False proof that every continuous function is holomorphic

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











up vote
14
down vote

favorite
1












Let $Omega$ be an open subset of $mathbbC$ and $f:OmegatomathbbC$ be a continuous function. Consider the following function:
$$F(z)=int_[z_0,z]f(w):mathrmdw,$$
where $z_0$ is a fixed complex number.



Firstly I will prove that $F$ is holomorphic.



$$lim_hto 0 fracF(z+h)-F(z)h = lim_hto 0 frac1hleft(int_[z_0,z+h] f(w):mathrmdw - int_[z_0,z] f(w):mathrmdwright)= lim_hto 0 frac1hint_[z,z+h] f(w):mathrmdw= lim_hto 0 int_0^1 f(z+th):mathrmdt= int_0^1 lim_hto 0f(z+th):mathrmdt= f(z)$$



We can pass the limit under the integral sign by the following reason: $[0,1]$ is compact and $f$ is continuous. Hence there exists a real number $M>0$ such that $|f(z+th)|leq M$ for all $tin[0,1]$. This means that we can use the continuity under the (Lebesgue's) integral sign theorem.



Since $F$ is holomorphic and holomorphic functions have derivatives of all orders, $F'=f$ also has derivatives of all orders. In particular, $f$ is holomorphic.



Ok, this is clearly an absurd. However I don't know where is my error.










share|cite|improve this question





















  • For starters, you are assuming $Omega$ to have all segments of the form $[z,z_0]$ for $z, z_0 in Omega$.
    – Guido A.
    Sep 2 at 21:20






  • 1




    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
    – Alan Muniz
    Sep 2 at 21:46














up vote
14
down vote

favorite
1












Let $Omega$ be an open subset of $mathbbC$ and $f:OmegatomathbbC$ be a continuous function. Consider the following function:
$$F(z)=int_[z_0,z]f(w):mathrmdw,$$
where $z_0$ is a fixed complex number.



Firstly I will prove that $F$ is holomorphic.



$$lim_hto 0 fracF(z+h)-F(z)h = lim_hto 0 frac1hleft(int_[z_0,z+h] f(w):mathrmdw - int_[z_0,z] f(w):mathrmdwright)= lim_hto 0 frac1hint_[z,z+h] f(w):mathrmdw= lim_hto 0 int_0^1 f(z+th):mathrmdt= int_0^1 lim_hto 0f(z+th):mathrmdt= f(z)$$



We can pass the limit under the integral sign by the following reason: $[0,1]$ is compact and $f$ is continuous. Hence there exists a real number $M>0$ such that $|f(z+th)|leq M$ for all $tin[0,1]$. This means that we can use the continuity under the (Lebesgue's) integral sign theorem.



Since $F$ is holomorphic and holomorphic functions have derivatives of all orders, $F'=f$ also has derivatives of all orders. In particular, $f$ is holomorphic.



Ok, this is clearly an absurd. However I don't know where is my error.










share|cite|improve this question





















  • For starters, you are assuming $Omega$ to have all segments of the form $[z,z_0]$ for $z, z_0 in Omega$.
    – Guido A.
    Sep 2 at 21:20






  • 1




    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
    – Alan Muniz
    Sep 2 at 21:46












up vote
14
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
14
down vote

favorite
1






1





Let $Omega$ be an open subset of $mathbbC$ and $f:OmegatomathbbC$ be a continuous function. Consider the following function:
$$F(z)=int_[z_0,z]f(w):mathrmdw,$$
where $z_0$ is a fixed complex number.



Firstly I will prove that $F$ is holomorphic.



$$lim_hto 0 fracF(z+h)-F(z)h = lim_hto 0 frac1hleft(int_[z_0,z+h] f(w):mathrmdw - int_[z_0,z] f(w):mathrmdwright)= lim_hto 0 frac1hint_[z,z+h] f(w):mathrmdw= lim_hto 0 int_0^1 f(z+th):mathrmdt= int_0^1 lim_hto 0f(z+th):mathrmdt= f(z)$$



We can pass the limit under the integral sign by the following reason: $[0,1]$ is compact and $f$ is continuous. Hence there exists a real number $M>0$ such that $|f(z+th)|leq M$ for all $tin[0,1]$. This means that we can use the continuity under the (Lebesgue's) integral sign theorem.



Since $F$ is holomorphic and holomorphic functions have derivatives of all orders, $F'=f$ also has derivatives of all orders. In particular, $f$ is holomorphic.



Ok, this is clearly an absurd. However I don't know where is my error.










share|cite|improve this question













Let $Omega$ be an open subset of $mathbbC$ and $f:OmegatomathbbC$ be a continuous function. Consider the following function:
$$F(z)=int_[z_0,z]f(w):mathrmdw,$$
where $z_0$ is a fixed complex number.



