| > 1 > \varepsilon$. Notice that $zp(z)$ is of the form: $$zp(z) = a_nz^n + \cdots + a_1z$$ Pick $2(n!)$ points on the circle such that the angle between two adjacent points is $\frac{\pi}{n!}$. The sum of $zp(z)$ over these points will be $0$. Here's why: For each point, there exists a point $\pi$ radians away, so the $z$ term in $zp(z)$ goes to $0$. Similarly, the $z^2$, $z^3$ and so on terms also add up to $0$ hence the polynomial adds up to $0$. Which means at one of those points, the real part of $zp(z) \leq 0$. This leads to the contradiction mentioned above and completes the proof.

Is this proof correct? And if it is correct, this only works for sets containing a neighbourhood of $0$. But you'd expect a proof a global property (i.e. uniform approximation) to not depend on any local properties (i.e. a neighbourhood of $0$). It'd be nice if someone could explain how to extend this proof to any compact set in $\mathbb{C}$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ You seem to be using $p$ to denote two different things. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez May 22 '16 at 5:47
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ FWIW, the canonical approach here is to use Cauchy's integral formula to show that a uniform limit of holomorphic functions is holomorphic, and then that $z\mapsto\bar z$ is not holomorphic. $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez May 22 '16 at 5:48
  • $\begingroup$ @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez I fixed the names. $\endgroup$ – sayantankhan May 22 '16 at 5:53
  • $\begingroup$ @MarianoSuárez-Alvarez I know the other proof you mentioned. I don't really know any complex analysis though, and I was told there is a proof that just requires elementary knowledge. Hence this attempt. $\endgroup$ – sayantankhan May 22 '16 at 5:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This does appear to be correct. Actually quite an interesting, geometric proof; I like it! $\endgroup$ – Fimpellizieri May 22 '16 at 6:04
3
$\begingroup$

Your proof can be translated by integrating around the unit circle (if you take $n$ big enough, you're approximating the integral). Note that $$\frac{1}{2\pi i}\displaystyle\int_{|z|=1} \bar zdz=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_0^{2\pi} e^{-it}ie^{it}dt =1$$ and assume that given $\varepsilon >0$ there is $p_\varepsilon(z)$ such that $|p_\varepsilon(z)-\bar z|<\varepsilon$ on $\overline B(0,1)$. Since polynomials admit primitives their integrals over closed curves are $0$, so

$$1=\left | \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|z|=1} (\bar z-p(z))dz\right|\leqslant \sup_{|z|=1} |p_\varepsilon(z)-\bar z|<\varepsilon$$

by the standard estimate. This is a contradiction if $\varepsilon$ is small enough.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ +1. Matter of taste: If you leave out the final $<\varepsilon$ (and the assumption) then instead of a contradiction you get a nice lower bound of the maximal difference. $\endgroup$ – WimC May 22 '16 at 11:20

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.