# Prove that $0$ is not an essential singularity (UW Madison Qualifying exam)

I'm trying to do this old qualifying exam problem from UW Madison.

Let $$D^\ast=\{z\in\mathbb{C},0<|z|<1\}$$ and $$f$$ be a non constant holomorphic function on $$D^\ast$$. Assume that $$\text{Im} f(z)\geq 0$$ if $$\text{Im} z\geq 0$$ and $$\text{Im} f(z)\leq 0$$ if $$\text{Im} z\leq 0$$. Prove that if $$z\in D^\ast$$ is not real, then $$f(z)$$ is not real. Show that if $$z\in (-1,0)\cup(0,1)$$, then $$f'(z)\not=0$$. Prove that $$0$$ is either a removable singularity with $$f'(0)\not=0$$ or $$0$$ is a simple pole of $$f$$.

What I have thought of so far:

If $$z\in D^\ast$$ and $$\text{Im} z>0$$, but $$\text{Im} f(z)=0$$, then apply the maximum modulus principle on $$\{z|z\in D^\ast,\text{Im} z>0\}$$ to $$e^{if}$$ to obtain a contradiction. This shows that if $$z\in D^\ast$$ and $$\text{Im} z>0$$, then $$\text{Im} f(z)>0$$. Similarly if $$z\in D^\ast$$ and $$\text{Im} z<0$$. Furthermore, the reflection principle shows that $$f(\overline{z})=\overline{f(z)}$$. If $$z\in(-1,0)\cup(1,0)$$, to show that $$f'(z)\not=0$$, we use the following fact:

fact: If $$f$$ is a complex valued function continuous on $$\overline{D(0,R)}$$ and holomorphic on $$D(0,R)$$, then for any $$z\in D(0,R)$$, we have $$f(z)=\int_0^{2\pi}i \text{Im} f(\xi)\frac{\xi+z}{\xi-z}\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}+K$$ for some constant $$K$$, where $$\xi=Re^{i\theta}$$. We can differentiate the expression to get an expression of $$f'(z)$$ in terms of $$\text{Im} f$$. This same fact shows that $$f'(0)\not=0$$ if $$0$$ is a removable singularity. If $$0$$ is a pole, $$\text{Im} z$$ is dominated by the imaginary part of $$\frac{C}{z^n}$$ for some $$n\in\mathbb{Z}^+$$ and $$C\in\mathbb{R}$$ when $$|z|>0$$ is small, then unless $$n\not=1$$, we can find some $$z\in D^\ast$$, $$\text{Im} z>0$$ such that $$\text{Im} f(z)<0$$. So if $$0$$ is a pole, then it is a simple pole.

My question is: how to show that $$0$$ is not an essential singularity? Thanks!!

• re edit, $f(x)=e^{-1/x}$ has $f(-1/i\pi)=-1$ Jul 6, 2020 at 1:02
• Not related to the essential singularity, but you may resolve the case of pole by an easier way: if $f$ has a pole at $0$, then consider $-1/f$ instead and apply the conclusion for the case of removable singularity. And I am also deeply interested in your question, too! Jul 6, 2020 at 1:53
• @CalvinKhor You're right. My counterexample is false. Jul 6, 2020 at 2:41
• Actually, would you mind enlightening me as to why your $g$ satisfies $\operatorname{Im}g(z) > 0$ (or even $\geq$) when $\operatorname{Im}(z)>0$? Jul 6, 2020 at 19:44
• @SangchulLee At first I thought for $|z|$ large this is true. Then I realized my mistake. Jul 6, 2020 at 19:51

Since $$f$$ is holomorphic on the punctured unit disk $$\mathbb{D}^*$$, it admits the following Laurent expansion

$$f(z) = \sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} a_n z^n = g(z) + a_0 + h(z),$$

where $$a_n \in \mathbb{R}$$ for all $$n \in \mathbb{Z}$$ and

$$g(z) = \sum_{n > 0} a_n z^n \qquad \text{and} \qquad h(z) = \sum_{n < 0} a_n z^n.$$

