Is the complex function $f(z)=e^{-z^{-4}}$ analytic at $z=0$? [closed]
$begingroup$
Is the complex function $$f(z)=begin{cases}
e^{-z^{-4}} & zne0\
0 & z=0
end{cases}$$ analytic at $z=0$ ?
I am able to show that the Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied.
complex-analysis
$endgroup$
closed as off-topic by Did, Namaste, Paul Frost, mrtaurho, KReiser Jan 2 at 4:09
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Did, Namaste, Paul Frost, mrtaurho, KReiser
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is the complex function $$f(z)=begin{cases}
e^{-z^{-4}} & zne0\
0 & z=0
end{cases}$$ analytic at $z=0$ ?
I am able to show that the Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied.
complex-analysis
$endgroup$
closed as off-topic by Did, Namaste, Paul Frost, mrtaurho, KReiser Jan 2 at 4:09
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Did, Namaste, Paul Frost, mrtaurho, KReiser
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
$begingroup$
The function is not continuous at zero (if you are considering it defined on $mathbb C$, as you seem to be doing).
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:19
1
$begingroup$
One way to see $f(z)$ is not continuous at $0$ is approach the origin along the diagonals $Re z = pm Im z$.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Jun 7 '14 at 8:40
1
$begingroup$
"I am able to show that the Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied." Then there must be some mistakes in your computations.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 31 '18 at 13:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Is the complex function $$f(z)=begin{cases}
e^{-z^{-4}} & zne0\
0 & z=0
end{cases}$$ analytic at $z=0$ ?
I am able to show that the Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied.
complex-analysis
$endgroup$
Is the complex function $$f(z)=begin{cases}
e^{-z^{-4}} & zne0\
0 & z=0
end{cases}$$ analytic at $z=0$ ?
I am able to show that the Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied.
complex-analysis
complex-analysis
edited Jun 7 '14 at 8:53
Aman Mittal
asked Jun 7 '14 at 7:02
Aman MittalAman Mittal
98011837
98011837
closed as off-topic by Did, Namaste, Paul Frost, mrtaurho, KReiser Jan 2 at 4:09
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Did, Namaste, Paul Frost, mrtaurho, KReiser
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
closed as off-topic by Did, Namaste, Paul Frost, mrtaurho, KReiser Jan 2 at 4:09
This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:
- "This question is missing context or other details: Please provide additional context, which ideally explains why the question is relevant to you and our community. Some forms of context include: background and motivation, relevant definitions, source, possible strategies, your current progress, why the question is interesting or important, etc." – Did, Namaste, Paul Frost, mrtaurho, KReiser
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.
$begingroup$
The function is not continuous at zero (if you are considering it defined on $mathbb C$, as you seem to be doing).
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:19
1
$begingroup$
One way to see $f(z)$ is not continuous at $0$ is approach the origin along the diagonals $Re z = pm Im z$.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Jun 7 '14 at 8:40
1
$begingroup$
"I am able to show that the Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied." Then there must be some mistakes in your computations.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 31 '18 at 13:52
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The function is not continuous at zero (if you are considering it defined on $mathbb C$, as you seem to be doing).
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:19
1
$begingroup$
One way to see $f(z)$ is not continuous at $0$ is approach the origin along the diagonals $Re z = pm Im z$.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Jun 7 '14 at 8:40
1
$begingroup$
"I am able to show that the Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied." Then there must be some mistakes in your computations.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 31 '18 at 13:52
$begingroup$
The function is not continuous at zero (if you are considering it defined on $mathbb C$, as you seem to be doing).
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:19
$begingroup$
The function is not continuous at zero (if you are considering it defined on $mathbb C$, as you seem to be doing).
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:19
1
1
$begingroup$
One way to see $f(z)$ is not continuous at $0$ is approach the origin along the diagonals $Re z = pm Im z$.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Jun 7 '14 at 8:40
$begingroup$
One way to see $f(z)$ is not continuous at $0$ is approach the origin along the diagonals $Re z = pm Im z$.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Jun 7 '14 at 8:40
1
1
$begingroup$
"I am able to show that the Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied." Then there must be some mistakes in your computations.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 31 '18 at 13:52
$begingroup$
"I am able to show that the Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied." Then there must be some mistakes in your computations.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 31 '18 at 13:52
add a comment |
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The other answers are using thermonuclear weapons to conclude...
