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

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash 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,



$$p(z) = a_n(z-a_1)…(z-a_n) = a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j). tag1.2$$



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*







share|cite|improve this question






















  • What does (1.5) tell you?
    – Sean Nemetz
    Aug 12 at 0:47










  • You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
    – 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
    – 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.
    – Alfred Yerger
    Aug 12 at 3:22














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,



$$p(z) = a_n(z-a_1)…(z-a_n) = a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j). tag1.2$$



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*







share|cite|improve this question






















  • What does (1.5) tell you?
    – Sean Nemetz
    Aug 12 at 0:47










  • You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
    – 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
    – 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.
    – Alfred Yerger
    Aug 12 at 3:22












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,



$$p(z) = a_n(z-a_1)…(z-a_n) = a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j). tag1.2$$



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*







share|cite|improve this question














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,



$$p(z) = a_n(z-a_1)…(z-a_n) = a_n prod_j^n(z-a_j). tag1.2$$



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*









share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 12 at 3:05

























asked Aug 11 at 20:46









Zophikel

444518




444518











  • What does (1.5) tell you?
    – Sean Nemetz
    Aug 12 at 0:47










  • You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
    – 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
    – 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.
    – Alfred Yerger
    Aug 12 at 3:22
















  • What does (1.5) tell you?
    – Sean Nemetz
    Aug 12 at 0:47










  • You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
    – 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
    – 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.
    – Alfred Yerger
    Aug 12 at 3:22















What does (1.5) tell you?
– Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:47




What does (1.5) tell you?
– Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:47












You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
– Sean Nemetz
Aug 12 at 0:53




You could try proving this with Cauchy's Integrel Formula. It avoids this nasty integral.
– 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
– 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
– 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.
– 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.
– Alfred Yerger
Aug 12 at 3:22










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 Cauchy’s 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 $n-j+1=0implies n-j=-1$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Are there any other ways to prove it ?
    – Zophikel
    Aug 12 at 3:39










  • @Zophikel In what direction?
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 3:44










  • @Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 3:55











  • In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
    – Zophikel
    Aug 12 at 3:58










  • @Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 4:16










Your Answer




StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);








 

draft saved


draft discarded


















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






























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 Cauchy’s 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 $n-j+1=0implies n-j=-1$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Are there any other ways to prove it ?
    – Zophikel
    Aug 12 at 3:39










  • @Zophikel In what direction?
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 3:44










  • @Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 3:55











  • In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
    – Zophikel
    Aug 12 at 3:58










  • @Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 4:16














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 Cauchy’s 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 $n-j+1=0implies n-j=-1$.






share|cite|improve this answer






















  • Are there any other ways to prove it ?
    – Zophikel
    Aug 12 at 3:39










  • @Zophikel In what direction?
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 3:44










  • @Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 3:55











  • In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
    – Zophikel
    Aug 12 at 3:58










  • @Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 4:16












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 Cauchy’s 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 $n-j+1=0implies n-j=-1$.






share|cite|improve this answer














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 Cauchy’s 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 $n-j+1=0implies n-j=-1$.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








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 ?
    – Zophikel
    Aug 12 at 3:39










  • @Zophikel In what direction?
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 3:44










  • @Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 3:55











  • In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
    – Zophikel
    Aug 12 at 3:58










  • @Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 4:16
















  • Are there any other ways to prove it ?
    – Zophikel
    Aug 12 at 3:39










  • @Zophikel In what direction?
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 3:44










  • @Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 3:55











  • In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
    – Zophikel
    Aug 12 at 3:58










  • @Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
    – Szeto
    Aug 12 at 4:16















Are there any other ways to prove it ?
– Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:39




Are there any other ways to prove it ?
– Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:39












@Zophikel In what direction?
– Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:44




@Zophikel In what direction?
– Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:44












@Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
– Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:55





@Zophikel Also you can recognize, on the unit circle, $overline z=frac1z$.
– Szeto
Aug 12 at 3:55













In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
– Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:58




In the direction of not using the Cauchy Integral Formula
– Zophikel
Aug 12 at 3:58












@Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
– Szeto
Aug 12 at 4:16




@Zophikel Please see my edited answer.
– Szeto
Aug 12 at 4:16












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














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













































































這個網誌中的熱門文章

tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

1st Magritte Awards