4
$\begingroup$

I'm having trouble with the following exercise from Ahlfors' text (not homework)

"If $f(z)$ is analytic in a neighborhood of $\infty$ and if $z^{-1} \Re f(z) \to0$ as $z \to \infty$, show that $\lim_{z \to \infty} f(z)$ exists. (In other words, the isolated singularity at $\infty$ is removable)

Hint: Show first, by use of Cauchy's integral formula, that $f = f_1 +f_2$ where $f_1(z) \to 0$ for $z \to \infty$ and $f_2(z)$ is analytic in the whole plane.

My attempt:

$f$ is analytic in the exterior of some disk $\{|z|\geq R_0 \}$. For large enough $|z|$ the circle $C_1(z)$ around $z$ with radius one lies in the domain of analyticity, and we can apply Cauchy's integral formula: $$f(z)=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_{C_1(z)}\frac{f(\zeta)}{\zeta-z} \mathrm{d} \zeta=\frac{1}{2 \pi i} \oint_{C_1(z)}\frac{\Re f(\zeta)}{\zeta-z} \mathrm{d} \zeta+\frac{1}{2\pi} \oint_{C_1(z)}\frac{\Im f(\zeta)}{\zeta-z} \mathrm{d} \zeta. $$ I want to say that the last expression is exactly the decomposition $f_1+f_2$. Indeed, using Cauchy's estimate (and the fact about the real part) one can show that the first integral tends to zero for large $|z|$, but I can't understand how to define the other one for all $z \in \mathbb C$.

In fact, even if I have such a decomposition, I don't think that it will suffice: For instance $f(z)=f_1(z)+f_2(z)$ with $f_1(z)=0,f_2(z)=\exp(z)$ has an essential singularity at $\infty$.

Thank you for any directions.

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

The existence of the decomposition does not depend on the assumption on the real part of $f$. The shortest way to get it is to expand $f$ in Laurent series in some neighbourhood of infinity $W=\{ \vert z\vert >a\}$ : $$f(z)=\sum_{n=-\infty}^{-1} c_n z^n + \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_n z^n\, .$$ The first sum is $f_1(z)$. The second series is a power series converging in $W$, hence in fact in the whole complex plane, so it defines an entire function $f_2(z)$.

If you want to follow the hint to get the decomposition, you can proceed as follows. Fix $R_0$ such that $f$ is holomorphic in an open set containing $\{\vert z\vert\geq R_0\}$. For each $R\geq R_0$, denote by $\Gamma_R$ the circle $\{\vert z\vert=R\}$ and define $$f_R(z)=\frac{1}{2i\pi}\int_{\Gamma_R} \frac{f(\xi)}{\xi -z}d\xi\, ,$$ which is holomorphic in $\mathbb C\setminus\Gamma_R$. By Cauchy's formula, we have $$f(z)=f_R(z)-f_{R_0}(z)$$ whenever $R_0<\vert z\vert <R$. This shows that if $R_0<R< R'$, then the functions $f_R$ and $f_{R'}$ agree in $\{ R_0<\vert z\vert<R\}$, and hence on the disk $D(0,R)$ by analytic continuation. In other words (letting $R\to\infty$), we get a single entire function $f_2$ equal to $F_R$ on $D(0,R)$ for any $R>R_0$. Finally, put $f_1=-f_{R_0}$.

Having done this, observe that the function $f_2$ satisfies the same assumption as $f$, since $f$ and obviously $f_1$ do. Moreover, $f_1$ has a limit at $\infty$ (!) Thus, to prove that $f$ has a limit at $\infty$, it is in fact enough to assume that $f$ is an $entire$ function.

At this point, I don't see how to conclude without using the $Borel$-$Caratheodory\;inequality$, which allows to control $\vert f\vert$ by ${\rm Re} f$. A special case of this inequality reads as follows : for any $r>0$ $$\sup_{\vert z\vert=r} \vert f(z)\vert\leq 2\sup_{\vert z\vert=2r} {\rm Re}f(z)+3\vert f(0)\vert\, .$$ From this, it follows that $z^{-1} f(z)\to 0$ as $z\to\infty$. Then the usual proof of Liouville's theorem shows that $f$ is constant (recall that we are assuming that $f$ is entire).

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Comment on the last paragraph: as hinted in the preceding exercise of Ahlfors, when $f$ is entire, $f(z)=o(\lvert z\rvert)$ follows from Shwarz integral formula. $\endgroup$ – Yai0Phah Apr 13 '14 at 10:20
2
$\begingroup$

Show first, by use of Cauchy's integral formula, that $f=f_1+f_2$ where $f_1(z)\to 0$ for $z \to\infty$ and $f_2(z)$ is analytic in the whole plane.

That is a Laurent decomposition of $f$. Supposing $f$ is defined on $\{\lvert z\rvert > r_0\}$, you get it by applying the Cauchy integral formula for an annulus,

$$f(z) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\lvert \zeta \rvert = R} \frac{f(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}\,d\zeta - \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\lvert \zeta \rvert = r} \frac{f(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}\,d\zeta$$

where $r_0 < r < \lvert z\rvert < R$. Neither integral depends on the choice of $r$ resp. $R$, as long as the circle doesn't cross $z$.

So let

$$f_2(z) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\lvert\zeta\rvert = R} \frac{f(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}\,d\zeta$$

and

$$f_1(z) = -\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\lvert\zeta\rvert = r} \frac{f(\zeta)}{\zeta-z}\,d\zeta$$

where $r$ and $R$ are chosen arbitrarily subject to the condition above.

Choosing $r = r_0 + 1$, it is easily seen that $\lim\limits_{z\to\infty} f_1(z) = 0$ by the standard estimate.

It is also easy to see that $f_2$ is an entire function.

So it remains to see that

$$\lim_{z\to\infty} \frac{\Re f_2(z)}{z} = 0 \Rightarrow f_2 \equiv \operatorname{const}.$$

Can you take it from there?


$u = \Re f_2$ is an entire harmonic function that grows slower than $\lvert z\rvert$. Differentiating the Poisson integral and using the standard estimate, we find $$\left\lvert\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}(w)\right\rvert \leqslant C\cdot \sup\limits_{\lvert z\rvert = R} \frac{\lvert u(z)\rvert}{R}$$ for $\lvert w\rvert \leqslant \frac{R}{2}$ (and similarly for $\partial u/\partial y$). Letting $R \to \infty$ shows that $u$ is constant. Hence $f_2$ is constant.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Isn't $f_1$ identically $0$? The curve $\vert \zeta\vert=r$ winds $0$ times arround $z$. $\endgroup$ – leo Aug 1 '13 at 13:36
  • $\begingroup$ But $f$ isn't (generally) holomorphic in the disk $\lvert z\rvert < r+\varepsilon$. If it is, $f$ is entire, and then $f_1 \equiv 0$ is fine. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Aug 1 '13 at 13:49
  • $\begingroup$ Indeed. Thanks! $\endgroup$ – leo Aug 1 '13 at 13:54
  • $\begingroup$ Let $u = \Re f_2$. Then $u$ is an entire harmonic function that grows slower than $\lvert z\rvert$. Hence $u$ is constant (Poisson integral). That implies that $f_2$ is constant. $\endgroup$ – Daniel Fischer Aug 1 '13 at 14:26
  • $\begingroup$ Alternatively math.stackexchange.com/q/229312/8271 $\endgroup$ – leo Aug 1 '13 at 14:27

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.