If $f$ is holomorphic on a domain $D$, and satisfies $aoperatorname{Re}(f(z))+boperatorname{Im}(f(z))=c$ for...












4














The proposition that I am required to prove is the following




Let $D subset mathbb{C}$ be a domain and suppose $f(x, y)=u(x,
y)+iv(x, y)$ is holomorphic on $D$. Let $a, b, cin mathbb{R}$ such
that $a^2+b^2>0$ and $$au(x, y)+bv(x, y)=c quad forall z=(x, y)in D$$



Prove $f$ is constant




I will write $u(x, y)$ as $u$ in short, and similarly for $v(x, y)$.
My attempt is as follows:
Since f is holomorphic we have:
$$dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial v}{partial y}qquad dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}$$
If $a=0neq b$, then $bv=c implies v=Kinmathbb{R}$



$$implies dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial v}{partial y}=dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$$
$$implies f'(z)=0 quad forall zin D$$
Similarly for $aneq 0=b$
Now the remaining case to check is if $aneq 0neq b$



Taking partial derivatives both sides of the given relation we get:



$$adfrac{partial u}{partial x}+bdfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$$
$$implies dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{b}{a}bigg(-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}bigg)=dfrac{b}{a}dfrac{partial u}{partial y}$$
Similarly taking partial derivatives w.r.t $y$ we get:
$$dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=-dfrac{a}{b}dfrac{partial u}{partial y}$$
$$implies dfrac{a}{b}=dfrac{-b}{a}$$
$$implies a^2+b^2=0$$
This is a contradiction, so it is not possible that $aneq 0neq b$. Therefore for all possible values of $a$ and $b$, the function $f$ is constant.






complex-analysis proof-verification holomorphic-functions







share|cite|improve this question





























    4














    The proposition that I am required to prove is the following




    Let $D subset mathbb{C}$ be a domain and suppose $f(x, y)=u(x,
    y)+iv(x, y)$     is holomorphic on $D$. Let $a, b, cin mathbb{R}$ such
    that $a^2+b^2>0$ and $$au(x, y)+bv(x, y)=c quad forall z=(x, y)in D$$



    Prove $f$ is constant




    I will write $u(x, y)$ as $u$ in short, and similarly for $v(x, y)$.
    My attempt is as follows:
    Since f is holomorphic we have:
    $$dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial v}{partial y}qquad dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}$$
    If $a=0neq b$, then $bv=c implies v=Kinmathbb{R}$



    $$implies dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial v}{partial y}=dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$$
    $$implies f'(z)=0 quad forall zin D$$
    Similarly for $aneq 0=b$
    Now the remaining case to check is if $aneq 0neq b$



    Taking partial derivatives both sides of the given relation we get:



    $$adfrac{partial u}{partial x}+bdfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$$
    $$implies dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{b}{a}bigg(-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}bigg)=dfrac{b}{a}dfrac{partial u}{partial y}$$
    Similarly taking partial derivatives w.r.t $y$ we get:
    $$dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=-dfrac{a}{b}dfrac{partial u}{partial y}$$
    $$implies dfrac{a}{b}=dfrac{-b}{a}$$
    $$implies a^2+b^2=0$$
    This is a contradiction, so it is not possible that $aneq 0neq b$. Therefore for all possible values of $a$ and $b$, the function $f$ is constant.






    complex-analysis proof-verification holomorphic-functions







    share|cite|improve this question



























      4












      4








      4







      The proposition that I am required to prove is the following




      Let $D subset mathbb{C}$ be a domain and suppose $f(x, y)=u(x,
      y)+iv(x, y)$       is holomorphic on $D$. Let $a, b, cin mathbb{R}$ such
      that $a^2+b^2>0$ and $$au(x, y)+bv(x, y)=c quad forall z=(x, y)in D$$



      Prove $f$ is constant




      I will write $u(x, y)$ as $u$ in short, and similarly for $v(x, y)$.
      My attempt is as follows:
      Since f is holomorphic we have:
      $$dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial v}{partial y}qquad dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}$$
      If $a=0neq b$, then $bv=c implies v=Kinmathbb{R}$



      $$implies dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial v}{partial y}=dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$$
      $$implies f'(z)=0 quad forall zin D$$
      Similarly for $aneq 0=b$
      Now the remaining case to check is if $aneq 0neq b$



