Complex Variables

Josh Tobin
27th May 2009
1 Complex Functions
2 Analysis in C
In this section we dene the usual concepts of limits and continuity, but with respect to
complex numbers.
Denition (convergence) :
If (z
n
) is a sequence of complex numbers, then we say that (z
n
) converges to z
0
if for all
> 0 there exists N such that
[z
n
z
0
[ < n > N
Denition (convergence to ) :
If (z
n
) is a sequence of complex numbers, then we say that (z
n
) converges to if for all C
there exists N such that
[z
n
[ > C n > N
(z
n
) converges to if (z
n
) converges to .
Example (limit calculation):
Calculate lim
n
z
n
.
Solution.
Let z = re
i
. Then z
n
= r
n
e
in
.
[z
n
[ = [r
n
[ = r
n
lim
n
z
n
= 0 if r < 1, lim
n
z
n
= 1 if r = 1 or lim
n
z
n
= if r > 1.
Lemma:
Let z
n
= x
n
+ iy
n
. Then (z
n
) converges to z
0
= x
0
+ iy
0
i (x
n
) converges to x
0
and y
n
converges to y
0
.
Proof.

Thanks to Cathal Ormond for his typed notes.

1
Suppose (z
n
) converges to z
0
. Then [z
n
z
0
[ 0.

(x
n
x
0
)
2
+ (y
n
y
0
)
2
0
0 [x
n
x
0
[ [z
n
z
0
[ 0
[x
n
x
0
[ 0
Similarly we have [y
n
y
0
[ 0.
Suppose (x
n
) and (y
n
) converge to x
0
and y
0
respectively. Then:
[x
n
x
0
[ 0, [y
n
y
0
[ 0

(x
n
x
0
)
2
+ (y
n
y
0
)
2
0
[z
n
z
0
[ 0
z
n
z
0

Lemma:
If z
n
converges to z
0
and w
n
converges to w
0
. Then:
(i) (z
n
+ w
n
) converges to z
0
+ w
0
.
(ii) (z
n
w
n
) converges to z
0
w
0
.
(iii) If w
0
,= 0 then

z
n
w
n

converges to
z
0
w
0
.
Proof.
(i) We have:
[z
n
+ w
n
(z
0
+ w
0
)[ = [(z
n
z
0
) + (w
n
w
0
)[
[z
n
z
0
[ +[w
n
w
0
[ 0
So z
n
+ w
n
z
0
+ w
0
.
(ii) We have:
[z
n
w
n
z
0
w
0
[ = [z
n
w
n
+ z
n
w
0
z
n
w
0
z
0
w
0
[
= [z
n
(w
n
w
0
) + w
0
(z
n
z
0
)[
[z
n
[.[w
n
w
0
[ +[w
0
[.[z
n
z
0
[ 0
So z
n
w
n
z
0
w
0
.
2
(iii) Well show that if w
0
,= 0 then

1
w
n

1
w
0

. The result then follows imediately.

We have:
[
1
w
n

1
w
0
[ = [
c w
n
cw
n
[

[c w
n
[
[cw
n
[

[w
n
c[
[c[
.
1
[w
n
[
0
So

1
w
n

1
w
0

Theorem (Bolzano-Weierstrass for complex numbers):

Any bounded sequence of complex numbers (z
n
) has a convergent subsequence.
Proof.
Let z
n
= x
n
+iy
n
. Thus (x
n
) and (y
n
) are bounded. Use Bolzano-Weierstrass for (x
n
), thus
(x
n
k
) is a convergent subsequence. Use Bolzano-Weierstrass of (y
n
k
), thus (y
m
l
) is a
convergent subsequence of (x
n
) and (y
n
). Thus (z
m
l
) is a convergent subsequence of (z
n
).