Firstly I will prove that $F$ is holomorphic.



$$lim_hto 0 fracF(z+h)-F(z)h = lim_hto 0 frac1hleft(int_[z_0,z+h] f(w):mathrmdw - int_[z_0,z] f(w):mathrmdwright)= lim_hto 0 frac1hint_[z,z+h] f(w):mathrmdw= lim_hto 0 int_0^1 f(z+th):mathrmdt= int_0^1 lim_hto 0f(z+th):mathrmdt= f(z)$$



We can pass the limit under the integral sign by the following reason: $[0,1]$ is compact and $f$ is continuous. Hence there exists a real number $M>0$ such that $|f(z+th)|leq M$ for all $tin[0,1]$. This means that we can use the continuity under the (Lebesgue's) integral sign theorem.



Since $F$ is holomorphic and holomorphic functions have derivatives of all orders, $F'=f$ also has derivatives of all orders. In particular, $f$ is holomorphic.



Ok, this is clearly an absurd. However I don't know where is my error.







complex-analysis






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Sep 2 at 21:12









Gabriel Ribeiro

1,212421




1,212421











  • For starters, you are assuming $Omega$ to have all segments of the form $[z,z_0]$ for $z, z_0 in Omega$.
    – Guido A.
    Sep 2 at 21:20






  • 1




    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
    – Alan Muniz
    Sep 2 at 21:46
















  • For starters, you are assuming $Omega$ to have all segments of the form $[z,z_0]$ for $z, z_0 in Omega$.
    – Guido A.
    Sep 2 at 21:20






  • 1




    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
    – Alan Muniz
    Sep 2 at 21:46















For starters, you are assuming $Omega$ to have all segments of the form $[z,z_0]$ for $z, z_0 in Omega$.
– Guido A.
Sep 2 at 21:20




For starters, you are assuming $Omega$ to have all segments of the form $[z,z_0]$ for $z, z_0 in Omega$.
– Guido A.
Sep 2 at 21:20




1




1




en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
– Alan Muniz
Sep 2 at 21:46




en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
– Alan Muniz
Sep 2 at 21:46










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
25
down vote



accepted










The problem is two-fold. First, $F$ may be not well defined. Even if it is, the step where you replace the integral over $[z_0,z+h]$ minus $[z_0,z]$ by that over $[z,z+h]$, you are assuming $f$ integrates over $0$ over triangles. This condition is known to be equivalent (locally), to being holomorphic. In this case, you are more or less replicating the proof that over convex sets (or more generally star shaped sets), functions that integrate over zero over triangles are integrable.






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',
    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%2f2903224%2ffalse-proof-that-every-continuous-function-is-holomorphic%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
    25
    down vote



    accepted










    The problem is two-fold. First, $F$ may be not well defined. Even if it is, the step where you replace the integral over $[z_0,z+h]$ minus $[z_0,z]$ by that over $[z,z+h]$, you are assuming $f$ integrates over $0$ over triangles. This condition is known to be equivalent (locally), to being holomorphic. In this case, you are more or less replicating the proof that over convex sets (or more generally star shaped sets), functions that integrate over zero over triangles are integrable.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      25
      down vote



      accepted










      The problem is two-fold. First, $F$ may be not well defined. Even if it is, the step where you replace the integral over $[z_0,z+h]$ minus $[z_0,z]$ by that over $[z,z+h]$, you are assuming $f$ integrates over $0$ over triangles. This condition is known to be equivalent (locally), to being holomorphic. In this case, you are more or less replicating the proof that over convex sets (or more generally star shaped sets), functions that integrate over zero over triangles are integrable.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        25
        down vote



        accepted







        up vote
        25
        down vote



        accepted






        The problem is two-fold. First, $F$ may be not well defined. Even if it is, the step where you replace the integral over $[z_0,z+h]$ minus $[z_0,z]$ by that over $[z,z+h]$, you are assuming $f$ integrates over $0$ over triangles. This condition is known to be equivalent (locally), to being holomorphic. In this case, you are more or less replicating the proof that over convex sets (or more generally star shaped sets), functions that integrate over zero over triangles are integrable.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        The problem is two-fold. First, $F$ may be not well defined. Even if it is, the step where you replace the integral over $[z_0,z+h]$ minus $[z_0,z]$ by that over $[z,z+h]$, you are assuming $f$ integrates over $0$ over triangles. This condition is known to be equivalent (locally), to being holomorphic. In this case, you are more or less replicating the proof that over convex sets (or more generally star shaped sets), functions that integrate over zero over triangles are integrable.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Sep 2 at 21:18









        Pedro Tamaroff♦

        94.7k10147293




        94.7k10147293



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2903224%2ffalse-proof-that-every-continuous-function-is-holomorphic%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            Popular posts from this blog

            Peggy Mitchell

            Palaiologos

            The Forum (Inglewood, California)