The function is not even continuous at zero. For example, there exists in $mathbb C$ a sequence $(w_n)_{ngeq0}$ such that $w_ntoinfty$ and $exp w_n^4=1$ for all $ngeq0$. It follows that $1/w_nto0$ as $ntoinfty$ and $f(1/w_n)=exp(-(1/w_n)^{-4})=1$ for all $n$, and this together with $f(0)=0$ imply that $f$ is not continuous at $0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You can take $w_n$ to be any of the fourth roots of $2pi n i$, for example.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:30
$begingroup$
Thank you for making it so simple !
$endgroup$
– Aman Mittal
Jun 7 '14 at 8:53
$begingroup$
Isn't it an essential singularity?
$endgroup$
– Wilson of Gordon
Jun 7 '14 at 11:45
$begingroup$
@WilsonofGordon. Yes. For any $rin Bbb R^+$ let $S(r)= {-z^{-4}: 0<|z|<r}$ and $T(r)= {z+2pi i n: zin S(r)land nin Bbb Z}.$ Then $S(r)={z: |z|>r^4}$ so $T(r)=Bbb C.$ So ${e^z: zin S(r)}= {e^z:zin T(r)}={e^z:zne 0}=Bbb C setminus {0}.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 1 at 19:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The function $f(z)$ thus defined has a Laurent series expansion
$$ f(z) = sum_{n=0}^infty frac{(-1)^n}{n!} z^{-4n} $$
around $z=0$ with an infinite principal part (i.e. with infinitely many non-zero coefficients in front of the negative powers of $z$).
Thus $z=0$ is an essential singularity of $f(z)$, and by the Casoratti-Weierstraß theorem, there is no way to define $f(0)$ so that $f(z)$ be continuous at $z=0$. In fact, we have
$$ |f(z)| = e^{-Re(z^{-4})} = expleft(frac{-x^4+6x^2y^2-y^4}{(x^2+y^2)^4}right) quad text{for} quad z = x +iy neq 0.$$
Restricting $z$ to the line $y = tx$ with $tinmathbb{R}$, we observe that
$$ lim_{xto0}|f(x+itx)| = lim_{xto 0},expleft(frac{-1+6t^2-t^4}{x^4(1+t^2)^4}right)tag{1}label{limit}$$
is not independent of $t in mathbb{R}$. Indeed, we can factor the biquadratic polynomial $-1+6t^2-t^4$ as
$$-big((t^2-3)^2 - 8big) = -big(t^2-(sqrt{2}-1)^2big)big(t^2-(sqrt{2}+1)^2big) = -(t+sqrt{2}+1)(t+sqrt{2}-1)(t-sqrt{2}+1)(t-sqrt{2}-1),$$
whence we deduce that the limit eqref{limit} equals either $1$ (for $t = pmsqrt{2}pm1$), or $infty$ (whenever $|t+sqrt{2}| < 1$ or $|t-sqrt{2}|<1$), or $0$ (otherwise). Therefore, we conclude that $lim_{zto0}|f(z)|$ does not exist. Hence, the limit $lim_{zto0}f(z)$ does not exist either, and thus, $f(z)$ cannot be analytic at $z=0$.
Edit: I would like to thank Abhishek Verma for pointing out an error in the original solution: the denominator appearing in the expression for $|f(z)|$ was incorrectly calculated as $(x^2+y^2)^2$, instead of $(x^2+y^2)^4$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would say no, because every derivative is $0$ at $0$, (due to expontential growth), see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-analytic_smooth_function
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
One should better say that all derivatives of the restriction of $f$ to $mathbb{R}$ vanish at $x=0$, as $f$ itself is not differentiable at $z=0$.
$endgroup$
– ivanpenev
Jun 7 '14 at 8:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since you already know the function is continuous, we can conclude directly that it is analytic from Riemann's theorem (about removable singularity).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am not sure why I keep getting -1 here...The asker previously claimed that the function is continuous (before it was edited out). I am pointing out the simple fact that if you have a function that is already analytic everywhere except one point, and is continuous at that point, then it clearly is just a removable singularity.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 7 '14 at 15:19
$begingroup$
Continuous functions aren't necessarily analytic (and this function is not continuous at $0$).
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 7 '14 at 20:10
$begingroup$
@user61527: please take a look at Riemann's removable singularity theorem. And the question before being edited was that it is a continuous function.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 1:12
$begingroup$
Yes, you are correct that a holomorphic function that's bounded near a singularity can be extended. I'm not sure what you're saying about the relevance of the theorem about removable singularities here: $0$ is, in fact, an essential singularity of this function, since there are infinitely many non-zero terms in the Laurent expansion of $f$ about $0$. (Also, as far as I see, the only edits about the definition of the function were cosmetic.)