Denition (Cauchy sequence) :

(z
n
) is Cauchy if for all > 0 there exists N such that
[x
n
x
m
[ < n, m > N
Recall that in R
n
, a sequence is convergent i it is Cauchy.
Lemma:
If (z
n
) is Cauchy and has a convergent subsequence then (z
n
) is convergent.
Proof.
(z
n
) is Cauchy and (z
n
k
) is a subsequence that converges to z
0
. Therefore, for all > 0
there exists N
1
such that for all n, m N
1
[z
n
z
m
[ <

2
(z
n
k
) converges to z
0
, so there exists N
2
such that for all n
k
> N
2
[z
n
k
z
0
[ <

2
So [z
n
z
0
[ [z
n
z
n
k
[ [z
n
k
z
0
[ < for all n > maxN
1
, N
2
.
3

Theorem (Cauchy criterion for complex numbers):

(z
n
) is convergent i it is Cauchy.
Proof.
Assume (z
n
) converges to z
0
. So for all > 0 there exists N such that [z
n
z
0
[ <

2
.
Then, for all n, m > N:
[z
n
z
m
[ [z
n
z
0
[ +[z
0
z
m
[ <

2
+

2
=
Conversely, assume that (z
n
) is Cauchy. Note that every Cauchy sequence is bounded.
For > 1 there exists N such that [z
n
z
m
[ < 1 for all n, m N. So for n > N:
[z
n
[ = [z
N
+ (z
n
z
N
)[ [z
N
[ + 1
Take B = max[z
1
[, , [z
N1
[, [z
N
[ + 1. Then B is clearly an upper bound. So (z
n
)
has a convergent subsequence by Bolzano-Weierstrass, and so by the previous lemma
(z
n
) converges.

Denition (limit point) :

A point p is a limit point of a set A if for all > 0 there exists z A such that
0 < [z p[ <
Equivalently, p is a limit point of A if there exists a sequence (z
n
) A p converging to p.
Denition (limit of a function) :
Given a function f(z), dened on A, with z
0
a limit point of A, then we write
lim
zz
0
f(z) = L
if for all > 0 there exists > 0 such that for all z A
[z z
0
[ < [f(z) L[ <
Example (limit of a function):
What is lim
z0
sin(z)
z
on the set A 0?
Solution.
sin(z) = z
z
3
3!
+
So
sin(z)
z
= 1
z
2
3!
+ = 1 0 = 1
4
Denition (continuous function) :
Given any f(z) dened on a set A then f is continuous at z
0
if either z
0
is not a limit point
of A or if
lim
zz
0
f(z) = f(z
0
)
If z is continuous at every z A, then f is said to be continuous. If f, g are continuous at
z
0
then f + g, fg are continuous at z
0
. If g(z
0
) ,= 0 then
f
g
is continuous at z
0
.
Example (proving continuity):
Show that f(z) = z is continuous.
Solution.
Take any > 0. Then
[z z
0
[ < [ z z
0
[ <
So lim
zz
0
z = z
0
. Therefore z is continuous.
Denition (equivalent definition of continuity) :
If f(z) is a function dened on a set A, we say it is continuous at z
0
if for all > 0 there
exists > 0 such that for every z A
[z z
0
[ < [f(z) f(z
0
)[ <
Lemma (composition lemma):
If f : A B and g : B C, with f continuous at z
0
, g is continuous at f(z
0
) = w
0
, then
g f is continuous at z
0
.
Proof.
We want to show that for all > 0 there exists > 0 such that
[z z
0
[ < [g(f(z)) g(f(z
0
))[ <
g is continuous at w
0
so given there exists

> 0 such that
[w w
0
[ <

[g(w) g(w
0
)[ < (1)
Now, given

> 0, f is continuous at z
0
so there exixts > 0 such that
[z z
0
[ < [f(z) f(z
0
)[ <

(2)
Combining (1) and (2) we get
[z z
0
[ < [g(f(z)) g(f(z
0
))[ <

Example (continuous functions):

