Does Cauchy's theorem's hold if we only assume boundedness?












4














Let $f$ be a function $mathbb C to mathbb C$. I am not assuming $f$ is analytic on $mathbb C$, so Cauchy-Goursat does not apply.



Suppose $gamma$ is a simple closed contour, and suppose that the region $D = {rm int}(gamma) cup gamma$ can be approximated arbitrarily by little squares of arbitrarily small size. I would like to know whether $oint_gamma f = 0$, under the assumption that $f$ is continuous and bounded on $D$.



I believe the answer is yes. Since the integral around $gamma$ is equivalent to adding up the integrals from all the small squares, it is sufficient to show that the integral around the small squares approaches zero, which trivially follows from the Cauchy ML-inequality if $f$ is bounded on $D$.



Is this correct? So there is no need to assume analyticity if a continuous function is bounded?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 3




    The trouble is that the integral of a continuous non-analytic function over a loop can be nonzero. Simple example: $f(z)=overline z$ over the unit circle with centre $0$.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    I do not really get your argumentation. Let's try to repeat it for the interval $[a,b]$ on the line. An integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ is the sum of integrals over tiny intervals, and since any such integral approaches zero, the total integral is zero for any continuous function $f$. Right?
    – A.Γ.
    3 hours ago


















4














Let $f$ be a function $mathbb C to mathbb C$. I am not assuming $f$ is analytic on $mathbb C$, so Cauchy-Goursat does not apply.



Suppose $gamma$ is a simple closed contour, and suppose that the region $D = {rm int}(gamma) cup gamma$ can be approximated arbitrarily by little squares of arbitrarily small size. I would like to know whether $oint_gamma f = 0$, under the assumption that $f$ is continuous and bounded on $D$.



I believe the answer is yes. Since the integral around $gamma$ is equivalent to adding up the integrals from all the small squares, it is sufficient to show that the integral around the small squares approaches zero, which trivially follows from the Cauchy ML-inequality if $f$ is bounded on $D$.



Is this correct? So there is no need to assume analyticity if a continuous function is bounded?










share|cite|improve this question




















  • 3




    The trouble is that the integral of a continuous non-analytic function over a loop can be nonzero. Simple example: $f(z)=overline z$ over the unit circle with centre $0$.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    I do not really get your argumentation. Let's try to repeat it for the interval $[a,b]$ on the line. An integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ is the sum of integrals over tiny intervals, and since any such integral approaches zero, the total integral is zero for any continuous function $f$. Right?
    – A.Γ.
    3 hours ago
















4












4








4


1





Let $f$ be a function $mathbb C to mathbb C$. I am not assuming $f$ is analytic on $mathbb C$, so Cauchy-Goursat does not apply.



Suppose $gamma$ is a simple closed contour, and suppose that the region $D = {rm int}(gamma) cup gamma$ can be approximated arbitrarily by little squares of arbitrarily small size. I would like to know whether $oint_gamma f = 0$, under the assumption that $f$ is continuous and bounded on $D$.



I believe the answer is yes. Since the integral around $gamma$ is equivalent to adding up the integrals from all the small squares, it is sufficient to show that the integral around the small squares approaches zero, which trivially follows from the Cauchy ML-inequality if $f$ is bounded on $D$.



Is this correct? So there is no need to assume analyticity if a continuous function is bounded?










share|cite|improve this question















Let $f$ be a function $mathbb C to mathbb C$. I am not assuming $f$ is analytic on $mathbb C$, so Cauchy-Goursat does not apply.



Suppose $gamma$ is a simple closed contour, and suppose that the region $D = {rm int}(gamma) cup gamma$ can be approximated arbitrarily by little squares of arbitrarily small size. I would like to know whether $oint_gamma f = 0$, under the assumption that $f$ is continuous and bounded on $D$.



I believe the answer is yes. Since the integral around $gamma$ is equivalent to adding up the integrals from all the small squares, it is sufficient to show that the integral around the small squares approaches zero, which trivially follows from the Cauchy ML-inequality if $f$ is bounded on $D$.



