Results 1 to 7 of 7

Math Help - entire function

  1. #1
    Member
    Joined
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    142

    entire function

    Let f(z) be an entire function and f(z) = 0 on a subinterval a < x < b of the real axis. Show that f(z) = 0 for all z in C (set of complex numbers). Conclude that if f and g are entire functions and that they agree on a segment of the real axis, then they must be the same.

    How do I answer this question? Thanks for help in advance.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  2. #2
    Super Member
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    903
    Quote Originally Posted by PvtBillPilgrim View Post
    Let f(z) be an entire function and f(z) = 0 on a subinterval a < x < b of the real axis. Show that f(z) = 0 for all z in C (set of complex numbers). Conclude that if f and g are entire functions and that they agree on a segment of the real axis, then they must be the same.

    How do I answer this question? Thanks for help in advance.
    First go over showing the following theorem:

    A non-constant analytic function cannot have a non-isolated set of k-points: Given the set S=\{z_i\} with f(z_i)=k with \displaystyle \lim_{n\to\infty} z_i=z_p, then f(z) must be the constant function f(z)=k.

    (I'd need to work on it too a while to show this but it's a very important property of entire functions and I think a very important theorem in Complex Analysis)
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  3. #3
    Super Member
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    903
    Ok, I'd like to try:

    Prove that if f(z)=0 on a subset of the real axis S=\{z: a<z<b\}, then f(z)=0 throughout \mathbb{C}.

    Since f(z) is analytic, then we can write for some c\in S:

    \begin{aligned}f(z)&=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n(z-c)^n \\   &=a_m(z-c)^m+a_{m+1}(z-c)^{m+1}+\cdots \\<br />
&=(z-c)^m\left[a_m+(z-c)Q(z)\right]<br />
\end{aligned}

    where Q(z) is analytic and bounded in some neighborhood of c, that is |Q|<M for |z-c|<R, and m is the first non-zero term. Now:

    |f(z)|=|z-c|^m\left|a_m+(z-c)Q(z)\right|

    so that:

    |f(z)\geq |z-c|^m\left||a_m|-|z-c||Q|\right|

    Now recall that we have a dense set of points over which f(z)=0. Therefore, we can find a z_i\in S such that |z_i-c|<\frac{|a_m|}{M}. This means:

    |z_i-c||Q|<\frac{|a_m|}{M} M<|a_m|

    This would imply |f(z_i)||\geq |z_i-c||a_m|>0 since z_i\ne c and a_m\ne 0 but by assumption f(z_i)=0. This must mean we've reached a contradiction and all a_m=0 so that f(z)=0.

    I'll leave it to you to show the function f-g=0 on the same domain implies f=g since h(z)=f(z)-g(z) can still be written as \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n(z-c)^n for some (new) set of a_n.

    This may need a little more work . . .
    Last edited by shawsend; November 11th 2008 at 10:50 AM. Reason: trying to improve it
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  4. #4
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by PvtBillPilgrim View Post
    How do I answer this question? Thanks for help in advance.
    Here is a stronger statement as shawsend was referring to. Let f,g be entire functions and \{ z_n\} be a convergent sequence of distinct points. If f(z_n)=g(z_n) then it means f(z) = g(z) for all z\in \mathbb{C}. By considering f-g it is sufficient to prove that if h is entire function and h(z_n) = 0 then h(z) = 0 for all z\in \mathbb{C}. To prove this let z_0 be the limit of the sequence \{ z_n\}.

    Since the function h is entire it means h(z) = \sum_{n\geq 0}a_n (z-z_0)^n. It thereby suffices to show a_n = 0 \text{ for }n\geq 0. We see that 0=h(z_1) = a_0. If we were to define \xi (z) = \tfrac{f(z)}{(z-z_0)} = \sum_{n\geq 1} a_n (z-z_0)^{n-1} with \xi (z_0) = a_1 then we see that \xi (z) is continous and therefore a_1=\xi (z_0)=\lim ~ \frac{ f(z_n)}{z_n} = 0. Therefore, a_1=0. From here an induction argument can be used. If a_j = 0 for j < k then we can define \mu (z) = \tfrac{f(z)}{(z-z_0)^k} = \sum_{n\geq k} a_n (z-z_0)^{n-k} with \mu (z_0) = a_k is a continous function. It follows that a_k = \mu (z_0) = \lim \frac{f(z_n)}{z_n^k} = 0 . And this shows that a_k = 0. Thus, in general, a_k = 0 for all k\geq 0. This shows that h must be the zero function.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  5. #5
    MHF Contributor

    Joined
    Aug 2008
    From
    Paris, France
    Posts
    1,174
    Quote Originally Posted by shawsend View Post
    Ok, I'd like to try:

    Prove that if f(z)=0 on a subset of the real axis S=\{z: a<z<b\}, then f(z)=0 throughout \mathbb{C}.

