Author 
Topic: Analytic problem (Read 9883 times) 

Felix.R
Newbie
Posts: 7


Analytic problem
« on: Jun 12^{th}, 2007, 2:32pm » 
Quote Modify

Suppose g is analytic on abs(z)<=1 and let abs(g(z)) be maximized for abs(z)<=1 at z0 with abs(z0)=1. Prove that g'(z0) is not zero unless g is constant.


IP Logged 



Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 500


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #1 on: Jun 13^{th}, 2007, 9:52am » 
Quote Modify

You should be able to solve this using Schwarz. Notice that g(z) < 1 in z < 1 by the maximum principle.


IP Logged 
Regards, Michael Dagg



Felix.R
Newbie
Posts: 7


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #2 on: Jun 15^{th}, 2007, 10:51pm » 
Quote Modify

Is it because the function g is not constant that the maximum principle gives the statement you made? Actually this is not that easy to see for one thing. I think. I am not sure what to do with Schwarz's lemma because it does not appear to lead me to a function composed with g that I can work with. So I don't understand how I can solve it using Schwarz. Explain if you will.


IP Logged 



Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 500


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #3 on: Jun 17^{th}, 2007, 8:57pm » 
Quote Modify

Yes. You are at liberty to make some assumptions here. For example, you may assume that g(z0) = z0, z0 = 1. Noting that g(z) < 1 in z < 1, and so if we take g(0) = 0 then by Schwarz we have g(z) <= z, z < 1.

« Last Edit: Jun 17^{th}, 2007, 9:00pm by Michael Dagg » 
IP Logged 
Regards, Michael Dagg



Felix.R
Newbie
Posts: 7


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #4 on: Jun 18^{th}, 2007, 6:36pm » 
Quote Modify

I do not follow all this. I understand assuming g(1) = 1 and g(0) = 0 but doesn't this require that we also assume that g(0) not zero? Also, I can't use the bar character for absolute value I guess because my language pack seems to display character codes on this web site for that symbol. I have no idea why.

« Last Edit: Jun 18^{th}, 2007, 6:37pm by Felix.R » 
IP Logged 



Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 500


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #5 on: Jun 18^{th}, 2007, 7:07pm » 
Quote Modify

I just lost a fair amount of typed text here. I am certainly annoyed by expired pages messages.


IP Logged 
Regards, Michael Dagg



Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 500


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #6 on: Jul 10^{th}, 2007, 9:58am » 
Quote Modify

Did you solve this problem?


IP Logged 
Regards, Michael Dagg



Felix.R
Newbie
Posts: 7


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #7 on: Jul 11^{th}, 2007, 9:32am » 
Quote Modify

Alas, only partially to a degree with some missing pieces using a Taylor series. We appreciate help!


IP Logged 



Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 500


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #8 on: Jul 30^{th}, 2007, 6:56pm » 
Quote Modify

That leads me to guess what you mean but you might be on to something. Is that series that of g(z)  g(z0) ? See what you can do with this: Show that g'(1) >= 1 and take g(0) = a, a <> 0. Now consider h(z) = (g(z)  a)/(1  a bar g(z)).


IP Logged 
Regards, Michael Dagg



Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 500


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #9 on: Sep 15^{th}, 2007, 8:34am » 
Quote Modify

Did you try to work with this?


IP Logged 
Regards, Michael Dagg



Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 500


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #10 on: Sep 29^{th}, 2007, 7:16pm » 
Quote Modify

What happened to you on this problem? This is a nice problem by the way  not too hard but interesting, but maybe you solved it and forgot about us? I would like to see what you came up with.

« Last Edit: Sep 29^{th}, 2007, 7:30pm by Michael Dagg » 
IP Logged 
Regards, Michael Dagg



Sameer
Uberpuzzler
Pie = pi * e
Gender:
Posts: 1261


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #11 on: Sep 29^{th}, 2007, 7:21pm » 
Quote Modify

Yea seems like he is MIA..


IP Logged 
"Obvious" is the most dangerous word in mathematics. Bell, Eric Temple
Proof is an idol before which the mathematician tortures himself. Sir Arthur Eddington, quoted in Bridges to Infinity



Ghost Sniper
Senior Riddler
Do not hide. It is useless.
Gender:
Posts: 599


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #12 on: Dec 13^{th}, 2007, 10:51am » 
Quote Modify

[redacted] im right // excuse me? SMQ

« Last Edit: Dec 13^{th}, 2007, 11:06am by SMQ » 
IP Logged 
*sob* I miss my mommy... *blows nose* huh, I'm on? oh right.
(thinks to self) Time for my speech to these college kids.
"Reason is more important than all emotions..."



Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 500


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #13 on: Jan 23^{rd}, 2008, 11:35pm » 
Quote Modify

>> [redacted] im right >> excuse me? SMQ Being curious, I had wondered what this exchanged was referring to but apparently I had miss it at some point  perhaps Ghost had proposed solution but took it back (?). Still, a pretty cool problem, and in spite of my remarks it has gone unsolved  on this forum nevertheless.