Show that the following are continuous:
5
(i) Re(z) and Im(z)
(ii) e
Re(z)
(iii) e
z
(iv) cos z and sin z
(v) Arg(z) on C R
0
Solution.
(i) Re(z) =
z + z
2
and Im(z) =
z z
2i
, and these are continuous because z and z are.
(ii) e
Re(z)
is the composition of Re(z) and the real exponential function e
x
, both of which
are continuous. So e
Re(z)
is continuous by the composition lemma.
(iii) e
z
= e
Re(z)
(cos(Im(z)) + i sin(Im(z))). cos(Im(z)) and sin(Im(z)) are continuous by
the composition lemma, so the whole thing is continuous.
(iv) cos(z) =
e
iz
+ e
iz
2
and sin(z) =
e
iz
e
iz
2i
, so both of these are continuous.
(v) = cos
1
x

x
2
+ y
2
which is continuous as a composition.
Denition (uniform convergence) :
A sequence of functions f
n
(x), x A converges uniformly to f(x) if for all > 0 there
exists N such that for all n > N, for all x A:
[f
n
(x) f(x)[ <
Lemma:
f
n
(x) converges uniformly to f(x) i sup
x
[f
n
(x) f(x)[ 0.
Proof.
Assume f
n
(x) converges uniformly to f(x) then for all > 0 there exists N such that
for all n N, for all x, [f
n
(x) f(x)[ < .
sup
x
[f
n
(x) f(x)[
sup
x
[f
n
(x) f(x)[ 0
If sup
x
[f
n
(x) f(x)[ 0 then for all > 0 there exists N such that for all n N.
sup
x
[f
n
(x) f(x)[ <
[f
n
(x) f(x)[ < , for all x.
6

Theorem (uniform convergence):

Let f
n
(z) converge uniformly to f(z). If f
n
(z) is continuous on A for all n then f(z) is
continuous.
Proof.
We need continuity at z
0
, that is we want to show that for all > 0 there exists > 0 such
that [z z
0
[ < implies [f(z) f(z
0
)[ < .
[f(z) f(z
0
)[ [f(z) f
n
(z)[ +[f(z) f
n
(z
0
)[ +[f
n
(z
0
) f(z
0
)[
By uniform convergence we have that for all > 0 there exists N such that for all n N
and all z
[f
n
(z) f(z)[ <

3
By continuity of f
n
(z) there exists > 0 such that
[z z
0
[ < [f
n
(z) f
n
(z
0
)[ <

3
Combining these, we get:
[z z
0
[ < [f(z) f(z
0
)[ <
As wanted.

There are possibly some notes missing from sometime between the 17
th
and 23
rd
of February.
Theorem (preimage definition of continuity):
Let f : A C C. Then f is continuous if and only if f
1
(U) is open in A for all open
U C.
Proof.
Assume f is continuous and U is open. Take x f
1
(U). U is open so there exists
> 0 such that the ball of radius around f(x) is contained in U. f is continuous so
there exists a > 0 such that every point in the ball of radius around x maps into
the ball of radius around f(x). Thus f
1
(U) is open.
Assume that the preimage of every open set is open. Take any point x, and any
> 0. Let B be the ball of radius around x. Then f
1
(B) is open. So there exists
> 0 such that the open ball B

of radius around f
1
(x) is contained in B. Thus:
[x x

[ < x

f(x

) B [f(x

) f(x)[ <
That is, f is continuous.
7

Denition (connected) :
A set A is connected if there does not exist non-empty open sets B, C such that A = B C
and B C = .
Theorem (continuous/connected):
If A is connected and f : A C is continuous then f(A) is connected.
Proof.
Assume to the contrary. So f(A) =

B

C with

B,

C non-empty, open and disjoint. Since
f is continuous f
1
(

B) = B, f
1
(

C) = C are non-empty and open in A. Then we have:
B C = f
1
(

B

C) = A
And:
B C = f(

B

C) =
Which contradicts A being connected.

Denition (sequentially compact) :

K C is sequentially compact if all sequences in K have a convergent subsequence (to a
point in K).
Theorem (Heine-Borel):
K C is sequentially compact if and only if K is closed and bounded.
Proof.
Let K be sequentially compact. Assume K is not bounded. Then there exists a
sequence (z
n
) K such that z
n
. Therefore any subsequence also converges to
. This contradicts compactness.
Now assume K is not closed. Then there exists a limit point of K not contained in
K. So there is a sequence in K converging to a point not in K. Any subsequence also
converges to the same point. This contradicts compactness.
Let K be closed and bounded. Choose any sequence (z
n
) K. K is bounded, so (z
n
)
is bounded. Bolzano-Weierstrass gives us that (z
n
) has a convergent subsequence
(z
n
k
) z
0
. K is closed so z
0
K. Therefore (z
n
) has a convergent subsequence in K.