Is this correct? So there is no need to assume analyticity if a continuous function is bounded?







complex-analysis






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited 1 hour ago









Kenny Wong

17.5k21236




17.5k21236










asked 4 hours ago









Auburn

552313




552313








  • 3




    The trouble is that the integral of a continuous non-analytic function over a loop can be nonzero. Simple example: $f(z)=overline z$ over the unit circle with centre $0$.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    I do not really get your argumentation. Let's try to repeat it for the interval $[a,b]$ on the line. An integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ is the sum of integrals over tiny intervals, and since any such integral approaches zero, the total integral is zero for any continuous function $f$. Right?
    – A.Γ.
    3 hours ago
















  • 3




    The trouble is that the integral of a continuous non-analytic function over a loop can be nonzero. Simple example: $f(z)=overline z$ over the unit circle with centre $0$.
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    3 hours ago






  • 3




    I do not really get your argumentation. Let's try to repeat it for the interval $[a,b]$ on the line. An integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ is the sum of integrals over tiny intervals, and since any such integral approaches zero, the total integral is zero for any continuous function $f$. Right?
    – A.Γ.
    3 hours ago










3




3




The trouble is that the integral of a continuous non-analytic function over a loop can be nonzero. Simple example: $f(z)=overline z$ over the unit circle with centre $0$.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
3 hours ago




The trouble is that the integral of a continuous non-analytic function over a loop can be nonzero. Simple example: $f(z)=overline z$ over the unit circle with centre $0$.
– Lord Shark the Unknown
3 hours ago




3




3




I do not really get your argumentation. Let's try to repeat it for the interval $[a,b]$ on the line. An integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ is the sum of integrals over tiny intervals, and since any such integral approaches zero, the total integral is zero for any continuous function $f$. Right?
– A.Γ.
3 hours ago






I do not really get your argumentation. Let's try to repeat it for the interval $[a,b]$ on the line. An integral $int_a^b f(x),dx$ is the sum of integrals over tiny intervals, and since any such integral approaches zero, the total integral is zero for any continuous function $f$. Right?
– A.Γ.
3 hours ago












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















5














It's true that, as the square size approaches zero, the contributions from the individual squares tend to zero. But as the square size approaches zero, the number of squares tends towards infinity! For your argument to work, you need some sort of guarantee that the rate at which the integrals on the individual squares are getting smaller is sufficient to offset the rate at which the number of squares is getting bigger. This is where we require holomorphicity, rather than just boundedness.



For a different perspective on this, let's try and construct a rigorous proof in the special case where the original contour $C$ is one big square of width $L$. Although this isn't the most general case, it's good enough for the purposes of identifying where the proof breaks down.



So let's assume $$ left| oint_{C} dz f(z) right| = epsilon.$$
for some positive $epsilon > 0$. We want to derive a contradiction from this assumption.



Well, if the modulus of the integral of $f$ around $C$ is $epsilon$, then, subdividing the big square into quarters to create four mini-squares of width $L/2$, we see that the modulus of the integral of $f$ on at least one of these four squares must be greater than or equal to $epsilon / 4$. Continuing subdividing in this way, we see that, for any $n geq 0$, there exists some square $C_n$ of width $L/2^n$ such that



$$ left| oint_{C_n} dz f(z) right| geq frac{epsilon}{4^n}.$$



Does this lead to a contradiction? Not if we only assume that $f$ is bounded. With $|f(z) | leq M$ (say), the ML inequality gives



$$ left| oint_{C_n} dz f(z)right| leq 4 times frac{L}{2^n} times M,$$
and there is no contradiction. Yes, the ML inequality tells us that the $oint_{C_n} dz f(z) to 0$ as $n to infty$. But $oint_{C_n} dz f(z)$ does not get smaller at a fast enough rate.



