For which subsets does the harmonic to analytic connection hold?
I'm a bit confused on the choice of sets that authors choose and why. For example :
"Any harmonic function $u$ on an open subset $Omega$ of $R^2$ is locally the real part of a holomorphic function."
Also
"Given $h$ positive, $(a,b) in R^2$. Let $U$ be harmonic on $I=(a-h,a+h) times (b-h, b+h)$. Then there exists $f$ analytic on $sigma(I)$ such that $U=Re F$, $F$ being the associate of $f$"
I'm not sure what restrictions are necessary? It seems like it would be true for any open set of any size (connected or otherwise). Since the harmonic and analytic definitions are local in nature, I'm not sure why it is called a "local" converse, or what that really means in this context? Also, I'm not sure why the second author chose the set he did? I feel like I am missing something.
complex-analysis harmonic-functions
add a comment |
I'm a bit confused on the choice of sets that authors choose and why. For example :
"Any harmonic function $u$ on an open subset $Omega$ of $R^2$ is locally the real part of a holomorphic function."
Also
"Given $h$ positive, $(a,b) in R^2$. Let $U$ be harmonic on $I=(a-h,a+h) times (b-h, b+h)$. Then there exists $f$ analytic on $sigma(I)$ such that $U=Re F$, $F$ being the associate of $f$"
I'm not sure what restrictions are necessary? It seems like it would be true for any open set of any size (connected or otherwise). Since the harmonic and analytic definitions are local in nature, I'm not sure why it is called a "local" converse, or what that really means in this context? Also, I'm not sure why the second author chose the set he did? I feel like I am missing something.
complex-analysis harmonic-functions
what is $sigma$ and what does "associate" mean?
– zhw.
Dec 2 '18 at 21:01
Did you look at $g(z)= frac{1}{2ipi}int_gamma frac{f(u)}{z-u}du$ with $f$ harmonic inside $gamma$
– reuns
Dec 2 '18 at 23:38
@zhw $sigma$ is the canonical map between $R times R$ and the complex plane. $F$ is $f(sigma)$, the equivalent function defined on $R times R$
– Darren
Dec 3 '18 at 1:39
add a comment |
I'm a bit confused on the choice of sets that authors choose and why. For example :
"Any harmonic function $u$ on an open subset $Omega$ of $R^2$ is locally the real part of a holomorphic function."
Also
"Given $h$ positive, $(a,b) in R^2$. Let $U$ be harmonic on $I=(a-h,a+h) times (b-h, b+h)$. Then there exists $f$ analytic on $sigma(I)$ such that $U=Re F$, $F$ being the associate of $f$"
I'm not sure what restrictions are necessary? It seems like it would be true for any open set of any size (connected or otherwise). Since the harmonic and analytic definitions are local in nature, I'm not sure why it is called a "local" converse, or what that really means in this context? Also, I'm not sure why the second author chose the set he did? I feel like I am missing something.
complex-analysis harmonic-functions
I'm a bit confused on the choice of sets that authors choose and why. For example :
"Any harmonic function $u$ on an open subset $Omega$ of $R^2$ is locally the real part of a holomorphic function."
Also
"Given $h$ positive, $(a,b) in R^2$. Let $U$ be harmonic on $I=(a-h,a+h) times (b-h, b+h)$. Then there exists $f$ analytic on $sigma(I)$ such that $U=Re F$, $F$ being the associate of $f$"
I'm not sure what restrictions are necessary? It seems like it would be true for any open set of any size (connected or otherwise). Since the harmonic and analytic definitions are local in nature, I'm not sure why it is called a "local" converse, or what that really means in this context? Also, I'm not sure why the second author chose the set he did? I feel like I am missing something.
complex-analysis harmonic-functions
complex-analysis harmonic-functions
asked Dec 2 '18 at 19:24
Darren
345110
345110
what is $sigma$ and what does "associate" mean?
– zhw.