Theorem (continuous/compact):
If K is compact and f : K C is continuous, then f(K) is compact.
Proof.
Choose a sequence w
n
f(K). Then w
n
= f(z
n
). (z
n
) has a convergent subsequence (z
n
k
).
Then (w
n
k
) = (f(z
n
k
)) is a convergent subsequence. Therefore f(K) is compact.
8

Corollary:
If K is compact and f is continuous on K, then f(K) is closed and bounded.
Proof.
This follows immediately from the preceeding two theorems.

Corollary:
If K C is compact, and f : K R is continuous, then f attains a maximum/minimum
at some point z
max
, z
min
.
Proof.
f(K) R is compact, so is closed and bounded. So y
max
= sup f(K), y
min
= inf f(K).
f(K) is closed so y
max
, y
min
f(K). So there exist z
max
, z
min
K such that y
max
= f(z
max
)
and y
min
= f(z
min
).

Denition (partial sum) :

The partial sum of a sequence (z
n
) is the sequence s
n
=
n

m=0
z
m
.
Theorem (n
th
term test):
If

n=0
a
n
converges then a
n
0 as n .
Proof.
Proof excluded.

Theorem (comparison test):

Let (a
n
), (b
n
) be sequences with [a
n
[ b
n
, where (b
n
) R. If

n=0
b
n
converges then

n=0
a
n
converges.
Proof.
Proof excluded.

Denition (uniform convergence of series of functions) :

n=0

n
(z) converges uniformly if the sequence of partial sums f
n
(z) =
n

m=0

m
(z) converges
uniformly.
9
Theorem (Weierstrass comparison test):
Assume that [
n
(z)[ b
n
for all z A and

n=0
b
n
converges. Then

n=0

n
(z) converges
uniformly.
Proof.
Proof excluded.

Denition (power series) :

n=0
a
n
(z z
0
)
n
is a power series centred at z
0
.
Theorem (Abels lemma):
If

n=0
a
n
z
n
is convergent at z = w
0
, then it converges absolutely at every z, [z[ < [w
0
[ and
uniformly on every disc z : [z[ r, r < [w
0
[.
Proof.
Proof exluded.

Corollary:
If R is the radius of convergence of

n=0
a
n
z
n
then

n=0
a
n
z
n
(i) converges absolutely at every z where [z[ < R.
(ii) converges uniformly on every disc [z[ R where r < R.
(iii) diverges at every z where [z[ > R.
Proof.
(i) R = sup[z[ :

n=0
a
n
z
n
converges . [z[ < R so there exists w
0
such that [z[ < [w
0
[
and

n=0
a
n
w
n
0
converges. Then by Abels Lemma,

n=0
a
n
z
n
converges.
(ii) Take [z[ r < R, so there exists w
0
with r < [w
0
[ < R. So

n=0
a
n
w
n
0
converges. By
Abels Lemma, the result follows.
10
(iii) Assume to the contrary. Then

n=0
a
n
z
n
converges, with [z[ > R. This contradicts the
denition of R.

3 Holomorphic Functions
Denition (C-differentiable) :
f(z) is C-dierentiable if lim
zz
0
f(z) f(z
0
)
z z
0
exists.
Example (C-differentiable function):
Is f(z) = z C-dierentiable?
Solution.
f(z) f(z
0
)
z z
0
=
z z
0
z z
0
= 1.
lim
zz
0
f(z) f(z
0
)
z z
0
exists for all z
0
.
So f(z) = z is C-dierentiable.
Example (non-C-differentiable function):
Is f(z) = z C-dierentiable?
Solution.
Fix z
0
, and let z = z
0
+ re
i
. z z
0
re
i
0 r 0. So:
lim
r0
z z
0
z z
0
= lim
r0
z
0
+

re
i
z
0
re
i
= lim
r0

re
i
re
i
= e
2i
So the limit depends on the direction, so the derivative does not exist.
Theorem (properties of C-differentiability):
Assume f, g are C-dierentiable at z
0
. Then:
(i) f + g is C-dierentiable at z
0
.
(ii) f g is C-dierentiable at z
0
.
(iii) fg is C-dierentiable at z
0
.
11
(iv) if g(z
0
) ,= 0 then
f
g
is C-dierentiable at z
0
.
(v) If f is C-dierentiable at z
0
and g is C-dierentiable at f(z
0
), then g f is
C-dierentiable at z
0
and (g f)

