This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
Department of Mathematics
Real and Complex Analysis
Qualifying Exams
(New System)
Solution Manual
Compiled by Peter Nguyen
Edited by R. B. Burckel
How to Use this Manual
This solution manual has been constructed so that each chapter represents a
speciﬁc semester’s qualifying exam. Within each chapter, the problems are listed in
the order in which they originally appeared, and moreover, they have been transcribed
almost verbatim. The primary exception to this is the omission of hints.
Following the statement of each problem, the reader will ﬁnd a list of “key terms.”
These are the important deﬁnitions and theorems relevant to the given solution. In
most cases, these are concepts or results that the testtaker is presumed to be knowl
edgable of. As such, these concepts have been used freely throughout the solutions.
After the list of key terms, the reader will ﬁnd a solution to the given problem.
These solutions should not be preferred over others, although some are canonical.
iii
Notation
Z := Integers
N := ¦n ∈ Z : n ≥ 1¦
N
0
:= N ∪ ¦0¦
R := Real numbers
C := Complex numbers
S
+
:= S ∩ (0, ∞) (S ⊆ C)
D(z, r) := ¦w ∈ C : [z −w[ < r¦ (z ∈ C, r > 0)
¯
D(z, r) := ¦w ∈ C : [z −w[ ≤ r¦ (z ∈ C, r > 0)
D
(z, r) := ¦w ∈ C : 0 < [z −w[ < r¦ (z ∈ C, r > 0)
D := D(0, 1)
¯
D :=
¯
D(0, 1)
D
:= D
(0, 1)
C(z, r) := ¦w ∈ C : [z −w[ = r¦ (z ∈ C, r > 0)
T := C(0, 1)
[ [ := Lebesgue measure on R
k
(k ∈ N)
E
c
:= ¦x ∈ X : x ∈ E¦ (E ⊆ X)
1
E
(x) :=
1 x ∈ E
0 x ∈ E
c
(E ⊆ X)
¸
:= disjoint union
B(x, r) := ¦y ∈ X : d(x, y) < r¦ (d a metric on X, r > 0)
iv
Contents
How to Use this Manual iii
Notation iv
Chapter 1. Spring 2004 1
Chapter 2. Fall 2004 9
Chapter 3. Spring 2005 18
Chapter 4. Fall 2005 27
Chapter 5. Spring 2006 38
Index 47
Bibliography 49
v
CHAPTER 1
Spring 2004
Problem 1.1. Let f : [0, 1] →C be continuous and deﬁne F : Ω := C`[0, 1] →C
by
F(z) :=
1
0
f(t)
t −z
dt.
Prove that F is holomorphic in Ω.
Key terms: Morera’s Theorem, Fubini’s Theorem, Lebesgue’s Dominated Conver
gence Theorem.
Solution. Let a
1
, a
2
, a
3
∈ C be such that the closed convex hull ∆ of the ori
ented triangle T := [a
1
, a
2
, a
3
, a
1
] is contained in Ω. (Here we are using the notation
[a
1
, ..., a
n
] :=
¸
n−1
m=1
[a
m
, a
m+1
], where [a
i
, a
j
] is the oriented complex interval.) Then
by Fubini’s Theorem, we have
T
F(z)dz =
T
¸
1
0
f(t)
t −z
dt
dz =
1
0
¸
T
1
t −z
dz
f(t)dt
=
1
0
[2πiInd
T
(t)] f(t)dt =
1
0
0 f(t)dt = 0.
As this holds for every triangle whose closed convex hull is contained in Ω, Morera’s
Theorem implies that F ∈ H(Ω).
Alternative Solution. This proof does not involve the use of Morera’s Theorem.
First note that since f is continuous and [0, 1] is compact, we may ﬁnd M ∈ N such
that [f(t)[ ≤ M, for every t ∈ [0, 1]. Now, ﬁx z
0
∈ Ω. Since Ω is open, we may ﬁnd
r > 0 such that D := D(z
0
, r) ⊂ Ω, and therefore, D∩[0, 1] = ∅. In consequence, we
see that
(1.1.1) [t −z[ ≥ r (z ∈ D, t ∈ [0, 1]).
1
For z ∈ D, deﬁne g
z
: [0, 1] → C by g
z
(t) := f(t)/[(t − z)(t − z
0
)]. By (1.1.1), we
conclude that the collection each g
z
is welldeﬁned, and moreover, [g
z
(t)[ ≤ M/r
2
,
for every z ∈ D and t ∈ [0, 1]. From this, it follows that g
z
∈ L
1
([0, 1]), for every
z ∈ D. Finally, as it is obvious that lim
z→z
0
g
z
(t) = g
z
0
(t), for every t ∈ [0, 1], Lebesgue’s
Dominated Convergence Theorem ensures that
(1.1.2) lim
z→z
0
1
0
f(t)
(t −z)(t −z
0
)
dt =
1
0
f(t)
(t −z
0
)
2
dt.
For each z ∈ D
(z
0
, r), observe that
F(z) −F(z
0
)
z −z
0
=
1
z −z
0
¸
1
0
f(t)
t −z
dt −
1
0
f(t)
t −z
0
dt
=
1
z −z
0
1
0
f(t)(t −z
0
) −f(t)(t −z)
(t −z)(t −z
0
)
dt (1.1.3)
=
1
0
f(t)
(t −z)(t −z
0
)
dt.
Letting z → z
0
in (1.1.3) and appealing to (1.1.2) shows that F
(z
0
) exists, and in
fact,
F
(z
0
) =
1
0
f(t)
(t −z
0
)
2
dt.
As z
0
is an arbitrary point of Ω, we are ﬁnished.
Problem 1.2. Let Ω := ¦z ∈ C : 1 < [z[ < 2¦. Show that there does not exist a
sequence ¦P
n
¦ of polynomials in z such that P
n
(z) → 1/z uniformly, for every z ∈ Ω.
Key terms: uniform convergence, index of closed curve.
Solution. Assume, with a view to reach a contradiction, that ¦P
n
¦ is a sequence
of polynomials converging to 1/z uniformly. Let γ : [0, 2π] → C be the closed curve
given by γ(t) =
3
2
e
it
. Since each polynomial is a continuous derivative in Ω, we see
that
γ
P
n
(z)dz = 0, for every n. On the other hand,
γ
(1/z)dz = 2πiInd
γ
(0) =
2πi. The uniform convergence of the P
n
on γ to 1/z ensures that 2πi =
γ
dz
z
=
lim
n→∞
γ
P
n
(z)dz = 0. This is the desired contradiction.
2
Problem 1.3. Evaluate
∞
0
dx
1 + x
7
.
Key terms: contour integration, pole, Residue Theorem, residue.
Solution. Let R > 1 and C
R
be the path given as the sum of the path
1
t → Re
it
,
for 0 ≤ t ≤
2π
7
and the oriented intervals [Re
2πi
7
, 0], and [0, R].
Put f(z) :=
1
1+z
7
. Note that f has exactly one simple pole lying inside the region
bounded by C
R
at z
0
:= e
πi
7
. Since z
7
0
= −1, we have
C
R
f(z)dz = 2πiRes(f, z
0
) = 2πi lim
z→z
0
(z −z
0
)f(z) (1.3.1)
= 2πi lim
z→z
0
z −z
0
z
7
−z
7
0
= 2πi
1
d
dz
z
7
z=z
0
=
2πi
7z
6
0
.
Now, since R > 1, we have
R
1+(Re
it
)
7
≤
R
R
7
−1
, for all t, whence
2π
7
0
iRe
it
dt
1 + (Re
it
)
7
≤
2π
7
0
Rdt
R
7
−1
=
2πR
7(R
7
−1)
.
Thus,
2π
7
0
iRe
it
dt
1+(Re
it
)
7
→ 0, as R → ∞. Furthermore,
C
R
f(z)dz =
2π
7
0
iRe
it
dt
1 + (Re
it
)
7
−
R
0
z
2
0
dr
1 + (z
2
0
r)
7
+
R
0
dx
1 + x
7
(1.3.2)
=
2π
7
0
iRe
it
dt
1 + (Re
it
)
7
+
1 −z
2
0
R
0
dx
1 + x
7
.
Combining (1.3.1) with (1.3.2) and taking the limit as R → ∞ gives
∞
0
dx
1 + x
7
=
2πi
7z
6
0
(1 −z
2
0
)
=
π
7 sin
π
7
.
The ﬁnal equality being obtained from the computation:
z
6
0
−z
8
0
= e
6πi
7
−e
8πi
7
= −e
−
πi
7
+ e
πi
7
= 2i sin(π/7).
1
See [RUD, 217  218] for a brief discussion on what is meant by a sum of paths.
3
Problem 1.4. Let f : [0, ∞) →C be a Lebesgue measurable function satisfying
(†) [f(x)[ ≤ ae
kx
,
for some a, k ∈ (0, ∞). Put Ω := ¦z ∈ C : Imz > k¦.
(a) Show that for every z ∈ Ω, the function g
z
: [0, ∞) → C deﬁned by g
z
(t) :=
e
itz
f(t) is in L
1
([0, ∞)).
(b) Prove that the map F : Ω →C deﬁned by F(z) :=
∞
0
g
z
(t)dt is holomorphic
in Ω.
Key terms: Lebesgue measure, Lebesgue’s Dominated Convergence Theorem, com
plex diﬀerentiability, (Lebesgue) measurable function.
Solution. (a) Clearly, each g
z
is measurable, being the product of measurable func
tions. Now, ﬁx z := x + iy ∈ Ω and observe
∞
0
[g
z
(t)[ dt =
∞
0
e
it(x+iy)
f(t)
dt ≤
∞
0
e
−ty
ae
kt
dt
= a
∞
0
e
−t(y−k)
dt =
a
y −k
< ∞,
since y = Imz > k. This completes the proof of (a).
(b) Fix z
0
= x
0
+ iy
0
∈ Ω. Choose r > 0 such that D := D(z
0
, r) ⊂ Ω. Let
t ∈ [0, ∞) and z ∈
¯
D(z
0
, r/2) with z = z
0
. Since it
[z
0
,z]
e
itξ
dξ = e
itz
−e
itz
0
, we have
e
itz
−e
itz
0
z −z
0
−ite
itz
0
=
it
z −z
0
[z
0
,z]
e
itξ
dξ −
it
z −z
0
[z
0
,z]
e
itz
0
dξ
=
it
z −z
0
[z
0
,z]
e
itξ
−e
itz
0
dξ
≤
t
[z −z
0
[
length[z
0
, z] sup
ξ∈[z
0
,z]
e
itξ
−e
itz
0
≤ t sup
ξ∈[z
0
,z]
e
itξ
+
e
itz
0
(1.4.1)
≤ 2t sup
ξ∈[z
0
,z]
e
itξ
= 2t sup
ξ∈[z
0
,z]
e
−tImξ
= 2te
−tk
0
,
4
for some k
0
> k, since [z
0
, z] ⊂
¯
D(z
0
, r/2) is a compact subset of Ω.
2
By the hypothesis
(†), we ﬁnd that
(1.4.2)
te
−tk
0
f(t)
≤ ate
−(k
0
−k)t
∈ L
1
([0, ∞)).
Combining (1.4.1) and (1.4.2) with Lebesgue’s Dominated Convergence Theorem, we
ﬁnd that
lim
z→z
0
¸
F(z) −F(z
0
)
z −z
0
−
∞
0
ite
itz
0
f(t)dt
= lim
z→z
0
∞
0
e
itz
−e
itz
0
z −z
0
−ite
itz
0
f(t)dt
=
∞
0
lim
z→z
0
e
itz
−e
itz
0
z −z
0
−ite
itz
0
f(t)dt
= 0.
Thus, F
(z
0
) exists and, in fact, F
(z
0
) =
∞
0
ite
itz
0
f(t)dt.