      Taking partial derivatives both sides of the given relation we get:



      $$adfrac{partial u}{partial x}+bdfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$$
      $$implies dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{b}{a}bigg(-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}bigg)=dfrac{b}{a}dfrac{partial u}{partial y}$$
      Similarly taking partial derivatives w.r.t $y$ we get:
      $$dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=-dfrac{a}{b}dfrac{partial u}{partial y}$$
      $$implies dfrac{a}{b}=dfrac{-b}{a}$$
      $$implies a^2+b^2=0$$
      This is a contradiction, so it is not possible that $aneq 0neq b$. Therefore for all possible values of $a$ and $b$, the function $f$ is constant.






      complex-analysis proof-verification holomorphic-functions







      share|cite|improve this question















      The proposition that I am required to prove is the following




      Let $D subset mathbb{C}$ be a domain and suppose $f(x, y)=u(x,
      y)+iv(x, y)$       is holomorphic on $D$. Let $a, b, cin mathbb{R}$ such
      that $a^2+b^2>0$ and $$au(x, y)+bv(x, y)=c quad forall z=(x, y)in D$$



      Prove $f$ is constant




      I will write $u(x, y)$ as $u$ in short, and similarly for $v(x, y)$.
      My attempt is as follows:
      Since f is holomorphic we have:
      $$dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial v}{partial y}qquad dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}$$
      If $a=0neq b$, then $bv=c implies v=Kinmathbb{R}$



      $$implies dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial v}{partial y}=dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$$
      $$implies f'(z)=0 quad forall zin D$$
      Similarly for $aneq 0=b$
      Now the remaining case to check is if $aneq 0neq b$



      Taking partial derivatives both sides of the given relation we get:



      $$adfrac{partial u}{partial x}+bdfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$$
      $$implies dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{b}{a}bigg(-dfrac{partial v}{partial x}bigg)=dfrac{b}{a}dfrac{partial u}{partial y}$$
      Similarly taking partial derivatives w.r.t $y$ we get:
      $$dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=-dfrac{a}{b}dfrac{partial u}{partial y}$$
      $$implies dfrac{a}{b}=dfrac{-b}{a}$$
      $$implies a^2+b^2=0$$
      This is a contradiction, so it is not possible that $aneq 0neq b$. Therefore for all possible values of $a$ and $b$, the function $f$ is constant.






      complex-analysis proof-verification holomorphic-functions




      complex-analysis proof-verification holomorphic-functions






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Dec 2 '18 at 9:32









      Asaf Karagila♦

      301k32424755




      301k32424755










      asked Dec 2 '18 at 8:33









      Dylan Zammit

      8681416




      8681416






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4














          Yes, it is correct.



          Note that, after having proved it for the case in which $a=0$ or $b=0$, you could use that to prove it in the general case, since$$au+bv=operatorname{Re}bigl((a-bi)(u+vibigr).$$






          share|cite|improve this answer



















          • 2




            Interesting observation, Thanks!
            – Dylan Zammit
            Dec 2 '18 at 8:41



















          1














          In the case $a ne 0 ne b$ you obtained the identities
          $$
          frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac ba frac{partial u}{partial y} \
          frac{partial u}{partial x} = -frac ab frac{partial u}{partial y}
          $$
          At that point you should conclude that
          $ frac{a}{b}=frac{-b}{a}$ or $frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0$. The first case leads to a contradiction, therefore $f'(z)=0$.




          You don't have to consider the cases $a=0$ or $b=0$ separately if you proceed
          as follows: Differentiating with respect to $x$ gives



          $$
          afrac{partial u}{partial x}+bfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0
          $$



          Differentiating with respect to $y$ and applying the Cauchy-Riemann
          equations gives
          $$
          bfrac{partial u}{partial x}-afrac{partial v}{partial x}=0
          $$



          That is a linear equation system, and its coefficient determinant is $-a^2-b^2 ne 0$. It follows that it only has the trivial solution
          $$
          frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0
          $$






          share|cite|improve this answer























            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',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            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%2f3022402%2fif-f-is-holomorphic-on-a-domain-d-and-satisfies-a-operatornamerefzb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            4














            Yes, it is correct.



