A function $ f : [0,1] to BbbC $ is differentiable with derivative 0, is constant.

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
0
down vote

favorite












In Conway's complex analysis while proving proposition 2.10



"If $G$ is an open connected set and $ f : G to BbbC $ such that $f'(z)=0 forall z in G$ then f is constant"



He fixes some $z_0 in G$ and defines the set $A=$ $z in G: f(z)=f(z_0)$ and shows that this set is both open as well as closed, since it is a non-empty subset of a connected set, we have, $A=G$ which would complete the proof.



I can't understand the proof to show it's open, where he defines $ g(t)=f(zt+(1-t)a) , t in [0,1]$ for some fixed $a in A $ and $epsilon >0$ such that $zin B(a,epsilon)subset G$ He wants to show that $B(a,epsilon) subset A.$



By proving
$g'(t)=0 $on $ [0,1]$ he concludes that g is constant.



I thought this result was only true for real valued functions. I am clear about everything else, why the function has been constructed in this way and all. I am just not able to convince myself of the above conclusion.







share|cite|improve this question


























    up vote
    0
    down vote

    favorite












    In Conway's complex analysis while proving proposition 2.10



    "If $G$ is an open connected set and $ f : G to BbbC $ such that $f'(z)=0 forall z in G$ then f is constant"



    He fixes some $z_0 in G$ and defines the set $A=$ $z in G: f(z)=f(z_0)$ and shows that this set is both open as well as closed, since it is a non-empty subset of a connected set, we have, $A=G$ which would complete the proof.



    I can't understand the proof to show it's open, where he defines $ g(t)=f(zt+(1-t)a) , t in [0,1]$ for some fixed $a in A $ and $epsilon >0$ such that $zin B(a,epsilon)subset G$ He wants to show that $B(a,epsilon) subset A.$



    By proving
    $g'(t)=0 $on $ [0,1]$ he concludes that g is constant.



    I thought this result was only true for real valued functions. I am clear about everything else, why the function has been constructed in this way and all. I am just not able to convince myself of the above conclusion.







    share|cite|improve this question
























      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite









      up vote
      0
      down vote

      favorite











      In Conway's complex analysis while proving proposition 2.10



      "If $G$ is an open connected set and $ f : G to BbbC $ such that $f'(z)=0 forall z in G$ then f is constant"



      He fixes some $z_0 in G$ and defines the set $A=$ $z in G: f(z)=f(z_0)$ and shows that this set is both open as well as closed, since it is a non-empty subset of a connected set, we have, $A=G$ which would complete the proof.



      I can't understand the proof to show it's open, where he defines $ g(t)=f(zt+(1-t)a) , t in [0,1]$ for some fixed $a in A $ and $epsilon >0$ such that $zin B(a,epsilon)subset G$ He wants to show that $B(a,epsilon) subset A.$



      By proving
      $g'(t)=0 $on $ [0,1]$ he concludes that g is constant.



      I thought this result was only true for real valued functions. I am clear about everything else, why the function has been constructed in this way and all. I am just not able to convince myself of the above conclusion.







      share|cite|improve this question














      In Conway's complex analysis while proving proposition 2.10



      "If $G$ is an open connected set and $ f : G to BbbC $ such that $f'(z)=0 forall z in G$ then f is constant"



      He fixes some $z_0 in G$ and defines the set $A=$ $z in G: f(z)=f(z_0)$ and shows that this set is both open as well as closed, since it is a non-empty subset of a connected set, we have, $A=G$ which would complete the proof.



      I can't understand the proof to show it's open, where he defines $ g(t)=f(zt+(1-t)a) , t in [0,1]$ for some fixed $a in A $ and $epsilon >0$ such that $zin B(a,epsilon)subset G$ He wants to show that $B(a,epsilon) subset A.$



      By proving
      $g'(t)=0 $on $ [0,1]$ he concludes that g is constant.



