Challenge IV: Complex Square Roots, solved by jgens

In summary, the conversation discusses a well-known result in complex analysis and a challenge to prove that there is no continuous function ##f:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}## such that ##(f(x))^2 = x## for each ##x\in \mathbb{C}##. Several solutions are presented, including ones involving topological notions and the definition of continuity of complex functions. A generalization is also mentioned.
  • #1
micromass
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
22,183
3,324
This is a well-known result in complex analysis. But let's see what people come up with anyway:

Challenge:
Prove that there is no continuous function ##f:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}## such that ##(f(x))^2 = x## for each ##x\in \mathbb{C}##.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Suppose such a function existed and consider the map g:S1→S1 given by restriction. Then the degree of g2 is a multiple of two but the degree of idS1 is one. This contradiction completes the proof.
 
  • #3
Suppose a function [itex] f [/itex] did exist. For a complex number [itex] z=Re^{i\theta} [/itex], the only two square roots are [itex] \pm \sqrt{R}e^{\frac{i\theta}{2}} [/itex]. Call the function with the plus sign [itex] f_1 [/itex] and the function with the minus sign [itex] f_2 [/itex]

First let's show that a function that takes on the value [itex] f(z)=\sqrt{R}e^{\frac{i\theta}{2}} [/itex] for some z's and [itex] f(z)=-\sqrt{R}e^{\frac{i\theta}{2}} [/itex] for others is discontinuous.

For nonzero [itex] z_1=R_1e^{i\theta_1} [/itex] and [itex] z_2=R_2e^{i\theta_2} [/itex] assume that [itex] f(z_1)=\sqrt{R_1}e^{\frac{i\theta_1}{2}} [/itex] and [itex] f(z_2)=-\sqrt{R_2}e^{\frac{i\theta_2}{2}} [/itex].

Let [itex] \gamma:[0,1] \to ℂ [/itex] such that [itex] \gamma(0)=z_1 [/itex] and [itex] \gamma(1)=z_2 [/itex] be an injection and a parameterization of a path from [itex] z_1 [/itex] to [itex] z_2 [/itex] that does not pass through the origin . Let [itex] t' [/itex] be the infimum over all [itex] t \in [0,1] [/itex] such that [itex] f(\gamma(t))= f_2(\gamma(t)) [/itex]. It is easy to show that [itex] f [/itex] is discontinuous at [itex] \gamma(t') [/itex]

Now, we just have to deal with the case [itex] f=f_1 [/itex] or [itex] f=f_2 [/itex].

If [itex] f(z)=\sqrt{R}e^{\frac{i\theta}{2}} [/itex], where [itex] z=Re^{i\theta} [/itex], then we discover that f isn't really a function because [itex] Re^{i\theta}=Re^{i\theta+2\pi} [/itex] but [itex] f(Re^{i\theta+2\pi})=\sqrt{R}e^{\frac{i\theta}{2}+\pi} \neq \sqrt{R}e^{\frac{i\theta}{2}}=f(Re^{i\theta}) [/itex] The case for [itex] f_2 [/itex] is similar.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
OK, so that was definitely too easy for the smart crowd of people here :smile:

A big congratulations for jgens for his topological solution and for beating HS-Scientist in just a minute. But the latter did give a nice elementary solution. There are other solutions though, so if somebody finds them, please do post!
 
Last edited:
  • #5
what does a degree of a function g:S^1->S^1 mean?
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Anyway, my choice of words would be this: We define an operation [itex]f\mapsto g[/itex] by setting

[tex]
g:[0,2\pi[\to\mathbb{C},\quad g(\theta)=f(e^{i\theta})
[/tex]

The property [itex]f^2=\textrm{id}[/itex] implies

[tex]
g(\theta)=\epsilon(\theta)e^{i\theta/2}
[/tex]

with some function [itex]\epsilon:[0,2\pi[\to \{-1,1\}[/itex].

If [itex]f[/itex] is continuous (as anti-thesis), [itex]g[/itex] must be continuous too, which implies [itex]\epsilon(\theta)[/itex] is a constant. Then we find that [itex]\lim_{z\to 1}f(z)[/itex] does not exist.

In other words, I would prefer forcing the discontinuity somewhere with the assumptions.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
I might as well post my own solution. Fix ##z\neq 0##, consider the function

[tex]G(w) = \frac{f(z)f(w)}{f(zw)}[/tex]

This function is well defined on ##\mathbb{C}\setminus \{0\}##. By squaring, we see that

[tex]G(w) = \pm 1[/tex]

By continuity of ##G## and since ##\mathbb{C}\setminus \{0\}## is connected, we see that ##G## is constant, so we have

[tex]f(z)f(w) = f(zw)~\text{or}~f(z)f(w) = f(zw)[/tex]

By (if necessary) multiplying ##f## with ##-1##, we can assume that the first identity is satisfied. But then

[tex]f(1) = f(-1)f(-1) = (f(-1))^2 = -1[/tex]

but also

[tex]f(1) = f(1)f(1) = (f(1))^2 = 1[/tex]

Contradiction.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #9
Another solution: With a little voodoo we can actually show that f is holomorphic. This means that differentiating at zero tells us that 1 = 2f(0)f'(0) = 0 and then we are done.
 
  • #10
micromass said:
This is a well-known result in complex analysis. But let's see what people come up with anyway:

Challenge:
Prove that there is no continuous function ##f:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow \mathbb{C}## such that ##(f(x))^2 = x## for each ##x\in \mathbb{C}##.
I've done this proof before. I did it using the definition of continuity of complex functions by the continuity of their real and imaginary parts, id est, given ##x=a+bi## and ##f(x)=u(a,b)+iv(a,b)## for real numbers ##a## and ##b## and real valued functions ##u## and ##v##, ##f## is continuous at ##x_0=a_0+ib_0## if and only if $$\lim_{(a,b)\rightarrow(a_0,b_0)}[u+iv]=u(a_0,b_0)+iv(a_0,b_0)=f(x_0).$$ I can see if I can find my proof later if anyone is interested, but it essentially came down to a statement like "if ##u## is continuous, ##v## is not."

micromass said:
If you find this too easy, then there is this generalization:
Given ##n## points on a plane. If they do not all lie on a straight line, then there is a straight line in the plane that contains exactly two of the points.
Suppose ##n=1##. :biggrin:
 
Last edited:

FAQ: Challenge IV: Complex Square Roots, solved by jgens

How do you solve complex square roots?

To solve a complex square root, you first need to convert the complex number into polar form. Then, you can apply the square root formula for polar coordinates, which is the square root of the modulus (or magnitude) of the complex number multiplied by the square root of the angle in radians divided by 2. Lastly, you can convert the result back to rectangular form if needed.

What is the difference between a real and a complex square root?

A real square root gives a single numerical value, whereas a complex square root gives two possible solutions, as complex numbers have two square roots.

Can you simplify a complex square root?

Yes, you can simplify a complex square root by converting it into polar form and then simplifying the expression using properties of exponents and square roots.

How do you know if a complex number has a real or imaginary square root?

A complex number has a real square root if its imaginary part is equal to 0. If the imaginary part is not equal to 0, then the complex number has two imaginary square roots.

Are there any shortcuts or tricks to solve complex square roots?

There are no shortcuts or tricks to solve complex square roots. The best approach is to convert the complex number into polar form and then use the square root formula for polar coordinates.

Similar threads

Replies
19
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
1K
Replies
125
Views
18K
Replies
0
Views
678
2
Replies
42
Views
8K
3
Replies
102
Views
8K
2
Replies
61
Views
9K
Back
Top