I want to see why holomorphic mappings send sets of measure zero to sets of measure zero.

I found this statement reading about quasiconformal mappings. In fact, there is a theorem (see for instance L. Ahlfors (2006) Lectures on Quasiconformal Mappings, American Mathematical Society) that state that a quasiconformal mapping $\phi$ maps sets of measure zero to sets of measure zero. I don't know if it could help. It also states that for every measurable set $E$ \begin{equation*} m(\phi(E)) = \int_E \text{Jac}\phi\;dm, \end{equation*} where $\text{Jac}$ denotes the Jacobian and $m$ is the Lebesgue measure.

What I thought is to use the fact that an holomorphic map $f$ is locally quasiconformal almost everywhere (a.e. because of the isolated zeros of $f'$ and the fact that conformality implies locally quasiconformality), but sincerely I'm really stuck.

Thanks in advance!


If $f \colon \mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ is non-constant holomorphic function, then $\{f'=0\}$ is countable. For any point $z \notin \{f'=0\}$ we can find neighborhhoods $U$ of $z$ and $V$ of $f(z)$ such that $f$ restricted to $U$ is a biholmorphic map von $U$ to $V$.

So, if $\lambda^2(E) =0$, then $\lambda(f(E \cap U) \cap V) =0$ by the change of variables theorem. This, implies with a covering argument (and using that $\{f'=0\}$ is countable) that $\lambda^2(f(E))=0$. Note that the above argument also shows that $f(E)$ is measurable.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Okay! Only to check if I understood the argument: You take into account that $f$ is biholomorphic almost everywhere (because it is locally biholomorphic for all $z$ such that $f'(z)\neq 0$ and $Z = \{z\;f'(z) = 0\}$ has measure zero). Then, $\lambda(E) \propto \lambda(f(E))$ by the change of variables theorem and we finish it. Am I right (obviously writen rigorously with neighbourhoods and coverings)?? $\endgroup$ – dudas Mar 15 '18 at 14:28
  • $\begingroup$ And, about the change of variables theorem: I read that $\lambda(E) = |J_f|\lambda(f(E))$, but what does $|J_f|$ mean? I know that it is the Jacobian, but it doesn't make sense that $\lambda(E)$ doesn't depend no any point and $J_f$ does...what I don't understand of the change of variables theorem? (I am really new in measure theory) $\endgroup$ – dudas Mar 15 '18 at 14:38
  • $\begingroup$ There is a multi-dimensional variant of the 'substituation formula' - called sometimes ' transformation theorem', see here. In your case, we have $\lambda^2(f(E \cap U)) = \int_{E \cap U} | \det [(D f^{-1}(x,y)] | \, \rm{d} x \rm{d}y$. If $E$ is a nullset, this implies $\lambda^2(f(E \cap U)) =0$. $\endgroup$ – p4sch Mar 15 '18 at 20:16

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.