    Since f(z) is analytic, then we can write for some c\in S:

    \begin{aligned}f(z)&=\sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n(z-c)^n \\   &=a_m(z-c)^m+a_{m+1}(z-c)^{m+1}+\cdots \\<br />
&=(z-c)^m\left[a_m+(z-c)Q(z)\right]<br />
\end{aligned}

    where Q(z) is analytic and bounded in some neighborhood of c, that is |Q|<M for |z-c|<R, and m is the first non-zero term. Now:

    |f(z)|=|z-c|^m\left|a_m+(z-c)Q(z)\right|

    so that:

    |f(z)\geq |z-c|^m\left||a_m|-|z-c||Q|\right|

    Now recall that we have a dense set of points over which f(z)=0. Therefore, we can find a z_i\in S such that |z_i-c|<\frac{|a_m|}{M}. This means:

    |z_i-c||Q|<\frac{|a_m|}{M} M<|a_m|

    This would imply |f(z_i)||\geq |z_i-c||a_m|>0 since z_i\ne c and a_m\ne 0 but by assumption f(z_i)=0. This must mean we've reached a contradiction and all a_m=0 so that f(z)=0.

    I'll leave it to you to show the function f-g=0 on the same domain implies f=g since h(z)=f(z)-g(z) can still be written as \sum_{n=0}^{\infty} a_n(z-c)^n for some (new) set of a_n.

    This may need a little more work . . .
    That's a good proof. I knew another way to conclude, which you may like to read:
    So we have chosen c\in S and we have written f(z)=\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n (z-c)^n for any z\in\mathbb{C}. We want to show that a_n=0 for all n. It is well-known that a_n=\frac{f^{(n)}(c)}{n!} (derivation term by term, and then z=c). This derivative is a complex derivative, and since c is real, it coincides with the derivative of f restricted to the real line (same expression as a limit). But f_{|\mathbb{R}} is 0 near c, hence f^{(n)}(c)=0, and subsequently a_n=0.

    You used the word "dense", it is a bit improper, and it could be " c is an accumulation point of S", or " c is not an isolated point in S", to underline the tight relation with what you said about non-isolated subsets where f is zero. The proof of the fact you quoted is then the very same.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  6. #6
    Super Member
    Joined
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    903
    I wish to attempt a summary. Please someone correct if necessary. I struggle with this.

    First note the Taylor series for a function is unique. That is, anyway we can determine the Taylor series for the function centered at a point will be the Taylor series. Now, f(z) is real on the real axis in the set S=\{x: a<x<b\}. This mean we can calculate the Taylor series of f(z) by calculating the Taylor series for the real function f(x) over S. but f(x) is zero in that interval which means all the derivatives are zero as well (it's flat). This means all the constants in the real Taylor expansion are zero. But since Taylor series are unique, this Taylor series must be the Taylor series for f(z) as well, thus f(z)=0 throughout \mathbb{C}.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

  7. #7
    Global Moderator

    Joined
    Nov 2005
    From
    New York City
    Posts
    10,616
    Thanks
    10
    Quote Originally Posted by shawsend View Post
    I wish to attempt a summary. Please someone correct if necessary. I struggle with this.

    First note the Taylor series for a function is unique. That is, anyway we can determine the Taylor series for the function centered at a point will be the Taylor series. Now, f(z) is real on the real axis in the set S=\{x: a<x<b\}. This mean we can calculate the Taylor series of f(z) by calculating the Taylor series for the real function f(x) over S. but f(x) is zero in that interval which means all the derivatives are zero as well (it's flat). This means all the constants in the real Taylor expansion are zero. But since Taylor series are unique, this Taylor series must be the Taylor series for f(z) as well, thus f(z)=0 throughout \mathbb{C}.
    That looks nice, it is also a lot nicer than what I did. We can add some rigor into your statement if it is really necessary. Say c\in (a,b) and we wish to prove that f'(c) = 0 i.e. f' vanishes on (a,b). To prove this we approach it by definition, f'(c) = \lim_{z\to c} \frac{f(z)-f(c)}{z-c}. But we know that f is entire so that limit (the derivative) has to exist. If the complex limit exists then it must exist along all possible paths to the limit point c. By choosing the path along the real axis we get that f'(c) = \lim_{x\to c}\frac{f(x)-f(c)}{x-c} = \lim_{x\to 0}\frac{0}{x-c} = 0. Therefore, f' is the zero function. From here it follows that f^{(n)} is a zero function for all n\geq 1.
    Follow Math Help Forum on Facebook and Google+

Similar Math Help Forum Discussions

  1. Replies: 3
    Last Post: November 29th 2011, 03:08 PM
  2. show that f(z) is an entire function
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: May 31st 2011, 09:35 PM
  3. Entire function
    Posted in the Differential Geometry Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: February 9th 2010, 12:59 PM
  4. Entire function
    Posted in the Algebra Forum
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: October 31st 2009, 02:42 AM
  5. Entire Function-Complex
    Posted in the Calculus Forum
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: December 20th 2006, 07:21 AM

Search Tags


/mathhelpforum @mathhelpforum