Showing that $oint_partial D(0,1) prod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz = 0$?

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
In the text "Function Theory of One Complex Variable" Third Edition by Robert E. Greene and Steven G. Krantz i'm inquring if my proof to $textProposition (1)$ is valid ?
$textProposition (1)$
If $f$ is a holomorphic polynomial and if
$$oint_partial D(0,1)f(z) overline z^j dz = 0, , , j = 0, 1, 2,.. $$
then prove that $f equiv 0 $
To begin our quest to prove $(1)$, we write our choice of $f$ as,
$$p(z) = a_n(z-a_1)â¦(z-a_n) = a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j). tag1.2$$
Putting everything together we have that,
$$oint_partial D(0,1) a_nprod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz = 0. tag1.3$$
Using Feynman's Integration Trick and the Product rule finally,
beginalign*
partial_overline z bigg( oint_partial D(0,1) a_nprod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz bigg) tag1.4 &= \
oint_partial D(0,1) bigg( partial_overline z a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz bigg) &= 0 tag1.5
endalign*
complex-analysis proof-verification
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
In the text "Function Theory of One Complex Variable" Third Edition by Robert E. Greene and Steven G. Krantz i'm inquring if my proof to $textProposition (1)$ is valid ?
$textProposition (1)$
If $f$ is a holomorphic polynomial and if
$$oint_partial D(0,1)f(z) overline z^j dz = 0, , , j = 0, 1, 2,.. $$
then prove that $f equiv 0 $
To begin our quest to prove $(1)$, we write our choice of $f$ as,
$$p(z) = a_n(z-a_1)â¦(z-a_n) = a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j). tag1.2$$
Putting everything together we have that,
$$oint_partial D(0,1) a_nprod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz = 0. tag1.3$$
Using Feynman's Integration Trick and the Product rule finally,
beginalign*
partial_overline z bigg( oint_partial D(0,1) a_nprod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz bigg) tag1.4 &= \
oint_partial D(0,1) bigg( partial_overline z a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz bigg) &= 0 tag1.5
endalign*
complex-analysis proof-verification
What does (1.5) tell you?
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:47
You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:53
Yeah @SeanNemetz it seems so also I realized a problem with they way I defined $(1.2)$ with the $a_n$ it looks like $(1.4)$ to $(1.5)$ is bunk i'll have to find another to define $p(z)$ as a product to save the proof
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:21
Yeah I don't think you can use Feynman's trick with holomorphic stuff. $barpartial$ just isn't the same kind of operator.
â Alfred Yerger
Aug 12 at 3:22
add a comment |Â
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
up vote
0
down vote
favorite
In the text "Function Theory of One Complex Variable" Third Edition by Robert E. Greene and Steven G. Krantz i'm inquring if my proof to $textProposition (1)$ is valid ?
$textProposition (1)$
If $f$ is a holomorphic polynomial and if
$$oint_partial D(0,1)f(z) overline z^j dz = 0, , , j = 0, 1, 2,.. $$
then prove that $f equiv 0 $
To begin our quest to prove $(1)$, we write our choice of $f$ as,
$$p(z) = a_n(z-a_1)â¦(z-a_n) = a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j). tag1.2$$
Putting everything together we have that,
$$oint_partial D(0,1) a_nprod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz = 0. tag1.3$$
Using Feynman's Integration Trick and the Product rule finally,
beginalign*
partial_overline z bigg( oint_partial D(0,1) a_nprod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz bigg) tag1.4 &= \
oint_partial D(0,1) bigg( partial_overline z a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz bigg) &= 0 tag1.5
endalign*
complex-analysis proof-verification
In the text "Function Theory of One Complex Variable" Third Edition by Robert E. Greene and Steven G. Krantz i'm inquring if my proof to $textProposition (1)$ is valid ?
$textProposition (1)$
If $f$ is a holomorphic polynomial and if
$$oint_partial D(0,1)f(z) overline z^j dz = 0, , , j = 0, 1, 2,.. $$
then prove that $f equiv 0 $
To begin our quest to prove $(1)$, we write our choice of $f$ as,
$$p(z) = a_n(z-a_1)â¦(z-a_n) = a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j). tag1.2$$
Putting everything together we have that,
$$oint_partial D(0,1) a_nprod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz = 0. tag1.3$$
Using Feynman's Integration Trick and the Product rule finally,
beginalign*
partial_overline z bigg( oint_partial D(0,1) a_nprod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz bigg) tag1.4 &= \
oint_partial D(0,1) bigg( partial_overline z a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j) overline z^j dz bigg) &= 0 tag1.5
endalign*
complex-analysis proof-verification
edited Aug 12 at 3:05
asked Aug 11 at 20:46
Zophikel
444518
444518
What does (1.5) tell you?
