# Abstract Nonsense

## Meromorphic Functions on the Riemann Sphere (Pt. II)

Point of Post: This is a continuation of this post.

$\text{ }$

October 7, 2012

## Meromorphic Functions on the Riemann Sphere (Pt. I)

Point of Post: In this post we classify the meromorphic functions on the Riemann sphere $\mathbb{C}_\infty$.

$\text{ }$

Motivation

$\text{ }$

If a random kid off the street asked you “what are the continuous functions $(0,1)\to(0,1)$?” or “what are all the smooth  maps $S^4\to\mathbb{R}$?” you would probably replay with a definitive “Ehrm…well…they’re just…” This is because such a description (besides “they’re just the continuous functions!”)  is beyond comprehension in those cases! For example, it would take quite a bit of ingenuity to come up with something like the Blancmange function–in fact, such crazy continuous everywhere, differentiable nowhere functions are, in a sense dense in the space of continuous functions.

$\text{ }$

Thus, it should come as somewhat of a surprise that after reading this post you will be able to answer a kid asking “what are all the meromorphic functions on the Riemann sphere?” with a “Ha, that’s simple. They’re just…”. To be precise, we have already proven that $\mathbb{C}(z)\subseteq\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{C}_\infty)$, and we shall now show that the reverse inclusion is true!  Now, more generally, we shall be able to give a satisfactory (algebraic!) of the meromorphic functions of any compact Riemann surface. While this won’t be quite as impressive as the explicit, simple characterization of $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{C}_\infty)$ but still a far cry from our situation with trying to characterize $C([0,1],[0,1])$, since we don’t really even have an algebraic (ring theoretic) description of this (in terms of more familiar objects). This should be, once again, another indication that the function theory of compact Riemann surfaces is very rigid–they admit meromorphic functions, but not so many that the computation (algebraically) of their meromorphic function field is untenable.

$\text{ }$

Ok, now that we have had some discussion about the philosophical implications of actually being able to describe $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{C}_\infty)$ let’s discuss how we are actually going to prove $\mathcal{M}(\mathbb{C}_\infty)=\mathbb{C}(z)$. The basic idea comes from the fact that we can actually find a function $r$ which has prescribed zeros $\lambda_1,\cdots,\lambda_n$ and poles $p_1,\cdots,p_m$ such that $\text{ord}_{\lambda_i}(r)=e_i$ and $\text{ord}_{p_i}(r)=-g_i$ for any $e_i,g_i\in\mathbb{N}$–namely, the function $\displaystyle r(z)$ given by $(z-\lambda_1)^{e_1}\cdots(z-\lambda_n)^{e_n}(z-p_1)^{-g_1}\cdots(z-p_m)^{-g_m}$. Thus, if $f$ is a meromorphic function on $\mathbb{C}_\infty$ with zeroes and poles described as in the last sentence we see that $\displaystyle \frac{f}{r}$ is a meromorphic function on $\mathbb{C}_\infty$ and which has no zeros or poles on $\mathbb{C}$. In particular, $\displaystyle h=\frac{f}{r}$ is a function meromorphic on $\mathbb{C}_\infty$ but holomorphic on $\mathbb{C}$, and with no zeros. Now, it’s a common fact from complex analysis that the only entire function with a pole at infinity (recall that the somewhat confusing definition of pole at infinity now makes a lot more sense!) is a polynomial. Thus, $h$ is a polynomial, but since $h$ has no zeros on $\mathbb{C}$ we know from the fundamental theorem of algebra that $h$ is constant. Thus, $f$ is really just a constant multiple of $r(z)$! Note that the key to this proof is that ability specify poles and zeros of a given multiplicity, except perhaps specifying a pole at infinity, and that the point infinity is well-behaved (in the sense that things that have poles there are pretty tame).

$\text{ }$

October 7, 2012

## A Classification of Integers n for Which the Only Groups of Order n are Cyclic (Pt. I)

Point of Post: In this post we conglomerate and extend a few exercises in Dummit and Foote’s Abstract Algebra which will prove that the only positive integers $n$ for which the only group (up to isomorphism) of order $n$  is $\mathbb{Z}_n$ are integers of the form $n=p_1\cdots p_m$ are distinct primes with $p_i\not\equiv 1\text{ mod }p_j$ for any $i,j\in[m]$.

$\text{ }$

Motivation

This post will complete several lemmas/theorems which works towards proving not only that every group of order $p_1\cdots p_m$ where $p_i\not\equiv 1\text{ mod }p_j$ for any $i,j\in[m]$ (greatly generalizing the statement that a group of $pq$ for primes $p with $q\not\equiv 1\text{ mod }p$ is cyclic) but also that numbers of this form are the only numbers for which the converse is true (namely every group of order $n$ is cyclic).

September 13, 2011

## Groups of Order pq (Pt. I)

Point of Post: In this post classify groups of order $pq$ where $p$ and $q$ are primes.

$\text{ }$

Motivation

We make a pretty cool undertaking in this post. Namely, we’ll classify all groups of order $pq$ where $p$ and $q$ are primes. While far from ideal knowing this can cut a fairly large swath out of the groups (in very small cases) that need to be classified.

$\text{ }$

April 19, 2011