Prove an entire function under certain conditions is constant.

In summary, to prove that a given entire function is constant, we need to show that it is bounded. To do this, we can use Liouville's theorem, but first we must prove that the function is periodic. This can be done by showing that the real and imaginary parts of the function are periodic, and using a continuous function g to define the function on a compact set. We also need to use the hypothesis that the function is not injective and that f(z+z_0)=f(z)=f(z+z_1) for all z in the complex numbers.
  • #1
mahler1
222
0
Homework Statement

Let ##f## be an entire function such that there exist ##z_0,z_1 \in \mathbb C##, ##\mathbb R##-linearly independent, with ##f(z+z_0)=f(z)## and#f(z+z_1)=f(z)## for all ##z \in \mathbb C##. Show that ##f## is constant.

The attempt at a solution

From the hypothesis, I know that ##f## is not injective and that if ##z_0=x_0+iy_0, z_1=x_1+iy_1## and ##f(x+iy)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y)##, then ##u## and ##v## are not injective.

I'm under the impression that the idea is to use Liouville's theorem, but in order to use it, I have to show that ##f## is bounded. If this is a correct way to solve the problem, I would like suggestions on how could I prove the function is bounded.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
This is not true.
Let ##z_0 = i##, ##z_1=2\pi + i##. Then the equation reads ##f(z+i)=f(z+i+2\pi)## for every ##z \in \mathbb C##. "For every z" is equivalent to "for every z+i", so we can simplify the statement to ##f(z)=f(z+2\pi)## for every ##z \in \mathbb C##.
f(z)=sin(z) is a counterexample.

I think the equation should be ##f(z)=f(z+z_0)=f(z+z_1)##. Then it is a meaningful problem statement and you can use Liouville's theorem. Don't split it into components, first consider what the equation tells you (the sin(z) from above is a hint).
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #3
mfb said:
This is not true.
Let ##z_0 = i##, ##z_1=2\pi + i##. Then the equation reads ##f(z+i)=f(z+i+2\pi)## for every ##z \in \mathbb C##. "For every z" is equivalent to "for every z+i", so we can simplify the statement to ##f(z)=f(z+2\pi)## for every ##z \in \mathbb C##.
f(z)=sin(z) is a counterexample.

I think the equation should be ##f(z)=f(z+z_0)=f(z+z_1)##. Then it is a meaningful problem statement and you can use Liouville's theorem. Don't split it into components, first consider what the equation tells you (the sin(z) from above is a hint).

Sorry, I've edited my post with the statement that you've correctly guessed to be the correct one. So, the function is periodic, so a big part of the problem reduces to prove that continuous functions are bounded.
 
Last edited:
  • #4
I know that ##[a,b]\times[c,d]## is a compact set in ##\mathbb R^2##. If ##g:\mathbb R^2 \to \mathbb R## is a continuous function, then ##f([a,b]\times[c,d])## is compact, which at the same times implies it is bounded (I've proved these statements some time ago).

Now, I want to prove the following:

1) ##u(x,y)## and ##v(x,y)## are periodic, for example, ##u(x,y)=u(x+x_0,y+y_0)## for ##(x_0,y_0) \neq (0,0)## (it is here where I guess I must use the hypothesis ##z_0,z_1## are ##\mathbb R##-linearly independent).

2) ##u(\mathbb R^2)## is the same set that ##u([a,b]\times[c,d])## for some interval ##[a,b]\times[c,d]## (and analogously for ##v##).

If I could show (1) and (2), then ##|f(x+iy)|=|u(x,y)+i(x,y)|\leq |u(x,y)|+|v(x,y)|##, and from here it is immediate that ##f## is bounded.

I would appreciate suggestions to show (1) and (2).
 
  • #5
It's not necessary to split [itex]f[/itex] into components.

If [itex]z_0[/itex] and [itex]z_1[/itex] are [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex]-linearly independent, then for every [itex]z \in \mathbb{C}[/itex] there exist unique integers [itex]n[/itex], [itex]m[/itex] and a unique [itex](s,t) \in [0,1)^2[/itex] such that [itex]z = (n + s)z_0 + (m + t)z_1[/itex].

This suggests looking at a suitable continuous [itex]g: [0,1]^2 \to \mathbb{C}[/itex] and showing that [itex]f(\mathbb{C}) = g([0,1]^2)[/itex].

If [itex]f(\mathbb{C})[/itex] is compact then it is (closed and) bounded, which by definition requires that [itex]|f(z)|[/itex] is bounded.
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #6
pasmith said:
It's not necessary to split [itex]f[/itex] into components.

If [itex]z_0[/itex] and [itex]z_1[/itex] are [itex]\mathbb{R}[/itex]-linearly independent, then for every [itex]z \in \mathbb{C}[/itex] there exist unique integers [itex]n[/itex], [itex]m[/itex] and a unique [itex](s,t) \in [0,1)^2[/itex] such that [itex]z = (n + s)z_0 + (m + t)z_1[/itex].