(w
0
) = g

(f(z
0
))f

(z
0
).
(vi) If f is C-dierentiable at z
0
, with f(z
0
) = w
0
, f
1
is continuous at w
0
and f

(z
0
) ,= 0,
then f
1
is C-dierentiable at w
0
and (f
1
)

(w
0
) =
1
f

(z
0
)
.
(vii) If f is C-dierentiable at z
0
then f is continuous at z
0
.
Proof.
Proof excluded.

Denition (holomorphic at a point) :

f is holomorphic (or analytic) at z
0
if it is C-dierentiable at every point in a
neighbourhood of z
0
.
Denition (holomorphic on a set) :
f is holomorphic on an open set if it is C-dierentiable at each point of .
Example (holomorphic functions):
The following are holomorphic:
(i) f(z) = z on C
(ii) f(z) = c on C
(iii) any polynomial on C
(iv) rational functions on C, wherever dened
(v) any branch of

z
Solution.
(i) This is true from a previous example.
(ii) lim
zz
0
f(z) f(z
0
)
z z
0
= 0, so it is C-dierentiable.
(iii) A polynomial is just the addition, product and composition of the above two
functions. So by the preceeding theorem, every polynomial is C-dierentiable on C.
12
(iv) A rational function is the quotient of two polynomials, so is C-dierentiable by (iii)
and the preceeding theorem.
(v) Let g be any branch of

z. Then g is the inverse of f(z) = z
2
. g is continuous and
f

(z
0
) ,= 0, so by the preceeding theorem g is C-dierentiable.
Lemma (Cauchy-Riemann equations lemma 1):
If f = u + iv is C-dierentiable at z
0
, then it satises the Cauchy-Riemann equations:
u
y
= v
x
u
x
= v
y
Or equivalently (at z
0
)
f
y
= if
x
Proof.
We have:
f

(z
0
) = lim
z0
f(z
0
+ z) f(z
0
)
z
Let z = x, x R. Then:
f

(z
0
) = lim
x0
f(x
0
+ x, y
0
) f(x
0
, y
0
)
x
= f
x
(x
0
, y
0
)
Now let z = iy, y R.Then:
f

(z
0
) = lim
y0
f(x
0
, y
0
+ y) f(x
0
, y
0
)
iy
= if
y
(x
0
, y
0
)
Equating these:
if
x
(z
0
) = f
y
(z
0
)

Lemma (Cauchy-Riemann equations lemma 2):

If f is R-dierentiable at z
0
and it satises the Cauchy-Riemann equations, then it is
C-dierentiable at z
0
.
Proof.
Since f is R-dierentiable, we have:
f(z
0
+ z) f(z
0
) = f
x
(z
0
)x + f
y
(z
0
)y + R(y)
13
With
R(z)
z
0 as z 0. Also:
f
x
x + f
y
y = f
x
x + if
x
y
= f
x
(x + iy)
= f
x
z
Therefore:
f(z
0
+ z) f(z
0
)
z
=
f
x
z + R(z)
z
= f
x
+
R(z)
z
f
x
So f is C-dierentiable and f

(z
0
) = f
x
(z
0
).