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 8 '14 at 3:07
$begingroup$
@user61527: the question was previously (at the moment I gave the answer) stated to be continuous, and I simply recognize that as an obvious application of the theorem. The fact that the function have essential singularity here is the mistake on the asker's part, and it seems more reasonable to assume that the asker got the function wrong rather than the continuity wrong. In any case, it is clear that the asker did not notice that the theorem is applicable once continuity is known, which is why I gave this answer.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 3:34
|
show 1 more comment
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
4 Answers
4
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
The other answers are using thermonuclear weapons to conclude...
The function is not even continuous at zero. For example, there exists in $mathbb C$ a sequence $(w_n)_{ngeq0}$ such that $w_ntoinfty$ and $exp w_n^4=1$ for all $ngeq0$. It follows that $1/w_nto0$ as $ntoinfty$ and $f(1/w_n)=exp(-(1/w_n)^{-4})=1$ for all $n$, and this together with $f(0)=0$ imply that $f$ is not continuous at $0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You can take $w_n$ to be any of the fourth roots of $2pi n i$, for example.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:30
$begingroup$
Thank you for making it so simple !
$endgroup$
– Aman Mittal
Jun 7 '14 at 8:53
$begingroup$
Isn't it an essential singularity?
$endgroup$
– Wilson of Gordon
Jun 7 '14 at 11:45
$begingroup$
@WilsonofGordon. Yes. For any $rin Bbb R^+$ let $S(r)= {-z^{-4}: 0<|z|<r}$ and $T(r)= {z+2pi i n: zin S(r)land nin Bbb Z}.$ Then $S(r)={z: |z|>r^4}$ so $T(r)=Bbb C.$ So ${e^z: zin S(r)}= {e^z:zin T(r)}={e^z:zne 0}=Bbb C setminus {0}.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 1 at 19:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The other answers are using thermonuclear weapons to conclude...
The function is not even continuous at zero. For example, there exists in $mathbb C$ a sequence $(w_n)_{ngeq0}$ such that $w_ntoinfty$ and $exp w_n^4=1$ for all $ngeq0$. It follows that $1/w_nto0$ as $ntoinfty$ and $f(1/w_n)=exp(-(1/w_n)^{-4})=1$ for all $n$, and this together with $f(0)=0$ imply that $f$ is not continuous at $0$.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
You can take $w_n$ to be any of the fourth roots of $2pi n i$, for example.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:30
$begingroup$
Thank you for making it so simple !
$endgroup$
– Aman Mittal
Jun 7 '14 at 8:53
$begingroup$
Isn't it an essential singularity?
$endgroup$
– Wilson of Gordon
Jun 7 '14 at 11:45
$begingroup$
@WilsonofGordon. Yes. For any $rin Bbb R^+$ let $S(r)= {-z^{-4}: 0<|z|<r}$ and $T(r)= {z+2pi i n: zin S(r)land nin Bbb Z}.$ Then $S(r)={z: |z|>r^4}$ so $T(r)=Bbb C.$ So ${e^z: zin S(r)}= {e^z:zin T(r)}={e^z:zne 0}=Bbb C setminus {0}.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 1 at 19:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The other answers are using thermonuclear weapons to conclude...
The function is not even continuous at zero. For example, there exists in $mathbb C$ a sequence $(w_n)_{ngeq0}$ such that $w_ntoinfty$ and $exp w_n^4=1$ for all $ngeq0$. It follows that $1/w_nto0$ as $ntoinfty$ and $f(1/w_n)=exp(-(1/w_n)^{-4})=1$ for all $n$, and this together with $f(0)=0$ imply that $f$ is not continuous at $0$.
$endgroup$
The other answers are using thermonuclear weapons to conclude...
The function is not even continuous at zero. For example, there exists in $mathbb C$ a sequence $(w_n)_{ngeq0}$ such that $w_ntoinfty$ and $exp w_n^4=1$ for all $ngeq0$. It follows that $1/w_nto0$ as $ntoinfty$ and $f(1/w_n)=exp(-(1/w_n)^{-4})=1$ for all $n$, and this together with $f(0)=0$ imply that $f$ is not continuous at $0$.
answered Jun 7 '14 at 8:25
Mariano Suárez-ÁlvarezMariano Suárez-Álvarez
112k7157290
112k7157290
$begingroup$
You can take $w_n$ to be any of the fourth roots of $2pi n i$, for example.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:30
$begingroup$
Thank you for making it so simple !
$endgroup$
– Aman Mittal
Jun 7 '14 at 8:53
$begingroup$
Isn't it an essential singularity?
