2

Here is my confusion. I used to thought the following.

Let $f(z)$ be holomorphic on some punctured disk $C_R-\{0\}$. If zero is a removable singularity, then $f(z)$ can be "made" analytic on the whole disk, by redefining $f(0) := \lim_{z\to 0} f(z)$.

For example, $f(z) = \frac{1-\cos(z)}{z^2}$ has a removable singularity at $z=0$, since $\lim_{z\to 0} f(z) = \frac{1}{2}$, by L'Hopital or Laurent series.

Then I thought

If I can show that $\lim_{z\to 0} f(z)$ exists, then that means the singularity at zero is removable.

But this entries from Wikipedia confuses me:

Let $D \subset C$ be an open subset of the complex plane, $a\in D$, and $f$ a holomorphic function defined on $D - \{a\}$. The following are equivalent:

  1. $f$ is holomorphically extendable over $a$.
  2. $\lim_{z\to a} (z-a)f(z) = 0$

Why do we have $\lim_{z\to a} (z-a)f(z) =0$, instead of $\lim_{z\to a} f(z)$ exists? Wouldn't this give us contradictory result?

As a concrete example, considere some $f(z)$ defined on $\mathbb{C}-\{0\}$ and satisifes

$$\left| f(z) \right| < \sqrt{\left| z \right|} + \frac{1}{\sqrt{\left| z \right|}}$$

If we consider $\lim_{z\to 0} f(z)$, then it doesn't exist. So it shouldn't be extendable. But if we consider $\lim_{z\to 0} zf(z)$, this equal to zero. Thus, as suggested by this answer, it is actually extendable.

What is going wrong here?

3x89g2
  • 7,542
  • 1
    Holomorphic functions are quite marvellous beasts. In fact, the two conditions are equivalent for holomorphic functions. And for your concrete example, if $f$ is holomorphic, and satisfies these bounds then $f$ is actually constant. – Daniel Fischer Nov 09 '16 at 22:26
  • @DanielFischer That's actually an exercise problem I've been struggling with today. I've read answers in the link and I could only understand the first one. Right now I want to understand why I get two different conclusions. – 3x89g2 Nov 09 '16 at 22:35
  • @DanielFischer For one thing, it is clear that $\lim f(z)$ does not exist. But on the other hand, the theorem suggest that since $\lim z f(z)$ exists, it is actually extendable. That confuses me – 3x89g2 Nov 09 '16 at 22:36
  • No, it's not at all clear that the limit doesn't exist. What is clear is that the inequalities alone are not sufficient to guarantee the existence of the limit. But the inequalities together with the fact that $f$ is holomorphic on some set ${ z : 0 < \lvert z\rvert < r}$ suffice to guarantee the existence of the limit. Being holomorphic is a really really really strong condition with fantastic consequences. – Daniel Fischer Nov 09 '16 at 22:39
  • @DanielFischer $\lim_{z\to 0} \sqrt{|z|} + 1/\sqrt{|z|} \to \infty$ doesn't say anything about $\lim f(z)$. True. I made a silly mistake. As for the example, itself, is $f$ extendable? According to Wiki, it is. But another version requires that $f$ be bounded on the punctured disk, which isn't clear to me: http://mathworld.wolfram.com/RiemannRemovableSingularityTheorem.html – 3x89g2 Nov 09 '16 at 22:47
  • @DanielFischer I agree with Misakov that wikipedia is confusing. I think it would be clearer to start with "by the holomorphic $\implies$ analytic theorem, a non-trivial result is that a holomorphic function with a (non removable) isolated singularity cannot be bounded around it, because otherwise $(z-a)^2 f(z)$ is holomorphic so that $f(z)$ had a pole of order at most $2$, but since $f(z)$ is bounded the order is $0$, i.e. $f(z)$ was holomorphic". – reuns Nov 09 '16 at 23:34
  • @user1952009 Uh, funny question... I always thought that holomorphic and analytic is the same thing? – 3x89g2 Nov 09 '16 at 23:40
  • @Misakov not at all ! $f(z)$ is holomorphic on $U$ means that it is complex differentiable at every $z \in U$ (so that $f'(z)$ is well-defined). Then you prove the Cauchy integral theorem and formula which gives a Taylor series for $f(z)$ on every disk $\subset U$, proving that holomorphic $\implies$ analytic (the converse being obvious). – reuns Nov 09 '16 at 23:44
  • @Misakov Yes and no. By definition, a function is analytic if it can be represented by a power series around each point, and a function is holomorphic if it is complex differentiable at all points of its (open) domain. So the definitions are different, and it's a not entirely obvious theorem, that the two are equivalent. – Daniel Fischer Nov 09 '16 at 23:44
  • For example $f(z) = \int_0^\infty x^{z-1} e^{-x}dx$, it not obvious at all that it is analytic on $Re(z) > 0$, whereas it is obvious that it is holomorphic (since $f'(z) = \int_0^\infty \ln(z) x^{z-1} e^{-x}dx$) – reuns Nov 09 '16 at 23:46

1 Answers1

5

Holomorphic functions have quite a lot of rigidity. In particular, holomorphic functions cannot have arbitrary growth behaviour at an isolated singularity.