Note that $$g(z)$$ converges on all of the unit disk $$\mathbb{D}$$, whereas $$h(1/z)$$ defines an entire function. Now assume that $$0 < r < 1$$ and $$r < |z| < 1$$. By using the relation $$\operatorname{Im}\{g(z)\} = -\operatorname{Im}\{g(\overline{z})\}$$,

\begin{align*} &\int_{|\xi|=r} i \operatorname{Im}\{f(\xi)\} \biggl( \frac{z+\xi}{z-\xi} \biggr) \, \frac{|\mathrm{d}\xi|}{2\pi r} \\ &= \int_{|\xi|=r} i \operatorname{Im}\{h(\xi) - g(r^2/\xi)\} \biggl( \frac{z+\xi}{z-\xi} \biggr) \, \frac{|\mathrm{d}\xi|}{2\pi r} \\ &= \int_{|\zeta|=r} i \operatorname{Im}\{h(r^2/\zeta) - g(\zeta)\} \biggl( \frac{\zeta+r^2/z}{\zeta-r^2/z} \biggr) \, \frac{|\mathrm{d}\zeta|}{2\pi r} \tag{\zeta=r^2/\xi} \\ &= h(z) - g(r^2/z). \end{align*}

Here, the last step is a consequence of the Schwarz integral formula (of OP's version) applied to the holomorphic function $$h(r^2/z) - g(z)$$ on $$\mathbb{D}$$ and $$|r^2/z| < r$$. Then by substituting $$\xi = re^{i\theta}$$,

\begin{align*} h(z) - g(r^2/z) &= \int_{-\pi}^{\pi} i \operatorname{Im}\{f(re^{i\theta})\} \biggl( \frac{z+re^{i\theta}}{z-re^{i\theta}} \biggr) \, \frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{2\pi} \\ &= \int_{0}^{\pi} i \operatorname{Im}\{f(re^{i\theta})\} \biggl( \frac{z+re^{i\theta}}{z-re^{i\theta}} - \frac{z+re^{-i\theta}}{z-re^{-i\theta}} \biggr) \, \frac{\mathrm{d}\theta}{2\pi} \\ &= -\frac{2}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\pi} \frac{z}{r^2 + z^2 - 2rz \cos\theta} \, \varphi_r(\theta) \, \mathrm{d}\theta, \tag{*} \end{align*}

where $$\varphi_r(\theta)$$ is defined by

$$\varphi_r(\theta) = r \operatorname{Im}\{f(re^{i\theta})\} \sin \theta$$

and the relation $$\operatorname{Im}\{f(\overline{z})\} = -\operatorname{Im}\{f(z)\}$$ is utilized in the second step. Now define

$$C_r = \frac{2}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\pi} \varphi_r(\theta) \, \mathrm{d}\theta.$$

The assumption tells that $$\varphi_r$$ is non-negative, and so, $$C_r \geq 0$$. Moreover, $$\text{(*)}$$ applied to $$z = R$$ with a fixed $$R > 0$$ and $$0 < r < R$$ shows that

\begin{align*} C_r &= \frac{2(R + r)^2}{\pi R} \int_{0}^{\pi} \frac{R}{(R+r)^2} \, \varphi_r(\theta) \, \mathrm{d}\theta \\ &\leq \frac{2(R + r)^2}{\pi R} \int_{0}^{\pi} \frac{R}{r^2 + R^2 - 2rR \cos\theta} \, \varphi_r(\theta) \, \mathrm{d}\theta \\ &= \frac{(R + r)^2}{R} \left| h(R) - g(r^2/R) \right| \end{align*}