IP Logged 
Regards, Michael Dagg



Eigenray
wu::riddles Moderator Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1948


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #14 on: Mar 14^{th}, 2008, 6:43pm » 
Quote Modify

I don't think you need anything but the power series expansion. We can assume z_{0}=1, and g(1)=1 (if g is not identically 0). Then for some n 1, g(1+w)  1 = w^{n} (C + O(w)), where C = g^{(n)}(1)/n! 0. Writing w=re^{it}, then for t fixed, Arg [ g(1+w)  1 ] nt + Arg[C] as r 0. If n 2, then for some integer k, we can take t = (2kArg[C])/n (/2, 3/2). Then Arg[g(1+w)1] 0, and therefore for r sufficiently small, g(1+w) > 1, with 1+w in the unit disk.


IP Logged 



Michael Dagg
Senior Riddler
Gender:
Posts: 500


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #15 on: Mar 21^{st}, 2008, 1:59pm » 
Quote Modify

Geometrically nice! I think your proof could be made to show that the derivative at 1 is actually positive (not just nonzero)!


IP Logged 
Regards, Michael Dagg



Eigenray
wu::riddles Moderator Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1948


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #16 on: Mar 21^{st}, 2008, 2:50pm » 
Quote Modify

Actually, we can think of it like a Lagrange multiplier problem: f^{2}(z_{0}) = z_{0} for some 0, since otherwise we could increase f by moving along the unit circle (or in the z_{0} direction, if < 0). Since f^{2} = 2f bar[f'], we get that f'(z_{0}) = t z_{0}/bar[f(z_{0})] for some t 0, but we need analycity (analyticality?) of f to get t 0.


IP Logged 



TJMann
Newbie
Posts: 18


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #17 on: Mar 22^{nd}, 2008, 11:49pm » 
Quote Modify

Pardon, but how is f^{2}(z_{0}) read? I have never seen del used with complex functions before. Also, I thought analyticity is presupposed if you write f'(z)?


IP Logged 



Eigenray
wu::riddles Moderator Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1948


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #18 on: Mar 23^{rd}, 2008, 12:40am » 
Quote Modify

I'm thinking of h(x,y) = f(x+iy)^{2} = u^{2} + v^{2} just as a realvalued function of two real variables. Then h is a vector in ^{2}, which I'm thinking of as the complex number h = h/x + ih/y = (2uu_{x}+2vv_{x}) + i(2uu_{y}+2vv_{y}) = 2(u+iv)(u_{x}+iu_{y}) = 2f bar[f'], using u_{x}=v_{y}, u_{y}=v_{x}. We could also compute h_{z} = (f bar f)_{z} = f_{z} (bar f) + f (bar f)_{z} = f' * bar f, since bar f is antiholomorphic, and use the fact that h = 2 bar[h_{z}]. I don't know if this is standard notation, though. My point was just that from the point of view of multivariable calculus, it's clear that h must be perpendicular to the unit circle, but it's not clear that it can't be the zero vector. That is where we need to think of f as a complex analytic function, not just as a function from ^{2} ^{2}.

« Last Edit: Mar 23^{rd}, 2008, 12:40am by Eigenray » 
IP Logged 



TJMann
Newbie
Posts: 18


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #19 on: Mar 24^{th}, 2008, 9:59am » 
Quote Modify

cool. I never thought of it like that and saves lots of space. In your last paragraph, I don't see why the gradient of h is perpendicular to the unit circle though, I think to the level lines of h it is, {(x,y), h(x,y) = const}


IP Logged 



Eigenray
wu::riddles Moderator Uberpuzzler
Gender:
Posts: 1948


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #20 on: Mar 24^{th}, 2008, 1:56pm » 
Quote Modify

This is just because h points in the direction of increasing h. Let v be a unit vector tangent to the unit circle at z_{0}. Then the directional derivative of h in the direction v is just D_{v} h = <h, v>. If this dot product were positive, then h increases as I move along the unit circle in the v direction, contradicting the fact that h is maximized at z_{0}. Similarly, if it were negative, h would increase in the opposite direction. So we must have <h, v> = 0, i.e., h is perpendicular to the unit circle at z_{0}. This is a special case of the Lagrange multiplier method. If we want to maximize f given the constraint g=0, then f must be perpendicular to the level curve g=0, so it must be a scalar times g, i.e., f = g.


IP Logged 



TJMann
Newbie
Posts: 18


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #21 on: Mar 25^{th}, 2008, 3:55pm » 
Quote Modify

Thx. I see. I thought you were just speaking in general but see that you were referring to the particulars of the given problem.


IP Logged 



Nourhan
Newbie
Gender:
Posts: 1


Re: Analytic problem
« Reply #22 on: May 21^{st}, 2014, 5:50pm » 
Quote Modify

You have to use Schwarz Equation !


IP Logged 



