5
$\begingroup$

In Tao's complex analysis notes, he uses the convention that $$f(z)=u(z)+iv(z)= u(x+iy)+iv(x+iy)$$ implying that the functions are $$u,v:\mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{R}.$$ But in other places I see the convention $$f(z)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y),$$ which implies that they functions are $$u,v:\mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R}.$$

Does this matter at all? It seems to me that it should, after all there's quite a few differences between the structures of $\mathbb{R}^2$ and $\mathbb{C}$, even though they are similar?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ But $\Bbb C$ is $\Bbb R^2$ with the operations of complex addition and multiplication! $\endgroup$ – Pedro Tamaroff Sep 12 '13 at 17:07
  • $\begingroup$ As sets $\Bbb C = \Bbb R^2$. $\endgroup$ – Martín-Blas Pérez Pinilla Feb 1 '18 at 11:50
6
$\begingroup$

There isn't really any difference in the structure of $\mathbb R^2$ and $\mathbb C$: $\mathbb C$ is just $\mathbb R^2$ with a multiplication operation put on it.

I'd prefer to see $z=x+iy$ and $f(z)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y)$, which means that expressions like $\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}$ make more sense. In fact, I'd even go so far as to say that it was a mistake on Tao's part to write $f(z)=u(x+iy)+v(x+iy)$, as it makes things a bit less clear. On the other hand, I'm sure you know what he's talking about - it's just another convention and you can treat it as if it said $u(x,y)+v(x,y)$ anyway.

In fact, even though Tao's $u$ is a function $\mathbb C\to\mathbb R$, there's only one canonical way to turn it into a function $\mathbb R^2\to\mathbb R$ (i.e., there's only one function $\hat u:\mathbb R^2\to\mathbb R$ such that $\hat u(x,y)=u(x+iy)$, so it's not losing any information to write things his way.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for the answer. I was thinking, maybe he did this to avoid problems when changing coordinates? If $z=x+iy=re^{i\theta}$, then $u(z)=u(x+iy)=u(re^{i\theta})$, but $u(x,y) \neq u(r,\theta)$, strictly speaking (at some point he gives the C-R equations in polar form.) $\endgroup$ – Spine Feast Sep 12 '13 at 17:43
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, that's a good observation. $\endgroup$ – John Gowers Sep 12 '13 at 17:45
1
$\begingroup$

$\mathbb R^2$ is two-dimensional space over field of real numbers, but $\mathbb C$ can be considered either as two-dimensional space over field of real numbers or one-dimensional space over field of complex numbers.

If one considers $\mathbb C$ in the first case, it is easy to see that $\mathbb C=\mathbb R^2$ as a linear or vector space

In this case the elements of the space are pairs $(x,y)$ with operations $$(x,y)+(z,t)=(x+z,y+t)\\\lambda(x,y)=(\lambda x, \lambda y) \, \forall\lambda\in\mathbb R$$

Should we consider $\mathbb C$ in the second case, the spaces are not isomorphic, since the elements of $\mathbb C$ are numbers $z=x+iy$ with usual operations of sum and product.

$\endgroup$

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.