For some open sets $U$, $V$ in the complex plane, let $f:U\rightarrow V$ be an injective holomorphic function. Then $f'(z) \ne 0$ for $z \in U$.

Now I don't understand the proof, but here it is from my text. My comments are in italics. Suppose $f(z_0) = 0$ for some $z_0 \in U$.
$f(z) - f(z_0) = a(z - z_0)^k + G(z)$ for all $z$ near $z_0$, with $a \ne 0, k \ge 2.$ Also, $G$ vanishes to order $k+1$ at $z_0$.
I'm not clear on what this "vanishing" thing means. Maybe it means that $G$ can be expressed as a power series of order $k+1$ around $z_0$.

For sufficiently small $w$ we can write $f(z) - f(z_0) - w = F(z) + G(z)$, where $F(z) = a(z - z_0)^k - w$.
I'm not sure why we need to have $w$ small. This equation will work for any $w$.

Since $|G(z)| \lt |F(z)|$ on a small circle centered at $z_0$, and $F$ has at least two zeros inside that circle, Rouche's theorem implies that $f(z) - f(z_0) - w$ has a least two zeros there.

Now I think that $|G(z)| \lt |F(z)|$ can follow simply from the fact that $F$ is a polynomial of degree $k$ while $G$ has degree $k+1$. And the remark about the two zeros can follow from the fact that $F$ must have $k$ zeros in the complex plane. But the first part requires that we consider $z$ only on a small circle. The second part requires that our circle be big enough to capture two zeros. How do we know that we can satisfy both?

Since $f'(z) \ne 0$ for for all $z \ne z_0$ sufficiently close to $z_0$, the roots of $f(z) - f(z_0) - w$ are distinct, so $f$ is not injective - a contradiction.

I think that the derivative is never zero for values of $z$ other than $z_0$ because otherwise we would have a sequence of zeros limiting towards $z_0$ which would cause our function to be constant which is a contradiction. But again we have the same problem - we can only consider a small circle. The roots of $f$ may lie outside this circle.


First comment: Yes. I prefer to write $(z-z_0)^k\cdot(a+(z-z_0)H(z))$ in such proofs.

Second comment: $w$ small is not needed immediately, but we can only use a small circle (as guaranted by openness of $U$) and want to have $(z-z_0)^k=w$ at least once (end hence $k$ times) inside that circle. This is what forces $w$ to be small.

Third comment: We make our circle even smaller (and may revise our choice of $w$) in order to make $|G|<| F|$. By the vanishing order of $G$, we have $G(z)\le c\cdot |z-z_0|^{k+1}$ for some $c$ as long as $z\approx z_0$ (with my notation above, you can take any $c>|H(z_0)|$). Then what we need here for $|G(z)|<|F(z)|$ if $|z-z_0|=r$ is to chose $r\le \frac ac$. The very simple polynomial $F$ has $k$ zeroes in the circle because we choose our $w$ small enough (smaller than $ar^k$ if $r$ is the radius of our small circle).

Fourth comment: The zeroes of a holomorphic function are isolated unless the function is (locally) constant. If $f$ is constant on a small open disk, it is already far from injective.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not clear on why you choose $r \le a/c$. I understand $|G| \le c|z - z_0|^{k+1}$ but I'm having trouble seeing $c|z-z_0|^{k+1} \le |a(z-z_0)^k - w|$ $\endgroup$ – Mark May 22 '13 at 0:40
  • $\begingroup$ Nevermind. After drawing a picture it makes sense to me. You choose an $r \lt |a/c|$ so that $r^{k+1}|c/a| \lt r^{k}$. If this is true, then $r^{k+1}|c/a| \lt r^{k} - |w/a|$ for a small enough $w$. I think it was this last part that was the hardest for me to see without a picture. Then $r^{k+1}|c/a| = |z-z_0|^{k+1}|c/a| \lt r^k - |w| \le |(z-z_0)^k - w/a|$ (with $z$'s on the circle of radius $r$ about $z_0$. $\endgroup$ – Mark May 22 '13 at 19:22
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Furthermore, we are allowed to choose a $w$ as small as we want because it will have roots inside our circle as long as $r \ge |w/a|^{1/k}$, which will certainly be true for very small $w$'s. $\endgroup$ – Mark May 22 '13 at 19:25
  • $\begingroup$ Mark, after your explanation, I am still having trouble seeing why $r^{k+1} |c/a| < r^k - |w/a|$. Could you give more details of why this is true for $w$ small enough? Maybe you could show me the pictures you did, since I tried doing some pictures but wasn't really able to see anything meaningful. Also, how do we know if $w$ small enough guarantees we have the two roots inside the circle? Thanks! $\endgroup$ – user110320 Aug 18 '18 at 1:40

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.