Dec 2 '18 at 21:01
Did you look at $g(z)= frac{1}{2ipi}int_gamma frac{f(u)}{z-u}du$ with $f$ harmonic inside $gamma$
– reuns
Dec 2 '18 at 23:38
@zhw $sigma$ is the canonical map between $R times R$ and the complex plane. $F$ is $f(sigma)$, the equivalent function defined on $R times R$
– Darren
Dec 3 '18 at 1:39
add a comment |
what is $sigma$ and what does "associate" mean?
– zhw.
Dec 2 '18 at 21:01
Did you look at $g(z)= frac{1}{2ipi}int_gamma frac{f(u)}{z-u}du$ with $f$ harmonic inside $gamma$
– reuns
Dec 2 '18 at 23:38
@zhw $sigma$ is the canonical map between $R times R$ and the complex plane. $F$ is $f(sigma)$, the equivalent function defined on $R times R$
– Darren
Dec 3 '18 at 1:39
what is $sigma$ and what does "associate" mean?
– zhw.
Dec 2 '18 at 21:01
what is $sigma$ and what does "associate" mean?
– zhw.
Dec 2 '18 at 21:01
Did you look at $g(z)= frac{1}{2ipi}int_gamma frac{f(u)}{z-u}du$ with $f$ harmonic inside $gamma$
– reuns
Dec 2 '18 at 23:38
Did you look at $g(z)= frac{1}{2ipi}int_gamma frac{f(u)}{z-u}du$ with $f$ harmonic inside $gamma$
– reuns
Dec 2 '18 at 23:38
@zhw $sigma$ is the canonical map between $R times R$ and the complex plane. $F$ is $f(sigma)$, the equivalent function defined on $R times R$
– Darren
Dec 3 '18 at 1:39
@zhw $sigma$ is the canonical map between $R times R$ and the complex plane. $F$ is $f(sigma)$, the equivalent function defined on $R times R$
– Darren
Dec 3 '18 at 1:39
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
I just post my comment as an answer because it has grown too long.
If you are given any holomorphic function, its real and imaginary part are harmonic (rewrite the Laplacian in complex coordinates using Wirtinger's equations).
Conversely, if you are given any harmonic function and you want to construct a holomorphic function with the given harmonic function as real or imaginary part, there is an integral involved and this imposes the condition of simple connectedness on the defining domain of the harmonic function.
I'm not entirely sure wether this is the end of the story. The connection between holomorphic and harmonic functions plays an important role in what is called Levi's problem. You find a complete and nice overview of this topic in Grauert-Fritzsche: From holomorphic functions to complex manifolds, Chapter II. This is almost 60 pages because the topic is, as many things in complex analysis, in parts very technical.
EDIT: According to your comment, here are some more details on where we need a simply connected domain.
Let $Gsubset mathbb C$ be any domain. By a domain I mean a connected, non-empty open subset.
Definition. Let $u,v:Gto mathbb R$ be harmonic functions. If the function $f=u+iv$ is holomorphic on $G$ we call $(u,v)$ an adjoint harmonic pair.
We need a simple connected domain in the proof of the following theorem.
Theorem. If $G$ is simply connected and $u:Gto mathbb R$ harmonic, then there is a harmonic function $v:Gto mathbb R$ such that $(u,v)$ is an adjoint harmonic pair. In other words, every harmonic function on a simply connected domain is the real part of some holomorphic function.
Proof. Notice that in complex coordinates, $$Delta=4partial overline partial = 4overline partial partial.$$
Set $g:=partial u$. It follows from $Delta=4partial overline partial = 4overline partial partial$ that $g$ is holomorphic on $G$. Since $G$ is simply connected there exists a primitive function $f$ of $g$. Using the Cauchy Riemann equations and Wirtinger calculus we see that
begin{align}
g=partial f&=frac{1}{2}left(partial_x-ipartial_yright)(Re(f)+iIm(f))\
&=frac{1}{2}(partial_x Re(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)+i(partial_xIm(f)-ipartial_yIm(f)))\
&=frac{1}{2}(partial_x Re(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)+partial_xRe(f)))\
&=partial Re(f),
end{align}
where $Re,Im$ denote the real, resp. imaginary part.
