0

How can I quickly see if a function $f:\mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$ can be extended to $f:\mathbb{C}^* \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^*$? (where $\mathbb{C}^*$ denotes the Riemann surface $\mathbb{C} \cup \{{\infty}\} $)?

From the definition we can quickly see that a function $f:X_1 \rightarrow X_2$ between two riemann surfaces is holomorphic if and only if $f \circ \phi^{-1}: \mathbb{C} \rightarrow X_2$ is holomorphic for all charts $\phi$. (where $\mathbb{C}$ is equipped with the chart $id:\mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}$).

And a criterion tells us that such a mapping $f \circ \phi^{-1}: \mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^{*}$ is holomorphic exactly when $f$ is meromorphic. So together we know that: $f:\mathbb{C}^* \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^*$ is holomorphic, if and only if,

$$f \circ \phi_0^{-1}: z \mapsto f(z)$$ and $$f \circ \phi_{\infty}^{-1}= \begin{cases} f(\frac{1}{z}), & z \neq 0,\\ f(\infty), & z = 0. \end{cases}$$ are meromorphic, where $\phi_0, \phi_\infty$ denotes the charts of $\mathbb{C}^*$.

This criterion is useful for proofs, and it is quick to check the first requirement if we know that $f$ is meromorphic. How can we quickly check that $f \circ \phi_\infty^{-1}$ is meromorphic? Or are there any other more useful criteria? Most of the time I need to quickly decide whether a function is extensible or not, so any feedback would be greatly appreciated, thanks!

Edit: After reading some of the comments, I think we only have to check that $f(1/z)$ is not an essential singularity at $z = 0$ and $f$ has finitely many poles. Since this would imply that $f \circ \phi_\infty^{-1}$ is meromorphic. Is this correct?