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:47
You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:53
Yeah @SeanNemetz it seems so also I realized a problem with they way I defined $(1.2)$ with the $a_n$ it looks like $(1.4)$ to $(1.5)$ is bunk i'll have to find another to define $p(z)$ as a product to save the proof
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:21
Yeah I don't think you can use Feynman's trick with holomorphic stuff. $barpartial$ just isn't the same kind of operator.
â Alfred Yerger
Aug 12 at 3:22
add a comment |Â
What does (1.5) tell you?
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:47
You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:53
Yeah @SeanNemetz it seems so also I realized a problem with they way I defined $(1.2)$ with the $a_n$ it looks like $(1.4)$ to $(1.5)$ is bunk i'll have to find another to define $p(z)$ as a product to save the proof
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:21
Yeah I don't think you can use Feynman's trick with holomorphic stuff. $barpartial$ just isn't the same kind of operator.
â Alfred Yerger
Aug 12 at 3:22
What does (1.5) tell you?
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:47
What does (1.5) tell you?
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:47
You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:53
You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:53
Yeah @SeanNemetz it seems so also I realized a problem with they way I defined $(1.2)$ with the $a_n$ it looks like $(1.4)$ to $(1.5)$ is bunk i'll have to find another to define $p(z)$ as a product to save the proof
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:21
Yeah @SeanNemetz it seems so also I realized a problem with they way I defined $(1.2)$ with the $a_n$ it looks like $(1.4)$ to $(1.5)$ is bunk i'll have to find another to define $p(z)$ as a product to save the proof
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:21
Yeah I don't think you can use Feynman's trick with holomorphic stuff. $barpartial$ just isn't the same kind of operator.
â Alfred Yerger
Aug 12 at 3:22
Yeah I don't think you can use Feynman's trick with holomorphic stuff. $barpartial$ just isn't the same kind of operator.
â Alfred Yerger
Aug 12 at 3:22
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Firstly,
$$I_n,j=oint_ z^n overline z^j dz=oint_ (|z|^2)^jcdot z^n-jdz=oint z^n-jdz$$
Obviously, $I_n,j=2pi i$ if $n-j=-1$ and equals $0$ otherwise.
Let $P(z)=sum^k_n=0a_n z^n$ be a polynomial.
Then, $$oint_P(z)overline z^jdz=sum^k_n=0a_nI_n,j$$
Given the integral is zero, we need $a_j-1= 0$ for every $jinmathbb N$.
From here, we get $a_0=a_1=a_2=cdots=0$.
The result about $I_n,j$ can be derived without CauchyâÂÂs integral formula.
$$I_n,j=oint_z^noverline z^jdz=int^2pi_0(e^it)^n(e^-it)^jie^itdt=int^2pi_0 i(e^it)^n-j+1dt$$
which equals zero unless $n-j+1=0implies n-j=-1$.
Are there any other ways to prove it ?
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:39
@Zophikel In what direction?
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:44
@Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:55
In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:58
@Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 4:16
 |Â
show 1 more comment
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Firstly,
$$I_n,j=oint_ z^n overline z^j dz=oint_ (|z|^2)^jcdot z^n-jdz=oint z^n-jdz$$
Obviously, $I_n,j=2pi i$ if $n-j=-1$ and equals $0$ otherwise.
Let $P(z)=sum^k_n=0a_n z^n$ be a polynomial.
Then, $$oint_P(z)overline z^jdz=sum^k_n=0a_nI_n,j$$
Given the integral is zero, we need $a_j-1= 0$ for every $jinmathbb N$.
From here, we get $a_0=a_1=a_2=cdots=0$.
The result about $I_n,j$ can be derived without CauchyâÂÂs integral formula.
$$I_n,j=oint_z^noverline z^jdz=int^2pi_0(e^it)^n(e^-it)^jie^itdt=int^2pi_0 i(e^it)^n-j+1dt$$
which equals zero unless $n-j+1=0implies n-j=-1$.
Are there any other ways to prove it ?
