1
$\begingroup$

So I am reading a soft introductory book on complex variables (I have complex analysis next year.) The book I am reading is called "Complex Variables Demystified". I am currently reading a chapter where the main goal is to arrive at the Cauchy-Riemann equations. I'm having problems following the deduction; specifically, given a function $f$ of a complex variable $z=x+iy$, the author starts out by expressing the partial derivatives of $f$ with respect to $z$ and $\bar z $. To do this, he first arrive at : $\frac{\partial}{\partial z}=\frac{\partial x}{\partial z}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}$, and similarly $\frac{\partial}{\partial \bar z}=\frac{\partial x}{\partial \bar z}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial y}{\partial \bar z}\frac{\partial}{\partial y}$.

At this point in the text i am a littlebit lost. First of all, how did he deduce these equations? (Where do they come from?) And what do they mean? Is the author expressing a general differential operator $\frac{\partial}{\partial z}$ of a complex variable $z=x+iy$ in which $x$ and $y$ again are funcions $x=x(z,\bar z)$, $y=y(z,\bar z)$ of $z$ and $\bar z$ ? And what does it mean in the two equations above when $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ is written without anything in the numerator? Is this again a general differential operator? I'm essentially just trying to understand how the author gets to the final expressions here:

enter image description here

I would be happy if anyone could explain what's going on as simple as possible :) -Thanx

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

In brief, the author is simply applying the chain rule to the partial differentiation operators w.r.t. $z$ and $\bar{z}$. These don't depend on the function being differentiated, hence the lack of a function in the numerator.

And, as you point out, because $z$ and $\bar{z}$ are functions of $x$ and $y$, the expressions derived from the chain rule can be simplified to what the author is describing in the page you posted.

For a more detailed description:

Let's say you have some function $f(w)$ where $w$ is some variable related to $x$ by $w = g(x)$. If I wanted to calculate how this function $f(w)$ is changing with respect to $x$, I need to use the chain rule to do so, obtaining:

$$\frac{\partial f(w)}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial f(w)}{\partial w}\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}$$

This equality is true independent of the form of $f(w)$ (as long as it's not pathological, but that's usually the case). Because of that, the author is defining $\frac{\partial}{\partial x}$ without a function in the numerator because he can manipulate the resulting expression without needing to define an explicit function $f$. You'll find that inserting some arbitrary function $f$ into the numerator of the expressions you're asking about won't change anything about the proof or the nature of the problem.

To demonstrate this, we note that $$z = x + iy$$ $$\bar{z} = x - iy$$

We can do algebra on both of these relationships to solve for $x$ and $y$ as functions of $z$ and $\bar{z}$:

$$x = \frac{z + \bar{z}}{2}$$ $$y = \frac{z - \bar{z}}{2i}$$

That means we can use the chain rule as we did above to find:

$$\frac{\partial f(z,\bar{z})}{\partial z} = \frac{\partial f(z,\bar{z})}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial z} + \frac{\partial f(z,\bar{z})}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}$$

$$\frac{\partial f(z,\bar{z})}{\partial \bar{z}} = \frac{\partial f(z,\bar{z})}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial \bar{z}} + \frac{\partial f(z,\bar{z})}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial \bar{z}}$$

From here, our expressions for $x$ and $y$ allow us to calculate the partial derivatives of $x$ and $y$ with respect to $z$ and $\bar{z}$, leading directly to equations 3.21 and 3.22 once you identify $f = u + iv$. Note again that these partial derivatives are totally independent of $f$, which is why the author ignores putting $f$ in the numerator. (It's just operator notation.)

Hopefully that clears things up!

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$
0
$\begingroup$

is this correct? :) enter image description here

and this? Thanks for your response by the way!

enter image description here

| cite | improve this answer | |
$\endgroup$

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.