If we make the stronger assumption that $f$ is holomorphic, then we can get a tighter bound on the sizes of these integrals, one which does lead to a contradiction. Let $a$ be the (unique) point contained inside all of the squares $C_n$. Since $f$ is differentiable at $a$, we have



$$ f(z) = f(a) + f'(a)(z - a) + v_a(z)(z - a),$$



where $v_a(z)$ is some function that tends to zero as $z to a$. There must therefore exist some $n geq 0$ such that $|v_a(z)| < frac epsilon {4L^2}$ on $C_n$, and hence $|v_a (z) (z - a)| < frac epsilon {4L^2} times frac{L}{2^n}$ on $C_n$. Applying the ML inequality now, and remembering that the integral of the linear function $f(a) + f'(a)(z - a)$ around any closed contour is zero, we get the tighter bound,



$$ left| oint dz f(z) right| = left| oint dz v_a(z)(z - a)right| < 4 times frac{L}{2^n} times frac epsilon {4L^2} times frac{L}{2^n} = frac{epsilon}{4^n}.$$



This bound, obtained by assuming holomorphicity, is much tighter than the bound we got from assuming boundedness alone, and it is tight enough to derive a contradiction.






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%2f3058076%2fdoes-cauchys-theorems-hold-if-we-only-assume-boundedness%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    5














    It's true that, as the square size approaches zero, the contributions from the individual squares tend to zero. But as the square size approaches zero, the number of squares tends towards infinity! For your argument to work, you need some sort of guarantee that the rate at which the integrals on the individual squares are getting smaller is sufficient to offset the rate at which the number of squares is getting bigger. This is where we require holomorphicity, rather than just boundedness.



    For a different perspective on this, let's try and construct a rigorous proof in the special case where the original contour $C$ is one big square of width $L$. Although this isn't the most general case, it's good enough for the purposes of identifying where the proof breaks down.



    So let's assume $$ left| oint_{C} dz f(z) right| = epsilon.$$
    for some positive $epsilon > 0$. We want to derive a contradiction from this assumption.



    Well, if the modulus of the integral of $f$ around $C$ is $epsilon$, then, subdividing the big square into quarters to create four mini-squares of width $L/2$, we see that the modulus of the integral of $f$ on at least one of these four squares must be greater than or equal to $epsilon / 4$. Continuing subdividing in this way, we see that, for any $n geq 0$, there exists some square $C_n$ of width $L/2^n$ such that



    $$ left| oint_{C_n} dz f(z) right| geq frac{epsilon}{4^n}.$$



    Does this lead to a contradiction? Not if we only assume that $f$ is bounded. With $|f(z) | leq M$ (say), the ML inequality gives



    $$ left| oint_{C_n} dz f(z)right| leq 4 times frac{L}{2^n} times M,$$
    and there is no contradiction. Yes, the ML inequality tells us that the $oint_{C_n} dz f(z) to 0$ as $n to infty$. But $oint_{C_n} dz f(z)$ does not get smaller at a fast enough rate.



    If we make the stronger assumption that $f$ is holomorphic, then we can get a tighter bound on the sizes of these integrals, one which does lead to a contradiction. Let $a$ be the (unique) point contained inside all of the squares $C_n$. Since $f$ is differentiable at $a$, we have



    $$ f(z) = f(a) + f'(a)(z - a) + v_a(z)(z - a),$$



    where $v_a(z)$ is some function that tends to zero as $z to a$. There must therefore exist some $n geq 0$ such that $|v_a(z)| < frac epsilon {4L^2}$ on $C_n$, and hence $|v_a (z) (z - a)| < frac epsilon {4L^2} times frac{L}{2^n}$ on $C_n$. Applying the ML inequality now, and remembering that the integral of the linear function $f(a) + f'(a)(z - a)$ around any closed contour is zero, we get the tighter bound,



    $$ left| oint dz f(z) right| = left| oint dz v_a(z)(z - a)right| < 4 times frac{L}{2^n} times frac epsilon {4L^2} times frac{L}{2^n} = frac{epsilon}{4^n}.$$



    This bound, obtained by assuming holomorphicity, is much tighter than the bound we got from assuming boundedness alone, and it is tight enough to derive a contradiction.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      5














      It's true that, as the square size approaches zero, the contributions from the individual squares tend to zero. But as the square size approaches zero, the number of squares tends towards infinity! For your argument to work, you need some sort of guarantee that the rate at which the integrals on the individual squares are getting smaller is sufficient to offset the rate at which the number of squares is getting bigger. This is where we require holomorphicity, rather than just boundedness.



      For a different perspective on this, let's try and construct a rigorous proof in the special case where the original contour $C$ is one big square of width $L$. Although this isn't the most general case, it's good enough for the purposes of identifying where the proof breaks down.