      I thought this result was only true for real valued functions. I am clear about everything else, why the function has been constructed in this way and all. I am just not able to convince myself of the above conclusion.









      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Aug 22 at 7:18

























      asked Aug 22 at 7:14









      Uday Khanna

      1577




      1577




















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes

















          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted










          If $g:[0,1]to mathbb C$ is differentiable and $g'=0$ for all $t$ then its real and imaginary parts are constants (because there derivatives are also $0$) , right? That proves that $g$ is a complex constant.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Okay, to clarify, we observe $g(t): [0,1] to BbbR^2$ where if $g(t)=u(t)+i v(t)$ then $g'(t)=u'(t)+iv'(t) implies u $ and $ v$ are constant.
            – Uday Khanna
            Aug 22 at 7:48











          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%2f2890715%2fa-function-f-0-1-to-bbbc-is-differentiable-with-derivative-0-is-con%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
          0
          down vote



          accepted










          If $g:[0,1]to mathbb C$ is differentiable and $g'=0$ for all $t$ then its real and imaginary parts are constants (because there derivatives are also $0$) , right? That proves that $g$ is a complex constant.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Okay, to clarify, we observe $g(t): [0,1] to BbbR^2$ where if $g(t)=u(t)+i v(t)$ then $g'(t)=u'(t)+iv'(t) implies u $ and $ v$ are constant.
            – Uday Khanna
            Aug 22 at 7:48















          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted










          If $g:[0,1]to mathbb C$ is differentiable and $g'=0$ for all $t$ then its real and imaginary parts are constants (because there derivatives are also $0$) , right? That proves that $g$ is a complex constant.






          share|cite|improve this answer




















          • Okay, to clarify, we observe $g(t): [0,1] to BbbR^2$ where if $g(t)=u(t)+i v(t)$ then $g'(t)=u'(t)+iv'(t) implies u $ and $ v$ are constant.
            – Uday Khanna
            Aug 22 at 7:48













          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted







          up vote
          0
          down vote



          accepted






          If $g:[0,1]to mathbb C$ is differentiable and $g'=0$ for all $t$ then its real and imaginary parts are constants (because there derivatives are also $0$) , right? That proves that $g$ is a complex constant.






          share|cite|improve this answer












          If $g:[0,1]to mathbb C$ is differentiable and $g'=0$ for all $t$ then its real and imaginary parts are constants (because there derivatives are also $0$) , right? That proves that $g$ is a complex constant.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered Aug 22 at 7:17









          Kavi Rama Murthy

          23.4k2933




          23.4k2933











          • Okay, to clarify, we observe $g(t): [0,1] to BbbR^2$ where if $g(t)=u(t)+i v(t)$ then $g'(t)=u'(t)+iv'(t) implies u $ and $ v$ are constant.
            – Uday Khanna
            Aug 22 at 7:48

















          • Okay, to clarify, we observe $g(t): [0,1] to BbbR^2$ where if $g(t)=u(t)+i v(t)$ then $g'(t)=u'(t)+iv'(t) implies u $ and $ v$ are constant.
            – Uday Khanna
            Aug 22 at 7:48
















          Okay, to clarify, we observe $g(t): [0,1] to BbbR^2$ where if $g(t)=u(t)+i v(t)$ then $g'(t)=u'(t)+iv'(t) implies u $ and $ v$ are constant.
          – Uday Khanna
          Aug 22 at 7:48





          Okay, to clarify, we observe $g(t): [0,1] to BbbR^2$ where if $g(t)=u(t)+i v(t)$ then $g'(t)=u'(t)+iv'(t) implies u $ and $ v$ are constant.
          – Uday Khanna
          Aug 22 at 7:48













           

          draft saved


          draft discarded


























           


          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2890715%2fa-function-f-0-1-to-bbbc-is-differentiable-with-derivative-0-is-con%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest













































































          這個網誌中的熱門文章

          How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

          Mutual Information Always Non-negative

          Why am i infinitely getting the same tweet with the Twitter Search API?