Single-variable holomorphic functions. We continue our discussion from the previous notes.
Theorem 1. Let f : U \rightarrow \mathbb{C} be a smooth function. The following are equivalent:
Theorem 1. Let f : U \rightarrow \mathbb{C} be a smooth function. The following are equivalent:
- f is holomorphic;
- f is analytic.
Proof. First, assume that f is holomorphic. Fix any a \in U and take an open disk D containing a such that \overline{D} \subset U. For any z \in D, Cauchy's integral formula tells us that f(z) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\partial D}\frac{f(w)}{w - z} dw. Let's look at the integrand: \begin{align*}\frac{f(w)}{w - z} &= \frac{f(w)}{(w - a) - (z - a)} \\ &= \left(\frac{f(w)}{w - a}\right) \frac{1}{1 - (z-a)/(w-a)} \\ &= \left(\frac{f(w)}{w - a}\right) \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \frac{(z-a)^{n}}{(w-a)^{n}} \\ &= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{f(w)}{(w-a)^{n+1}}(z-a)^{n},\end{align*} where w \in \partial D, which ensures that |z - a| < |w - a|. Note that this series is absolutely and uniformly convergent as it is given by the geometric series. Thus, (even a weaker version) Dominate Convergence implies that \begin{align*} \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial D}\frac{f(w)}{w - z} dw &= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial D} \left(\sum_{n=0}^{\infty}\frac{f(w)}{(w-a)^{n+1}}(z-a)^{n}\right)dw \\ &= \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} \left( \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial D}\frac{f(w)}{(w-a)^{n+1}}dw \right) (z-a)^{n} \end{align*} for any z \in D. The uniform convergence and the absolute convergence of the last expression follow from the second expression, but we also may check explicitly as follows. Denote by r > 0 the radius of D. If we take a disc D' with radius r - \epsilon > 0, for any z \in D', we have \begin{align*}\left|\left( \int_{\partial D}\frac{f(w)}{(w-a)^{n+1}}dw \right) (z - a)^{n}\right| &\leq |z - a|^{n}\int_{\partial D}\frac{|f(w)|}{|w-a|^{n+1}}dw \\ &< r^{-1} (1 - \epsilon/r)^{n}\int_{\partial D}|f(w)|dw \\ &\leq r^{-1}(1 - \epsilon/r)^{n}C,\end{align*} for some constant C.
Remark. A more general version for the first direction is available as Theorem 10.7 in Rudin. It is funny to note that \partial D actually means topological boundary. It is equal to the boundary of the \overline{D} in the manifold theory sense, which is really what we are using when we think about Stokes' theorem.
Conversely, let f be analytic. Given a \in U, take a small disc D in U centered at a such that \overline{D} \subset U and f(z) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}c_{n} (z - a)^{n} for z \in D, where the sum is uniformly and absolute convergent. The partial sum P_{n}(z) = \sum_{d=0}^{n}c_{d} (z - a)^{d} is a polynomial, so it is holomorphic. Hence, by Cauchy's integral formula, we have P_{n}(z) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\partial D} \frac{P_{n}(w)}{w - z}dw. This implies that \begin{align*} f(z) &= \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}P_{n}(z) \\ &= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\int_{\partial D} \frac{P_{n}(w)}{w - z}dw \\ &= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial D} \frac{f(w)}{w - z}dw\end{align*} by Dominate Convergence. Now an application of Dominate Convergence (e.g., Theorem 2.27 in Folland) lets us have \frac{\partial f}{\partial \bar{z}} = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial D} \frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z}} \frac{f(w)}{w - z}dw = 0, since 1/(w - z) is holomorphic in z \in D, for any w \in \partial D. Thus f is holomoprhic, as desired. \Box
Remark. A more general version for the first direction is available as Theorem 10.7 in Rudin. It is funny to note that \partial D actually means topological boundary. It is equal to the boundary of the \overline{D} in the manifold theory sense, which is really what we are using when we think about Stokes' theorem.