Moreover
begin{equation*}
partial (u-Re(f))=g-g=0,
end{equation*}
hence $u-Re(f)=cin mathbb C$. As $f$ is only unique up to a constant we can, if necessary, change $f$ to $f-c$ and the claim follows.
Thank you for the answer. Can you explain why the domain has to be connected?
– Darren
Dec 5 '18 at 3:45
@Darren I expanded my answer, does this help you?
– James
Dec 5 '18 at 9:02
Thanks for taking the time to write an answer. After more reading, I think I was getting stuck because of the following: The definition of a derivative is a local one, yet the concept of an anti-derivative has topological considerations. For example, the function $1/z$ does not possess an anti-derivative, yet presumably, each point on the domain $C - {0}$ can be surrounded by an open set where the anti-derivative exists? So the fact that the anti-derivative doesn't exist is because the domain is not simply connected.
– Darren
Dec 9 '18 at 15:40
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023074%2ffor-which-subsets-does-the-harmonic-to-analytic-connection-hold%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
I just post my comment as an answer because it has grown too long.
If you are given any holomorphic function, its real and imaginary part are harmonic (rewrite the Laplacian in complex coordinates using Wirtinger's equations).
Conversely, if you are given any harmonic function and you want to construct a holomorphic function with the given harmonic function as real or imaginary part, there is an integral involved and this imposes the condition of simple connectedness on the defining domain of the harmonic function.
I'm not entirely sure wether this is the end of the story. The connection between holomorphic and harmonic functions plays an important role in what is called Levi's problem. You find a complete and nice overview of this topic in Grauert-Fritzsche: From holomorphic functions to complex manifolds, Chapter II. This is almost 60 pages because the topic is, as many things in complex analysis, in parts very technical.
EDIT: According to your comment, here are some more details on where we need a simply connected domain.
Let $Gsubset mathbb C$ be any domain. By a domain I mean a connected, non-empty open subset.
Definition. Let $u,v:Gto mathbb R$ be harmonic functions. If the function $f=u+iv$ is holomorphic on $G$ we call $(u,v)$ an adjoint harmonic pair.
We need a simple connected domain in the proof of the following theorem.
Theorem. If $G$ is simply connected and $u:Gto mathbb R$ harmonic, then there is a harmonic function $v:Gto mathbb R$ such that $(u,v)$ is an adjoint harmonic pair. In other words, every harmonic function on a simply connected domain is the real part of some holomorphic function.
Proof. Notice that in complex coordinates, $$Delta=4partial overline partial = 4overline partial partial.$$
Set $g:=partial u$. It follows from $Delta=4partial overline partial = 4overline partial partial$ that $g$ is holomorphic on $G$. Since $G$ is simply connected there exists a primitive function $f$ of $g$. Using the Cauchy Riemann equations and Wirtinger calculus we see that
begin{align}
g=partial f&=frac{1}{2}left(partial_x-ipartial_yright)(Re(f)+iIm(f))\
&=frac{1}{2}(partial_x Re(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)+i(partial_xIm(f)-ipartial_yIm(f)))\
&=frac{1}{2}(partial_x Re(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)+partial_xRe(f)))\
&=partial Re(f),
end{align}
where $Re,Im$ denote the real, resp. imaginary part.
Moreover
begin{equation*}
partial (u-Re(f))=g-g=0,
end{equation*}
hence $u-Re(f)=cin mathbb C$. As $f$ is only unique up to a constant we can, if necessary, change $f$ to $f-c$ and the claim follows.
Thank you for the answer. Can you explain why the domain has to be connected?
– Darren
Dec 5 '18 at 3:45
@Darren I expanded my answer, does this help you?