Problem 1.5. A Lebesgue measurable subset of R is said to be negligible if it has
Lebesgue measure zero. Prove that a subset A of R is negligible if and only if there
exists a sequence ¦U
n
¦ of open subsets of R such that lim
n→∞
[U
n
[ = 0 and A ⊆
¸
n
U
n
.
Key terms: Lebesgue measure, Lebesgue measurable set, negligible set, complete
measure space.
Solution. (⇒) As A has Lebesgue measure zero, it follows from the very deﬁnition
of Lebesgue (outer) measure that, for every n ∈ N, we may ﬁnd a sequence ¦I
n,m
¦
∞
m=1
of open intervals such that A ⊂
¸
m
I
n,m
and
¸
m
[I
m,n
[ <
1
n
. Put U
n
:=
¸
m
I
n,m
.
Then U
n
is open, being the union of open sets. Since A ⊆ U
n
, for each n, it must be
that A ⊆
¸
n
U
n
. Now, by countable subadditivity, [U
n
[ ≤
¸
m
[I
n,m
[ <
1
n
, for each
n ∈ N, whence [U
n
[ → 0, as n → ∞.
(⇐) Let ¦U
n
¦ be the sequence of open sets given by the hypothesis of this impli
cation. Observe that 0 ≤ [
¸
m
U
m
[ ≤ [U
n
[, for every n. Since [U
n
[ → 0, as n → ∞ (by
2
This is a standard way to circumvent the MeanValue Theorem, which is unavailable for
complexvalued functions.
5
assumption), it must be that [
¸
m
U
m
[ = 0. Now,
¸
m
U
m
is Lebesgue measurable, be
ing the countable intersection of open (and therefore Borel) sets. Thus, A is Lebesgue
measurable, since it is the subset of a set of measure zero and since Lebesgue measure
is complete. Finally, A has measure zero, by monotonicity.
Problem 1.6. Let 1 ≤ q < p ≤ ∞.
(a) Prove that L
p
([0, 1]) ⊂ L
q
([0, 1]).
(b) Show (by example) that the inclusion in (a) is strict.
(c) Give an example of a measure space (X, A, µ) for which the inclusion L
p
(X) ⊇
L
q
(X) holds.
Key terms: Lebesgue measure, L
p
space, counting measure.
Solution. (a) See the solution for Problem 5.1(a).
(b) Let us ﬁrst handle the case when p = ∞. Consider the function f(x) :=
x
−
1
2q
∈ L
q
([0, 1]). For M > 0, let b
M
:= min ¦M
−2q
, 1¦. It is easy to check that
¦x ∈ (0, 1) : [f(x)[ > M¦ = (0, b
M
),
from which it follows that ess sup f = ∞, since [(0, b
M
)[ = b
M
> 0. Therefore,
f ∈ L
∞
([0, 1]). So, the inclusion of (a) is strict in this case.
Now, ﬁx 1 ≤ q < p < ∞ and let r ∈
1
p
,
1
q
. Notice that 1 − qr > 0, while
1 −pr < 0. So,
1
0
1
x
r
q
dx = lim
t→0
+
1
t
x
−qr
dx = lim
t→0
+
1
1 −qr
x
1−qr
1
t
= lim
t→0
+
1
1 −qr
(1−t
1−qr
) =
1
1 −qr
,
while
1
0
1
x
r
p
dx = lim
t→0
+
1
t
x
−pr
dx = lim
t→0
+
1
1 −pr
x
1−pr
1
t
= lim
t→0
+
1
pr −1
(t
1−pr
−1) = ∞.
Thus, 1/x
r
∈ L
q
([0, 1])`L
p
([0, 1]), showing the inclusion is strict, in this case as well.
(c) One can construct a multitude of trivial examples easily: merely take X :=
any set, A := any σalgebra on X (one may pick the power set of X for concreteness),
and ﬁnally, µ := the zero measure on X (i.e., µ(A) = 0, for all A ∈ A).
6
Of course, a nontrivial example is to be sought out. Perhaps, the simplest such
example is to take X := N, A := the power set of N, and µ := counting measure.
Here if f ∈ L
q
(X), then by deﬁnition
¸
∞
n=1
[f(n)[
q
< ∞. Consequently, we may
ﬁnd N ∈ N such that [f(n)[
q
≤ 1, for each n ≥ N. So, for n ≥ N, we have
[f(n)[
p
≤ [f(n)[
q
, whence
∞
¸
n=1
[f(n)[
p
≤
N−1
¸
n=1
[f(n)[
p
+
∞
¸
n=N
[f(n)[
q
< ∞.
This shows that f ∈ L
p
(X), and therefore, L
p
(X) ⊆ L
q
(X).
Problem 1.7. Let p ∈ [1, ∞) and suppose ¦f
n
¦
∞
n=1
⊂ L
p
(R) is a sequence that
converges to 0 in the p norm. Prove that we may ﬁnd a subsequence ¦f
n
k
¦ such that
f
n
k
→ 0 a.e.
Key terms: pointwise convergence, pnorm convergence, almost everywhere, com
plete metric space, BeppoLevi Theorem.
Solution. Choose n
1
∈ N such that f
n

p
<
1
2
, for all n ≥ n
1
. Having found this n
1
,
we may ﬁnd n
2
∈ N such that n
2
> n
1
and f
n

p
<
1
2
2
, for all n ≥ n
2
. Continuing in
this manner, we may inductively ﬁnd n
k
∈ N such that n
k
> n
k−1
and f
n

p
<
1
2
k
,
whenever n ≥ n
k
. Set f
n
0
= 0. Note that f
n
k

p
<
1
2
k
, for all k ≥ 1.
By the BeppoLevi Theorem (or Lebesgue’s Monotone Convergence Theorem), we
have
R
¸
∞
¸
k=1
[f
n
k
(x)[
p
¸
dx =
∞
¸
k=1
f
n
k

p
p
≤
∞
¸
k=1
2
−k
p
=
1
2
p
−1
< ∞.
Consequently,
¸
∞
k=1
[f
n
k
(x)[
p
is ﬁnite for a.e x ∈ R, and therefore, convergent for
a.e. x ∈ R. For these x, it follows from the convergence of the above series that
[f
n
k
(x)[
p
→ 0, as k → ∞, or equivalently, that f
n
k
(x) → 0, as k → ∞.
Problem 1.8. Let f be an entire function having the property that
f(z + m + ni) = f(z) (z ∈ C, m, n ∈ Z).
7
Prove that f is constant.
Key terms: entire function, Liouville’s Theoerem.
Solution. Put S := [0, 1] [0, 1]. The periodicity condition on f gives that f(C) =
f(S). Since S is compact and f is continuous (it is holomorphic), it follows that f is
bounded on S, and therefore, f is bounded on C. By Liouville’s Theorem, we deduce
that f is constant.
8
CHAPTER 2
Fall 2004
Problem 2.1. Compute
(a)
∞
0
e
−[x]
dx, where [x] := max ¦n ∈ Z : n ≤ x¦, the integer part of x.
(b)
π/2
0
f(x)dx, where f(x) :=
cos x x ∈ R`Q
sin x x ∈ Q
.
Key terms: Lebesgue’s Monotone Convergence Theorem, BeppoLevi Theorem.
Solution. (a) Applying the BeppoLevi Theorem (or Lebesgue’s Monotone Conver
gence Theorem) and the fact that [x] = n, on [n, n + 1), for n ∈ N
0
, we get
∞
0
e
−[x]
dx =
∞
0
e
−[x]
¸
∞
¸
n=0
1
[n,n+1)
(x)
¸
dx =
∞
¸
n=0
∞
0
e
−[x]
1
[n,n+1)
(x)dx
=
∞
¸
n=0
∞
0
e
−n
1
[n,n+1)
(x)dx =
∞
¸
n=0
e
−n
= e/(e −1).
(b) Put I := [0, π/2]. Since integrals over sets of measure zero are 0, we ﬁnd that
π/2
0
f(x)dx =
I\Q
+
I∩Q
f(x)dx =
I\Q
cos xdx +
I∩Q
sin xdx
=
I\Q
cos xdx =
I\Q
cos xdx +
I∩Q
cos xdx
=
π/2
0
cos xdx = 1.
Note that the above functions are measurable, since in a complete measure space we
may arbitrarily redeﬁne functions over sets of measure zero and retain measurability.
9
Problem 2.2. (a) Does the function
f(x) :=
x sin
1
x
0 < x ≤ 1
0 x = 0
have bounded variation?
(b) Compute Var
[0,50]
(e
x
), the total variation of e
x
on the interval [0, 50].
Key terms: bounded variation, total variation.
Solution. (a) No. For each integer N ≥ 3, let P
N
denote the partition 0 := x
0
< x
1
<
... < x
N
:= 1, where x
n
:=
1
π
2
+π(N−n)
, for n = 1, ..., N − 1. Since sin
1
xn
= (−1)
N−n
,
for each n = 1, ..., N − 1, the total (or absolute) variation T
N
corresponding to this
partition satisﬁes
T
N
≥
N−1
¸
n=2
1
π
2
+π(N−n)
(−1)
N−n
−
1
π
2
+π[N−(n−1)]
(−1)
N−n+1
=
N−1
¸
n=2
1
π
2
+π(N−n)
+
1
π
2
+π[N−(n−1)]
≥
N−1
¸
n=2
1
π
1
N−n+1
+
1
N−n+2
(2.2.1)
≥
N−1
¸
n=2
2
π(N−n+2)
=
N
¸
n=3
2
πn
.
Now, the total variation T satisﬁes T ≥ T
N
, for all N ∈ N. Hence, letting N → ∞ in
(2.2.1) veriﬁes that f is not of bounded variation.
(b) Let P
N
:= 0 = x
0
< x
1
< ... < x
N
= 50 be a partition of [0, 50]. By the
MeanValue Theorem, we may ﬁnd x
∗
n
∈ [x
n−1
, x
n
] such that e
x
∗
n
=
e
xn
−e
x
n−1
xn−x
n−1
. Hence,
N
¸
n=1
[e
xn
−e
x
n−1
[ =
N
¸
n=1
e
x
∗
n
(x
n
−x
n−1
).
Letting our partitions become ﬁner and ﬁner, one version of the Riemannian theory
of integration ensures the sum on the right converges to
50
0
e
x
dx = e
50
− 1. On the
other hand, the left sum converges to the total variation.
More generally, the above argument shows that one has Var
[a,b]
f =
b
a
[f
(x)[ dx,
for every continuously diﬀerentiable function f on a compact interval [a, b].
10
Problem 2.3. Suppose f ∈ H(Ω` ¦0¦) and that 0 is either a pole of order m for
f or a removable singularity whose removal results in 0 being a zero of order m for
f. Show that 0 is a ﬁrst order pole of f
/f having residue either −m or m.
Key terms: pole, removable singularity, residue
Solution. In either case, we may write f(z) = z
n
g(z), where n := ±m, g ∈ H(Ω)
and g(0) = 0. Since g(0) = 0 and g is continuous there (it is diﬀerentiable), we may
ﬁnd r > 0 such that g is zerofree on D := D(0, r). Thus,
(2.3.1)
f
(z)
f(z)
=
z
n
g
(z) + nz
n−1
g(z)
z
n
g(z)
=
g
(z)
g(z)
+ nz
−1
(z ∈ D` ¦0¦).
As g ∈ H(D) and g is zerofree on D, it follows that g
/g ∈ H(D), whence (2.3.1)
ensures that f
/f has a simple pole at 0 with residue n = ±m.
Problem 2.4. Show that a nonconstant entire function maps the plane onto a
dense subset of the plane.