      So let's assume $$ left| oint_{C} dz f(z) right| = epsilon.$$
      for some positive $epsilon > 0$. We want to derive a contradiction from this assumption.



      Well, if the modulus of the integral of $f$ around $C$ is $epsilon$, then, subdividing the big square into quarters to create four mini-squares of width $L/2$, we see that the modulus of the integral of $f$ on at least one of these four squares must be greater than or equal to $epsilon / 4$. Continuing subdividing in this way, we see that, for any $n geq 0$, there exists some square $C_n$ of width $L/2^n$ such that



      $$ left| oint_{C_n} dz f(z) right| geq frac{epsilon}{4^n}.$$



      Does this lead to a contradiction? Not if we only assume that $f$ is bounded. With $|f(z) | leq M$ (say), the ML inequality gives



      $$ left| oint_{C_n} dz f(z)right| leq 4 times frac{L}{2^n} times M,$$
      and there is no contradiction. Yes, the ML inequality tells us that the $oint_{C_n} dz f(z) to 0$ as $n to infty$. But $oint_{C_n} dz f(z)$ does not get smaller at a fast enough rate.



      If we make the stronger assumption that $f$ is holomorphic, then we can get a tighter bound on the sizes of these integrals, one which does lead to a contradiction. Let $a$ be the (unique) point contained inside all of the squares $C_n$. Since $f$ is differentiable at $a$, we have



      $$ f(z) = f(a) + f'(a)(z - a) + v_a(z)(z - a),$$



      where $v_a(z)$ is some function that tends to zero as $z to a$. There must therefore exist some $n geq 0$ such that $|v_a(z)| < frac epsilon {4L^2}$ on $C_n$, and hence $|v_a (z) (z - a)| < frac epsilon {4L^2} times frac{L}{2^n}$ on $C_n$. Applying the ML inequality now, and remembering that the integral of the linear function $f(a) + f'(a)(z - a)$ around any closed contour is zero, we get the tighter bound,



      $$ left| oint dz f(z) right| = left| oint dz v_a(z)(z - a)right| < 4 times frac{L}{2^n} times frac epsilon {4L^2} times frac{L}{2^n} = frac{epsilon}{4^n}.$$



      This bound, obtained by assuming holomorphicity, is much tighter than the bound we got from assuming boundedness alone, and it is tight enough to derive a contradiction.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        5












        5








        5






        It's true that, as the square size approaches zero, the contributions from the individual squares tend to zero. But as the square size approaches zero, the number of squares tends towards infinity! For your argument to work, you need some sort of guarantee that the rate at which the integrals on the individual squares are getting smaller is sufficient to offset the rate at which the number of squares is getting bigger. This is where we require holomorphicity, rather than just boundedness.



        For a different perspective on this, let's try and construct a rigorous proof in the special case where the original contour $C$ is one big square of width $L$. Although this isn't the most general case, it's good enough for the purposes of identifying where the proof breaks down.



        So let's assume $$ left| oint_{C} dz f(z) right| = epsilon.$$
        for some positive $epsilon > 0$. We want to derive a contradiction from this assumption.



        Well, if the modulus of the integral of $f$ around $C$ is $epsilon$, then, subdividing the big square into quarters to create four mini-squares of width $L/2$, we see that the modulus of the integral of $f$ on at least one of these four squares must be greater than or equal to $epsilon / 4$. Continuing subdividing in this way, we see that, for any $n geq 0$, there exists some square $C_n$ of width $L/2^n$ such that



        $$ left| oint_{C_n} dz f(z) right| geq frac{epsilon}{4^n}.$$



        Does this lead to a contradiction? Not if we only assume that $f$ is bounded. With $|f(z) | leq M$ (say), the ML inequality gives



        $$ left| oint_{C_n} dz f(z)right| leq 4 times frac{L}{2^n} times M,$$
        and there is no contradiction. Yes, the ML inequality tells us that the $oint_{C_n} dz f(z) to 0$ as $n to infty$. But $oint_{C_n} dz f(z)$ does not get smaller at a fast enough rate.



