In my textbook the definition of analyticity is given as

A function is said to be analytic in a domain D if f(z) is defined and differentiable at all points of D. The function f(z) is said to be analytic at a point z = $z_0$ in D if f(z) is analytic in a neighborhood of $z_0$.

Also, by an analytic function we mean a function that is analytic in some domain.

And the definition of singularity is given as

Singular point of f(z) is a point z = c at which f(z) is not analytic (but such that every disk with center c contains points at which f(z) is analytic). We also say that f(z) is singular at c or has a singularity at c.

What confuses me the most is the definition of singularity. How can it be possible that the points next to a singular point z = c are analytic when the point z = c is not differentiable or not even defined. According to the definition of analyticity, why wouldn't the non-analyticity of z = c causes the adjacent points to be non-analytic and so on.


Take, for instance, the function $\iota\colon\mathbb{C}\setminus\{0\}\longrightarrow\mathbb C$ defined by $\iota(z)=\frac1z$. It is not defined at $0$, right?! But you can check from the definition that is an analytic function. The fact that it is not defined at $0$ doesn't affect what happens around that point.

And, yes, $\iota$ has a singularity at $0$.

  • $\begingroup$ I think I get it now, the domain D itself already excluded any point z that make f(z) undefined, and we only consider points that are member of domain D. $\endgroup$ Sep 27 '18 at 14:04
  • $\begingroup$ @YongyuthaKunapinan Right. $\endgroup$ Sep 27 '18 at 14:04

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.