Key terms: CasoratiWeierstrass Theorem, entire function
Solution. The proof to follow mimics the canonical proof of the CasoratiWeierstrass
Theorem. Let f be a nonconstant entire function. And suppose, in order to reach a
contradiction, that f(C) is not dense in C. Then we may ﬁnd z
0
∈ C and r > 0 such
that f(C) ∩ D(z
0
, r) = ∅. Consequently,
(2.4.1) [f(z) −z
0
[ ≥ r,
for every z ∈ C. This implies that the function g : C → C deﬁned by g :=
1
f−z
0
is entire. Now, (2.4.1) also implies that [g[ ≤
1
r
< ∞, and so, Liouville’s Theorem
ensures that g is constant. This, in turn, forces f to be constant. (Speciﬁcally,
f =
1
c
+ z
0
, where g = c.) This contradiction implies f(C) is dense in the plane.
Problem 2.5. Let Ω be a bounded region. Suppose that f ∈ C(
¯
Ω) ∩ H(Ω) is
zerofree and [f[ = C on ∂Ω.
11
(a) Prove that f must be constant.
(b) Is the boundedness condition imposed on Ω essential?
Key terms: Maximum Modulus Principle.
Solution. (a) First note that since f is zerofree, it must be that C > 0. By the
Maximum Modulus Principle,
(2.5.1) [f(z)[ ≤ f
∂Ω
:= max ¦[f(z)[ : z ∈ ∂Ω¦ = C (z ∈ Ω).
Now, since f is zerofree, we evidently have 1/f ∈ C(
¯
Ω) ∩ H(Ω). Consequently, the
Maximum Modulus Principle applies to 1/f, and therefore,
(2.5.2) [1/f(z)[ ≤ 1/f
∂Ω
= 1/C (z ∈ Ω).
Inequalities (2.5.1) and (2.5.2) combine to show that [f(z)[ = C on Ω. Thus, [f[
attains its maximum at every point of Ω, and so, the Maximum Modulus Principle
forces f to be constant on Ω.
(b) Yes. Consider the region Ω := ¦z ∈ C : 0 < Re z¦. The exponential map e
z
is
zerofree and holomorphic on Ω, as well as, continuous and identically equal to 1 in
modulus on the boundary of Ω. Yet, this map fails to be constant on Ω. In fact, the
continuity of f shows that this constant must be C.
Problem 2.6. Does there exists a Lebesgue measurable subset E of R such that
E∩I
I
=
1
2
, for every interval I ⊂ R.
Key terms: Lebesgue measure, Lebesgue point, almost everywhere
Solution. No. To verify this, we will need the following general results applied to
the onedimensional scenario:
Lemma 2.6.1. Let E be Lebesgue measurable subset of R
k
. Then for a.e. x ∈ R
k
,
the limit
lim
r→0
[E ∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
exists and is equal to 1 for a.e. point of E and 0 for a.e. point of E
c
.
12
Proof. Assume for a moment that the lemma holds for measurable sets having
ﬁnite measure. For each n ∈ N, put E
n
:= E ∩ B(0, n). Each E
n
has ﬁnite measure,
being a subset of a set of ﬁnite measure, namely B(0, n). Thus, the lemma applies to
each E
n
. For each n, let A
n
be the set of points x ∈ E
n
such that lim
r→0
[E
n
∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
exists and is equal to 1. Likewise, let B
n
be the set of points x ∈ R
k
`E
n
for which
the limit exists equal to 0. Since the lemma is assumed to hold for ﬁnite measured
sets, we have that
R
k
`A
n
= 0 and
R
k
`B
n
= 0, for each n. Put A :=
¸
∞
n=1
A
n
and
B :=
¸
∞
n=1
B
n
and notice that
R
k
`A
=
R
k
`B
= 0, being the countable union of
null sets.
Fix x ∈ A. Since E
n
∩ B(x, r) ⊆ E
n+1
∩ B(x, r), for all n, and since
¸
∞
n=1
E
n
∩
B(x, r) = E ∩ B(x, r), we conclude that
(2.6.1)
[E ∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
= lim
n→∞
[E
n
∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
.
Let > 0 be given. By (2.6.1), we may ﬁnd N ≥ 1 so large so that
(2.6.2)
[E ∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
−
[E
N
∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
< /2.
Notice that the quantity on the left is welldeﬁned, since 0 < [B(x, r)[ < ∞. As
x ∈ A ⊆ A
N
, we may ﬁnd r
0
> 0 such that 0 < r < r
0
implies
E
N
∩B(x,r)
B(x,r)
−1
< /2.
This fact along with (2.6.2) and the triangle inequality shows that
E∩B(x,r)
B(x,r)
−1
< ,
whenever 0 < r < r
0
. Hence, lim
r→0
[E ∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
exists and is equal to 1 for every x ∈ A.
In a similar (in fact, easier) fashion, we see that lim
r→0
[E ∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
exists and is equal
to 0 for every x ∈ B. Let F and G be for E and R
k
`E as A
n
and B
n
are for E
n
and R
k
`E
n
, respectively. Then we have just proved that A ⊆ F and B ⊆ G so that
R
k
`F ⊆ A
c
and R
k
`G ⊆ B
c
, and therefore,
R
k
`F
=
R
k
`G
= 0.
The above argument guarantees that it suﬃces to prove the lemma with the extra
condition that [E[ < ∞. In this case, put
v
r
(x) :=
1
[B(x, r)[
B(x,r)
[1
E
(y) −1
E
(x)[ dy
13
for 0 < r and x ∈ R
k
. Since E has ﬁnite measure, 1
E
∈ L
1
(R
k
), whence almost every
point of R
k
is a Lebesgue point of 1
E
; i.e., lim
r→0
v
r
(x) = 0, for a.e. x ∈ R
k
.
Case 1: x ∈ E. Then [1
E
(y) −1
E
(x)[ = 1
E
c(y), and therefore,
v
r
(x) =
[E
c
∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
=
[B(x, r)[ −[E ∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
= 1 −
[E ∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
(∀r > 0).
Case 2: x ∈ E
c
. Then we directly have
v
r
(x) =
[E ∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
(∀r > 0).
Since lim
r→0
v
r
(x) exits and is equal 0 for a.e. x ∈ R
k
, the proof is complete.
Proposition 2.6.2. Let E ⊂ R
k
be Lebesgue measurable and let ε > 0. Then
there exists x ∈ R
k
and r > 0 such that either ε >
E∩B(x,r)
B(x,r)
or 1 −ε <
E∩B(x,r)
B(x,r)
.
Proof. Since R
k
is the disjoint union of E and E
c
, either [E[ > 0 or [E
c
[ > 0.
In the former case, the preceding lemma implies the existence of an x ∈ E such that
lim
r→0
[E ∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
= 1. Thus, we may ﬁnd some r > 0 such that 1 −ε <
E∩B(x,r)
B(x,r)
. So,
we are ﬁnished with this situation.
If, however, [E
c
[ > 0, then applying the preceding lemma again shows that there
exists an x ∈ E
c
such that lim
r→0
[E ∩ B(x, r)[
[B(x, r)[
= 0. So, we may ﬁnd some r > 0 such
that ε >
E∩B(x,r)
B(x,r)
. This ﬁnishes the proof.
Returning to Problem 2.6, the answer is no. To see this, we simply take k = 1
and ε =
1
2
in the preceding proposition.
Problem 2.7. Let f(x, y) :=
x
2
−y
2
(x
2
+ y
2
)
2
(x, y) = (0, 0)
0 (x, y) = (0, 0)
.
(a) Show that
1
0
dx
1
0
f(x, y)dy =
1
0
dy
1
0
f(x, y)dx.
14
(b) To save Fubini’s Theorem, use polar coordinates to verify that
1
0
1
0
[f(x, y)[ dxdy = ∞.
Key terms: polar coordinates, Fubini’s Theorem
Solution. (a) First, some clariﬁcation is due regarding the meaning of the iterated
integrals. The quantity
A
dx
B
f(x, y)dy,
is the Lebesgue integral of the function given by F(x) :=
B
f(x, y)dy, provided this
function is welldeﬁned and Lebesgue integrable. Similarly, for the other iterated
integrals in (a). In our present situation,
F(x) :=
1
0
∂
∂y
y
x
2
+ y
2
dy =
y
x
2
+ y
2
y=1
y=0
=
1
x
2
+ 1
,
so that the measurability of F is evident. (F is, in fact, continuous on (0, 1].) Thus,
1
0
F(x)dx = arctan x
1
0
= π/4.
On the other hand, since f(x, y) = −f(y, x), we see that the remaining iterated
integral exists and evaluates to −π/4.
15
(b) Note that the circular sector S =
¸
re
iθ
: 0 ≤ r ≤ 1, 0 ≤ θ ≤ π/2
¸
is contained
in the rectangle R = ¦(x, y) : 0 ≤ x, y ≤ 1¦. Thus,
1
0
1
0
[f(x, y)[ dxdy =
R
[f(x, y)[ dxdy
≥
S
[f(x, y)[ dxdy
=
1
0
¸
π/2
0
[f(r cos θ, r sin θ)[ dθ
¸
rdr
=
1
0
π/2
0
cos 2θ
r
2
dθ
rdr
=
1
0
π/4
0
−
π/2
π/4
cos 2θdθ
1
r
dr
=
1
0
1
r
dr
= ∞.
Problem 2.8. Prove that f ≡ 0, whenever f ∈ H(C) ∩ L
1
(R
2
).
Key terms: Cauchy’s Formula, polar coordinates, L
p
space.
Solution. For r > 0 and z ∈ C, let γ
r,z
be the parameterization of the boundary of
the circle centered at z with radius r given by γ
r,z
(t) := z +re
it
, 0 ≤ t ≤ 2π. Since f
is entire and C is convex, we may apply Cauchy’s formula to ﬁnd that
f(z) =
1
2πi
γ
r,z
f(ξ)
ξ −z
dξ =
1
2πi
2π
0
f(z + re
it
)
(z + re
it
) −z
(rie
it
dt)
=
1
2π
2π
0
f(z + re
it
)dt,
and so,
(2.8.1) [f(z)[ ≤
1
2π
2π
0
f(z + re
it
)
dt.
16
Integrating both ends of (2.8.1) with respect to rdr over [0, R] and appealing to
Fubini’s Theorem gives
R
2
2
[f(z)[ ≤
1
2π
R
0
¸
2π
0
f(z + re
it
)
dt
rdr
=
1
2π
E
[f(z + w)[ dλ
2
(w) (2.8.2)
≤
1
2π
R
2
[f[ =
1
2π
f
1
,
where E := ¦(x, y) ∈ D(0, r) : 0 < x, y¦ and λ
2
is Lebesgue measure in R
2
. Since
(2.8.2) is clearly equivalent to [f(z)[ ≤
f
1
πR
2
, which holds for all z ∈ C and R > 0, we
may deduce that [f(z)[ = 0, for all z. Equivalently, f ≡ 0.
17
CHAPTER 3
Spring 2005
Problem 3.1. Compute
(a)
2π
0
dt
cos t −2
.
(b) Res(z
n
e
10/z
, ∞), n ∈ N.
(c) Res (exp(z
2
)/z
2n+1
, 0), n ∈ N.
Key terms: residue, contour integration, Residue Theorem, pole.
Solution. (a) Let γ be the curve deﬁned by t
γ
→ e
it
, for 0 ≤ t ≤ 2π. If we write
z = γ(t), then cos t = (z + z
−1
)/2, dt = −idz/z, and so,
(3.1.1)
2π
0
dt
cos t −2
=
γ
(−idz/z)
(z + z
−1
)/2 −2
= −2i
γ
dz
z
2
−4z + 1
.
Let f(z) be the function in the integrand of (3.1.1). The quadratic formula shows
that f has simple poles at z
0
= 2 − 2
√
3 and z
1
= 2 + 2
√
3. Among these, z
0
lies
in the region bounded by the image of γ, while z
1
lies outside this region. Thus, the
integral on the far right of (3.1.1) is equal to
2πiRes(f, z
0
) = 2πi lim
z→z
0
(z −z
0
)f(z) = 2πi lim
z→z
0
1
z −z
1
=
2πi
z
0
−z
1
= −
√
3πi
6
.