Lemma (sufficient condition for R-differentiability):

Suppose f
x
, f
y
exist and are continuous in an open set . Then f is R-dierentiable in .
Proof.
We have:
R(x, y) = f(x
0
+ x, y
0
+ y) f(x
0
, y
0
) (f
x
(x
0
, y
0
)x + f
y
(x
0
, y
0
)y)
We need to show
R(x, y)
[[(x, y)[[
0
as [[(x, y)[[ 0. Now:
f(x
0
+ x, y
0
+ y) f(x
0
, y
0
)
= f(x
0
+ x, y
0
+ y) f(x
0
, y
0
+ y) + f(x
0
, y
0
+ y) f(x
0
, y
0
)
= f
x
(c, y
0
+ y)x + f
y
(x
0
, d)y
By the Mean Value Theorem, where c [x
0
, x
0
+ x], d [y
0
, y
0
+ y]. Thus:
R(x, y) = f
x
(c, y
0
+ y)x + f
y
(x
0
, d)y (f
x
(x
0
, y
0
)x + f
y
(x
0
, y
0
)y)
Therefore:
R(x, y)
[[(x, y)[[
= (f
x
(c, y
0
+y) f
x
(x
0
, y
0
))
x
[[(x, y)[[
+(f
y
(x
0
, d) f
y
(x
0
, y
0
))
y
[[(x, y)[[
We have:
f
x
(c, y
0
+ y) f
x
(x
0
, y
0
) 0
14
And similarly for the f
y
term. Also,
x
[[(x, y)[[
is bounded. Therefore
R(x, y)
[[(x, y)[[
0

Corollary:
Suppose f
x
, f
y
are continuous on open and satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann equations. Then
f is holomorphic on .
Proof.
This follows from the previous two lemmas.

Example (holomorphic functions):

Show that the following are holomorphic:
(i) e
z
in C
(ii) Any branch of log z in C R
0
(iii) cos z, sin z
Solution.
(i) We have:
e
z
= e
x
(cos(y) + i sin(y))
And from that:
f
x
(z) = e
x
(cos(y) + i sin(y))
f
y
(z) = e
x
(sin(y) + i cos(y))
It easily follows that f
y
= if
x
and f
x
and f
y
are continuous. Therefore e
z
is
holomorphic.
(ii) This follows as any branch of log z is continuous and an inverse of e
z
.
(iii) This follows as sin(z) and cos(z) are dened in terms of e
z
.
15
4 Path Integrals
Denition (path) :
A path in C is any continuous map : [a, b] C.
Denition (repramatrisation) :
A repramatrisation of a path : [a, b] C is a composition , where : [ a,

b] [a, b], a
bicontinuous bijection/homeomorphism with ( a) = a, (

b) = b.
Denition (curve) :
A curve is an equivalence class of paths with respect to paramatrisation.
Denition (integral along path) :
The integral of a continuous function f along a piecewise smooth path is dened by

f(z)dz =

f((t))

(t)dt
Example (path integral):
Find

z
n
where (t) = e
it
, 0 t 2.
Solution.

z
n
=

2
0
(e
it
)
n
(e
it
)

dt = i

2
0
e
it(n+1)
dt = 0
Lemma:

f(z)dz is independent of reparamatrisation of (as long as the orientation is preserved).

Proof.

f(z)dz =

b
f((()))

()

(())d
=

b
f((()))[

()[

(())d
=

b
a
f((t))

(t)dt

Lemma (properties of path integrals):

(i)

(f + g)dz =

fdz +

gdz
(ii)

1
+
2
fdz =

1
fdz +

2
fdz
16
Proof.
Proof excluded.

Denition (length of path) :

The length of a path : [a, b] C is dened by:
L() =

b
a
[

(t)[dt
Lemma (basic estimate):

f(z)dz

max
||
[f[ .L()
Proof.

f(z)dz

b
a
f((t))

(t)dt

b
a
[f((t))[.[

(t)[dt
=

b
a
max
||
[f[.[

(t)[dt
max
||
[f[

b
a
[

(t)[dt
= max
||
[f[ .L()

Denition (anti-derivative) :
F(z) is the anti-derivative of f(z) if F

(z) = f(z). In particular, f is holomorphic.

Lemma:
If is a piecewise smooth path in an open set and f a function on with anti-derivative
F, then:

f(z)dz = F((b)) F((a))

Proof.
17
Consider h(t) = F((t)). Then:

f(z)dz =

b
a
f((t))

(t)dt
=

b
a
h

(t)dt
= h(b) h(a)
= F((b)) F((a))

Corollary:
If f has an anti-derivative then the path integral along a path depends only on the
end-points of the path.
Proof.
Follows immediately from the lemma.