This suggests looking at a suitable continuous [itex]g: [0,1]^2 \to \mathbb{C}[/itex] and showing that [itex]f(\mathbb{C}) = g([0,1]^2)[/itex].

If [itex]f(\mathbb{C})[/itex] is compact then it is (closed and) bounded, which by definition requires that [itex]|f(z)|[/itex] is bounded.

Thanks for that simple answer, as you've suggested, one considers ##g(s,t):[0,1]^2 \to \mathbb C## to be ##g(s,t)=(n+s)z_0+(m+t)z_1##, since ##g## is continuous and ##[0,1]^2## is compact, then ##g([0,1]^2)## is compact which, in particular, means ##Im(g)## is bounded. As ##Im(f)=Im(g)##, from here one can apply Liouville's theorem.

I have two questions:

1) If ##z_0## and ##z_1## are ##\mathbb R##-linearly independent, then for every ##z \in \mathbb C##, there exist unique ##k_0(z),k_1(z) \in \mathbb R## such that ##z=k_0(z)z_0+k_1(z)z_1##.
I don't see how you've deduced from here that there exist unique integers ##m,n## and and unique ##s,t \in \mathbb[0,1]^2## with ##z=(n+s)z_0+(m+t)z_1## for all ##z##.
By the way, are ##m,n## the same for every ##z##? If not, I have no idea how to define ##g##.

2) Where have you used the hypothesis ##f(z+z_0)=f(z)=f(z+z_1)##?
 
  • #7
mahler1 said:
Thanks for that simple answer, as you've suggested, one considers ##g(s,t):[0,1]^2 \to \mathbb C## to be ##g(s,t)=(n+s)z_0+(m+t)z_1##,
since ##g## is continuous and ##[0,1]^2## is compact, then ##g([0,1]^2)## is compact which, in particular, means ##Im(g)## is bounded. As ##Im(f)=Im(g)##, from here one can apply Liouville's theorem.

(Best not to use "Im(g)" for the image of a complex-valued function; it may be confused with the imaginary part.)

That's not the [itex]g[/itex] I was thinking of, but nevermind. For this [itex]g[/itex] you need to show that [itex]f(\mathbb{C}) = f(g([0,1]^2))[/itex] (and also choose values for [itex]n[/itex] and [itex]m[/itex]; simplicity suggests [itex]n = m = 0[/itex]).

Let [itex]\Omega = g([0,1]^2)[/itex]. By continuity of [itex]g[/itex] we have that [itex]\Omega[/itex] is compact. A consequence of this is that [itex]\mathbb{C} \setminus \Omega[/itex] is not empty.

You need to show that [itex]f(\mathbb{C}) = f(\Omega)[/itex]. That reduces to showing that for every [itex]z \in \mathbb{C} \setminus \Omega[/itex] there is a [itex]w \in \Omega[/itex] such that [itex]f(z) = f(w)[/itex]. This is where you need the periodicity of [itex]f[/itex].

The first step is to show that if [itex]f(z + z_0) = f(z) = f(z + z_1)[/itex] then [tex]f(z) = f(z + pz_0 + qz_1)[/tex] for all integers [itex]p[/itex] and [itex]q[/itex].
 
  • #8
mahler1 said:
I don't see how you've deduced from here that there exist unique integers ##m,n## and and unique ##s,t \in \mathbb[0,1]^2## with ##z=(n+s)z_0+(m+t)z_1## for all ##z##.
##n z_0 + m z_1## is like a grid in the complex plane (as the two complex numbers are R-linearly independent, i. e. have a different complex phase). This allows to split the complex plane into a set of parallelograms, where s and t define the position within the parallelogram.

Note that m,n,s,t are unique only with [0,1) as range for s and t, not with [0,1].
 

FAQ: Prove an entire function under certain conditions is constant.

What is an entire function?

An entire function is a function that is analytic (i.e. has a derivative at every point) over the entire complex plane. This means that it can be represented by a power series that converges for all complex numbers.

What are the conditions for an entire function to be constant?

There are a few different conditions that can make an entire function constant. One common condition is that the function is bounded (i.e. it doesn't grow too large). Another condition is that the function is periodic, meaning it repeats itself after a certain interval. In general, any condition that restricts the behavior of the function can lead to it being constant.

How can an entire function be proven to be constant?

There are a few different techniques that can be used to prove that an entire function is constant. One approach is to use Cauchy's integral theorem, which states that if an analytic function has a zero integral over any closed contour, then it is constant. Another approach is to use Liouville's theorem, which states that a bounded entire function must be constant.

Can an entire function be both non-constant and non-zero?

Yes, it is possible for an entire function to be non-constant and non-zero. For example, the function f(z) = e^z is entire and non-zero, but it is not constant because it takes on different values for different complex numbers.

Are there any other interesting properties of entire functions?

Yes, there are many interesting properties of entire functions. For instance, they are holomorphic (i.e. differentiable) everywhere, they can be represented by infinite power series, and they satisfy the maximum modulus principle, which states that the maximum modulus of an entire function must occur on its boundary. Additionally, entire functions can have infinitely many zeros, but only if they are identically equal to zero.

Similar threads

Back
Top