and so, $$C_r$$ is bounded as $$r \to 0^+$$. Finally,

\begin{align*} \left| z h(z) \right| &\leq \left| z g(r^2/z) \right| + \left| z ( h(z) - g(r^2/z)) \right| \\ &\leq \left| z g(r^2/z) \right| + \frac{2}{\pi} \int_{0}^{\pi} \frac{\left| z \right|^2}{\left|z\right|^2 - r^2 - 2r\left|z\right|} \, \varphi_r(\theta) \, \mathrm{d}\theta \\ &= \left| z g(r^2/z) \right| + \frac{\left| z \right|^2}{\left|z\right|^2 - r^2 - 2r\left|z\right|} C_r, \end{align*}

and so, taking limit superior as $$r \to 0^+$$ gives

$$\left| z h(z) \right| \leq \limsup_{r\to 0^+} C_r < \infty.$$

Now this inequality holds for any $$0 < |z| < 1$$, and so, $$zh(z)$$ has a removable singularity at $$0$$ and therefore $$f(z)$$ cannot have an essential singularity at $$0$$.

• Thanks! I will try to understand your proof. This is a 1997 qualifying exam problem, so the professors at Madison probably have a simple proof. Jul 6, 2020 at 5:49
• @Simplyorange, On a second though, I think I can remove the measure-theoretic flavor and modify the proof accordingly. Let me try this. Jul 6, 2020 at 6:08
• Thanks! I saw that you were a grad student at UCLA! I'm an incoming grad student at UCLA! Jul 6, 2020 at 6:16
• @Simplyorange, That's great, congratulation! I hope you enjoy your incoming life at LA and UCLA, and most of all, stay safe. Jul 6, 2020 at 6:35
• I think I understand your proof now! Very nice. Although I think you meant to use $h(1/z)$ instead of things like $g(r^2/z)$? I'll write a proof based on your ideas in the problem itself. Jul 6, 2020 at 19:11

This problem (the part with simple pole or analytic) has an elementary solution since first $$f'(x) \ne 0$$ if $$x \in (-1,0) \cup (0,1)$$ by the local form of an analytic function (if $$f'(r)=0, a_n, n \ge 2$$ is the first non-zero coefficient at $$r, f(z)=f(r)+a_n(z-r)^n+O((z-r)^{n+1}), a_n \in \mathbb R$$ and $$(z-r)^n$$ maps each half circle centered at $$r$$ on the full circle, which means that $$f$$ does so near $$r$$ and that contradicts the hypothesis on $$\Im f$$)

But then $$f$$ is monotonic on $$(-1,0)$$ and on $$(0,1)$$ which means that $$f$$ has limits at zero from both left and right (possibly $$\pm \infty$$ of course) so for $$r>0$$ small, $$\mathbb R -(f(-r,0) \cup f(0,r))$$ contains a non-degenerate interval $$I$$. But this means $$\mathbb C - f(D(0,r)^*)$$ contains $$I$$ too and that shows that $$0$$ cannot be an essential singularity (directly without Picard by mapping $$\mathbb C-I$$ into the unit disc with a meromorphic $$g$$ etc)

But then if $$0$$ is removable, $$f'(0) \ne 0$$ by the same argument as for $$f'(r)$$ above, while if $$0$$ is a pole, the local form of it shows again it must be simple (same reason that $$1/z^n, n \ge 2$$ scrambles imaginary parts) with negative residue.

Note that $$f$$ may have zeroes on the real axis (at most two of course by monotonicity) so one cannot apply directly the removable singularity result to $$-1/f$$ though indeed one can restrict to a neighborhood of zero where $$f$$ is non-zero and do it there since of course, the same arguments (showing that it has a simple pole or a removable singularity) apply if $$f$$ is typically real on a small punctured disc only

• (+1) Brilliant! Jul 7, 2020 at 3:09
• @Sangchul - appreciate the nice comment but frankly I think your solution is really cool and interesting; this is just standard geometric function theory (typically real functions have some similar properties to univalent functions with real coefficients, so it stands to reason that in a punctured disc they either extend or have a simple pole) Jul 7, 2020 at 3:17
• Still it is cool to learn such an argument :) Even I cannot tell my solution is purely original since it is motivated by a general theory of Nevanlinna-Herglotz functions (holomorphic functions from the upper half plane $\mathbb{H}$ to itself), although my knowledge on it is rather tangential. Jul 7, 2020 at 3:48

The following stuff is based on @Sangchulee's ideas. Hopefully this works.