            Note that, after having proved it for the case in which $a=0$ or $b=0$, you could use that to prove it in the general case, since$$au+bv=operatorname{Re}bigl((a-bi)(u+vibigr).$$






            share|cite|improve this answer



















            • 2




              Interesting observation, Thanks!
              – Dylan Zammit
              Dec 2 '18 at 8:41
















            4














            Yes, it is correct.



            Note that, after having proved it for the case in which $a=0$ or $b=0$, you could use that to prove it in the general case, since$$au+bv=operatorname{Re}bigl((a-bi)(u+vibigr).$$






            share|cite|improve this answer



















            • 2




              Interesting observation, Thanks!
              – Dylan Zammit
              Dec 2 '18 at 8:41














            4












            4








            4






            Yes, it is correct.



            Note that, after having proved it for the case in which $a=0$ or $b=0$, you could use that to prove it in the general case, since$$au+bv=operatorname{Re}bigl((a-bi)(u+vibigr).$$






            share|cite|improve this answer














            Yes, it is correct.



            Note that, after having proved it for the case in which $a=0$ or $b=0$, you could use that to prove it in the general case, since$$au+bv=operatorname{Re}bigl((a-bi)(u+vibigr).$$







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Dec 2 '18 at 14:22

























            answered Dec 2 '18 at 8:39









            José Carlos Santos

            150k22121221




            150k22121221








            • 2




              Interesting observation, Thanks!
              – Dylan Zammit
              Dec 2 '18 at 8:41














            • 2




              Interesting observation, Thanks!
              – Dylan Zammit
              Dec 2 '18 at 8:41








            2




            2




            Interesting observation, Thanks!
            – Dylan Zammit
            Dec 2 '18 at 8:41




            Interesting observation, Thanks!
            – Dylan Zammit
            Dec 2 '18 at 8:41











            1














            In the case $a ne 0 ne b$ you obtained the identities
            $$
            frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac ba frac{partial u}{partial y} \
            frac{partial u}{partial x} = -frac ab frac{partial u}{partial y}
            $$
            At that point you should conclude that
            $ frac{a}{b}=frac{-b}{a}$ or $frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0$. The first case leads to a contradiction, therefore $f'(z)=0$.




            You don't have to consider the cases $a=0$ or $b=0$ separately if you proceed
            as follows: Differentiating with respect to $x$ gives



            $$
            afrac{partial u}{partial x}+bfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0
            $$



            Differentiating with respect to $y$ and applying the Cauchy-Riemann
            equations gives
            $$
            bfrac{partial u}{partial x}-afrac{partial v}{partial x}=0
            $$



            That is a linear equation system, and its coefficient determinant is $-a^2-b^2 ne 0$. It follows that it only has the trivial solution
            $$
            frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0
            $$






            share|cite|improve this answer




























              1














              In the case $a ne 0 ne b$ you obtained the identities
              $$
              frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac ba frac{partial u}{partial y} \
              frac{partial u}{partial x} = -frac ab frac{partial u}{partial y}
              $$
              At that point you should conclude that
              $ frac{a}{b}=frac{-b}{a}$ or $frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0$. The first case leads to a contradiction, therefore $f'(z)=0$.




              You don't have to consider the cases $a=0$ or $b=0$ separately if you proceed
              as follows: Differentiating with respect to $x$ gives



              $$
              afrac{partial u}{partial x}+bfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0
              $$



              Differentiating with respect to $y$ and applying the Cauchy-Riemann
              equations gives
              $$
              bfrac{partial u}{partial x}-afrac{partial v}{partial x}=0
              $$



              That is a linear equation system, and its coefficient determinant is $-a^2-b^2 ne 0$. It follows that it only has the trivial solution
              $$
              frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0
              $$






              share|cite|improve this answer


























                1












                1








                1






                In the case $a ne 0 ne b$ you obtained the identities
                $$
                frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac ba frac{partial u}{partial y} \
                frac{partial u}{partial x} = -frac ab frac{partial u}{partial y}
                $$
                At that point you should conclude that
                $ frac{a}{b}=frac{-b}{a}$ or $frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0$. The first case leads to a contradiction, therefore $f'(z)=0$.