$endgroup$
– Wilson of Gordon
Jun 7 '14 at 11:45
$begingroup$
@WilsonofGordon. Yes. For any $rin Bbb R^+$ let $S(r)= {-z^{-4}: 0<|z|<r}$ and $T(r)= {z+2pi i n: zin S(r)land nin Bbb Z}.$ Then $S(r)={z: |z|>r^4}$ so $T(r)=Bbb C.$ So ${e^z: zin S(r)}= {e^z:zin T(r)}={e^z:zne 0}=Bbb C setminus {0}.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 1 at 19:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You can take $w_n$ to be any of the fourth roots of $2pi n i$, for example.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:30
$begingroup$
Thank you for making it so simple !
$endgroup$
– Aman Mittal
Jun 7 '14 at 8:53
$begingroup$
Isn't it an essential singularity?
$endgroup$
– Wilson of Gordon
Jun 7 '14 at 11:45
$begingroup$
@WilsonofGordon. Yes. For any $rin Bbb R^+$ let $S(r)= {-z^{-4}: 0<|z|<r}$ and $T(r)= {z+2pi i n: zin S(r)land nin Bbb Z}.$ Then $S(r)={z: |z|>r^4}$ so $T(r)=Bbb C.$ So ${e^z: zin S(r)}= {e^z:zin T(r)}={e^z:zne 0}=Bbb C setminus {0}.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 1 at 19:48
$begingroup$
You can take $w_n$ to be any of the fourth roots of $2pi n i$, for example.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:30
$begingroup$
You can take $w_n$ to be any of the fourth roots of $2pi n i$, for example.
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:30
$begingroup$
Thank you for making it so simple !
$endgroup$
– Aman Mittal
Jun 7 '14 at 8:53
$begingroup$
Thank you for making it so simple !
$endgroup$
– Aman Mittal
Jun 7 '14 at 8:53
$begingroup$
Isn't it an essential singularity?
$endgroup$
– Wilson of Gordon
Jun 7 '14 at 11:45
$begingroup$
Isn't it an essential singularity?
$endgroup$
– Wilson of Gordon
Jun 7 '14 at 11:45
$begingroup$
@WilsonofGordon. Yes. For any $rin Bbb R^+$ let $S(r)= {-z^{-4}: 0<|z|<r}$ and $T(r)= {z+2pi i n: zin S(r)land nin Bbb Z}.$ Then $S(r)={z: |z|>r^4}$ so $T(r)=Bbb C.$ So ${e^z: zin S(r)}= {e^z:zin T(r)}={e^z:zne 0}=Bbb C setminus {0}.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 1 at 19:48
$begingroup$
@WilsonofGordon. Yes. For any $rin Bbb R^+$ let $S(r)= {-z^{-4}: 0<|z|<r}$ and $T(r)= {z+2pi i n: zin S(r)land nin Bbb Z}.$ Then $S(r)={z: |z|>r^4}$ so $T(r)=Bbb C.$ So ${e^z: zin S(r)}= {e^z:zin T(r)}={e^z:zne 0}=Bbb C setminus {0}.$
$endgroup$
– DanielWainfleet
Jan 1 at 19:48
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The function $f(z)$ thus defined has a Laurent series expansion
$$ f(z) = sum_{n=0}^infty frac{(-1)^n}{n!} z^{-4n} $$
around $z=0$ with an infinite principal part (i.e. with infinitely many non-zero coefficients in front of the negative powers of $z$).
Thus $z=0$ is an essential singularity of $f(z)$, and by the Casoratti-Weierstraß theorem, there is no way to define $f(0)$ so that $f(z)$ be continuous at $z=0$. In fact, we have
$$ |f(z)| = e^{-Re(z^{-4})} = expleft(frac{-x^4+6x^2y^2-y^4}{(x^2+y^2)^4}right) quad text{for} quad z = x +iy neq 0.$$
Restricting $z$ to the line $y = tx$ with $tinmathbb{R}$, we observe that
$$ lim_{xto0}|f(x+itx)| = lim_{xto 0},expleft(frac{-1+6t^2-t^4}{x^4(1+t^2)^4}right)tag{1}label{limit}$$
is not independent of $t in mathbb{R}$. Indeed, we can factor the biquadratic polynomial $-1+6t^2-t^4$ as
$$-big((t^2-3)^2 - 8big) = -big(t^2-(sqrt{2}-1)^2big)big(t^2-(sqrt{2}+1)^2big) = -(t+sqrt{2}+1)(t+sqrt{2}-1)(t-sqrt{2}+1)(t-sqrt{2}-1),$$
whence we deduce that the limit eqref{limit} equals either $1$ (for $t = pmsqrt{2}pm1$), or $infty$ (whenever $|t+sqrt{2}| < 1$ or $|t-sqrt{2}|<1$), or $0$ (otherwise). Therefore, we conclude that $lim_{zto0}|f(z)|$ does not exist. Hence, the limit $lim_{zto0}f(z)$ does not exist either, and thus, $f(z)$ cannot be analytic at $z=0$.