Let the Laurent expansion of $$f$$ at $$0$$ be $$f=\sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty a_nz^n,$$ define $$g=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_{-n}z^n,$$ then $$g$$ is an entire function. Furthermore, there exists $$a>1$$ such that $$|a_n|\leq a^n$$ for all $$n\in\mathbb{Z}^+$$. Therefore, if $$z\in\mathbb{C}$$ and $$|z|>a$$, then $$\bigg|\text{Im }g(z)-\text{Im }f\bigg(\frac{1}{z}\bigg)\bigg|\leq\frac{\frac{a}{|z|}}{1-\frac{a}{|z|}}\leq\frac{a}{|z|}.$$ Furthermore, $$\overline{g(z)}=g(\overline{z})$$ for each $$z\in\mathbb{C}.$$

If $$z_0\in\mathbb{C}$$, $$R>0$$ is a number such that $$R>|z_0|$$, the Schwartz integral formula implies that $$g(z_0)=\int_0^{2\pi}i\,\text{Im }g(Re^{i\theta})\frac{Re^{i\theta}+z_0}{Re^{i\theta}-z_0}\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}+K$$ for some $$K\in\mathbb{R}$$. Of course, we may assume that $$K=0$$ by subtracting $$K$$ from $$g$$.

Then $$g(z_0)=\int_0^{\pi}i\,\text{Im }g(Re^{i\theta})\frac{Re^{i\theta}+z_0}{Re^{i\theta}-z_0}\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}+\int_\pi^{2\pi}i\,\text{Im }g(Re^{i\theta})\frac{Re^{i\theta}+z_0}{Re^{i\theta}-z_0}\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}$$$$=\int_0^\pi i\,\text{Im }g(Re^{i\theta})\bigg(\frac{Re^{i\theta}+z_0}{Re^{i\theta}-z_0}-\frac{Re^{-i\theta}+z_0}{Re^{-i\theta}-z_0}\bigg)\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}$$$$=\int_0^\pi\frac{2}{\pi}\text{Im }g(Re^{i\theta})\frac{Rz_0\sin\theta}{R^2-2Rz_0\cos\theta+z_0^2}\,d\theta.$$

Take $$z_0=a$$, if $$R>a$$ is large enough, then $$|g(a)|=\bigg|\int_0^\pi\frac{2}{\pi}\text{Im }g(Re^{i\theta})\frac{Ra\sin\theta}{R^2-2Ra\cos\theta+a^2}\,d\theta\bigg|$$$$\geq \bigg|\int_0^\pi\frac{2}{\pi}\text{Im }f(R^{-1}e^{-i\theta})\frac{Ra\sin\theta}{R^2-2Ra\cos\theta+a^2}\,d\theta\bigg|-\int_0^{\pi}\frac{2}{\pi}\frac{a}{R}\frac{Ra\sin\theta}{R^2-2Ra-a^2}\,d\theta$$$$=\int_0^\pi\bigg|\frac{2}{\pi}\text{Im }f(R^{-1}e^{-i\theta})\frac{Ra\sin\theta}{R^2-2Ra\cos\theta+a^2}\bigg|\,d\theta-\frac{4a^2}{\pi(R^2-2Ra-a^2)}$$$$\geq \int_0^\pi\bigg|\frac{2}{\pi}\text{Im }f(R^{-1}e^{-i\theta})\frac{Ra\sin\theta}{R^2+2Ra+a^2}\bigg|\,d\theta-\frac{4a^2}{\pi(R^2-2Ra-a^2)}$$

Therefore, if $$R>a$$ is large enough, we have $$\int_0^{\pi}\bigg|\frac{2}{\pi}\text{Im }f(R^{-1}e^{-i\theta})R\sin\theta\bigg|\,d\theta\leq \bigg(g(a)+\frac{4a^2}{\pi(R^2-2Ra-a^2)}\bigg)\frac{(R+a)^2}{a}.$$