Conversely, let f be analytic. Given a \in U, take a small disc D in U centered at a such that \overline{D} \subset U and f(z) = \sum_{n=0}^{\infty}c_{n} (z - a)^{n} for z \in D, where the sum is uniformly and absolute convergent. The partial sum P_{n}(z) = \sum_{d=0}^{n}c_{d} (z - a)^{d} is a polynomial, so it is holomorphic. Hence, by Cauchy's integral formula, we have P_{n}(z) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{\partial D} \frac{P_{n}(w)}{w - z}dw. This implies that \begin{align*} f(z) &= \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}P_{n}(z) \\ &= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \lim_{n \rightarrow \infty}\int_{\partial D} \frac{P_{n}(w)}{w - z}dw \\ &= \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial D} \frac{f(w)}{w - z}dw\end{align*} by Dominate Convergence. Now an application of Dominate Convergence (e.g., Theorem 2.27 in Folland) lets us have \frac{\partial f}{\partial \bar{z}} = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\partial D} \frac{\partial}{\partial \bar{z}} \frac{f(w)}{w - z}dw = 0, since 1/(w - z) is holomorphic in z \in D, for any w \in \partial D. Thus f is holomoprhic, as desired. \Box
Theorem 2 (\bar{\partial}-lemma in single variable). Let D be a nonempty open disk in an open subset U \subset \mathbb{C} such that \overline{D} \subset U. Then for any smooth function g : U \rightarrow \mathbb{C}, there is a function f : D \rightarrow \mathbb{C} such that g = \frac{\partial f}{\partial \bar{z}}. More specifically, we can construct such an f as follows: f(z) = \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\overline{D}}g(w) \frac{dw \wedge d\bar{w}}{w - z} for z \in D.
Remark. From a change of variable argument into the polar coordinate from the previous notes, we note that the integral above is well-defined.
Proof. Fix any z_{0} \in D. Take any open discs D_{1}, D_{2} centered at z_{0} in D such that \overline{D_{1}} \subsetneq \overline{D_{2}} \subsetneq D. Then \mathbb{C} \smallsetminus D_{1} and D_{2} cover \mathbb{C} = \mathbb{R}^{2}, so (e.g., by Proposition 13.6 in Tu's book) we may find smooth (partition of unity) \rho_{1}, \rho_{2} : \mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} such that
Observation (for later). The proof can be modified so that if g = g(z_{1}, \dots, z_{n}) : U_{1} \times \cdots \times U_{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{C} is a smooth function where each U_{j} is open and holomorphic in variables z_{2}, \dots, z_{n} (separably), then so is (modified) f.
Holomorphic functions of several variables. Let U \subset \mathbb{C}^{n} be a nonempty open subset. The coordinate functions (z_{1}, \dots, z_{n}), where we write z_{j} = x_{j} + iy_{j} = (x_{j}, y_{j}) \in \mathbb{R}^{2} as usual.
A smooth function f : U \rightarrow \mathbb{C} is said to be holomorphic if it is holomorphic in each z_{j}, which in other words, we have \frac{\partial f}{\partial \bar{z_{j}}} = 0 on U. We say f is analytic if for every a \in U, we have a polydisk D(a) = D_{r_{1}}(a_{1}) \times \cdots \times D_{r_{n}}(a_{n}) such that f(z) = \sum_{k_{1}=0}^{\infty} \cdots \sum_{k_{n}=0}^{\infty}c_{k_{1},\dots,k_{n}}(z_{1} - a_{1})^{k_{1}} \cdots (z_{n} - a_{n})^{k_{n}} for z \in D, absolutely and uniformly.
Theorem. Given a smooth function f : U \rightarrow \mathbb{C}, the following are equivalent:
(1) f is holomorphic;
(2) f is analytic;
(3) For every polydisc D_{1} \times \cdots \times D_{n} \subset U, we have f(z) = \left(\frac{1}{2 \pi i}\right)^{n} \int_{\prod_{j=1}^{n}\partial D_{j}} \frac{f(w)}{(w_{1} - z_{1}) \cdots (w_{n} - z_{n})} dw_{1} \wedge \cdots \wedge dw_{n}, where the integral is over the product of circles with product orientation.