hteica
  • 319
  • The Riemann removable singularities theorem will often do the trick. Apply it to $1/f(1/z)$. If that’s bounded in a neighborhood of 0, you’re in business. – Michael Weiss May 20 '23 at 14:39
  • See https://math.stackexchange.com/q/2004311/42969: The only analytic functions $f : \mathbb{C}\infty \to \mathbb{C}\infty$ are the rational functions. – Martin R May 20 '23 at 14:40
  • @MichaelWeiss but in order for this to work we would need $f$ to be meromorphic first, right? And why apply the theorem to $1/f(1/z)$ instead of just $f(1/z)$? – hteica May 20 '23 at 14:43
  • @MartinR so we have to check that $f$ can be written as $p/q$ where $p,q$ are coprime non-zero polynomials? and this is a little out of topic, but these functions are biholomorphic, correct? – hteica May 20 '23 at 14:46
  • a holomorphic map $\mathbb{C}^* \to \mathbb{C}^*$ is a rational function $p/q$, as @MartinR mentions, but it will only be a biholomorphism if $\deg (p/q) = \max (\deg p, \deg q) = 1$, otherwise it is not even injective. – ronno May 20 '23 at 15:20
  • @ronno yes you're right, but otherwise $f$ is constant and we can just extend it to $\mathbb{C}^*$ – hteica May 20 '23 at 15:28
  • @hteica The Riemann removable singularities theorem only requires that the function be holomorphic (or even defined) in a (deleted) neighborhood of the point in question. I suggested $1/f(1/z)$ so I could say "bounded". In that case the extension $f(\infty)=\infty$ gives a meromorphic function on $\mathbb{C}^*$. If $f(1/z)$ is bounded, then $f(\infty)=a$ for some $a\in \mathbb{C}$ works. – Michael Weiss May 20 '23 at 15:55
  • 1
    @MartinR If you're given that $f$ is meromorphic on all of $\mathbb{C}^$, then you can conclude that $f$ is a rational function. But I thought OP assumed only, a priori*, that $f$ is meromorphic on $\mathbb{C}$. – Michael Weiss May 20 '23 at 15:58
  • @MichaelWeiss so in other words, we only need $f(1/z)$ to be a non-essential singularity at $z=0$, correct? – hteica May 20 '23 at 16:01
  • 1
    @hteica Correct. – Michael Weiss May 20 '23 at 16:08
  • @MichaelWeiss additionally we also need to make sure that $f$ has only finitely many poles, so that $f(1/z)$ is meromorph, right? – hteica May 20 '23 at 16:29
  • 1
    If $f$ has infinitely many poles, then they will have an accumulation point in $\mathbb{C}^$, at which point $f$ will have an essential singularity. So if $f$ is meromorphic on $\mathbb{C}$ and "bounded" in a neighborhood of $\infty$, then it is meromorphic on $\mathbb{C}^$ (and hence a rational function). I wrote "bounded" in quotes to include the case where it means that the values lie in a neighborhood of $\infty$. (The whole bit about $f(1/z)$, $1/f(1/z)$, is just to move $\infty$ to 0. But I think you understand that.) – Michael Weiss May 20 '23 at 16:37
  • @MichaelWeiss According to the criteria above we need to make sure $f \circ \phi_\infty^{-1}$ is meromorphic. If $f(1/z)$ doesn't have an essential singularity at $z=0$ then we know that $f(1/z):\mathbb{C} \rightarrow \mathbb{C}^*$ is holomorphic. But not only holomorphic, we need $f(1/z)$ to be meromorphic, so $f$ must possess finitely many poles (since otherwise we'd have an accumulation point). Is this line of reasoning correct? – hteica May 20 '23 at 17:24
  • @MichaelWeiss Also, how do we see that, if $f$ has infinitely many poles, then it will have an accumulation point? (were you referring to $f(1/z)$ instead?) – hteica May 20 '23 at 17:27
  • 1
    @hteica If $f:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$ is meromorphic on $\mathbb{C}$, then either not having an essential singularity at $\infty$ or having only finitely many poles is sufficient to insure that $f$ can be extended to a function $\mathbb{C}^\to\mathbb{C}^$ which is holomorphic regarded as a map between Riemann surfaces (or, meromorphic on $\mathbb{C}^*$, and hence a rational function). The two requirements are equivalent: either implies the other. – Michael Weiss May 20 '23 at 17:34
  • I see, thanks a lot, its clear that the two requirements are equivalent, so we need to check only one of them! If you are willing you can write a short answer and I'll mark the question as answered. – hteica May 20 '23 at 17:37
  • Done. Plus I fixed a mistake in my comments: having only finitely many poles is not enough. – Michael Weiss May 20 '23 at 19:22

1 Answers1

1

To restate the question more precisely: when can a meromorphic function $f:\mathbb{C}\to\mathbb{C}$ be extended to a function $\mathbb{C}^*\to\mathbb{C}^*$ that is holomorphic as a map between Riemann surfaces?

This is equivalent to asking if $f(\infty)$ can be defined so that this extended $f$ is meromorphic on the whole Riemann sphere.

This is equivalent to:

  • The original $f$ is "bounded" in a neighborhood of $\infty$. That is, either (i) for some $r,b\in\mathbb{R}^+$, we have $|f(z)|<b$ whenever $|z|>r$, or else (ii) for some $r,b\in\mathbb{R}^+$, we have $|f(z)|>b$ whenever $|z|>r$.

(i) is bounded in the usual sense: the values lie in some disk around 0, whenever $z$ is large enough. (ii) is "bounded" in the sense that the values lie in some "disk around $\infty$", for large enough $z$. (People sometimes say "bounded away from 0" for this.)

Proof: We can move the domain to a neighborhood of 0 by looking at $g(z)=f(1/z)$. If this is bounded in that neighborhood, then the Riemann removable singularities theorem says that $g(z)$ can be extended to a function holomorphic at 0, by setting $g(0)=\lim_{z\to 0}g(z)$ ($=a$, say). (The theorem asserts that the limit exists.) Then set $f(\infty)=a$ and $f$ is holomorphic at $\infty$.