Corollary:
If is a closed path and f has an anti-derivative, then

f(z)dz = 0.
Proof.
Follows immediately from the lemma.

Theorem (Cauchy-Goursat):
Let f be a holomorphic function in (which is open in C). Let be a closed triangle in
, and be the oriented boundary of . Then

f(z)dz = 0
Proof.
We will prove this by contradiction.
(1) Subdivide triangle:
Divide into four smaller triangles of equal size,

. Then notice that:

f(z)dz = (

)f(z)dz
Suppose that this integral is non-zero (and we hope to reach a contradiction from
this), so is equal to M > 0, say. Then, for one of the four smaller triangles (which we
will call
1
), we have:

1
f(z)dz

M
4
18
We can repeat this process for
1
giving a new triangle
2
, and again for this new
triangle, etc. This gives us a sequence of triangles
1

2
, with the
property that:

k
f(z)dz

M
4
k
(2) Dene sequence and show that it converges:
Choose points z
n

n
. We will show that (z
n
) is Cauchy.
n m
n

m
Let
z
n

n
, z
m

m

n
z
n
, z
m

n
[z
n
z
m
[ L(
n
) =
L()
2
n
Thus for all > 0 there exists an N such that for all m n N we have:
[z
n
z
m
[
L()
2
n

L()
2
N

Therefore (z
n
) is Cauchy, and so converges to z
0
, say.
(3) Bound M above:
f is C-dierentiable at z
0
, so:
f(z) = f(z
0
) + f

(z
0
)(z z
0
) + R(z)
with
[R(z)[
[z z
0
[
0. So:

n
f(z)dz =

n
(f(z
0
) + f

(z
0
)(z z
0
) + R(z)) df
=

n
f(z
0
)dz + f

(z
0
)

n
(z z
0
)dz +

n
R(z)dz
= 0 + 0 +

n
R(z)dz
(The rst two terms are zero because the integrands have anti-derivatives.) So:

n
R(z)dz

M
4
n
19
(4) Show that the upper bound goes to zero:
We have:

n
R(z)dz

max

n
[R(z)[ L(
n
)
= max

n
[R(z)[
L()
2
n
Which well use in a moment, but for now note that

R(z)
z z
0

0 means that for all

> 0 there exists a > 0 such that
[z z
0
[ <

R(z)
z z
0

[R(z)[ [z z
0
[
Now, if z

n
, then z, z
0

n
which means that
[z z
0
[ L(
n
) =
L()
2
n
So:
[R(z)[ [z z
0
[
L()
2
n
Thus:

n
R(z)dz

L()
2
n
L()
2
n

M
4
n

L()
2
4
n
M L()
2
This contradicts M > 0.

Theorem (Cauchys theorem for polygonal regions):

If f : C is holomorphic and D is a polygonal region such that

D , then:

D
f(z)dz = 0
Proof.
Note that if D is convex we can easily break it into triangles. Then the integral along D
is the same as the integral along the boundaries of the triangles, which are all 0. If D is not
convex, then draw a line horizontally and vertically through each vertex. This will break it
into many smaller convex polygons. By the above argument, the integral along the
boundary of each of these convex polygons is 0. Hence the integral along D is 0.
20

Theorem (Cauchys theorem for simple regions):

If f : C is holomorphic and D is a simple region such that D is the union of simple,
closed piecewise smooth paths and

D , then:

D
f(z)dz = 0
Proof.
My notes on this are a mess, and I missed one of the lectures during the proof. Will
probably follow later.

Denition (residue) :
The residue of a function f at a point a
k
is given by:
Res
a
k
f =
1
2i

(a
k
)
f(z)dz
where > 0 is such that

(a
k
) D a
1
, , an.
Theorem (residue theorem):
Let f be holomorphic in a
1
, , a
n
, and D be a bounded simple region in
containing a
1
, , a
n
. Then:

D
f(z)dz =
n

k=1
2iRes
a
k
f
Proof.
I dont have the notes from that day. Im not even sure if the proof was given.