– James
Dec 5 '18 at 9:02
Thanks for taking the time to write an answer. After more reading, I think I was getting stuck because of the following: The definition of a derivative is a local one, yet the concept of an anti-derivative has topological considerations. For example, the function $1/z$ does not possess an anti-derivative, yet presumably, each point on the domain $C - {0}$ can be surrounded by an open set where the anti-derivative exists? So the fact that the anti-derivative doesn't exist is because the domain is not simply connected.
– Darren
Dec 9 '18 at 15:40
add a comment |
I just post my comment as an answer because it has grown too long.
If you are given any holomorphic function, its real and imaginary part are harmonic (rewrite the Laplacian in complex coordinates using Wirtinger's equations).
Conversely, if you are given any harmonic function and you want to construct a holomorphic function with the given harmonic function as real or imaginary part, there is an integral involved and this imposes the condition of simple connectedness on the defining domain of the harmonic function.
I'm not entirely sure wether this is the end of the story. The connection between holomorphic and harmonic functions plays an important role in what is called Levi's problem. You find a complete and nice overview of this topic in Grauert-Fritzsche: From holomorphic functions to complex manifolds, Chapter II. This is almost 60 pages because the topic is, as many things in complex analysis, in parts very technical.
EDIT: According to your comment, here are some more details on where we need a simply connected domain.
Let $Gsubset mathbb C$ be any domain. By a domain I mean a connected, non-empty open subset.
Definition. Let $u,v:Gto mathbb R$ be harmonic functions. If the function $f=u+iv$ is holomorphic on $G$ we call $(u,v)$ an adjoint harmonic pair.
We need a simple connected domain in the proof of the following theorem.
Theorem. If $G$ is simply connected and $u:Gto mathbb R$ harmonic, then there is a harmonic function $v:Gto mathbb R$ such that $(u,v)$ is an adjoint harmonic pair. In other words, every harmonic function on a simply connected domain is the real part of some holomorphic function.
Proof. Notice that in complex coordinates, $$Delta=4partial overline partial = 4overline partial partial.$$
Set $g:=partial u$. It follows from $Delta=4partial overline partial = 4overline partial partial$ that $g$ is holomorphic on $G$. Since $G$ is simply connected there exists a primitive function $f$ of $g$. Using the Cauchy Riemann equations and Wirtinger calculus we see that
begin{align}
g=partial f&=frac{1}{2}left(partial_x-ipartial_yright)(Re(f)+iIm(f))\
&=frac{1}{2}(partial_x Re(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)+i(partial_xIm(f)-ipartial_yIm(f)))\
&=frac{1}{2}(partial_x Re(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)+partial_xRe(f)))\
&=partial Re(f),
end{align}
where $Re,Im$ denote the real, resp. imaginary part.
Moreover
begin{equation*}
partial (u-Re(f))=g-g=0,
end{equation*}
hence $u-Re(f)=cin mathbb C$. As $f$ is only unique up to a constant we can, if necessary, change $f$ to $f-c$ and the claim follows.
Thank you for the answer. Can you explain why the domain has to be connected?
– Darren
Dec 5 '18 at 3:45
@Darren I expanded my answer, does this help you?
– James
Dec 5 '18 at 9:02
Thanks for taking the time to write an answer. After more reading, I think I was getting stuck because of the following: The definition of a derivative is a local one, yet the concept of an anti-derivative has topological considerations. For example, the function $1/z$ does not possess an anti-derivative, yet presumably, each point on the domain $C - {0}$ can be surrounded by an open set where the anti-derivative exists? So the fact that the anti-derivative doesn't exist is because the domain is not simply connected.
– Darren
Dec 9 '18 at 15:40
add a comment |
I just post my comment as an answer because it has grown too long.
If you are given any holomorphic function, its real and imaginary part are harmonic (rewrite the Laplacian in complex coordinates using Wirtinger's equations).
Conversely, if you are given any harmonic function and you want to construct a holomorphic function with the given harmonic function as real or imaginary part, there is an integral involved and this imposes the condition of simple connectedness on the defining domain of the harmonic function.