If $f(z)$ is "bounded" in sense (ii) above, then look at $g(z)=1/f(1/z)$: this moves both the domain and range to a neighborhood of $0$. Now we have $g(z)$ bounded near 0, so we set $g(0)=\lim_{z\to 0}g(z)=a$ as before. If $a\neq0$, then $\lim_{z\to 0}f(1/z)=1/a$ and we have the previous case. Otherwise $\lim_{z\to 0}g(z)=0$ and so $\lim_{z\to 0}f(1/z)=\infty$, so set $f(\infty)=\infty$ and this extended $f$ is meromorphic at $\infty$.

On the other hand, if we can extend $f$ meromorphically to include $\infty$ in its domain, then the original $f$ is obviously bounded near $\infty$ if $f(\infty)$ is finite, and "bounded" in sense (ii) near $\infty$ if the new $f$ has a pole at $\infty$.

It is well-known that a function meromorphic on the whole sphere must be rational. So that's another equivalent condition.

By one of Weierstrass's theorems, if $f(1/z)$ has an essential singularity at 0, then it cannot be bounded there; likewise for $1/f(1/z)$. So another equivalent condition is that $f$ does not have an essential singularity at $\infty$.

These all imply that the original $f$ has only finitely many poles. But by itself, that condition is not enough. For example, $e^z/z$ has only one pole plus an essential singularity at $\infty$. Or more simply still, $e^z$ has no poles and an essential singularity at $\infty$.

(Note that if $f$ with domain $\mathbb{C}^*$ has infinitely many poles, then these will have an accumulation point where $f$ will have an essential singularity. By initial assumption, $f$ has no essential singularities in the finite plane.)

Finally, all this "moving the domain (or range) from a neighborhood of $\infty$ to 0" is just an instance of the use of charts, as you noted: near $\infty$ we use the chart $z\mapsto 1/z$.

  • What do you mean by (deleted) neighborhood of $\infty$? – hteica May 20 '23 at 19:32
  • What if $f(\infty)$ is not bounded? (i.e $\lim_{z \to 0} |1/f(1/z)| = \infty$), $f(1/z)$ is still meromorphic right? – hteica May 20 '23 at 19:35
  • What do you mean by "bounded away"? – hteica May 20 '23 at 19:42
  • I've made a number of edits, which hopefully answer all these questions. – Michael Weiss May 20 '23 at 20:20
  • I'm sorry but I still find the definition of "(deleted) neighborhood" and "bounded away" confusing, could you maybe still elaborate on them? – hteica May 20 '23 at 20:46
  • 1
    Okay, I've rewritten it to avoid these terms. As for "deleted neighborhood", although I've now avoided it, people use the term for the case where a variable (or value) is required to be near but not equal to some fixed value. In other words, $0<|z-a|<r$. So the deleted neighborhood of $a$ is ${z:0<|z-a|<r}$. For a deleted neighborhood of $\infty$, we have ${z\in\mathbb{C}:|z-a|>r}$. It's deleted because $z=\infty$ is excluded. – Michael Weiss May 20 '23 at 21:38
  • Thanks its clear now, how can we see directly that if $f(1/z)$ doesn't have an essential singularity at $z=0$ then $f$ has finitely many poles? – hteica May 20 '23 at 21:40
  • That follows from the next to last paragraph. The behavior of $f$ at $\infty$ is the same as the behavior of $f(1/z)$ at 0. – Michael Weiss May 20 '23 at 22:05
  • Let's take for example a meromorphic function with infinitely many poles, but now, it doesn't seem to have an accumulation point? – hteica May 20 '23 at 22:16
  • 1
    It has an accumulation point at $\infty$. Note that I wrote $f$ with domain $\mathbb{C}^*$, which is compact. – Michael Weiss May 20 '23 at 22:41