Complex Differentiability and Holomorphic Functions (Pt. I)
Point of Post: In this post we define the notion of a function to be holmorphic on some domain .
Motivation
We are going to start discussing complex analysis in preparation for later discussion on Riemann surfaces. We start this discussion, naturally, with the notion of differentiability for functions mapping . There is a standard amount of amazement associated to functions which are differentiable in the complex sense since, as we shall see (and, as I’m sure you wellknow), they are MUCH nicer then any kind of real differentiable function . In particular, we shall see that any once differentiable function shall be infinitely differentiable and, moreover, locally be expressable as a power series. Think about how different this is from standard real differentiable functions, say, even just where we can find functions that have any number of deriviatives we desire, yet it’s derivative not even be continuous, let alone differentiable. We can even find functions that are infinitely differentiable yet whose Taylor series at a point doesn’t converge to the function!
If you are shocked by this (which, as I already said, I doubt you are) then you will be even more shocked to learn that this is just the beginning of a long line of facts about complex differentiable functions which will blow your mind. Theorems like Liouville’s theorem, the Maximum Modulus Principle, the Argument Principle, Cauchy’s integral formula, etc. show you awesomely powerful the condition of being complex differentiable really is.
This all begs the obvious quetsion: why? Why are functions which are complex differentiable SO incredibly more powerful then their real differentiable counterparts? This is a very good question, and one that I will (without a doubt, badly) attempt to explain. The rough idea behind the difference between differentiable functions and complex differentiable functions is commutation with rotations. In particular, similar to how we defined the total derivative we shall define complex differentiable functions to be those that are locally approximatable by linear functions. Where’s the difference? The devil is in the details, for we shall want our approximating linear functions in the complex case to be complex linear. The real difference then being between the total derivative and the “complex total derivative” is that while the relation
one doesn’t necessarily require that commute with .
What exact does this commutation mean? It’s a common geometrical fact that if one thinks about multiplication by as an linear transformation then it’s just the transformation given in the standard basis by which (as should be wellknown from linear algebra) is just counterclockwise rotation by ninety degrees. Thus, we see that relation held by the complex total derivative is that
Now, we know exactly what the matrix of looks like, it’s just
if . Thus, I leave it in the readerships capable hands to check the relation
Implies the set of equations
known as the CauchyRiemann equations. Thus, we see immediately that being complex differentiable imposes some serious restrictions on the function that are certainly not present in the real differentiable case.
So, modulo some small details, the functions that are complex differentiable are precisely those which are real differentiable and which commute with , or because of our analysis it’s precisely the real differentiable functions which satisfy the CauchyRiemann equations. Since the CauchyRiemann equations are kind of messy, it would be nice if we could represent them in a simpler fashion. Note now that and . Intuitively we can think about the correspondence and as being a linear change of coordinates. I claim that this change of coordinates is exactly the fix we need to make the CauchyRiemann equations simpler. Indeed, I want to consider things like and which is a totally sensible thing to do, and in fact is easily evaluatable. To find we merely make the change of coordinates to get that and then differentiate according to normal partial rules. I have yet to say why this coordinate change makes the CauchyRiemann equations less messy. The reason is that if one follows back along the coordinate change one finds that it is equal to . Thus, writing we see that
Aha! Thus, we see that satisfying the CauchyRiemann equations is equivalent to the statement that ! What this means intuitively is what if we write as and “expand” all the ‘s should cancel–there is no dependence on (test that this is true for functions such as [you will end up getting just –no ]). Thus, while we shall almost always think about problems in the usual coordinate system it is often convenient, to adopt notation from the coordinate system, like defining complex differentiable functions to be those that satisfy .
I hope this gives an intuition as to a) why complex differentiable functions are expected to be stronger than their real differentiable counterparts (they respect translations, i.e. commute with ), b) why the CauchyRiemann equations are the analytical interpretation of these statements, and c) why the and notations are both intuitive and useful.
References:
[1] Greene, Robert Everist, and Steven George Krantz. Function Theory of One Complex Variable. Providence: American Mathematical Society, 2006. Print.
[2] Conway, John B. Functions of One Complex Variable I. New York: SpringerVerlag, 1978. Print.
[3] Rudin, W. Real and Complex Analysis. New York,NY: McGrawHill, 1988. Print.
[4] Ahlfors, Lars V. Complex Analysis; an Introduction to the Theory of Analytic Functions of One Complex Variable. New York: McGrawHill, 1966. Print.
May 1, 2012  Posted by Alex Youcis  Complex Analysis  Analysis, Analytic Function, CauchyRiemann Equations, Complex Analysis, Complex Differentiable Function, d zee, d zee bar, Differentiable Function, dz, dz bar, Holmorphic Function, Intuition, Total Derivative, Wirtinger's Derivatives
2 Comments »
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
About me
My name is Alex Youcis. I am currently a senior a first year graduate student at the University of California, Berkeley.
About Me
Blogroll
 Absolutely Useless
 Abstract Algebra
 Annoying Precision
 Aquazorcarson's Blog
 Bruno's Math Blog
 Chris' Math Blog
 Climbing Mount Bourbaki
 E. Kowalski's Blog
 Geometric Group Theory
 Geometry and the Imagination
 Gower's Weblog
 Hard Arithmetic
 HardyRamanujan Letters
 Ngô Quốc Anh's Blog
 Project Crazy Project
 Rigorous Trivialities
 Secret Blogging Seminar
 SymOmega
 TCS Math
 Unapologetic Mathematician
 What's New
Lecture Notes
Categories
Top Posts
 Halmos Chaper One, Section 1: Fields
 Munkres Chapter two Section 12 & 13: Topological Spaces and Bases
 Halmos Sections 2,3, and 4
 Munkres Chapter 2 Section 19 (Part I)
 Munkres Chapter 1 Section 1
 Mackey Irreducibility Criterion
 Dummit and Foote Preliminaries Sections .1,.2, and .3
 Free Vector Spaces
 The Dimension of R over Q
 Extending Uniformly Continuous Functions

Algebra Algebraic Combinatorics Algebraic Topology Analysis Answers Category Theory Chapter 2 Characters Character Theory Class Functions Compactness Complex Analysis Connectedness Derivative Differential Geometry Differential Topology DIrect Limit Direct Limits Examples Exterior Algebra Field Theory Finite Dimensional Vector Spaces Full Solutions Functor Galois Theory Geometry Group Group Actions Group Algebra Groups Group Theory Halmos Homological Algebra Homomorphism Homotopy Ideals Induced Character Induced Representation Intuition Inverse Limit Irreducible Characters Irreps Isomorphism Linear Algebra Linear Transformations Manifolds Matrices Module Modules Module Theory Motivation Multivariable Analysis Munkres Normal Subgroups Number Theory Permutations PID Polynomials Prime Ideals Products Product Topology Projections Representation Theory Review of Group Theory Riemann Surfaces Ring Rings Ring Theory Rudin Solutions Sylow Theorems Symmetric Group Tensor Product Topology Total Derivative
[…] Complex Differentiable and Holmorphic Functions (Pt. II) Point of Post: This is a continuation of this post. […]
Pingback by Complex Differentiable and Holmorphic Functions (Pt. II) « Abstract Nonsense  May 1, 2012 
[…] that the Riemann surface is orientable. This somewhat surprising fact follows immediately from the CauchyRiemann equations. The somewhat surprising part is that the converse is true. Namely, if is any smooth orientable […]
Pingback by Compact Riemann Surfaces are Topologically $latex g$holed Tori « Abstract Nonsense  October 2, 2012 