Substitution of this into (3.1.1) yields
2π
0
dt
cos t −2
= −
√
3π
3
.
(b) Recall that Res(f, ∞) := Res(f(1/z), 0). Now,
(1/z)
n
e
10/(1/z)
= e
10z
/z
n
= (1/z
n
)
∞
¸
k=0
(10z)
k
/k! =
∞
¸
k=0
(10
k
/k!)z
k−n
.
Hence, the coeﬃcient of the z
−1
term is Res(z
n
e
10/z
, ∞) = 10
n−1
/(n −1)!.
18
(c) Observe that
exp(z
2
)/z
2n+1
= (1/z
2n+1
)
∞
¸
k=0
(z
2
)
k
/k! =
∞
¸
k=0
z
2k−2n−1
/k!.
So, the coeﬃcient of the z
−1
term is Res(exp(z
2
)/z
2n+1
, 0) = 1/n!.
Problem 3.2. Let ¦E
j
¦
m
j=1
be a collection of measurable subsets of [0, 1]. Assume
that this collection has the property that every x ∈ [0, 1] belongs to at least n of the
E
j
, where n ≤ m. Prove that [E
j
[ ≥
n
m
, for some j.
Key terms: Lebesgue measure.
Solution. Since every x ∈ [0, 1] belongs to at least n of the E
j
, it must be that
¸
m
j=1
1
E
j
(x) ≥ n, for every x ∈ [0, 1]. Now, suppose, in order to reach a contradiction,
that [E
j
[ <
n
m
, for every j. (As all of our integrals will be over [0, 1] we will suppress
the integrating set.)
n = n [[0, 1][ =
n ≤
m
¸
j=1
1
E
j
=
m
¸
j=1
1
E
j
=
m
¸
j=1
[E
j
[ <
m
¸
j=1
n
m
= n.
The appearance of the strict inequality is the sought contradiction, and therefore, the
desired conclusion follows.
Problem 3.3. Given 1 ≤ p < q < r < ∞, prove that
L
p
(X, µ) ∩ L
r
(X, µ) ⊆ L
q
(X).
Key terms: L
p
space.
Solution. Let f ∈ L
p
(X) ∩ L
r
(X). Set E := ¦x : [f(x)[ > 1¦ and notice that
[f[
p
< [f[
q
< [f[
r
on E, while [f[
r
≤ [f[
q
≤ [f[
p
on E
c
. Therefore,
X
[f[
q
=
E
[f[
q
+
E
c
[f[
q
≤
E
[f[
r
+
E
c
[f[
p
≤
X
[f[
r
+
X
[f[
p
< ∞.
19
Problem 3.4. Let f ∈ L
1
(X, µ). Prove that for every > 0, there exists δ > 0
such that
A
fdµ
< ,
whenever A is a measurable subset of X with µ(A) < δ.
Key terms: L
p
space, Lebesgue’s Monotone Convergence Theorem.
Solution. Let > 0 be given. We will actually prove the existence of δ > 0 such
that
A
[f[ dµ < ,
for every measurable A ⊂ X with µ(A) < δ. Once this is shown, we will be ﬁnished
because the inequality
A
fdµ
≤
A
[f[ dµ holds. Since we are only concerned with
[f[, we may assume that f = [f[; that is, we assume f is nonnegative.
For n ∈ N, deﬁne f
n
:= min ¦f, n¦. Notice that 0 ≤ f
n
(x) ≤ f
n+1
(x) ≤ f(x) and
f
n
(x) ↑ f(x) holds for every x ∈ X and n ∈ N. So, by Lebesgue’s Monotone Conver
gence Theorem, we have lim
n→∞
X
f
n
dµ =
X
fdµ, or equivalently,
X
(f −f
n
)dµ → 0,
as n → ∞. Hence, we may choose N so large so that
X
(f − f
N
)dµ <
2
. Having
chosen this N, we now choose δ > 0 such that Nδ ≤
2
. So, for measurable A ⊂ X
with µ(A) < δ, we get
A
fdµ =
A
(f −f
N
)dµ +
A
f
N
dµ ≤
X
(f −f
N
)dµ +
A
Ndµ
<
2
+ Nµ(A) <
2
+ Nδ < .
Problem 3.5. Is there an f ∈ H(D) such that m
n
(f) → ∞, as n → ∞, where
m
n
(f) = inf
¸
[f(z)[ : 1 −
1
n
< z < 1
¸
?
Key terms: zeroset, BolzanoWeierstrass, Maximum Modulus Principle.
Solution. No. To see this, assume the contrary. That is, suppose there exists
f ∈ H(D) such that m
n
(f) → ∞, as n → ∞. Choose n so large so that m
n
(f) > 0.
We conclude from the deﬁnition of m
n
(f) that f is zerofree on the annulus A :=
20
¸
z : 1 −
1
n
< z < 1
¸
. Thus, all the zeros of the nonconstant function f must lie in
the compact set
¯
D
0, 1 −
1
n
. Since the zeroset of f contains no limit point of D, we
conclude (by BolzanoWeierstrass) that f has only ﬁnitely many zeros, say ¦z
1
, ..., z
k
¦.
By iterated use of Theorem 10.18 in [RUD], we may write
f(z) = (z −z
1
)
m
1
(z −z
k
)
m
k
g(z),
where g ∈ H(D) and g has no zero in D. Observe that
[f(z)[ = [(z −z
1
)
m
1
(z −z
k
)
m
k
g(z)[ = [z −z
1
[
m
1
[z −z
k
[
m
k
[g(z)[
≤ 2
m
1
+···+m
k
[g(z)[ ,
for every z ∈ D. From this it follows that m
n
(g) → ∞, as n → ∞. Since
g
¸
1 −
1
2n
e
iθ
: 0 ≤ θ ≤ 2π
⊂
[g(z)[ : 1 −
1
n
< z < 1
,
for each n, it must be that
min
0≤θ≤2π
g
¸
1 −
1
2n
e
iθ
≥ m
n
(g),
for each n. By the corollary to Theorem 10.24 in [RUD] (i.e. the Minimum Modulus
Principle, which is just the Maximum Modulus Principle applied to 1/g, g being
zerofree), we may deduce that [g(0)[ ≥ m
n
(g), for each n, which is impossible if
m
n
(g) → ∞. This is the desired contradiction.
Problem 3.6. Let f : Ω →C, where Ω is open.
(a) True or false: (i) If f is holomorphic and e
f
is constant, then f is constant.
(ii) Does the answer change if f is only assumed continuous?
(b) Is a bounded function that is harmonic on all of C constant?
Key terms: harmonic function, entire function, Liouville’s Theorem
Solution. Recall that we are assuming Ω to be a region, and so, it is connected.
(a) It suﬃces to show the following: If f is continuous and e
f
is constant, then f is
constant, since holomorphic functions are continuous. The nonzero constant function
e
f
is e
w
, for some w ∈ C. Hence, e
f(z)−w
= 1, or equivalently, f(z) − w ∈ 2πiZ, for
21
all z ∈ Ω. As f(z) − w is a continuous mapping of the connected region Ω into the
discrete space 2πiZ, it must be that f −w = 2πin, for some ﬁxed integer n, whence
f(z) = w + 2πn. That is, f is constant.
(b) As the real and imaginary parts of f satisfy the same conditions as f does, we
may without loss of generality assume that f is realvalued. As such, on each closed
disk
¯
D(0, N), N ∈ N, f is the real part of a holomorphic function that is deﬁned
uniquely up to a pure imaginary additive constant (see [RUD, 235  236]). Adjusting
these constants at each radius, we may conclude that f is the real part of an entire
function, say F = f + iv. Now, since the exponential function is nonnegative and
strictly increasing on the real axis, we ﬁnd that
e
F
=
e
f+iv
=
e
f
e
iv
=
e
f
= e
f
≤ e
f
≤ e
M
,
where M is a (ﬁnite) bound for f. Consequently, we may apply Liouville’s Theorem
to the entire function e
F
to conclude that e
F
is constant. From part (a), F must be
constant, and therefore, f is constant.
Problem 3.7. Let I be a nonempty (compact) interval in R and let f : I → C
be realanalytic, by which it is meant that in a neighborhood of every point of I, f is
represented by a convergent power series. Show that we may extend f to a holomorphic
function on some open subset of C that contains I. That is, prove that there exists
open Ω ⊂ C and F ∈ H(Ω) such that I ⊂ Ω and F[
I
≡ f.
Key terms: power series, Uniqueness Theorem for Holomorphic Functions, uniform
convergence.
Solution. It turns out that the assumption that I be compact is not essential. So, we
will dispense with it. Now, for each p ∈ I, let
¸
∞
n=0
c
n
(p)(x −p)
n
be the convergent
power series representation of f about p, given by the hypothesis, and let R
p
denote
the radius of convergence of this power series. Deﬁne f
p
(z) :=
¸
∞
n=0
c
n
(p)(z − p)
n
,
for z ∈ D(p, R
p
). By assumption, R
p
> 0. Choose r
p
such that 0 < r
p
< R
p
. By
22
elementary power series theory, we have that the series for f
p
converges uniformly and
absolutely on D
p
:= D(p, r
p
). Note that f
p
(x) = f(x), for every x ∈ I ∩[p−r
p
, p+r
p
].
Put Ω :=
¸
p∈I
D
p
and deﬁne F : Ω →C by F(z) := f
p
(z), whenever p ∈ I is such
that z ∈ D
p
. Provided that F is welldeﬁned, it is obvious that F ∈ H(Ω), since F is
representable by a power series about every point. Furthermore, that F[
I
≡ f is also
selfevident, by construction. Hence, we seek to show that F is welldeﬁned.
Suppose p, q ∈ I are such that z ∈ D
p
∩ D
q
. Without loss of generality, we may
assume that p < q. Note that the triangle inequality ensures that q −p < r
q
+r
p
. So,
if there were an x with p < x < q and x ∈ D
p
∪ D
q
, then we would have
q −p = (q −x) + (x −p) ≥ r
q
+ r
p
> q −p.
This contradiction forces (p, q) ⊂ D
p
∪ D
q
. Hence, if (p, q) ∩ D
p
∩ D
q
= ∅, then
¦D
p
, D
q
¦ would constitute a separation of the connected interval (p, q), see [RUD,
196]. From this impossibility, we may conclude that there exists x ∈ (p, q) ∩D
p
∩D
q
.
It follows that we may ﬁnd > 0 so small so that (x −, x +) ⊂ D
p
∩D
q
. Since the
interval (x−, x+) lies inside I, we see that f
p
and f
q
agree on (x−, x+). As this
interval obviously has a limit point in the region D
p
∩ D
q
, the Uniqueness Theorem
for Holomorphic functions guarantees that f
p
and f
q
agree on all of D
p
∩D
q
, whence
F is welldeﬁned.
Problem 3.8. Let ¦r
k
¦
∞
k=1
be onetoone enumeration of the rational numbers in
(0, 1]. For each k ∈ N, let p
k
, q
k
∈ N be relatively prime positive integers such that
r
k
= p
k
/q
k
. Deﬁne f
k
: [0, 1] → R by f
k
(x) := exp[−(p
k
−xq
k
)
2
]. Prove that f
k
→ 0
in measure, as k → ∞, yet, for each x ∈ [0, 1], the pointwise limit of the the sequence
¦f
k
(x)¦
∞
k=1
does not exist.
Key terms: convergence in measure, pointwise convergence
Solution. Let us prove some helpful lemmas:
Lemma 3.8.1. Suppose a, b, c, d ∈ N are such that gcd(a, b) = gcd(c, d) = 1 and
a/b = c/d. Then a = c and b = d.
23
Proof. Since gcd(a, b) = 1, we may ﬁnd m, n ∈ Z such that am + bn = 1. Now,
combined with the (assumed) fact that a/b = c/d, we get
c = c(am + bn) = acm + bcn = acm + adn = a(cm + dn).