I'm not entirely sure wether this is the end of the story. The connection between holomorphic and harmonic functions plays an important role in what is called Levi's problem. You find a complete and nice overview of this topic in Grauert-Fritzsche: From holomorphic functions to complex manifolds, Chapter II. This is almost 60 pages because the topic is, as many things in complex analysis, in parts very technical.
EDIT: According to your comment, here are some more details on where we need a simply connected domain.
Let $Gsubset mathbb C$ be any domain. By a domain I mean a connected, non-empty open subset.
Definition. Let $u,v:Gto mathbb R$ be harmonic functions. If the function $f=u+iv$ is holomorphic on $G$ we call $(u,v)$ an adjoint harmonic pair.
We need a simple connected domain in the proof of the following theorem.
Theorem. If $G$ is simply connected and $u:Gto mathbb R$ harmonic, then there is a harmonic function $v:Gto mathbb R$ such that $(u,v)$ is an adjoint harmonic pair. In other words, every harmonic function on a simply connected domain is the real part of some holomorphic function.
Proof. Notice that in complex coordinates, $$Delta=4partial overline partial = 4overline partial partial.$$
Set $g:=partial u$. It follows from $Delta=4partial overline partial = 4overline partial partial$ that $g$ is holomorphic on $G$. Since $G$ is simply connected there exists a primitive function $f$ of $g$. Using the Cauchy Riemann equations and Wirtinger calculus we see that
begin{align}
g=partial f&=frac{1}{2}left(partial_x-ipartial_yright)(Re(f)+iIm(f))\
&=frac{1}{2}(partial_x Re(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)+i(partial_xIm(f)-ipartial_yIm(f)))\
&=frac{1}{2}(partial_x Re(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)+partial_xRe(f)))\
&=partial Re(f),
end{align}
where $Re,Im$ denote the real, resp. imaginary part.
Moreover
begin{equation*}
partial (u-Re(f))=g-g=0,
end{equation*}
hence $u-Re(f)=cin mathbb C$. As $f$ is only unique up to a constant we can, if necessary, change $f$ to $f-c$ and the claim follows.
I just post my comment as an answer because it has grown too long.
If you are given any holomorphic function, its real and imaginary part are harmonic (rewrite the Laplacian in complex coordinates using Wirtinger's equations).
Conversely, if you are given any harmonic function and you want to construct a holomorphic function with the given harmonic function as real or imaginary part, there is an integral involved and this imposes the condition of simple connectedness on the defining domain of the harmonic function.
I'm not entirely sure wether this is the end of the story. The connection between holomorphic and harmonic functions plays an important role in what is called Levi's problem. You find a complete and nice overview of this topic in Grauert-Fritzsche: From holomorphic functions to complex manifolds, Chapter II. This is almost 60 pages because the topic is, as many things in complex analysis, in parts very technical.
EDIT: According to your comment, here are some more details on where we need a simply connected domain.
Let $Gsubset mathbb C$ be any domain. By a domain I mean a connected, non-empty open subset.
Definition. Let $u,v:Gto mathbb R$ be harmonic functions. If the function $f=u+iv$ is holomorphic on $G$ we call $(u,v)$ an adjoint harmonic pair.
We need a simple connected domain in the proof of the following theorem.
Theorem. If $G$ is simply connected and $u:Gto mathbb R$ harmonic, then there is a harmonic function $v:Gto mathbb R$ such that $(u,v)$ is an adjoint harmonic pair. In other words, every harmonic function on a simply connected domain is the real part of some holomorphic function.
Proof. Notice that in complex coordinates, $$Delta=4partial overline partial = 4overline partial partial.$$
Set $g:=partial u$. It follows from $Delta=4partial overline partial = 4overline partial partial$ that $g$ is holomorphic on $G$. Since $G$ is simply connected there exists a primitive function $f$ of $g$. Using the Cauchy Riemann equations and Wirtinger calculus we see that
begin{align}
g=partial f&=frac{1}{2}left(partial_x-ipartial_yright)(Re(f)+iIm(f))\
&=frac{1}{2}(partial_x Re(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)+i(partial_xIm(f)-ipartial_yIm(f)))\
&=frac{1}{2}(partial_x Re(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)-ipartial_yRe(f)+partial_xRe(f)))\
&=partial Re(f),
end{align}
where $Re,Im$ denote the real, resp. imaginary part.