Edit: I would like to thank Abhishek Verma for pointing out an error in the original solution: the denominator appearing in the expression for $|f(z)|$ was incorrectly calculated as $(x^2+y^2)^2$, instead of $(x^2+y^2)^4$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The function $f(z)$ thus defined has a Laurent series expansion
$$ f(z) = sum_{n=0}^infty frac{(-1)^n}{n!} z^{-4n} $$
around $z=0$ with an infinite principal part (i.e. with infinitely many non-zero coefficients in front of the negative powers of $z$).
Thus $z=0$ is an essential singularity of $f(z)$, and by the Casoratti-Weierstraß theorem, there is no way to define $f(0)$ so that $f(z)$ be continuous at $z=0$. In fact, we have
$$ |f(z)| = e^{-Re(z^{-4})} = expleft(frac{-x^4+6x^2y^2-y^4}{(x^2+y^2)^4}right) quad text{for} quad z = x +iy neq 0.$$
Restricting $z$ to the line $y = tx$ with $tinmathbb{R}$, we observe that
$$ lim_{xto0}|f(x+itx)| = lim_{xto 0},expleft(frac{-1+6t^2-t^4}{x^4(1+t^2)^4}right)tag{1}label{limit}$$
is not independent of $t in mathbb{R}$. Indeed, we can factor the biquadratic polynomial $-1+6t^2-t^4$ as
$$-big((t^2-3)^2 - 8big) = -big(t^2-(sqrt{2}-1)^2big)big(t^2-(sqrt{2}+1)^2big) = -(t+sqrt{2}+1)(t+sqrt{2}-1)(t-sqrt{2}+1)(t-sqrt{2}-1),$$
whence we deduce that the limit eqref{limit} equals either $1$ (for $t = pmsqrt{2}pm1$), or $infty$ (whenever $|t+sqrt{2}| < 1$ or $|t-sqrt{2}|<1$), or $0$ (otherwise). Therefore, we conclude that $lim_{zto0}|f(z)|$ does not exist. Hence, the limit $lim_{zto0}f(z)$ does not exist either, and thus, $f(z)$ cannot be analytic at $z=0$.
Edit: I would like to thank Abhishek Verma for pointing out an error in the original solution: the denominator appearing in the expression for $|f(z)|$ was incorrectly calculated as $(x^2+y^2)^2$, instead of $(x^2+y^2)^4$.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
The function $f(z)$ thus defined has a Laurent series expansion
$$ f(z) = sum_{n=0}^infty frac{(-1)^n}{n!} z^{-4n} $$
around $z=0$ with an infinite principal part (i.e. with infinitely many non-zero coefficients in front of the negative powers of $z$).
Thus $z=0$ is an essential singularity of $f(z)$, and by the Casoratti-Weierstraß theorem, there is no way to define $f(0)$ so that $f(z)$ be continuous at $z=0$. In fact, we have
$$ |f(z)| = e^{-Re(z^{-4})} = expleft(frac{-x^4+6x^2y^2-y^4}{(x^2+y^2)^4}right) quad text{for} quad z = x +iy neq 0.$$
Restricting $z$ to the line $y = tx$ with $tinmathbb{R}$, we observe that
$$ lim_{xto0}|f(x+itx)| = lim_{xto 0},expleft(frac{-1+6t^2-t^4}{x^4(1+t^2)^4}right)tag{1}label{limit}$$
is not independent of $t in mathbb{R}$. Indeed, we can factor the biquadratic polynomial $-1+6t^2-t^4$ as
$$-big((t^2-3)^2 - 8big) = -big(t^2-(sqrt{2}-1)^2big)big(t^2-(sqrt{2}+1)^2big) = -(t+sqrt{2}+1)(t+sqrt{2}-1)(t-sqrt{2}+1)(t-sqrt{2}-1),$$
whence we deduce that the limit eqref{limit} equals either $1$ (for $t = pmsqrt{2}pm1$), or $infty$ (whenever $|t+sqrt{2}| < 1$ or $|t-sqrt{2}|<1$), or $0$ (otherwise). Therefore, we conclude that $lim_{zto0}|f(z)|$ does not exist. Hence, the limit $lim_{zto0}f(z)$ does not exist either, and thus, $f(z)$ cannot be analytic at $z=0$.