                You don't have to consider the cases $a=0$ or $b=0$ separately if you proceed
                as follows: Differentiating with respect to $x$ gives



                $$
                afrac{partial u}{partial x}+bfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0
                $$



                Differentiating with respect to $y$ and applying the Cauchy-Riemann
                equations gives
                $$
                bfrac{partial u}{partial x}-afrac{partial v}{partial x}=0
                $$



                That is a linear equation system, and its coefficient determinant is $-a^2-b^2 ne 0$. It follows that it only has the trivial solution
                $$
                frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0
                $$






                share|cite|improve this answer














                In the case $a ne 0 ne b$ you obtained the identities
                $$
                frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac ba frac{partial u}{partial y} \
                frac{partial u}{partial x} = -frac ab frac{partial u}{partial y}
                $$
                At that point you should conclude that
                $ frac{a}{b}=frac{-b}{a}$ or $frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0$. The first case leads to a contradiction, therefore $f'(z)=0$.




                You don't have to consider the cases $a=0$ or $b=0$ separately if you proceed
                as follows: Differentiating with respect to $x$ gives



                $$
                afrac{partial u}{partial x}+bfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0
                $$



                Differentiating with respect to $y$ and applying the Cauchy-Riemann
                equations gives
                $$
                bfrac{partial u}{partial x}-afrac{partial v}{partial x}=0
                $$



                That is a linear equation system, and its coefficient determinant is $-a^2-b^2 ne 0$. It follows that it only has the trivial solution
                $$
                frac{partial u}{partial x} = frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0
                $$







                share|cite|improve this answer














                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer








                edited Dec 2 '18 at 9:00

























                answered Dec 2 '18 at 8:48









                Martin R

                27k33252




                27k33252






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3022402%2fif-f-is-holomorphic-on-a-domain-d-and-satisfies-a-operatornamerefzb%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    AnyDesk - Fatal Program Failure

                    Image
                    up vote 0 down vote favorite Good day all. I have a window that pops up saying Fatal Program Failure (AnyDesk). This is what I have done so far: Uninstalled AnyDesk and reinstalled it. ( The window still appeared ) I disabled AnyDesk start up in Msconfig and the window seems to have disapeared. Lastly I made sure that AnyDesk worked by remoting into it, and it worked. Today the same window appeared. How do I get rid of this window? remote-desktop share | improve this question edited 10 hours ago Tomasz Jakub Rup 552 3 13 ...
                    Read more

                    How to calibrate 16:9 built-in touch-screen to a 4:3 resolution?

                    Image
                    up vote 0 down vote favorite I need help with an issue we're facing in a project where we are moving from a Windows-based POS environment to one running on CentOS7. The problem consists of a number of factors, please find the details below: The supplier of our POS application will only deliver an application that is hard-coded to run in a 1024:768 4:3 format. The hardware we are using is a POS unit from HP that has a built-in 16:9 touch-screen. The employees using this solution is not supposed to see nor have access to anything but the POS application. Our sales organization demands that touch is an available feature when going live with the new POS environment. Going further into this, allow me to explain what we have encountered on the way trying to achieve the goal of having a touch-screen: We've simply change...
                    Read more

                    QoS: MAC-Priority for clients behind a repeater

                    Image
                    1 1 I've setup a wireless network using a Linksys-Router (DD-WRT) as an AP and a TP-Link repeater for range extension. To manage bandwith for specific users, I've setup QoS-Rules on the AP (DD-WRT) using MAC-Priority: However the AP shows only the Repeater's MAC and the MACs of users inside the AP-Range. The MAC addresses of users behind the Repeater are not listed : The purple MAC is not listed in the AP-Clientlist. Its related to a device connected via the TP-Link repeater. Q: How can I setup MAC-Priority for repeater-clients? Do I simply add the purple MAC in AP-MAC priority list although it's not listed as a client? I want to setup specific priority instead of giving one priority for all clients behind the repeater by adding the repeater's MAC in the MAC priority list in the AP as ...
                    Read more