Thus, a divides c. Symmetrically, we ﬁnd that c divides a, whence a = c. Analogously,
we get that b = d, completing the proof of the lemma.
Corollary 3.8.2. Deﬁne ρ : Q
+
→ N N by the condition that ρ(r) :=
(ρ
1
(r), ρ
2
(r)) if and only if r = ρ
1
(r)/ρ
2
(r) and gcd(ρ
1
(r), ρ
2
(r)) = 1. Then ρ is
a welldeﬁned injective function.
Proof. For r, s ∈ Q
+
, the following are equivalent:
(1) r = s. (2) ρ
1
(r)/ρ
2
(r) = ρ
1
(s)/ρ
2
(s).
(3) ρ
1
(r) = ρ
1
(s) and ρ
2
(r) = ρ
2
(s). (4) (ρ
1
(r), ρ
2
(r)) = (ρ
1
(r), ρ
2
(r)).
(5) ρ(r) = ρ(s).
Hence, ρ is welldeﬁned and injective.
Lemma 3.8.3. For each N ∈ N, put S
N
:= ¦r ∈ Q∩ (0, 1] : ρ
2
(r) = N¦. Then
¸
N
S
N
= Q∩ (0, 1] and [S
N
[ ≤ N, for each N.
Proof. That
¸
N
S
N
is all of Q ∩ (0, 1] is obvious, since every positive rational
r has a natural number as its denominator ρ
2
(r). That the S
N
are disjoint follows
just as easily, since ρ
2
is a function and so must assign only one value for any given
input. To see that the cardinality of each S
N
is at most N, suppose r ∈ S
N
. In order
that r ≤ 1, we must have ρ
1
(r) ≤ ρ
2
(r) = N. There are precisely N natural numbers
having this property, so that there are at most N possible numerators for r. Hence,
there are at most N possible values for r. That is, there at most N elements in S
N
.
Corollary 3.8.4. lim
k→∞
q
k
= ∞.
24
Proof. It is a matter of deﬁnition (and the uniqueness element of Lemma 3.8.1)
that q
k
= ρ
2
(r
k
). For M ∈ N, put T
M
:= ¦r ∈ Q∩ (0, 1] : ρ
2
(r) ≤ M¦. Then T
M
=
¸
M
N=1
S
N
, where the S
N
are as above. Since [S
N
[ ≤ N and T
M
is the disjoint union,
we get [T
M
[ ≤
¸
M
N=1
N = M(M + 1)/2. In particular, T
M
has ﬁnite cardinality for
each M. So, for each M ∈ N, the fact that k → r
k
is injective guarantees that we
may set K := max ¦k ∈ N : r
k
∈ T
M
¦. Thus, for each k > K, r
k
∈ T
M
, and therefore,
q
k
> M. This proves the corollary.
Lemma 3.8.5. Given x ∈ (0, 1] and prime n, there exists l
n
such that [x −r
l
n
[ <
1/q
l
n
.
Proof. Put I
j
:=
j−1
n
,
j
n
, for j = 1, ..., n. Then (0, 1] =
¸
n
j=1
I
j
. So, x ∈ I
j
, for
some j, and therefore [x −j/n[ < 1/n. By hypothesis, the rational number j/n is r
ln
for a unique l
n
∈ N. Since n is prime gcd(j, n) = 1, and so, if r
l
n
= j/n, then p
l
n
= j
and q
ln
= n. Hence, [x −r
ln
[ = [x −j/n[ < 1/n = 1/q
ln
.
We are ﬁnally prepared to tackle the proof of Problem 3.8. Notice that we must
formally verify that each f
k
is welldeﬁned, but this is handled by Corollary 3.8.2.
Now, ﬁx x ∈ (0, 1]. Choose so that 0 < < x. Since there are inﬁnitely many
rational numbers in (0, ), we may ﬁnd a subsequence ¦r
km
¦ ⊂ (0, ). Notice that
0 < [x −[ < [x −r
k
m
[, for each m. Multiplying through by q
k
m
, squaring, and then
taking exponentials gives f
km
(x) < exp[−q
km
(x−)
2
]. Letting m → ∞ and appealing
to Corollary 3.8.4 shows that f
k
m
(x) → 0.
On the other hand, Lemma 3.8.5 yields a (diﬀerent) subsequence ¦r
ln
¦ such that
[x −r
l
n
[ < 1/q
l
n
, for each n. In consequence, −1 < −(p
l
n
−xq
l
n
)
2
so that f
l
n
(x) > 1/e.
It follows that the pointwise limit f
k
(x) cannot exist. And this is true of every
x ∈ (0, 1].
It remains to be seen that the f
k
converge in measure to the zero function. To this
end, let 0 < < 1 be given. Observe that if x ∈ (0, 1] is such that exp[−(p
k
−xq
k
)
2
] =
[f
k
(x)[ > , then [x −r
k
[ < (1/q
k
)
ln(1/). Thus, ¦x : f
k
(x) > ¦ ⊆ (r
k
−δ
k
, r
k
+δ
k
),
25
where δ
k
:= (1/q
k
)
ln(1/). Hence, [¦x : [f
k
(x)[ > ¦[ ≤ [(r
k
−δ
k
, r
k
+ δ
k
)[ = 2δ
k
.
By Corollary 3.8.4, δ
k
→ 0 as k → ∞, whence we may choose K so large so that
2δ
k
< , for every k ≥ K. And so, f
k
→ 0 in measure.
Problem 3.9. Let (X, A, µ) be a ﬁnite measure space and f a nonnegative mea
surable function on X. Then f ∈ L
1
(X) if and only if
∞
¸
n=0
2
n
µ(S
n
) < ∞, where
S
n
:= ¦x ∈ X : f(x) ≥ 2
n
¦.
Key terms: ﬁnite measure space, L
p
space.
Solution. (⇐) For n ∈ N
0
, let T
n
:= ¦x ∈ X : 2
n
≤ f(x) < 2
n+1
¦. Also, put A :=
¦x : 0 ≤ f(x) < 1¦. Note that X = A H(
¸
n
T
n
) so that 1
X
= 1
A
+
¸
∞
n=0
1
T
n
. Also,
notice that 1
Tn
≤ 1
Sn
, since T
n
⊆ S
n
. Thus,
f = f
1
A
+
∞
¸
n=0
1
T
n
= f 1
A
+
∞
¸
n=0
f 1
T
n
≤ 1
A
+
∞
¸
n=0
2
n+1
1
T
n
≤ 1
X
+ 2
∞
¸
n=0
2
n
1
S
n
∈ L
1
(X),
since µ(X) and
¸
∞
n=0
2
n
µ(S
n
) are both assumed ﬁnite.
(⇒) Let T
m
be as above and notice that S
n
=
¸
∞
m=n
T
m
, for each n ∈ N
0
. Deﬁne
a : N
0
N
0
→ ¦0, 1¦ by a
n,m
:=
0 m < n
1 m ≥ n
. Then
∞
¸
n=0
2
n
1
Sn
=
∞
¸
n=0
2
n
¸
∞
¸
m=n
1
Tm
¸
=
∞
¸
n=0
∞
¸
m=0
2
n
1
Tm
a
n,m
=
∞
¸
m=0
∞
¸
n=0
2
n
1
Tm
a
n,m
=
∞
¸
m=0
m−1
¸
n=0
2
n
1
T
m
=
∞
¸
m=0
(2
m
−1) 1
T
m
≤
∞
¸
m=0
2
m
1
T
m
≤
∞
¸
m=0
f1
T
m
= f
∞
¸
m=0
1
T
m
≤ f 1
X
= f ∈ L
1
(X).
26
CHAPTER 4
Fall 2005
Problem 4.1. Complete the following:
(a) State and prove the Schwarz lemma for holomorphic selfmaps of D.
(b) From (a), conclude that any conformal automorphism of D that ﬁxes zero
must be a rotation.
Key terms: Schwarz Lemma, conformal mapping, rotation, removable singularity,
Maximum Modulus Principle, Chain Rule.
Solution. (a) Here essentially is the version found in [RUD, 254] and its proof:
Theorem 4.1.1 (Schwarz Lemma). Suppose f ∈ H(D) is such that f
∞
≤ 1
and zero is ﬁxed by f. Then
(4.1.1) [f(z)[ ≤ [z[ (z ∈ D)
and
(4.1.2) [f
(0)[ ≤ 1.
If equality holds in (4.1.1) for some z ∈ D
or if equality holds in (4.1.2), then there
exists u ∈ T such that f(z) = uz, for every z ∈ D.
Proof. Since f has a zero at 0, it follows that the map f(z)/z has a removable
singularity there. (Write f as power series about the origin and factor.) Thus, there
exists g ∈ H(D) such that f(z) = zg(z). Now, ﬁx z ∈ D` ¦0¦. Then for any r such
that [z[ < r < 1 (such an r exists, as D is open), we have, by the Maximum Modulus
Principle, that
[f(z)[
[z[
= [g(z)[ ≤ max
θ
g(re
iθ
)
= max
θ
f(re
iθ
)
r
≤
1
r
,
27
since [f(z)[ ≤ 1. Letting r → 1 and multiplying through by [z[, gives [f(z)[ ≤ [z[,
provided z ∈ D` ¦0¦. Since this inequality is evidently also true at z = 0, we get
(4.1.1). Now, (4.1.2) follows from the fact that f
(0) = g(0), by the product rule.
Finally, if equality holds in (4.1.1) for some z ∈ D
or if equality holds in (4.1.2),
then application of Maximum Modulus Principle to g again shows that f(z)/z is a
constant of unit modulus.
(b) Since f is conformal automorphism of D, f
−1
is as well (see Theorem 10.33 in
[RUD]). Thus, f and f
−1
both satisfy the hypothesis of the Schwarz Lemma, and
therefore,
(4.1.3) [f
(0)[ ,
(f
−1
)
(0)
≤ 1.
Since z = (f ◦ f
−1
)(z), for all z ∈ D, we get
(4.1.4) 1 = f
[f
−1
(0)](f
−1
)
(0) = f
(0)(f
−1
)
(0),
by the Chain Rule. Combining (4.1.3) and (4.1.4), we must have [f
(0)[ = 1, allowing
us to deduce from the second part of the Schwarz Lemma that f is a rotation.
Problem 4.2. Let a ∈ D and deﬁne f
a
(z) :=
a −z
1 − ¯ az
, for z ∈
¯
D.
(a) Show that f
a
is an automorphism of D and is its own inverse.
(b) Show that for every conformal automorphism f of D there exists u ∈ T and
a ∈ D such that f = u f
a
.
(c) Verify that (b) implies that every conformal automorphism of D extends to
a homeomorphism of
¯
D.
(d) Show that the values a and u are uniquely determined by f.
Key terms: conformal mapping, Maximum Modulus Principle, Chain Rule, home
omorphism.
28
Solution. (a) If a = 0, then f
a
(z) = −z, and so, (a) is immediate, in this case. So,
we may assume that a ∈ D` ¦0¦. Note that this forces ¯ a
−1
∈ C`
¯
D. The computation
(f
a
◦ f
a
)(z) =
a −
a−z
1−¯ az
1 − ¯ a
a−z
1−¯ az
=
a(1−¯ az)−(a−z)
1−¯ az
1−¯ az−¯ a(a−z)
1−¯ az
=
a −[a[
2
z −a + z
1 − ¯ az −[a[
2
+ ¯ az
=
z −[a[
2
z
1 −[a[
2
= z
shows simultaneously that, on C` ¦a
−1
¦, f
a
acts as both left and right inverse to itself.
Thus, f
a
is a bijection on C` ¦¯ a
−1
¦. It remains to show that f
a
maps
¯
D onto
¯
D. We
will, in fact, prove a stronger result: f
a
maps T onto T and D onto D. To see this,
let u ∈ T. Then
[f
a
(u)[ =
a −u
1 − ¯ au
=
[a −u[
[−u(¯ a −u
−1
)[
=
[a −u[
[−u[ [a −u[
= 1.