Edit: I would like to thank Abhishek Verma for pointing out an error in the original solution: the denominator appearing in the expression for $|f(z)|$ was incorrectly calculated as $(x^2+y^2)^2$, instead of $(x^2+y^2)^4$.
$endgroup$
The function $f(z)$ thus defined has a Laurent series expansion
$$ f(z) = sum_{n=0}^infty frac{(-1)^n}{n!} z^{-4n} $$
around $z=0$ with an infinite principal part (i.e. with infinitely many non-zero coefficients in front of the negative powers of $z$).
Thus $z=0$ is an essential singularity of $f(z)$, and by the Casoratti-Weierstraß theorem, there is no way to define $f(0)$ so that $f(z)$ be continuous at $z=0$. In fact, we have
$$ |f(z)| = e^{-Re(z^{-4})} = expleft(frac{-x^4+6x^2y^2-y^4}{(x^2+y^2)^4}right) quad text{for} quad z = x +iy neq 0.$$
Restricting $z$ to the line $y = tx$ with $tinmathbb{R}$, we observe that
$$ lim_{xto0}|f(x+itx)| = lim_{xto 0},expleft(frac{-1+6t^2-t^4}{x^4(1+t^2)^4}right)tag{1}label{limit}$$
is not independent of $t in mathbb{R}$. Indeed, we can factor the biquadratic polynomial $-1+6t^2-t^4$ as
$$-big((t^2-3)^2 - 8big) = -big(t^2-(sqrt{2}-1)^2big)big(t^2-(sqrt{2}+1)^2big) = -(t+sqrt{2}+1)(t+sqrt{2}-1)(t-sqrt{2}+1)(t-sqrt{2}-1),$$
whence we deduce that the limit eqref{limit} equals either $1$ (for $t = pmsqrt{2}pm1$), or $infty$ (whenever $|t+sqrt{2}| < 1$ or $|t-sqrt{2}|<1$), or $0$ (otherwise). Therefore, we conclude that $lim_{zto0}|f(z)|$ does not exist. Hence, the limit $lim_{zto0}f(z)$ does not exist either, and thus, $f(z)$ cannot be analytic at $z=0$.
Edit: I would like to thank Abhishek Verma for pointing out an error in the original solution: the denominator appearing in the expression for $|f(z)|$ was incorrectly calculated as $(x^2+y^2)^2$, instead of $(x^2+y^2)^4$.
edited Jan 1 at 18:21
answered Jun 7 '14 at 7:43
ivanpenevivanpenev
1,24656
1,24656
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would say no, because every derivative is $0$ at $0$, (due to expontential growth), see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-analytic_smooth_function
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
One should better say that all derivatives of the restriction of $f$ to $mathbb{R}$ vanish at $x=0$, as $f$ itself is not differentiable at $z=0$.
$endgroup$
– ivanpenev
Jun 7 '14 at 8:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would say no, because every derivative is $0$ at $0$, (due to expontential growth), see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-analytic_smooth_function
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
One should better say that all derivatives of the restriction of $f$ to $mathbb{R}$ vanish at $x=0$, as $f$ itself is not differentiable at $z=0$.
$endgroup$
– ivanpenev
Jun 7 '14 at 8:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I would say no, because every derivative is $0$ at $0$, (due to expontential growth), see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-analytic_smooth_function
$endgroup$
I would say no, because every derivative is $0$ at $0$, (due to expontential growth), see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-analytic_smooth_function
answered Jun 7 '14 at 7:43
EllyaEllya
9,61711326
9,61711326
$begingroup$
One should better say that all derivatives of the restriction of $f$ to $mathbb{R}$ vanish at $x=0$, as $f$ itself is not differentiable at $z=0$.
$endgroup$
– ivanpenev
Jun 7 '14 at 8:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
One should better say that all derivatives of the restriction of $f$ to $mathbb{R}$ vanish at $x=0$, as $f$ itself is not differentiable at $z=0$.
$endgroup$
– ivanpenev
Jun 7 '14 at 8:06
$begingroup$
One should better say that all derivatives of the restriction of $f$ to $mathbb{R}$ vanish at $x=0$, as $f$ itself is not differentiable at $z=0$.
$endgroup$
– ivanpenev
Jun 7 '14 at 8:06
$begingroup$
One should better say that all derivatives of the restriction of $f$ to $mathbb{R}$ vanish at $x=0$, as $f$ itself is not differentiable at $z=0$.
$endgroup$
– ivanpenev
Jun 7 '14 at 8:06
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Since you already know the function is continuous, we can conclude directly that it is analytic from Riemann's theorem (about removable singularity).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am not sure why I keep getting -1 here...The asker previously claimed that the function is continuous (before it was edited out). I am pointing out the simple fact that if you have a function that is already analytic everywhere except one point, and is continuous at that point, then it clearly is just a removable singularity.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 7 '14 at 15:19
$begingroup$
Continuous functions aren't necessarily analytic (and this function is not continuous at $0$).
