Prove: f(z) = log z cannot be analytic

  • Thread starter Tsunoyukami
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Log
In summary: Notice that the limit as z approaches the origin is not 0, even though the function is analytic there.In summary, I'm having difficulty completing the last problem of an assignment tomorrow evening. I feel as if I'm missing something; every time I attempt the problem I get stuck or confused. I attempted to show that f(z) = log z was analytic by applying the Cauchy-Riemann equations, but I'm not sure where I should go from here. If I integrate this I "just" get f(z) back (I'm not sure how to account for integrating over the path...should I write:\int_{\gamma} \frac{1}{z
  • #1
Tsunoyukami
215
11
I'm having difficulty completing the last problem of an assignment due tomorrow evening. I feel as if I'm missing something; every time I attempt the problem I get stuck or confused.

"22. Use the conclusion of Exercise 21 and Example 13 of Section 6, Chapter 1, to prove that f(z) = log z cannot be analytic on any domain D that contains a piecewise smooth simple closed curve [itex]\gamma[/itex] that surrounds the origin. (Hint: What is the value of [itex]\int_{\gamma} f'(z) dz[/itex]?) (from Complex Variables, 2nd. edition by Stephen D. Fisher)


As this problem refers to both Exercise 21 and Example 13 I will summarize them here as well:

"21. Let [itex]\gamma[/itex] be a piecewise smooth simple closed curve, and suppose that F is analytic on some domain containing [itex]\gamma[/itex]. [Then] [itex]\int_{\gamma} F'(z) dz = 0[/itex]"

"Example 13 Suppose that [itex]\gamma[/itex] is a piecewise smooth positively oriented simple closed curve. The value of the integral

[itex]\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma} \frac{dz}{z - p}[/itex] , p not in [itex]\gamma[/itex] is

[itex]\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma} \frac{dz}{z - p} = 0[/itex], p is outside [itex]\gamma[/itex], or

[itex]\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma} \frac{dz}{z - p} = 1[/itex], p is inside [itex]\gamma[/itex]
"



I attempted to show that f(z) = log z is analytic by applying the Cauchy-Riemann equations.

[itex]f(z) = log z = ln|z| + iarg(z) = ln|(x^2 + y^2)^\frac{1}{2}| + i arctan(y/x)[/itex]
[itex]f(z) = u + iv[/itex] with
[itex]u = ln|(x^2 + y^2)^\frac{1}{2}|[/itex] and
[itex]v = arctan(y/x)[/itex]

I then computed the partial derivatives of both u and v with respect to x and y and showed that u and v satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann equations. As a result, I expect f(z) = log z to be analytic.

However, the question asks me to show that f(z) is not analytic...

If I follow the hint given in the question:

[itex]\int_{\gamma} f'(z) dz[/itex]
[itex]\int_{\gamma} (log z)' dz[/itex]
[itex]\int_{\gamma} \frac{1}{z} dz[/itex]

I'm not too sure where I should go from here...if I simply integrate this I "just" get f(z) back (I'm not sure how to account for integrating over the path...should I write:

[itex]\int_{\gamma} \frac{1}{z} dz = \int_{a}^{b} \frac{1}{\gamma(t)} \gamma'(t) dt[/itex]

But then how should I proceed? I need to show that such an integral does not equal 0, because by exercise 21 if the integral equals 0 the function is analytic...


Any help will be greatly appreciated! Thanks a lot in advance! :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Tsunoyukami said:
prove that f(z) = log z cannot be analytic on any domain D that contains a piecewise smooth simple closed curve γ that surrounds the origin.
Tsunoyukami said:
If I follow the hint given in the question:
[itex]\int_{\gamma} f'(z) dz = \int_{\gamma} \frac{1}{z} dz[/itex]
Tsunoyukami said:
"Suppose that [itex]\gamma[/itex] is a piecewise smooth positively oriented simple closed curve. The value of the integral
[itex]\frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_{\gamma} \frac{dz}{z - p} = 1[/itex], p is inside [itex]\gamma[/itex]"
Tsunoyukami said:
"21. Let [itex]\gamma[/itex] be a piecewise smooth simple closed curve, and suppose that F is analytic on some domain containing [itex]\gamma[/itex]. Then [itex]\int_{\gamma} F'(z) dz = 0[/itex]"
The answers are there. What is the value of p for the function in your question?
 
  • #3
Oh! The value of p is 0. Then, since the origin (ie. 0) is interior to [itex]\gamma[/itex] by example 13 the value of the integral is non-zero and therefore f(z) = log z is not analytic by exercise 21!
 
  • #4
Yup, you've got it :)
 
  • #5
I kinda get what yall are sayin but...

where did this example 13 business come from? I have to answer the same question but I don't think we ever learned that relation.
 
  • #6
diggory said:
where did this example 13 business come from? I have to answer the same question but I don't think we ever learned that relation.

It's the Cauchy Integral Theorem. You've got to have seen it.
 
  • #7
Aw dang well okay. Thanks for the help though
 
  • #8
Some other ideas, just to illustrate:

1)Notice that the argument is not even continuous in the plane, let alone analytic.

2)If you accept that Logz and e^z are" inverses " , then notice that e^z is not 1-1 in the plane ( it is actually oo->1), so that it cannot have a global inverse in the plane.
 

FAQ: Prove: f(z) = log z cannot be analytic

What does it mean for a function to be analytic?

Being analytic means that the function is differentiable at every point in its domain and can be expressed as a convergent power series. In other words, the function is smooth and can be approximated by a polynomial at every point.

Why can't f(z) = log z be analytic?

The function f(z) = log z is not analytic because it is not defined at z = 0. In order for a function to be analytic, it must be defined and differentiable at every point in its domain. Since the logarithm function has a singularity at z = 0, it fails to meet this requirement.

Can a function be analytic for some values of z but not others?

Yes, a function can be analytic for some values of z but not others. For example, the function f(z) = log z is analytic for all values of z except for z = 0. In general, a function can be analytic on a certain domain, but may have singularities or points of non-differentiability on other parts of the complex plane.

How can we prove that f(z) = log z is not analytic?

We can prove that f(z) = log z is not analytic by showing that it is not differentiable at z = 0. This can be done using the Cauchy-Riemann equations, which state that a function is differentiable at a point if and only if its partial derivatives satisfy certain conditions. Since the partial derivatives of f(z) = log z do not exist at z = 0, we can conclude that the function is not analytic at this point.

Is f(z) = log z the only non-analytic function?

No, f(z) = log z is not the only non-analytic function. There are many other functions that are not analytic, such as the absolute value function, the square root function, and the reciprocal function. These functions all have singularities or points of non-differentiability in their domains, which prevents them from being analytic.

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
1K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Back
Top