It follows that f
a
(T) ⊂ T, and so, T = (f
a
◦f
a
)(T) ⊂ f
a
(T). These inclusions combine
to give f
a
(T) = T. Since is f
a
is nonconstant, we may deduce from the Maximum
Modulus Principle that [f
a
(z)[ < sup ¦[f
a
(w)[ : w ∈ ∂D = T¦ = 1, for every z ∈ D.
Thus, f
a
(D) ⊂ D. Applying f
a
to both sides reverses the inclusion, so that f
a
(D) = D.
(b) Put a := f
−1
(0) ∈ D. Since f and f
a
are both conformal automorphisms of
D, it follows from the Chain Rule that f ◦ f
a
is also a conformal automorphism of
D. Moreover, (f ◦ f
a
)(0) = f[f
a
(0)] = f(a) = f[f
−1
(0)] = 0; i.e., f ﬁxes 0. Part (b)
of Problem 4.1 above yields u ∈ T such that (f ◦ f
a
)(z) = uz, for every z ∈ D. In
consequence, for every z ∈ D, we have
f(z) = f[(f
a
◦ f
a
)(z)] = (f ◦ f
a
)[f
a
(z)] = uf
a
(z).
(c) f
a
and multiplication by u are both homemorphisms of
¯
D, and therefore, their
composition is a homeomorphism of
¯
D.
(d) This amounts to proving that if u, v ∈ T and a, b ∈ D and
(4.2.1) uf
a
(z) = vf
b
(z) (∀z ∈ D),
then u = v and a = b. To verify that this is true, ﬁrst observe that since (4.2.1) holds
for z = b, u
a−b
1−¯ ab
= 0. Since u = 0, we conclude that a − b = 0, and therefore, a = b.
29
Thus, for every z ∈ D, we have uf
a
(z) = vf
a
(z), or equivalently, (u − v)f
a
(z) = 0,
for every z ∈ D. Since f
a
is not the zero function, it must be that u −v = 0, and so,
u = v.
Problem 4.3. Suppose the series
∞
¸
n=0
c
n
z
n
converges in D and the function f(z)
that it deﬁnes vanishes at
1
k
, for each k ∈ N. Prove that f ≡ 0.
Key terms: power series, WellOrdering Principle in N
0
.
Solution. Assume, with a view to reach a contradiction, that there exists n ∈ N
0
such that c
n
= 0. By the WellOrdering Principle, the set ¦n ∈ N
0
: c
n
= 0¦ has a
least element, say N. Put g(z) :=
¸
∞
n=0
c
N+n
z
n
. By the very deﬁnition of N, it must
be that c
n
= 0, for n = 0, 1, ..., N −1. In consequence,
f(z) =
∞
¸
n=N
c
n
z
n
= z
N
g(z).
From this and the fact that f
1
n
= 0, for every n ∈ N, we conclude that g
1
n
= 0,
for every n ∈ N. As g is represented by a convergent power series in D, it must be
that g ∈ H(D), whence g is continuous. Thus,
c
N
= g(0) = g
lim
n→∞
1
n
= lim
n→∞
g
1
n
= lim
n→∞
0 = 0,
contradicting our choice of N. So, our initial assumption is false, from which we infer
that c
n
= 0, for every n ∈ N
0
, and so, f ≡ 0.
Problem 4.4. Complete the following:
(a) State the OpenMapping Theorem for holomorphic functions.
(b) State the Maximum Modulus Principle for holomorphic functions.
(c) Provide a short deduction of (b) from (a).
(d) Show that the image of any closed subset (of the plane) under a nonconstant
polynomial is closed.
(e) From (a) and (d) deduce the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra.
30
Key terms: OpenMapping Theorem, Maximum Modulus Principle, Fundamental
Theorem of Algebra, BolzanoWeierstrass Theorem.
Solution. (a) Here is the terse version found in [RUD, 214]:
Theorem 4.4.1 (The OpenMapping Theorem). If Ω is a region and f ∈ H(Ω),
then f(Ω) is either a region or a point.
(b) Again, we provide Rudin’s version found on [RUD, 253]:
Theorem 4.4.2 (The Maximum Modulus Principle). If f ∈ H(Ω) ∩C(
¯
Ω), where
Ω is a bounded region, then the inequality
[f(z)[ ≤ f
∂Ω
:= sup
w∈∂Ω
[f(w)[
holds for every z ∈ Ω. Moreover, equality occurs at some point in Ω if and only if f
is constant on
¯
Ω.
(c) We may deduce (b) from (a) since no nonempty open subset of C contains an
element of maximum modulus. To see this, suppose Ω is an open subset of C and
z
0
∈ Ω. Since Ω is open, we may ﬁnd r > 0 such that D(z
0
, r) ⊂ Ω. Put
z
1
:=
z
0
+
z
0
r
2z
0

z
0
= 0
r
2
z
0
= 0
.
Direct computation shows that [z
1
−z
0
[ =
r
2
, and therefore, z
1
∈ D(z
0
, r) ⊂ Ω.
Moreover, we also have that [z
1
[ > [z
0
[. In summary, for any point z
0
∈ Ω, we may
ﬁnd another point z
1
in Ω that has larger modulus than z
0
; i.e., Ω does not contain
a point of maximum modulus.
(d) Let p(z) :=
¸
m
k=0
a
k
z
k
be a nonconstant polynomial, with a
m
= 0 (m > 0),
and let K be a closed subset of the plane. Let w ∈ p(K). Choose a sequence
¦w
n
¦ ⊂ p(K) such that w
n
→ w. As, each w
n
∈ p(K), we may ﬁnd z
n
∈ K such that
p(z
n
) = w
n
. Now, the triangle inequality gives
[a
m
[ [z[
m
=
p(z) −
m−1
¸
k=0
a
k
z
k
≤ [p(z)[ +
m−1
¸
k=0
[a
k
[ [z[
k
,
31
and therefore,
(4.4.1) [z[
m
[a
m
[ −
m−1
¸
k=0
[a
k
[
[z[
m−k
≤ [p(z)[ (z = 0).
It follows easily from (4.4.1) that [p(z)[ → ∞, as z → ∞, since a
m
= 0. In conse
quence, the sequence ¦z
n
¦, must be bounded, for otherwise there would be inﬁnitely
many n ∈ N such that [w
n
[ = [p(z
n
)[ > [w[ +1, contradicting that [w
n
[ → [w[. Thus,
by the BolzanoWeierstrass Theorem, we may ﬁnd a subsequence ¦z
n
l
¦ that converges
to some element, say z, of K, since K is closed. Finally, from the continuity of p, we
get
w = lim
l→∞
w
n
l
= lim
l→∞
p(z
n
l
) = p
lim
l→∞
z
n
l
= p(z),
and so, w ∈ p(K), proving p(K) is closed.
(e) Here is the form of the Fundamental Theorem of Algebra that we shall prove:
Theorem 4.4.3 (The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra). If p(z) is a polynomial
of positive degree m over C, then there are precisely m zeros of p in C, provided one
accounts for multiplicity.
Proof. Write p(z) :=
¸
m
k=0
a
k
z
k
. Choose r > 0 such that [a
m
[ r
m
−
¸
m−1
k=0
[a
k
[ r
k
>
[a
0
[ = [p(0)[. Then, as in the proof of (d), the triangle inequality ensures that
p(re
iθ
)
> [p(0)[, for all θ. If p does not have any zeros, then the function f(z) :=
1/p(z) would be entire and satisfy [f(0)[ >
f(re
iθ
)
, for all θ. This contradicts the
Maximum Modulus Principle. Thus p has at least one zero, say z
0
, and so, we may
write p(z) = (z −z
0
)q(z), where q is some polynomial of degree m−1. By induction,
we may deduce that p has exactly m zeros, counting multiplicities.
Problem 4.5. Let X be a Lebesgue measurable subset of R with [X[ = ∞. Con
struct a function f such that f ∈ L
p
(X), for every p ≥ 1, but f ∈ L
∞
(X).
Key terms: Lebesgue measure, L
p
space, uniform continuity, Lebesgue’s Monotone
Convergence Theorem, BeppoLevi Theorem, ratio test, essential supremum
Solution. We will use the following two general results:
32
Theorem 4.5.1. Let E be a Lebesgue measurable subset of R. Then the function
deﬁned by f
E
(x) := [E ∩ (−x, x)[, for x ∈ [0, ∞), is a uniformly continuous map
taking [0, ∞) onto [0, [E[). Furthermore, lim
x→∞
f
E
(x) = [E[.
Proof. Notice that we may write f
E
(x) =
R
1
E
1
(−x,x)
. Let x, y ∈ [0, ∞).
Without loss of generality, assume x ≤ y. Observe
[f
E
(x) −f
E
(y)[ =
R
1
E
1
(−x,x)
−
R
1
E
1
(−y,y)
≤
R
1
E
1
(−x,x)
−1
(−y,y)
=
R
1
E
1
(−y,−x)
+1
(x,y)
= [E ∩ (−y, −x)[ +[E ∩ (x, y)[
≤ 2(y −x) = 2 [x −y[ .
The uniform continuity of f is now immediate.
Applying Lebesgue’s Monotone Convergence Theorem to the sequence
¸
1
E
1
(−n,n)
¸
shows that lim
n→∞
f
E
(n) =
R
1
E
= [E[. As f
E
(0) = 0, we may deduce that f
E
maps
[0, ∞) onto [0, [E[) from the IntermediateValue Theorem.
Proposition 4.5.2. Let ¦x
n
¦ ⊂ [0, ∞) and X a Lebesgue measurable set of inﬁ
nite measure. Then there exists a sequence ¦X
n
¦ of pairwise disjoint Lebesgue mea
surable subsets of X such that [X
n
[ = x
n
, for each n ∈ N.
Proof. Let f
X
be as in Theorem 4.5.1. Since f
X
maps [0, ∞) onto [0, [X[) =
[0, ∞), we may ﬁnd x ∈ [0, ∞) such that X
1
= X ∩ (−x, x) ⊂ X has measure
x
1
. Assume inductively that we have found pairwise disjoint measurable subsets
X
1
, ..., X
n
of X such that [X
k
[ = x
k
, for 1 ≤ k ≤ n. By additivity, we have that
[X[ = [X ∩ (
¸
n
k=1
X
c
k
)[ +
¸
n
k=1
[X
k
[. Since [X[ = ∞ and
¸
n
k=1
[X
k
[ =
¸
n
k=1
x
k
< ∞,
it must be that [X ∩ (
¸
n
k=1
X
c
k
)[ = ∞. Mimicking the construction of X
1
, we may
ﬁnd X
n+1
⊂ X∩(
¸
n
k=1
X
c
k
) ⊆ X such that [X
n+1
[ = x
n+1
. That X
n+1
is disjoint from
each X
k
, 1 ≤ k ≤ n is obvious. This completes the induction and yields the desired
sequence of sets.
33
Returning to Problem 4.5, by the results above, we may ﬁnd a sequence ¦X
n
¦ of
pairwise disjoint measurable subsets of X such that [X
n
[ = 2
−n
, for every n ∈ N.
Put f :=
∞
¸
n=1
n1
Xn
. Since f is nonnegative and since the X
n
are pairwise disjoint,
it follows that [f[
p
= f
p
=
∞
¸
n=1
n
p
1
X
n
. Thus, the BeppoLevi Theorem and the ratio
test for series give
X
[f[
p
=
X
∞
¸
n=1
n
p
1
X
n
=
∞
¸
n=1
X
n
p
1
X
n
=
∞
¸
n=1
n
p
[X
n
[ =
∞
¸
n=1
n
p
2
−n
< ∞,
whence f ∈ L
p
(X).