Let $f$ be holomorphic on a punctured disk $\{ z : 0 < \lvert z-a\rvert < R\}$. Consider the following conditions on $f$:

  1. $f$ has a holomorphic extension to the disk $\{ z : \lvert z-a\rvert < R\}$.
  2. $\lim\limits_{z \to a} f(z)$ exists (in $\mathbb{C}$).
  3. There is an $r \in (0,R]$ such that $f$ is bounded on $\{ z : 0 < \lvert z-a\rvert < r\}$.
  4. $\lim\limits_{z\to a}\: (z - a) f(z) = 0$.

Then it is almost trivial to see that each condition implies the following condition(s). But for holomorphic $f$, the weakest of these conditions is strong enough to imply the strongest. Let us prove that.

So assume $(z - a)f(z) \to 0$ as $z\to a$, and consider the function

$$F \colon z \mapsto \begin{cases}(z - a)^2 f(z) &, z \neq a \\ \qquad 0 &, z = a.\end{cases}$$

On the punctured disk, $F$ is the product of two holomorphic functions, and therefore holomorphic. Since already $(z-a)\cdot f(z) \to 0$ as $z \to a$, $F$ is clearly continuous at $a$. And

$$\lim_{z\to a} \frac{F(z) - F(a)}{z - a} = \lim_{z\to a} \frac{(z-a)^2 f(z)}{z-a} = \lim_{z\to a} (z-a)f(z) = 0,$$

so $F$ is complex differentiable at $a$ too, with $F'(a) = 0$. This means $F$ is holomorphic on the full disk $\{ z : \lvert z-a\rvert < R\}$. Therefore, $F$ has a power series expansion about $a$,

$$F(z) = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty a_n (z-a)^n.$$

In this power series expansion, we have $a_n = \frac{1}{n!} F^{(n)}(a)$, and we saw that $F(a) = F'(a) = 0$, so in fact

$$F(z) = \sum_{n = 2}^\infty a_n (z-a)^n = (z-a)^2 \sum_{n = 0}^\infty a_{n+2}(z-a)^n,$$ and therefore

$$f(z) = \frac{F(z)}{(z-a)^2} = \sum_{n = 0}^\infty a_{n+2}(z-a)^n\tag{$\ast$}$$

for $0 < \lvert z-a\rvert < R$.

But the right hand side of $(\ast)$ clearly defines a holomorphic function on the full disk $\{ z : \lvert z-a\rvert < R\}$, and thus yields the desired holomorphic extension of $f$.

Although for the holomorphic extensibility of $f$ the boundedness near $a$, and the existence of $\lim\limits_{z\to a} f(z)$ are clearly necessary, a formally weaker condition is in fact sufficient. Such is the power of complex analyticity.

Daniel Fischer
  • 206,697
  • Having seen the proof, now I am convinced. For the $f(z)$ in the example though, how did you tell that it is a constant so quickly (if that's the case)? I came up with this proof but it's somewhat long: http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2006981/proof-verification-show-fz-is-constant-on-its-domain/2007041#2007041 and I don't intuitively see why it has to be constant... – 3x89g2 Nov 09 '16 at 23:36
  • told you, only the proof explains the theorem correctly :) – reuns Nov 09 '16 at 23:37
  • 1
    @Misakov Since the growth of $f$ near $0$ is slower than that of $1/z$, it follows that $0$ is a removable singularity. Since the growth near $\infty$ is slower than that of $z$, it follows that $\infty$ is a removable singularity. Thus $f$ is a bounded entire function. – Daniel Fischer Nov 09 '16 at 23:39
  • @DanielFischer I think $\infty$ is a removable singularity + holomorphic on the whole plane is sufficient, no? – 3x89g2 Nov 10 '16 at 00:02
  • @Misakov Yes. But how do you justify the conclusion in that situation? One can for example say that then $f$ is (extensible to) a holomorphic function on the whole Riemann sphere, and hence $f(\mathbb{C}\cup {\infty})$ is compact, so bounded. One can say that since $\infty$ is a removable singularity, $f$ is bounded on some ${ z : \lvert z\rvert > R}$, and by continuity it's bounded on the compact ${ z : \lvert z\rvert \leqslant R}$, so bounded on all of $\mathbb{C}$. One can give the argument in other shapes. Or one can leave out the argument because one assumes that the audience knows – Daniel Fischer Nov 10 '16 at 10:28
  • the argument anyway, without it even being hinted at. I'm not comfortable with the last strategy, unless I know my audience very well, so I gave a short sketch. – Daniel Fischer Nov 10 '16 at 10:28