Proof. Assume (2). Then f is analytic in each variable, so it must be holomorphic in each variable. This implies (1).
To see that (1) implies (3), we use Cauchy's integral formula for single variable n times, and apply Fubini (e.g., 2.37 b in Folland) as f is continuous.
We can apply the same argument as in the single variable case to ensure that (3) implies (2). This finishes the proof. \Box
Remark. From a change of variable argument into the polar coordinate from the previous notes, we note that the integral above is well-defined.
Proof. Fix any z_{0} \in D. Take any open discs D_{1}, D_{2} centered at z_{0} in D such that \overline{D_{1}} \subsetneq \overline{D_{2}} \subsetneq D. Then \mathbb{C} \smallsetminus D_{1} and D_{2} cover \mathbb{C} = \mathbb{R}^{2}, so (e.g., by Proposition 13.6 in Tu's book) we may find smooth (partition of unity) \rho_{1}, \rho_{2} : \mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{R} such that
- \rho_{1} + \rho_{2} = 1 on \mathbb{C},
- \rho_{1} = 0 on D_{1}, and
- \rho_{2} = 0 on \mathbb{C} \setminus D_{2}.
Thus, we have g = g_{1} + g_{2} with g_{i} := \rho_{i}g smooth functions U \rightarrow \mathbb{C} such that
- g_{1} = 0 on \overline{D_{1}}, and
- g_{2} = 0 on \mathbb{C} \setminus D_{2}.
Observation (for later). The proof can be modified so that if g = g(z_{1}, \dots, z_{n}) : U_{1} \times \cdots \times U_{n} \rightarrow \mathbb{C} is a smooth function where each U_{j} is open and holomorphic in variables z_{2}, \dots, z_{n} (separably), then so is (modified) f.
Holomorphic functions of several variables. Let U \subset \mathbb{C}^{n} be a nonempty open subset. The coordinate functions (z_{1}, \dots, z_{n}), where we write z_{j} = x_{j} + iy_{j} = (x_{j}, y_{j}) \in \mathbb{R}^{2} as usual.
A smooth function f : U \rightarrow \mathbb{C} is said to be holomorphic if it is holomorphic in each z_{j}, which in other words, we have \frac{\partial f}{\partial \bar{z_{j}}} = 0 on U. We say f is analytic if for every a \in U, we have a polydisk D(a) = D_{r_{1}}(a_{1}) \times \cdots \times D_{r_{n}}(a_{n}) such that f(z) = \sum_{k_{1}=0}^{\infty} \cdots \sum_{k_{n}=0}^{\infty}c_{k_{1},\dots,k_{n}}(z_{1} - a_{1})^{k_{1}} \cdots (z_{n} - a_{n})^{k_{n}} for z \in D, absolutely and uniformly.
Theorem. Given a smooth function f : U \rightarrow \mathbb{C}, the following are equivalent:
(1) f is holomorphic;
(2) f is analytic;
(3) For every polydisc D_{1} \times \cdots \times D_{n} \subset U, we have f(z) = \left(\frac{1}{2 \pi i}\right)^{n} \int_{\prod_{j=1}^{n}\partial D_{j}} \frac{f(w)}{(w_{1} - z_{1}) \cdots (w_{n} - z_{n})} dw_{1} \wedge \cdots \wedge dw_{n}, where the integral is over the product of circles with product orientation.
Proof. Assume (2). Then f is analytic in each variable, so it must be holomorphic in each variable. This implies (1).
To see that (1) implies (3), we use Cauchy's integral formula for single variable n times, and apply Fubini (e.g., 2.37 b in Folland) as f is continuous.
We can apply the same argument as in the single variable case to ensure that (3) implies (2). This finishes the proof. \Box
No comments:
Post a Comment