False proof that every continuous function is holomorphic

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
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
For starters, you are assuming $Omega$ to have all segments of the form $[z,z_0]$ for $z, z_0 in Omega$.
â Guido A.
Sep 2 at 21:20
1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
â Alan Muniz
Sep 2 at 21:46
add a comment |Â
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
up vote
14
down vote
favorite
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
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
complex-analysis
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 $z, z_0 in Omega$.
â Guido A.
Sep 2 at 21:20
1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
â Alan Muniz
Sep 2 at 21:46
add a comment |Â
For starters, you are assuming $Omega$ to have all segments of the form $[z,z_0]$ for $z, z_0 in Omega$.
â Guido A.
Sep 2 at 21:20
1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
â Alan Muniz
Sep 2 at 21:46
For starters, you are assuming $Omega$ to have all segments of the form $[z,z_0]$ for $z, z_0 in Omega$.
â Guido A.
Sep 2 at 21:20
For starters, you are assuming $Omega$ to have all segments of the form $[z,z_0]$ for $z, z_0 in Omega$.
â Guido A.
Sep 2 at 21:20
1
1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
â Alan Muniz
Sep 2 at 21:46
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
â Alan Muniz
Sep 2 at 21:46
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
add a comment |Â
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.
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.
answered Sep 2 at 21:18
Pedro Tamaroffâ¦
94.7k10147293
94.7k10147293
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
For starters, you are assuming $Omega$ to have all segments of the form $[z,z_0]$ for $z, z_0 in Omega$.
â Guido A.
Sep 2 at 21:20
1
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morera%27s_theorem
â Alan Muniz
Sep 2 at 21:46