Moreover
begin{equation*}
partial (u-Re(f))=g-g=0,
end{equation*}
hence $u-Re(f)=cin mathbb C$. As $f$ is only unique up to a constant we can, if necessary, change $f$ to $f-c$ and the claim follows.
edited Dec 5 '18 at 9:01
answered Dec 4 '18 at 9:48
James
703115
703115
Thank you for the answer. Can you explain why the domain has to be connected?
– Darren
Dec 5 '18 at 3:45
@Darren I expanded my answer, does this help you?
– James
Dec 5 '18 at 9:02
Thanks for taking the time to write an answer. After more reading, I think I was getting stuck because of the following: The definition of a derivative is a local one, yet the concept of an anti-derivative has topological considerations. For example, the function $1/z$ does not possess an anti-derivative, yet presumably, each point on the domain $C - {0}$ can be surrounded by an open set where the anti-derivative exists? So the fact that the anti-derivative doesn't exist is because the domain is not simply connected.
– Darren
Dec 9 '18 at 15:40
add a comment |
Thank you for the answer. Can you explain why the domain has to be connected?
– Darren
Dec 5 '18 at 3:45
@Darren I expanded my answer, does this help you?
– James
Dec 5 '18 at 9:02
Thanks for taking the time to write an answer. After more reading, I think I was getting stuck because of the following: The definition of a derivative is a local one, yet the concept of an anti-derivative has topological considerations. For example, the function $1/z$ does not possess an anti-derivative, yet presumably, each point on the domain $C - {0}$ can be surrounded by an open set where the anti-derivative exists? So the fact that the anti-derivative doesn't exist is because the domain is not simply connected.
– Darren
Dec 9 '18 at 15:40
Thank you for the answer. Can you explain why the domain has to be connected?
– Darren
Dec 5 '18 at 3:45
Thank you for the answer. Can you explain why the domain has to be connected?
– Darren
Dec 5 '18 at 3:45
@Darren I expanded my answer, does this help you?
– James
Dec 5 '18 at 9:02
@Darren I expanded my answer, does this help you?
– James
Dec 5 '18 at 9:02
Thanks for taking the time to write an answer. After more reading, I think I was getting stuck because of the following: The definition of a derivative is a local one, yet the concept of an anti-derivative has topological considerations. For example, the function $1/z$ does not possess an anti-derivative, yet presumably, each point on the domain $C - {0}$ can be surrounded by an open set where the anti-derivative exists? So the fact that the anti-derivative doesn't exist is because the domain is not simply connected.
– Darren
Dec 9 '18 at 15:40
Thanks for taking the time to write an answer. After more reading, I think I was getting stuck because of the following: The definition of a derivative is a local one, yet the concept of an anti-derivative has topological considerations. For example, the function $1/z$ does not possess an anti-derivative, yet presumably, each point on the domain $C - {0}$ can be surrounded by an open set where the anti-derivative exists? So the fact that the anti-derivative doesn't exist is because the domain is not simply connected.
– Darren
Dec 9 '18 at 15:40
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3023074%2ffor-which-subsets-does-the-harmonic-to-analytic-connection-hold%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
what is $sigma$ and what does "associate" mean?
– zhw.
Dec 2 '18 at 21:01
Did you look at $g(z)= frac{1}{2ipi}int_gamma frac{f(u)}{z-u}du$ with $f$ harmonic inside $gamma$
– reuns
Dec 2 '18 at 23:38
@zhw $sigma$ is the canonical map between $R times R$ and the complex plane. $F$ is $f(sigma)$, the equivalent function defined on $R times R$
– Darren
Dec 3 '18 at 1:39