To verify that f ∈ L
∞
(X), set S
M
:= ¦x ∈ X : [f(x)[ > M¦, for M ≥ 0. Since
we may always ﬁnd n ∈ N so large so that M < n and since [f[ = f, we have that
S
M
⊇ ¦x ∈ X : f(x) = n¦ = X
n
.
By monotonicity, [S
M
[ ≥ [X
n
[ = 2
−n
> 0, and consequently, the set ¦M : [S
M
[ = 0¦
is empty. Hence, the essential supremum f
∞
= ∞, and therefore, f ∈ L
∞
(X).
Problem 4.6. Let (X, A, µ) be a ﬁnite positive measure space. Suppose f ∈
L
∞
(X) is such that f
∞
> 0. For n ∈ N, put α
n
:=
X
[f[
n
dµ = f
n
n
. Show that
(a) f
n
→ f
∞
, as n → ∞ and
(b) α
n+1
/α
n
→ f
∞
, as n → ∞.
Key terms: essential supremum, ﬁnite measure space, positive measure.
Solution. (a) f ∈ L
∞
(X) means that f
∞
< ∞, where
f
∞
:= inf ¦M : µ(¦x : [f(x)[ > M¦) = 0¦ .
So, for every > 0, the set S
:= ¦x ∈ X : [f(x)[ > f
∞
−¦ is nonempty, and
moreover, µ(S
) > 0. Since [f[ > f
∞
− on S
, we have the following
0 < (f
∞
−)
n
µ(S
) =
S
(f
∞
−)
n
dµ ≤
S
[f[
n
dµ
≤
X
[f[
n
dµ = f
n
n
,
34
for every n ∈ N, provided < f
∞
. Taking the n
th
root gives
[µ(S
)]
1
n
(f
∞
−) ≤ f
n
.
Since 0 < µ(S
) ≤ µ(X) < ∞, we have that lim
n→∞
[µ(S
)]
1
n
= 1, whence
f
∞
− ≤ liminf
n→∞
f
n
.
As this is true for arbitrary > 0, we get
(4.6.1) f
∞
≤ liminf
n→∞
f
n
.
For the reverse inequality, we recall that [f[ ≤ f
∞
a.e. Hence, [f[
n
≤ f
n
∞
a.e.,
for each n ∈ N. So, we obtain
f
n
n
=
X
[f[
n
dµ ≤
X
f
n
∞
dµ = f
∞
µ(X).
Taking the n
th
root, gives
(4.6.2) f
n
≤ f
∞
[µ(X)]
1
n
.
Now, since 0 < f
∞
, we must necessarily have 0 < µ(X), and so, lim
n→∞
[µ(X)]
1
n
= 1.
By taking the limit superior in (4.6.2), we get limsup
n→∞
f
n
≤ f
∞
. This with (4.6.1)
proves that lim
n→∞
f
n
exists and is equal to f
∞
.
(b) Combining
X
[f[
n
dµ ≤ f
n
∞
µ(X) < ∞ with (4.6.1), we see that α
n
∈
(0, ∞), for every n ∈ N. As
X
[f[
n+1
dµ =
X
[f[ [f[
n
dµ ≤ f
∞
X
[f[
n
dµ,
we obtain α
n+1
≤ f
∞
α
n
, for every n, so that
(4.6.3) limsup
n→∞
α
n+1
α
n
≤ f
∞
.
Now, H¨older’s Inequality yields
α
n
=
X
[f[
n
dµ ≤
¸
X
([f[
n
)
n+1
n
dµ
n
n+1
¸
X
1
n+1
X
dµ
1
n+1
= (α
n+1
)
n
n+1
[µ(X)]
1
n+1
=
α
n+1
[µ(X)]
1
n+1
f
n+1
,
35
or equivalently,
(4.6.4)
f
n+1
[µ(X)]
1
n+1
≤
α
n+1
α
n
(n ∈ N).
Part (a) along with the fact that lim
n→∞
[µ(X)]
1
n+1
= 1 (as µ(X) ∈ (0, ∞)) yields
(4.6.5) f
∞
= lim
n→∞
f
n+1
[µ(X)]
1
n+1
≤ liminf
n→∞
α
n+1
α
n
,
by (4.6.4). Consideration of (4.6.5) along side (4.6.2) shows that lim
n→∞
α
n+1
/α
n
exists,
and moreover, f
∞
= lim
n→∞
α
n+1
/α
n
.
Problem 4.7. For p ∈ R, deﬁne h
p
:=
¸
∞
n=1
n
p
1
In
, where I
n
:=
1
n+1
,
1
n
. Prove
(a) h
p
∈ L
1
(R), provided p < 1.
(b) h
1
∈ L
1
weak
(R)`L
1
(R).
(c) h
p
∈ L
1
weak
(R), for p > 1.
Key terms: L
p
space, Weak L
p
, BeppoLevi Theorem, ptest.
Solution. (a) Observe that
h
p
=
¸
n
p
1
I
n
=
¸
n
p
1
I
n
=
¸
n
p
1
n
−
1
n + 1
(4.7.1)
=
¸
n
p
n(n + 1)
=
¸
n
p−1
n + 1
≤
¸
1
n
2−p
,
where the change of integration and summation is justiﬁed by the BeppoLevi Theo
rem. The series on the right of (4.7.1) converges by the ptest for series, since p < 1.
(b) For λ ∈ R, put S
λ
:= ¦x ∈ R : [h
1
(x)[ > λ¦. Fix λ ≥ 0. Deﬁne N :=
max ¦n ∈ N : n ≤ λ¦. Note that N ≤ λ, while N + 1 > λ.
It follows that S
N
⊇ S
λ
so that [S
λ
[ ≤ [S
N
[. Now, from the deﬁnition of h
1
we readily see that h
1
(x) = [h
1
(x)[ > N if and only if x ∈
¸
∞
n=N+1
I
n
. Thus,
S
N
=
¸
∞
n=N+1
I
n
, and therefore,
[S
N
[ =
∞
¸
n=N+1
1
n
−
1
n + 1
=
1
N + 1
− lim
n→∞
1
n + 1
=
1
N + 1
<
1
λ
.
In summary,
λ[S
λ
[ ≤ λ[S
N
[ < λ(1/λ) = 1.
36
As λ ≥ 0 is arbitrary, we may take the supremum over all such λ to conclude that
h
1
∈ L
1
weak
(R).
To see that h
1
∈ L
1
(R), we note that the computation involved in (4.7.1) is valid
for h
1
. That is,
h
1
=
¸
1
n+1
. Since the series is not ﬁnite, neither is the integral.
(c) First, let us set some notation. For x ∈ R, we deﬁne [x] := max ¦n ∈ Z : n ≤ x¦.
Now, analogous to the above, let S
λ
:= ¦x ∈ R : [h
p
(x)[ > λ¦. Fix p and λ and set
N := min ¦n ∈ N : n
p
≥ λ¦. By deﬁnition, N
p
≥ λ, while (N − 1)
p
< λ. Now,
x ∈ S
N
if and only if h
p
(x) = [h
p
(x)[ > N if and only if x ∈
¸
∞
n=[N
1/n
]+1
I
n
so that
S
N
=
¸
∞
n=[N
1/n
]+1
I
n
, and therefore, [S
N
[ =
1
[N
1/p
]+1
. Since N ≥ λ, S
N
⊆ S
λ
, and so,
λ[S
λ
[ ≥ λ[S
N
[ >
(N −1)
p
[N
1
p
] + 1
≥
(N −1)
p
[N
1
p
] + 1
≥
(N/2)
p
2N
1
p
=
N
p−
1
p
2
p+1
.
Now, since p > 1, N → ∞, as λ → ∞. Hence, we conclude that h
p
∈ L
1
weak
(R).
Problem 4.8. Choose intervals J
n
⊂ (0, 1) in such a way that U =
¸
n
J
n
is
dense in (0, 1) and yet the set K := (0, 1)`U has positive measure.
Key terms: Lebesgue measure
Solution. Let 0 < < 1 and put Q := Q ∩ (0, 1). Note that Q is dense in (0, 1),
yet has measure zero, since it is countable. By the deﬁnition of Lebesgue (outer)
measure, we may ﬁnd open intervals I
n
such that ∪
n
I
n
covers Q and
¸
n
[I
n
[ < .
Put J
n
:= I
n
∩ (0, 1). Then each J
n
is an interval (or empty),J
n
⊂ (0, 1), for each
n, and moreover, U =
¸
n
J
n
⊂
¸
n
I
n
. Hence, [U[ =≤ [
¸
n
I
n
[ ≤
¸
n
[I
n
[ < . Since
(0, 1) has ﬁnite measure, we get
[K[ = [(0, 1)`U[ = [(0, 1)[ −[U[ = 1 −[U[ > 1 − > 0.
37
CHAPTER 5
Spring 2006
Problem 5.1. Let (X, A, µ) be a ﬁnite measure space. Prove:
(a) For 1 ≤ r ≤ s ≤ ∞, we have L
s
(X) ⊆ L
r
(X).
(b) The result of (a) can fail if µ(X) = ∞.
Key terms: ﬁnite measure space, L
p
space, H¨older’s Inequality, Lebesgue Measure,
conjugate exponent.
Solution. (a) Clearly, we may assume that r < s, so that 1 <
s
r
. Put p :=
s
r
and let
q be its conjugate exponent.
For f ∈ L
s
(X), H¨older’s inequality gives
X
[f[
r
dµ =
X
[f[
r
1
X
dµ ≤
¸
X
([f[
r
)
p
1/p
¸
X
1
q
X
dµ
1/q
=
¸
X
[f[
rp
1/p
¸
X
1
X
dµ
1/q
= f
r
s
[µ(X)]
1/q
< ∞.
Consequently, f ∈ L
r
(X). As this is true for each f ∈ L
s
(X), the conclusion follows.
(b) Let X := [1, ∞), A := Lebesgue measurable subsets of [1, ∞), and µ :=
Lebesgue measure. Then for f(x) :=
1
x
, we have
X
[f[
2
dµ =
∞
1
1
x
2
dx = 1,
while
X
[f[ dµ =
∞
1
1
x
dx = ∞.
Hence, in this situation, we see that L
2
(X) ⊆ L
1
(X), even though 1 ≤ 2.
Problem 5.2. Let A, B ⊆ R be Lebesgue measurable and deﬁne h(x) := [(A −x) ∩ B[.
Show that (a) h is a Lebesgue measurable function; and, (b)
R
h(x)dx = [A[ [B[.
38
Key terms: measurable function, measurable set, convolution, Lebesgue’s Monotone
Convergence Theorem, Fubini’s Theorem, translation invariance.
Solution. For n ∈ N, deﬁne A
n
:= A ∩ (−n, n) and B
n
:= B ∩ (−n, n). Notice that
[A
n
[ , [B
n
[ ≤ 2n < ∞ so that 1
A
n
, 1
B
n
∈ L
1
(R). Consequently, by Theorem 8.14 in
[RUD] (the Convolution Theorem), the function given by
h
n
(x) :=
R
1
An
(x + y)1
Bn
(y)dy
is Lebesgue integrable. In particular, each h
n
is Lebesgue measurable.
Fix x ∈ R and observe that
¸
1
(A
n
−x)∩B
n
¸
∞
n=1
is a monotone increasing sequence
of measurable functions that converge everywhere to 1
(A−x)∩B
, whence Lebesgue’s
Monotone Convergence Theorem yields
R
1
(A−x)∩B
(y)dy = lim
n→∞
R
1
(A
n
−x)∩B
n
(y)dy = lim
n→∞
R
1
An
(x + y)1
Bn
(y)dy
= lim
n→∞
h
n
(x).
On the other hand,
h(x) = [(A −x) ∩ B[ =
R
1
A−x
(y)1
B
(y)dy =
R
1
(A−x)∩B
(y)dy,
so that h(x) = lim
n→∞
h
n
(x). Since x is arbitrary, we conclude that h is the pointwise
limit of a sequence of measurable functions, and so, h is measurable.
