Is the complex function $f(z)=e^{-z^{-4}}$ analytic at $z=0$? [closed]












2












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



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
















2












$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$



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














2












2








2





$begingroup$


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.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




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






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








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


















  • $begingroup$
    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










4 Answers
4






active

oldest

votes


















4












$begingroup$

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 $0$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    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





















2












$begingroup$

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 $(x^2+y^2)^4$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    -1












    $begingroup$

    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






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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



















    -3












    $begingroup$

    Since you already know the function is continuous, we can conclude directly that it is analytic from Riemann's theorem (about removable singularity).






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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


















    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes








    4 Answers
    4






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    4












    $begingroup$

    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 $0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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


















    4












    $begingroup$

    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 $0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      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
















    4












    4








    4





    $begingroup$

    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 $0$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$



    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 $0$.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    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




















    • $begingroup$
      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













    2












    $begingroup$

    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 $(x^2+y^2)^4$.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$


















      2












      $begingroup$

      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 $(x^2+y^2)^4$.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$
















        2












        2








        2





        $begingroup$

        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 $(x^2+y^2)^4$.






        share|cite|improve this answer











        $endgroup$



        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 $(x^2+y^2)^4$.







        share|cite|improve this answer














        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jan 1 at 18:21

























        answered Jun 7 '14 at 7:43









        ivanpenevivanpenev

        1,24656




        1,24656























            -1












            $begingroup$

            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






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              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
















            -1












            $begingroup$

            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






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              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














            -1












            -1








            -1





            $begingroup$

            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






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            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







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            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


















            • $begingroup$
              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











            -3












            $begingroup$

            Since you already know the function is continuous, we can conclude directly that it is analytic from Riemann's theorem (about removable singularity).






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              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
















            -3












            $begingroup$

            Since you already know the function is continuous, we can conclude directly that it is analytic from Riemann's theorem (about removable singularity).






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              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














            -3












            -3








            -3





            $begingroup$

            Since you already know the function is continuous, we can conclude directly that it is analytic from Riemann's theorem (about removable singularity).






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            Since you already know the function is continuous, we can conclude directly that it is analytic from Riemann's theorem (about removable singularity).







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            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


















            • $begingroup$
              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



            Popular posts from this blog

            Wiesbaden

            Marschland

            Dieringhausen