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:39
@Zophikel In what direction?
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:44
@Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:55
In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:58
@Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 4:16
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Firstly,
$$I_n,j=oint_ z^n overline z^j dz=oint_ (|z|^2)^jcdot z^n-jdz=oint z^n-jdz$$
Obviously, $I_n,j=2pi i$ if $n-j=-1$ and equals $0$ otherwise.
Let $P(z)=sum^k_n=0a_n z^n$ be a polynomial.
Then, $$oint_P(z)overline z^jdz=sum^k_n=0a_nI_n,j$$
Given the integral is zero, we need $a_j-1= 0$ for every $jinmathbb N$.
From here, we get $a_0=a_1=a_2=cdots=0$.
The result about $I_n,j$ can be derived without CauchyâÂÂs integral formula.
$$I_n,j=oint_z^noverline z^jdz=int^2pi_0(e^it)^n(e^-it)^jie^itdt=int^2pi_0 i(e^it)^n-j+1dt$$
which equals zero unless $n-j+1=0implies n-j=-1$.
Are there any other ways to prove it ?
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:39
@Zophikel In what direction?
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:44
@Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:55
In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:58
@Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 4:16
 |Â
show 1 more comment
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
Firstly,
$$I_n,j=oint_ z^n overline z^j dz=oint_ (|z|^2)^jcdot z^n-jdz=oint z^n-jdz$$
Obviously, $I_n,j=2pi i$ if $n-j=-1$ and equals $0$ otherwise.
Let $P(z)=sum^k_n=0a_n z^n$ be a polynomial.
Then, $$oint_P(z)overline z^jdz=sum^k_n=0a_nI_n,j$$
Given the integral is zero, we need $a_j-1= 0$ for every $jinmathbb N$.
From here, we get $a_0=a_1=a_2=cdots=0$.
The result about $I_n,j$ can be derived without CauchyâÂÂs integral formula.
$$I_n,j=oint_z^noverline z^jdz=int^2pi_0(e^it)^n(e^-it)^jie^itdt=int^2pi_0 i(e^it)^n-j+1dt$$
which equals zero unless $n-j+1=0implies n-j=-1$.
Firstly,
$$I_n,j=oint_ z^n overline z^j dz=oint_ (|z|^2)^jcdot z^n-jdz=oint z^n-jdz$$
Obviously, $I_n,j=2pi i$ if $n-j=-1$ and equals $0$ otherwise.
Let $P(z)=sum^k_n=0a_n z^n$ be a polynomial.
Then, $$oint_P(z)overline z^jdz=sum^k_n=0a_nI_n,j$$
Given the integral is zero, we need $a_j-1= 0$ for every $jinmathbb N$.
From here, we get $a_0=a_1=a_2=cdots=0$.
The result about $I_n,j$ can be derived without CauchyâÂÂs integral formula.
$$I_n,j=oint_z^noverline z^jdz=int^2pi_0(e^it)^n(e^-it)^jie^itdt=int^2pi_0 i(e^it)^n-j+1dt$$
which equals zero unless $n-j+1=0implies n-j=-1$.
edited Aug 12 at 4:35
answered Aug 12 at 3:31
Szeto
4,2411521
4,2411521
Are there any other ways to prove it ?
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:39
@Zophikel In what direction?
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:44
@Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:55
In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:58
@Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 4:16
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Are there any other ways to prove it ?
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:39
@Zophikel In what direction?
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:44
@Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:55
In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:58
@Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 4:16
Are there any other ways to prove it ?
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:39
Are there any other ways to prove it ?
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:39
@Zophikel In what direction?
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:44
@Zophikel In what direction?
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:44
@Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:55
@Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:55
In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:58
In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:58
@Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 4:16
@Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
â Szeto
Aug 12 at 4:16
 |Â
show 1 more comment
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2879763%2fshowing-that-oint-partial-d0-1-prod-jnz-a-j-overline-zj-dz%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
What does (1.5) tell you?
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:47
You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
â Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:53
Yeah @SeanNemetz it seems so also I realized a problem with they way I defined $(1.2)$ with the $a_n$ it looks like $(1.4)$ to $(1.5)$ is bunk i'll have to find another to define $p(z)$ as a product to save the proof
â Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:21
Yeah I don't think you can use Feynman's trick with holomorphic stuff. $barpartial$ just isn't the same kind of operator.
â Alfred Yerger
Aug 12 at 3:22