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 7 '14 at 20:10
$begingroup$
@user61527: please take a look at Riemann's removable singularity theorem. And the question before being edited was that it is a continuous function.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 1:12
$begingroup$
Yes, you are correct that a holomorphic function that's bounded near a singularity can be extended. I'm not sure what you're saying about the relevance of the theorem about removable singularities here: $0$ is, in fact, an essential singularity of this function, since there are infinitely many non-zero terms in the Laurent expansion of $f$ about $0$. (Also, as far as I see, the only edits about the definition of the function were cosmetic.)
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 8 '14 at 3:07
$begingroup$
@user61527: the question was previously (at the moment I gave the answer) stated to be continuous, and I simply recognize that as an obvious application of the theorem. The fact that the function have essential singularity here is the mistake on the asker's part, and it seems more reasonable to assume that the asker got the function wrong rather than the continuity wrong. In any case, it is clear that the asker did not notice that the theorem is applicable once continuity is known, which is why I gave this answer.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 3:34
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Since you already know the function is continuous, we can conclude directly that it is analytic from Riemann's theorem (about removable singularity).
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I am not sure why I keep getting -1 here...The asker previously claimed that the function is continuous (before it was edited out). I am pointing out the simple fact that if you have a function that is already analytic everywhere except one point, and is continuous at that point, then it clearly is just a removable singularity.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 7 '14 at 15:19
$begingroup$
Continuous functions aren't necessarily analytic (and this function is not continuous at $0$).
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 7 '14 at 20:10
$begingroup$
@user61527: please take a look at Riemann's removable singularity theorem. And the question before being edited was that it is a continuous function.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 1:12
$begingroup$
Yes, you are correct that a holomorphic function that's bounded near a singularity can be extended. I'm not sure what you're saying about the relevance of the theorem about removable singularities here: $0$ is, in fact, an essential singularity of this function, since there are infinitely many non-zero terms in the Laurent expansion of $f$ about $0$. (Also, as far as I see, the only edits about the definition of the function were cosmetic.)
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 8 '14 at 3:07
$begingroup$
@user61527: the question was previously (at the moment I gave the answer) stated to be continuous, and I simply recognize that as an obvious application of the theorem. The fact that the function have essential singularity here is the mistake on the asker's part, and it seems more reasonable to assume that the asker got the function wrong rather than the continuity wrong. In any case, it is clear that the asker did not notice that the theorem is applicable once continuity is known, which is why I gave this answer.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 3:34
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
Since you already know the function is continuous, we can conclude directly that it is analytic from Riemann's theorem (about removable singularity).
$endgroup$
Since you already know the function is continuous, we can conclude directly that it is analytic from Riemann's theorem (about removable singularity).
answered Jun 7 '14 at 8:40
GinaGina
4,6271133
4,6271133
$begingroup$
I am not sure why I keep getting -1 here...The asker previously claimed that the function is continuous (before it was edited out). I am pointing out the simple fact that if you have a function that is already analytic everywhere except one point, and is continuous at that point, then it clearly is just a removable singularity.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 7 '14 at 15:19
$begingroup$
Continuous functions aren't necessarily analytic (and this function is not continuous at $0$).
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 7 '14 at 20:10
$begingroup$
@user61527: please take a look at Riemann's removable singularity theorem. And the question before being edited was that it is a continuous function.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 1:12
$begingroup$
Yes, you are correct that a holomorphic function that's bounded near a singularity can be extended. I'm not sure what you're saying about the relevance of the theorem about removable singularities here: $0$ is, in fact, an essential singularity of this function, since there are infinitely many non-zero terms in the Laurent expansion of $f$ about $0$. (Also, as far as I see, the only edits about the definition of the function were cosmetic.)
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 8 '14 at 3:07
$begingroup$
@user61527: the question was previously (at the moment I gave the answer) stated to be continuous, and I simply recognize that as an obvious application of the theorem. The fact that the function have essential singularity here is the mistake on the asker's part, and it seems more reasonable to assume that the asker got the function wrong rather than the continuity wrong. In any case, it is clear that the asker did not notice that the theorem is applicable once continuity is known, which is why I gave this answer.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 3:34
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
I am not sure why I keep getting -1 here...The asker previously claimed that the function is continuous (before it was edited out). I am pointing out the simple fact that if you have a function that is already analytic everywhere except one point, and is continuous at that point, then it clearly is just a removable singularity.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 7 '14 at 15:19
$begingroup$
Continuous functions aren't necessarily analytic (and this function is not continuous at $0$).
