Proving No Simple Pole at 0 for $f'$ on $\mathbb{D} - \{0\}$

  • MHB
  • Thread starter Dustinsfl
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Pole
In summary, the theorem states that there is no function f(*) in analytic in the punctured disk $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$, $\{0\}$ is not a brantch point, and f'(*) has a simple pole at $\{0\}$.
  • #1
Dustinsfl
2,281
5
Prove that there is no function $f$ such that $f$ is analytic on the punctured unit disc $\mathbb{D} - \{0\}$, and $f'$ has a simple pole at 0.

Let $f$ be analytic on the punctured disc $\mathbb{D} - \{0\}$.
$$
f(z) = \frac{g(z)}{h(z)}
$$
such that $h(z)\neq 0$.

Then
$$
f'(z) = \frac{g'(z)h(z) - g(z)h'(z)}{(h(z))^2}
$$

So $f'(z)$ has only poles of order 2. Therefore, $f'$ can't have a simple pole at 0.

How is this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Counterexample: $\displaystyle f(z)=\ln z$ is analytic in $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$ and is $\displaystyle f'(z)=\frac{1}{z}$...

... the exact formulation of the theorem should be: prove that there is no function f(*) so that f(*) in analytic in the punctured disk $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$, $\{0\}$ is not a brantch point, and f'(*) has a simple pole at $\{0\}$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
  • #3
chisigma said:
Counterexample: $\displaystyle f(z)=\ln z$ is analytic in $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$ and is $\displaystyle f'(z)=\frac{1}{z}$...

... the exact formulation of the theorem should be: prove that there is no function f(*) so that f(*) in analytic in the punctured disk $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$, $\{0\}$ is not a brantch point, and f'(*) has a simple pole at $\{0\}$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

Giving that caveat. Would I be correct then?
 
  • #4
  • #5
chisigma said:
The existence of singularities called brantch points is too often forgotten. For more information see...

http://mathworld.wolfram.com/BranchPoint.html

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

Is what I have correct if I add the branch put argument in then?
 
  • #6
If $\{0\}$ is not a brantch point, then f(*) can be written as Laurent series 'centered' in $z=0$...

$\displaystyle f(z)= \sum_{n=- \infty}^{+ \infty} a_{n}\ z^{n}$ (1)

Now if we derive (1) we obtain in any case a Laurent series in which is $a_{-1}=0$ so that f'(*) has no single pole in $\{0\}$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
  • #7
chisigma said:
If $\{0\}$ is not a brantch point, then f(*) can be written as Laurent series 'centered' in $z=0$...

$\displaystyle f(z)= \sum_{n=- \infty}^{+ \infty} a_{n}\ z^{n}$ (1)

Now if we derive (1) we obtain in any case a Laurent series in which is $a_{-1}=0$ so that f'(*) has no single pole in $\{0\}$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

So we can assume the series is uniformly convergent?
 
  • #8
chisigma said:
Counterexample: $\displaystyle f(z)=\ln z$ is analytic in $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$ and is $\displaystyle f'(z)=\frac{1}{z}$...

... the exact formulation of the theorem should be: prove that there is no function f(*) so that f(*) in analytic in the punctured disk $\mathbb{D}-\{0\}$, $\{0\}$ is not a brantch point, and f'(*) has a simple pole at $\{0\}$...

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$

But the theorem says f has to be analytic on the punctured disc isn't ln z not analytic on it. So the branch point part would be irrelevant.
 

FAQ: Proving No Simple Pole at 0 for $f'$ on $\mathbb{D} - \{0\}$

What does it mean for a function to have no simple pole at 0?

Having no simple pole at 0 means that the function has a removable singularity at 0, where it can be defined as continuous and have a finite value at that point. In other words, the function approaches a finite value as it gets closer to 0.

Why is it important to prove that a function has no simple pole at 0?

It is important to prove this because it ensures that the function is well-behaved and does not have any singularities or discontinuities at 0. This allows for a more accurate analysis of the function and its behavior.

How can we prove that a function has no simple pole at 0?

One way to prove this is by using the Cauchy-Riemann equations, which state that for a function to be differentiable at a point, it must satisfy certain conditions. If these conditions are not met, then the function cannot have a simple pole at that point.

What is the significance of the restriction on the domain in this statement?

The restriction on the domain, which is $\mathbb{D} - \{0\}$, means that we are considering the function on a domain that excludes the point 0. This allows us to focus on the behavior of the function around 0 and determine if it has a simple pole at that point.

Can a function have a pole at 0 but not a simple pole?

Yes, a function can have a pole at 0 that is not a simple pole. This means that the function has an essential singularity at 0, where it cannot be defined as continuous and has an infinite limit at that point.

Similar threads

Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
677
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Back
Top