In the case
, this condition is equivalent to the existence of the limit
.
Indeed, if this limit is
, then the
-linear map in the above definition is just multiplication by
, and vice-versa, any linear map
is simply multiplicaton by an element of
, which is then the limit.
Proposition (Osgood's lemma):
Let
be a continuous function.
Suppose that
is a function which is complex differentiable in a ball
, where
is an element of
and
is a small constant (to which we shall refer as a radius).
A complex function can be uniquely written as
, where
and
are functions
. The function
corresponds to the real part of
, whereas the function
corresponds to the imaginary part of
, so that for all
,
.
Now since
was supposed to be complex differentiable, it was supposed not to matter from which direction
approaches
. In particular,
may approach
along the
-axis of the complex plane
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/279d8/279d84cf0a30b67d3aeb76d03c76967c7db04727" alt="{\displaystyle \{(x,y)\in \mathbb {C} |y=0\}}"
or the
-axis (which is defined in a similar way).
Definition (Cauchy–Riemann equations):
Theorem (Cauchy–Riemann equations):
Let
be a continuously differentiable function and
. Then
is holomorphic if and only if it satisfies the Cauchy–Riemann equations.
Proof: We have, by the Cauchy–Riemann equations and Clairaut's theorem,
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/4dc1b/4dc1b24dc1294cdb26669cc82e06ec185c145d2d" alt="{\displaystyle \partial _{x}^{2}u=\partial _{x}\partial _{y}v=\partial _{y}\partial _{x}v=-\partial _{y}^{2}u}"
and
. data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/141be/141be0114e59beaa670b6a3b7cf9a627d9317d31" alt="{\displaystyle \Box }"
Note that this means that
is a harmonic function.
In the case of real differentiable functions, we have computation rules such as the chain rule, the product rule or even the inverse rule. In the case of complex functions, we have, in fact, precisely the same rules.
Theorem 2.2:
Let
be complex functions.
- If
and
are complex differentiable in
and
, the function
is complex differentiable in
and
(linearity of the derivative)
- If
and
are complex differentiable in
, then so is
(pointwise product with respect to complex multiplication!) and we have the product rule data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/3b0dc/3b0dc19bf04d21636d8c6016f9cc49580258ab79" alt="{\displaystyle (f\cdot g)'(z_{0})=f(z_{0})g'(z_{0})+f'(z_{0})g(z_{0})}"
- If
is complex differentiable at
and
is complex differentiable at
, then
is complex differentiable at
and we have the chain rule data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/eb6bb/eb6bb5b3a6cd6d22f346d399128abe69f037bbef" alt="{\displaystyle (g\circ f)'(z_{0})=g'(f(z_{0}))f'(z_{0})}"
- If
is bijective, complex differentiable in a neighbourhood of
and
, then
is differentiable at
(inverse rule)
- If
are differentiable at
and
, then
(quotient rule)
Proof:
First note that the maps of addition and multiplication
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1cfa6/1cfa60e818f6de6bdc9b3557f301122a041dee69" alt="{\displaystyle +:\mathbb {C} \times \mathbb {C} \to \mathbb {C} }"
and
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/d2321/d23219bcf3a1198fa78884431d3317dc27c34088" alt="{\displaystyle \cdot :\mathbb {C} \times \mathbb {C} \to \mathbb {C} }"
are continuous; indeed, let for instance
be an open ball. Take
such that
. Now suppose that we have
,
where
is to be determined later. Then we have
,
where
. Upon choosing
,
we obtain by the triangle inequality
,
whence
is open. If then
is an open set, then
will also be open, since
is the union of open balls and inverse images under a function commute with unions.
The proof for addition is quite similar.
But from these two it follows that if
are functions such that
and
,
then
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/b5190/b519074ba0eb81813de617a434af0e6e7cb778bf" alt="{\displaystyle \lim _{z\to z_{0}}(f(z)+g(z))=a+b}"
and
;
indeed, this follows from the continuity of
and
at the respective points. In particular, if
is constant (say
where
is a fixed complex number), we get things like
.
1. Now suppose indeed that
(
open, so that we have a neighbourhood around
and the derivative is defined in the sense that the direction in which
goes to zero doesn't matter) are differentiable at
. We will have
.
4. Let indeed
be a bijection between
and
which is differentiable in a neighbourhood of
. By the inverse function theorem,
is real-differentiable at
, and we have, by the chain rule for real numbers,
(
denoting the identity matrix in
and the primes (e.g.
) denoting the Jacobian matrices of the functions
seen as functions
, "
" denoting matrix multiplication),
since we may just differentiate the function
. However, regarding
and
as
-algebras (or as rings; it doesn't matter for our purposes), we have a morphism of algebras (or rings)
.
Moreover, due to the Cauchy
Let
be an open subset of the complex plane, and let
be a function which is complex differentiable in
(that means, in every point of
). Then we call
holomorphic in
.
If
happens to be, in fact, equal to
, so that
is complex differentiable at every complex number,
is called an entire function. We will see examples of entire functions in the chapter on trigonometry, where the exponential, sine and cosine function play central roles. Another important class of entire functions are polynomials.
In algebra, one studies polynomial rings such as
,
or, more generally,
, where
is a ring (one then has theorems that "lift" properties of
to
, eg. if
is an integral domain, a UFD or noetherian, then so is
).
Now all elements of
are entire functions. This is seen as follows:
Analogous to real analysis (with exactly the same proof), the function
is complex differentiable. Thus, any polynomial
(
complex coefficients, ie. constants)
is complex differentiable by linearity.
We may also define
, an extension of
in
. This extension turns out to be equal to
.
From this, there arises a polynomial ring
. Let now
be any compact subset of the complex plane, or even a bounded subset. Then it is easy to see from direct arguments that with respect to the topology of uniform convergence,
is dense in
. Alternatively, one finds that
- Prove that whenever
are holomorphic, then data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1e7e1/1e7e1ec548afe879b29c338396795cd89f128bc0" alt="{\displaystyle {\bar {\partial }}(f_{k}\circ g)=\sum _{l=1}^{n}{\frac {\partial f_{k}}{\partial z_{l}}}{\frac {\partial g_{l}}{\partial {\bar {z}}_{j}}}+\sum _{l=1}^{n}{\frac {\partial f_{k}}{\partial {\bar {z}}_{l}}}{\frac {\partial {\bar {g}}_{l}}{\partial {\bar {z}}_{j}}}}"