Hence $$\bigg|\frac{g(z_0)}{z_0}\bigg|=\bigg|\int_0^\pi\frac{2}{\pi}\text{Im }g(Re^{i\theta})R\sin\theta\frac{1}{R^2-2Rz_0\cos\theta+z_0^2}\,d\theta\bigg|$$$$\leq \frac{1}{R^2-2R|z_0|-|z_0|^2}\bigg(g(a)+\frac{4a^2}{\pi(R^2-2Ra-a^2)}\bigg)\frac{(R+a)^2}{a}$$$$+\int_0^\pi\frac{2}{\pi}\frac{a}{R}\frac{R\sin\theta}{R^2-2R|z_0|-|z_0|^2}\,d\theta$$$$=\frac{g(a)}{a}\frac{(R+a)^2}{R^2-2R|z_0|-|z_0|^2}+F(a,R,|z_0|),$$ where $$F(a,R,|z_0|)$$ is an expression that goes to $$0$$ if we take $$R=3|z_0|$$, then let $$|z_0|$$ goes to $$\infty$$. This is enough to show that $$\big|\frac{g(z_0)}{z_0}\big|$$ is bounded at infinity, so $$g$$ is a constant or an order 1 polynomial by Cauchy's integral formula, so $$f$$ has a simple pole or a removable singularity at $$0$$.

• Indeed the proof seems correct. Here are a couple of comments: (1) There are some sign mistakes. For instance, $$R^2-2Ra\color{red}{-a^2}.$$ (2) In deriving the key bound (the second to the last formula), It might be easier to start from $$-\operatorname{Im}f(R^{-1}e^{-i\theta})=|\operatorname{Im}f(R^{-1}e^{-i\theta})|\leq|\operatorname{Im}g(Re^{i\theta})|+\frac{a}{R}.$$ This would emphasize the role of the assumption on $f$. (3) In the last formula, I guess what you intended is $R^2-2R|z_0|+|z_0|^2$ instead of $R^2-2Rz_0-z_0^2$. (4) "... let $|z_0|$ goes to zero." Do you mean infinity? Jul 7, 2020 at 1:49
• Yes! Thank you! I meant "letting $|z_0|$ goes to $\infty$". As for the signs, yes, it looks nicer if we write $R^2-2Ra+a^2$, I wrote $R^2-2Ra-a^2$ just to be extra cautious. I also wrote $R^2-2R|z_0|-|z_0|^2$ just to be extra cautious, since we only care about large $R$. Because $z_0$ is a complex number, I didn't check if it is still true that $|R^2-2Rz_0\cos\theta+z_0^2|\geq|R^2|-2R|z_0|+|z_0|^2$. Jul 7, 2020 at 2:21
• That totally makes sense. Now it seems my turn to worry about whether the inequality $$|R^2-2Rz_0\cos\theta+z_0^2|\stackrel{?}\geq R^2-2R|z_0|+|z_0|^2$$ is true. In retrospect, it feels quite strange that I believed this inequality without any doubt... Jul 7, 2020 at 3:01
• @SangchulLee Another person conrad just pointed out $0$ is not an essential singularity because $f'(z)>0$ if $z\in(-1,0)\cup(0,1)$, so $f$ is an increasing function on $(-1,0)$ and $(0,1)$, but $f$ is not real if $z$ is not real, this contradicts the Great Picard theorem, since $f$ cannot attain any real number infinitely many times near $0$. (I feel so dumb now, and I think I'll accept his/her answer instead since this is the solution UW Madison professors probably wanted.) Jul 7, 2020 at 3:04
• I just saw that too, and even though I suspected the use of Great Picard Theorem at some point, I could never made it. How he makes use of that theorem is really brilliant. I also feel dumb for missing such an elegant argument. Jul 7, 2020 at 3:07