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 7 '14 at 20:10
$begingroup$
@user61527: please take a look at Riemann's removable singularity theorem. And the question before being edited was that it is a continuous function.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 1:12
$begingroup$
Yes, you are correct that a holomorphic function that's bounded near a singularity can be extended. I'm not sure what you're saying about the relevance of the theorem about removable singularities here: $0$ is, in fact, an essential singularity of this function, since there are infinitely many non-zero terms in the Laurent expansion of $f$ about $0$. (Also, as far as I see, the only edits about the definition of the function were cosmetic.)
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 8 '14 at 3:07
$begingroup$
@user61527: the question was previously (at the moment I gave the answer) stated to be continuous, and I simply recognize that as an obvious application of the theorem. The fact that the function have essential singularity here is the mistake on the asker's part, and it seems more reasonable to assume that the asker got the function wrong rather than the continuity wrong. In any case, it is clear that the asker did not notice that the theorem is applicable once continuity is known, which is why I gave this answer.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 3:34
$begingroup$
I am not sure why I keep getting -1 here...The asker previously claimed that the function is continuous (before it was edited out). I am pointing out the simple fact that if you have a function that is already analytic everywhere except one point, and is continuous at that point, then it clearly is just a removable singularity.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 7 '14 at 15:19
$begingroup$
I am not sure why I keep getting -1 here...The asker previously claimed that the function is continuous (before it was edited out). I am pointing out the simple fact that if you have a function that is already analytic everywhere except one point, and is continuous at that point, then it clearly is just a removable singularity.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 7 '14 at 15:19
$begingroup$
Continuous functions aren't necessarily analytic (and this function is not continuous at $0$).
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 7 '14 at 20:10
$begingroup$
Continuous functions aren't necessarily analytic (and this function is not continuous at $0$).
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 7 '14 at 20:10
$begingroup$
@user61527: please take a look at Riemann's removable singularity theorem. And the question before being edited was that it is a continuous function.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 1:12
$begingroup$
@user61527: please take a look at Riemann's removable singularity theorem. And the question before being edited was that it is a continuous function.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 1:12
$begingroup$
Yes, you are correct that a holomorphic function that's bounded near a singularity can be extended. I'm not sure what you're saying about the relevance of the theorem about removable singularities here: $0$ is, in fact, an essential singularity of this function, since there are infinitely many non-zero terms in the Laurent expansion of $f$ about $0$. (Also, as far as I see, the only edits about the definition of the function were cosmetic.)
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 8 '14 at 3:07
$begingroup$
Yes, you are correct that a holomorphic function that's bounded near a singularity can be extended. I'm not sure what you're saying about the relevance of the theorem about removable singularities here: $0$ is, in fact, an essential singularity of this function, since there are infinitely many non-zero terms in the Laurent expansion of $f$ about $0$. (Also, as far as I see, the only edits about the definition of the function were cosmetic.)
$endgroup$
– user61527
Jun 8 '14 at 3:07
$begingroup$
@user61527: the question was previously (at the moment I gave the answer) stated to be continuous, and I simply recognize that as an obvious application of the theorem. The fact that the function have essential singularity here is the mistake on the asker's part, and it seems more reasonable to assume that the asker got the function wrong rather than the continuity wrong. In any case, it is clear that the asker did not notice that the theorem is applicable once continuity is known, which is why I gave this answer.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 3:34
$begingroup$
@user61527: the question was previously (at the moment I gave the answer) stated to be continuous, and I simply recognize that as an obvious application of the theorem. The fact that the function have essential singularity here is the mistake on the asker's part, and it seems more reasonable to assume that the asker got the function wrong rather than the continuity wrong. In any case, it is clear that the asker did not notice that the theorem is applicable once continuity is known, which is why I gave this answer.
$endgroup$
– Gina
Jun 8 '14 at 3:34
|
show 1 more comment
$begingroup$
The function is not continuous at zero (if you are considering it defined on $mathbb C$, as you seem to be doing).
$endgroup$
– Mariano Suárez-Álvarez
Jun 7 '14 at 8:19
1
$begingroup$
One way to see $f(z)$ is not continuous at $0$ is approach the origin along the diagonals $Re z = pm Im z$.
$endgroup$
– achille hui
Jun 7 '14 at 8:40
1
$begingroup$
"I am able to show that the Cauchy-Riemann equations are satisfied." Then there must be some mistakes in your computations.
$endgroup$
– Did
Dec 31 '18 at 13:52