        If we make the stronger assumption that $f$ is holomorphic, then we can get a tighter bound on the sizes of these integrals, one which does lead to a contradiction. Let $a$ be the (unique) point contained inside all of the squares $C_n$. Since $f$ is differentiable at $a$, we have



        $$ f(z) = f(a) + f'(a)(z - a) + v_a(z)(z - a),$$



        where $v_a(z)$ is some function that tends to zero as $z to a$. There must therefore exist some $n geq 0$ such that $|v_a(z)| < frac epsilon {4L^2}$ on $C_n$, and hence $|v_a (z) (z - a)| < frac epsilon {4L^2} times frac{L}{2^n}$ on $C_n$. Applying the ML inequality now, and remembering that the integral of the linear function $f(a) + f'(a)(z - a)$ around any closed contour is zero, we get the tighter bound,



        $$ left| oint dz f(z) right| = left| oint dz v_a(z)(z - a)right| < 4 times frac{L}{2^n} times frac epsilon {4L^2} times frac{L}{2^n} = frac{epsilon}{4^n}.$$



        This bound, obtained by assuming holomorphicity, is much tighter than the bound we got from assuming boundedness alone, and it is tight enough to derive a contradiction.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        It's true that, as the square size approaches zero, the contributions from the individual squares tend to zero. But as the square size approaches zero, the number of squares tends towards infinity! For your argument to work, you need some sort of guarantee that the rate at which the integrals on the individual squares are getting smaller is sufficient to offset the rate at which the number of squares is getting bigger. This is where we require holomorphicity, rather than just boundedness.



        For a different perspective on this, let's try and construct a rigorous proof in the special case where the original contour $C$ is one big square of width $L$. Although this isn't the most general case, it's good enough for the purposes of identifying where the proof breaks down.



        So let's assume $$ left| oint_{C} dz f(z) right| = epsilon.$$
        for some positive $epsilon > 0$. We want to derive a contradiction from this assumption.



        Well, if the modulus of the integral of $f$ around $C$ is $epsilon$, then, subdividing the big square into quarters to create four mini-squares of width $L/2$, we see that the modulus of the integral of $f$ on at least one of these four squares must be greater than or equal to $epsilon / 4$. Continuing subdividing in this way, we see that, for any $n geq 0$, there exists some square $C_n$ of width $L/2^n$ such that



        $$ left| oint_{C_n} dz f(z) right| geq frac{epsilon}{4^n}.$$



        Does this lead to a contradiction? Not if we only assume that $f$ is bounded. With $|f(z) | leq M$ (say), the ML inequality gives



        $$ left| oint_{C_n} dz f(z)right| leq 4 times frac{L}{2^n} times M,$$
        and there is no contradiction. Yes, the ML inequality tells us that the $oint_{C_n} dz f(z) to 0$ as $n to infty$. But $oint_{C_n} dz f(z)$ does not get smaller at a fast enough rate.



        If we make the stronger assumption that $f$ is holomorphic, then we can get a tighter bound on the sizes of these integrals, one which does lead to a contradiction. Let $a$ be the (unique) point contained inside all of the squares $C_n$. Since $f$ is differentiable at $a$, we have



        $$ f(z) = f(a) + f'(a)(z - a) + v_a(z)(z - a),$$



        where $v_a(z)$ is some function that tends to zero as $z to a$. There must therefore exist some $n geq 0$ such that $|v_a(z)| < frac epsilon {4L^2}$ on $C_n$, and hence $|v_a (z) (z - a)| < frac epsilon {4L^2} times frac{L}{2^n}$ on $C_n$. Applying the ML inequality now, and remembering that the integral of the linear function $f(a) + f'(a)(z - a)$ around any closed contour is zero, we get the tighter bound,



        $$ left| oint dz f(z) right| = left| oint dz v_a(z)(z - a)right| < 4 times frac{L}{2^n} times frac epsilon {4L^2} times frac{L}{2^n} = frac{epsilon}{4^n}.$$



        This bound, obtained by assuming holomorphicity, is much tighter than the bound we got from assuming boundedness alone, and it is tight enough to derive a contradiction.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered 2 hours ago









        Kenny Wong

        17.5k21236




        17.5k21236






























            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%2f3058076%2fdoes-cauchys-theorems-hold-if-we-only-assume-boundedness%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

            Morgemoulin

            Scott Moir

            Souastre