I'm trying to figure out an equality from a proof by Griffiths and Harris to the holomorphic inverse function theorem (in Principles of Algebraic Geometry). They state:

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial \overline{z}_i}(f^{-1}(f(z))) = \sum_k\frac{\partial f_j^{-1}}{\partial z_k} \cdot \frac{\partial f_k}{\partial \overline{z}_i} + \sum_k\frac{\partial f_j^{-1}}{\partial \overline{z}_k} \cdot \frac{\partial \overline{f}_k}{\partial \overline{z}_i}$$

I'm a bit confused about how this deriviation came about... I would expect from the chain rule to have something in the lines of $ \frac{\partial f_j^{-1}}{\partial f_k} \cdot \frac{\partial f_k}{\partial \overline{z}_i}$. Or do i have it all wrong?

And how did this sum get here? I understand the definition

$$df = \sum_k\frac{\partial f}{\partial z_k}dz_k + \sum_k\frac{\partial f}{\partial \overline{z}_k}d\overline{z}_k $$

but how does this relate to partial derivatives such as the one above?

Thank you.


The chain rule is $$\frac{\partial (f\circ g)}{\partial z}=\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}\circ g\right)\frac{\partial g}{\partial z}+\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial \overline{z}}\circ g\right)\frac{\partial \overline{g}}{\partial z}.$$ This essentially comes from seeing $f$ as a function in the variables $z$ and $\overline{z}$, and so $f\circ g(z)=f(g(z,\overline{z}),\overline{g(z,\overline{z})}).$ See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wirtinger_derivatives, for example.

Note: This is for functions of one variable. The general case like you have is very similar.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.