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