Theorem (residue calculations):

If g is holomorphic on

(a) a and g is continuous on

(a), then Res

a
g(z)
z a
= g(a).
Proof.
There are two cases:
(1) g(a) = 0:
Res
a
g(z)
z a
=
1
2i

(a)
g(z)
z a
dz
21
Then we estimate the integral:

(a)
g(z)dz
z a

sup

(a)

g(z)
z a

2
= sup

(a)
[g(z)[ 2
We know that lim
za
g(z) = 0. So sup

(a)
[g(z)[ 0 as 0. Therefore:

(a)
g(z)dz
z a
0
as 0. But the integral is independent of , so

(a)
g(z)dz
z a
= 0 = g(a)
(2) g(a) ,= 0:
Note that
f(z)
g(a)
z a
=
f(z) g(a)
z a
So by part (1):
Res
a

f(z)
g(a)
z a

= 0
Then:
Res
a
= Res
a
g(a)
z a
=
1
2i

(a)
g(a)dz
z a
=
1
2i

2
0
g(a)
1
e
it
ie
it
dt
= g(a)

Theorem (residue calculation 2):

If g, h are functions holomorphic at a point a, with h(a) = 0, h

(a) ,= 0, then:
Res
a
g
h
=
g(a)
h

(a)
Proof.
No proof yet.
22

Theorem (Cauchy integral formula):

If f is holomorphic in , and D is a bounded simple region with

D , then:
f(z) =
1
2i

D
f()d
z
Proof.
No proof yet.

Lemma (Fourier transform calculation):

Suppose:
(i) f(x) extends to F(z) which is continuous on Im(z) 0 a
1
, , a
k
and
holomorphic on Im(z) > 0 a
1
, , a
k
, where a
i
Im(z) 0.
(ii) lim
|z|
F(z) = 0
Then:

f(x)e
ix
dx = 2i
n

k=1
Res
a
k
(F(z)e
iz
)
Proof.
No proof yet.

5 Power Series
Theorem (power series expansion of holomorphic functions):
Let f be holomorphic on the disc
r
(a). Then f has expansion:
f(z) =

n=0
c
n
(z a)
n
where
c
n
=
1
2i

f()d
( a)
n+1
=
f
(n)
(a)
n!
Proof.
No proof yet.

23
Corollary:
The power series expansion holds in every disc where f is holomorphic. Therefore the
radius of convergence of the power series is the maximum radius of the disc where it
extends to a holomorphic function.
Proof.
This follows immediately from the previous theorem.

Theorem (Laurent series):

Assume that f is holomorphic in the ring/annulus:
r < [z a[ < R
with 0 r < R . Then f has Laurent series expansion
f(z) =

n=
c
n
(z a)
n
for r < [z a[ < R, where
c
n
=
1
2i

|za|=
f()d
( a)
n+1
Proof.
No proof yet.

Denition (pole) :
f(z) has a pole at a if f is holomorphic in
r
(a) a for some r and has a Laurent series
expansion
f(z) =

nN
c
n
(z a)
n
for some N > 0 with c
N
,= 0.
Lemma:
For f(z) =

n=
c
n
(z a)
n
in
r
(a) a
Res
a
f = c
1
Proof.
No proof yet.

24
Denition (order of zero) :
If f has Taylor expansion
f(z) =

n=0
c
n
(z a)
n
then the order of zero of f at a is dened as
ord
f
(a) = minnc
n
,= 0
= minnf
n
(a) ,= 0
If f is the 0 function then ord
f
(a) = . Otherwise ord
f
(a) (something isnt quite
right about this - surely f(z) = c ,= 0 also has order ?).
Theorem (identity principle):
Let f, g be holomorphic in (which is a connected open set). Then if f[
A
= g[
A
where
A is an open set with limit points in (and these limit points are non-isolated), then
f = g in all of .
Proof.
No proof yet.

Lemma (local maximum principle):

If f has a local maximum at a and f is holomorphic near a, then f is constant near a.
Proof.
No proof yet.

Theorem (global maximum principle):

If [f[ has a local maximum in an open subset of an open connected set , then f is
constant in .
Proof.
By the local maximum principle, f is constant in a neighbourhood A of the local max,
which has limit points. Therefore f is constant in by the identity principle.

25