5
$\begingroup$

I want to solve the following exercise from Ahlfors' complex analysis text. Below is my attempt followed by questions I have regarding it:

If a function element is defined by a power series inside its circle of convergence, supposed to be of finite radius, prove that at least one radius is a singular path for the global analytic function which it determines. ("A power series has at least one singular point on its circle of convergence.")

Here is my attempt:

Let $f$ be defined and analytic in the disk $\Delta(z_0;R)$ where $R<\infty$ is the radius of convergence around the point $z_0$. Let $\mathbf{f}$ be the global analytic function determined by the function element $(f,\Delta(z_0;R))$, and let $\mathfrak{S}_0(\mathbf{f})$ be its Riemann surface (which is a connected component of the sheaf of germs of analytic functions).

For $\theta \in[0,2 \pi)$ denote by $\gamma_\theta:[0,R] \to \mathbb C$ the radius of the circle of convergence parallel to $e^{i \theta}$ (i.e. $\gamma_\theta(t)=z_0+t e^{i \theta}$), and by $\overline{\gamma_\theta}:[0,R] \to \mathfrak{S_0}(\mathbf{f})$ the unique analytic continuation of $\mathbf{f}$ along $\gamma$ (if it exists).

By way of contradiction suppose that none of the radii are a singular path. We can extend $f$ to a (univalent) function $F$ which is analytic in a larger concentric disk, and coincides with $f$ on the original disk $\Delta(z_0;R)$. Clearly, this should be done using analytic continuation along all radii.

I would like to define $F$ the following way:

  • For $z \in \Delta(z_0;R)$ set trivially $F(z)=f(z)$

  • For any germ $\overline{\gamma_\theta}(R)$, consider its power series expansion at $z_0+R e^{i \theta}$. For all points $z$ in the series' disk of convergence, which are not in $\Delta(z_0;R)$, set $F(z)$ to be the value of the series at $z$.

The second part seems to be ambiguous, since several different germs may define $F$ at the same point $z \notin \Delta(z_0;R)$. We will now prove that there is no ambiguity.

Let $z \notin \Delta(z_0;R)$ be a "possible ambiguous point" for $F$. Thus there exist germs $\overline{\gamma_{\theta_1}}(R),\overline{\gamma_{\theta_2}}(R)$ with $\theta_1 \neq \theta_2$ and with power series developments $F_1,F_2$ which converge in the disks $\Delta_1,\Delta_2$ centered at $z_0+Re^{i \theta_1},z_0+Re^{i \theta_2}$ respectively, where both disks contain $z$.

Ahlfors has previously proven the equivalence between analytic continuation along arcs and along chains of function elements. Using his construction we can form a chain $\{(f_k,\Omega_k \}_{k=1}^N$ of function elements which follow the radius $\gamma_{\theta_1}$. Combining this with the fact that the analytic continuation along an arc is unique, we find that $$f_{N-1} \big|_{\Delta(z_0;R) \cap \Omega_{N-1}} \equiv f,$$ thus the identity theorem for analytic functions gives $$F_1 \equiv f $$ on $\Delta_1 \cap \Delta(z_0;R)$. Similarly, we find that $$F_2 \equiv f $$ on $\Delta_2 \cap \Delta(z_0;R).$

Now I would like to say that the intersection $\Delta_1 \cap \Delta_2 \cap \Delta(z_0;R)$ is nonempty (by some geometric argument), and from there applying the identity theorem one last time will yield $F_1(z)=F_2(z)$.

Hence, $F$ is indeed a univalent analytic function which extends $f$ to an open neighborhood of $\overline{\Delta(z_0;R)}$. By elementary topology, this open neighborhood contains a larger disk $\Delta(z_0,R+\epsilon)$ concentric with $\Delta(z_0,R)$, contradicting the maximality of the radius of convergence.

Questions:

  1. Overall, is my solution correct?

  2. More specifically, how would one go about proving the "geometric argument" that $\Delta(z_0,R) \cap \Delta_1 \cap \Delta_2 \neq \emptyset$?

Thanks!

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

The proof is correct, but I don't think you need to go back to chains. Analytic continuation along each radius gives you an analytic germ at each boundary point. This germ is defined by some function element $(f,\Omega)$ where $\Omega$ is a small disk centered at that boundary point.

Geometric argument: if two disks $\Delta_1,\Delta_2$ have nonempty intersection, then the line segment connecting their centers lies in the intersection. In the above setup, this line segment is a chord of $\Delta(z_0;R)$; thus, all three disks have a point in common.

Termonological remark: in complex analysis, univalent traditionally means "injective", not "single-valued".

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ how is injective ("one-to-one") not single-valued? $\endgroup$ – postmortes Dec 17 '13 at 9:19
  • $\begingroup$ @postmortes See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-valued_function $\endgroup$ – Post No Bulls Dec 17 '13 at 14:27
  • $\begingroup$ Oh ok, so all injective functions are single-valued, but single-valued functions are not necessarily injective. Thanks for the link (even if it is wikipedia) :) $\endgroup$ – postmortes Dec 17 '13 at 15:08

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.