To show (b), we ﬁrst notice that
1
A−x
(y) = 1
A
(x + y) = 1
A−y
(x)
holds for each x, y ∈ R. Combining this with Fubini’s Theorem and the translation
invariance of Lebesgue measure gives
R
h(x)dx =
R
¸
R
1
A−x
(y)1
B
(y)dy
dx =
R
¸
R
1
A−x
(y)1
B
(y)dx
dy
=
R
¸
R
1
A−y
(x)dx
1
B
(y)dy =
R
[A −y[ 1
B
(y)dy
=
R
[A[ 1
B
(y)dy = [A[
R
1
B
(y)dy = [A[ [B[ .
39
Problem 5.3. Let A be a σalgebra on a set X and assume µ : A → [0, ∞] has
the following properties:
(i) If A
1
, A
2
∈ F with A
1
∩ A
2
= ∅, then µ(A
1
∪ A
2
) = µ(A
1
) + µ(A
2
).
(ii) If ¦A
n
¦
∞
n=1
is a sequence in A such that A
n+1
⊂ A
n
, for all n ∈ N, and
∞
¸
n=1
A
n
= ∅, then lim
n→∞
µ(A
n
) = 0.
Prove that µ is a positive measure on X.
Key terms: σalgebra, positive measure, ﬁnitely additive, countably additive.
Solution. Since A is a σalgebra, we have ∅ ∈ A. For n ∈ N, let A
n
= ∅. The
sequence ¦A
n
¦ satisﬁes the hypothesis of (ii), whence
µ(∅) = lim
n→∞
µ(∅) = lim
n→∞
µ(A
n
) = 0.
So, µ is not identically inﬁnite.
It remains to be shown that µ is countably additive. Now, condition (i) combined
with induction readily shows that µ is ﬁnitely additive; i.e.,
µ
k
¸
n=1
A
n
=
k
¸
n=1
µ(A
n
),
whenever A
1
, ..., A
k
∈ A are pairwise disjoint.
To see that µ is, in fact, countably additive, let ¦B
m
¦
∞
m=1
be a sequence of mea
surable pairwise disjoint sets. For n ∈ N, put A
n
:=
∞
¸
m=n
B
m
. Clearly, A
n+1
⊂ A
n
, for
each n. Now, suppose, in order to reach a contradiction, that there exists x ∈
∞
¸
n=1
A
n
.
Then x ∈ A
1
=
∞
¸
m=1
B
m
. Since the sets B
m
are pairwise disjoint, there is a unique
n(x) ∈ N such that x ∈ B
n(x)
. Hence, x ∈
∞
¸
m=n(x)+1
B
m
= A
n(x)+1
. This contradicts
that x ∈
∞
¸
n=1
A
n
. Thus,
∞
¸
n=1
A
n
= ∅, and therefore, ¦A
n
¦ has the requisite properties
to invoke (ii). In consequence, lim
n→∞
µ(A
n
) = 0. Now, notice that as the B
m
are
40
pairwise disjoint, the sets
n−1
¸
m=1
B
m
and A
n
are disjoint, provided n ≥ 2. So, for each
n ≥ 2, we have
µ
∞
¸
m=1
B
m
= µ
¸
n−1
¸
m=1
B
m
∪ A
n
¸
= µ
n−1
¸
m=1
B
m
+ µ(A
n
) =
n−1
¸
m=1
µ(B
m
) + µ(A
n
).
Taking the limit as n → ∞ completes the proof.
Problem 5.4. Let h be a bounded Lebesgue measurable function on R having the
property that lim
n→∞
E
h(nx)dx = 0, for every Lebesgue measurable subset E of ﬁnite
measure. Show that for every f ∈ L
1
(R), we have lim
n→∞
R
f(x)h(nx)dx = 0.
Key terms: Lebesgue measure, L
p
space, abstract integration, simple function.
Solution. Let s be a complex, measurable, simple function on R that vanishes
outside a set of ﬁnite measure. Write s =
¸
m
k=1
α
k
1
A
k
, where α
k
∈ C` ¦0¦ and A
k
are Lebesgue measurable and pairwise disjoint. Note that since s vanishes outside a
set of ﬁnite measure, each A
k
has ﬁnite measure. Thus, for every such simple function,
we have
lim
n→∞
R
s(x)h(nx)dx = lim
n→∞
R
¸
m
¸
k=1
α
k
1
A
k
(x)
¸
h(nx)dx
=
m
¸
k=1
α
k
¸
lim
n→∞
R
1
A
k
(x)h(nx)dx
(5.4.1)
= 0.
Now, let f ∈ L
1
(R) and let M ≥ 0 be a ﬁnite bound for h. Fix > 0. By Theorem
3.13 in [RUD], we may ﬁnd a complex, measurable, simple function s that vanishes
outside a set of ﬁnite measure such that f −s
1
< /M. Now, for each n ∈ N, we
41
have
R
f(x)h(nx)dx
=
R
[f(x) −s(x)]h(nx)dx +
R
s(x)h(nx)dx
≤
R
[f(x) −s(x)[ [h(nx)[ dx +
R
s(x)h(nx)dx
(5.4.2)
≤ M f −s
1
+
R
s(x)h(nx)dx
< +
R
s(x)h(nx)dx
.
Letting n → ∞ in (5.4.2) and appealing to (5.4.1) gives
lim
n→∞
R
f(x)h(nx)dx
< ,
by the continuity of the absolute value function. The proof is completed by letting
→ 0.
Problem 5.5. Let L : Ω → C be a continuous function having the property that
e
L(z)
= z, for all z ∈ Ω. Prove that
(a) L ∈ H(Ω).
(b) There is no continuous map on D
that acts as a right inverse for the expo
nential map on D
.
Key terms: exponential map, complex diﬀerentiability, index of a closed curve (with
respect to a point), Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, complex logarithm.
Solution. (a) Note that since e
z
is never zero, we may deduce that 0 ∈ Ω. Now,
ﬁx z ∈ Ω and h ∈ C` ¦0¦. Notice that L must be injective, for if L(a) = L(b), then
a = e
L(a)
= e
L(b)
= b. Thus,
L(z+h)−L(z)
h
= 0, and therefore,
L(z + h) −L(z)
h
=
¸
(z + h) −z
L(z + h) −L(z)
−1
=
¸
e
L(z+h)
−e
L(z)
L(z + h) −L(z)
−1
=
¸
e
L(z)+H(h)
−e
L(z)
H(h)
−1
,
42
where H(h) := L(z + h) −L(z). Since L is assumed continuous, we have H(h) → 0,
as h → 0. Combining this with the continuity of the map w → w
−1
on C` ¦0¦ and
the fact that e
z
is its own derivative yields
lim
h→0
L(z + h) −L(z)
h
= lim
h→0
¸
e
L(z)+H(h)
−e
L(z)
H(h)
−1
=
¸
lim
h→0
e
L(z)+H(h)
−e
L(z)
H(h)
−1
=
e
L(z)
−1
= z
−1
.
This shows that L is diﬀerentiable on Ω, and moreover, L
(z) = z
−1
.
(b) We will actually show that under the assumptions on L, D
(0, r) ⊆ Ω, for all
r > 0. To verify this, suppose contrarily that, for some 0 < r < ∞, L is a continuous
right inverse for the exponential map in D(0, r), that is, e
L(z)
= z, for all 0 < [z[ < r.
Put ρ :=
r
2
. Let γ : [0, 1] → C be the closed curve given by γ(t) := ρe
2πit
. By part
(a) L is diﬀerentiable and L
(z) = 1/z. Therefore,
γ
L
(z)dz =
γ
z
−1
dz = Ind
γ
(0) = 2πi.
On the other hand, by the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus,
γ
L
(z)dz = 0, since
γ is closed. This contradiction completes the proof.
Problem 5.6. Let f and g be entire functions such that [f[ ≤ [g[. Prove
(a) If z
0
is a zero of g having multiplicity m, then z
0
is a zero of f having
multiplicity at least m.
(b) f is a constant multiple of g.
Key terms: entire function, Liouville’s Theorem, zeroset, removable singularity.
Solution. It is enough to prove (b). To this end, note that it is clear that f vanishes
whenever g does. Thus, we may assume that g is not identically equal to zero. As
such, the set of zeros of g, Z(g), contains no limit point in C. In consequence, for
each (ﬁxed) zero z ∈ Z(g), we may ﬁnd r
z
> 0 such that D
(z, r
z
)∩Z(g) = ∅. Hence,
the function
f
g
is holomorphic and bounded (by 1) on the punctured disk D
(z, r
z
),
and therefore, has a removable singularity at z. (See Theorem 10.20 in [RUD].) Let
43
h
z
be an extension of
f
g
to a holomorphic function on D(z, r
z
). Note that [h
z
[ ≤ 1,
since this is true for
f
g
on D
(z, r
z
) and since h
z
is continuous (it is holomorphic) on
D(z, r
z
).
Now, deﬁne h : C → C by h(z) =
f(z)
g(z)
z ∈ Z(g)
h
z
(z) z ∈ Z(g)
. Clearly, h is diﬀerentiable
at every z in the open set C`Z(g). Furthermore, for z ∈ Z(g), h and h
z
agree in the
neighborhood D(z, r
z
) of z, where h
z
is holomorphic, and so, h is also diﬀerentiable
at z. We conclude that h is an entire function. Moreover, the conditions on f and
g and the fact that [h
z
[ ≤ 1, for all z ∈ Z(g), ensure that [h[ ≤ 1. By Liouville’s
Theorem, we deduce that h is some constant c. The very deﬁnition of h thus gives
that f(z) = cg(z), for all z ∈ Z(g). Yet [f[ ≤ [g[ implies that f(z) = 0 = c 0 = cg(z),
for all z ∈ Z(g). So, we actually have f(z) = cg(z), for all z ∈ C.
Problem 5.7. Verify that
(a)
∞
−∞
dx
1 + x
4
=
√
2
2
π.
(b)
2π
0
e
−iθ
exp(e
iθ
)dθ = 2π.
Key terms: contour integration, Residue Theorem, pole, Laurent series.
Solution. (a) Put f(z) :=
1
z
4
+1
and note that f has simple poles at z
k
= exp
i
(2k+1)π
4
,
k = 0, ..., 3. For R > 1, let γ
R
: [0, π] → C be the path t → Re
it
. Among the four
simple poles, only z
0
and z
1
lie inside the region bounded by γ
R
and the xaxis. Hence,
R
−R
f(x)dx +
γ
R
f(z)dz = 2πi
3
¸
k=0
Res(f, z
k
),
or equivalently,
(5.7.1)
R
−R
1
x
4
+ 1
dx = −
γ
R
f(z)dz + 2πi [Res(f, z
0
) + Res(f, z
1
)] .
Now, observe that
γ
R
f(z)dz
=
π
0
1
(Re
it
)
4
+ 1
Rie
it
dt
≤
π
0
R
R
4
−1
dt =
πR
R
4
−1
.
44
Clearly, the above inequality implies that
γ
R
f(z)dz
→ 0, as R → ∞. Applying
this fact to (5.7.1) we may conclude that
(5.7.2)
∞
−∞
1
x
4
+ 1
dx = 2πi [Res(f, z
0
) + Res(f, z
1
)] .
At this stage, it is appropriate to calculate Res(f, z
0
) and Res(f, z
1
). The proce
dure is the same for both:
Res(f, z
k
) = lim
z→z
k
z −z
k
z
4
+ 1
=
1
lim
z→z
k
z
4
−z
4
k
z −z
k
=
1
d
dz
z
4
z=z
k
=
1
4z
3
k
.
So,
Res(f, z
0
) + Res(f, z
1
) =
exp
−i
3π
4
+ exp
−i
9π
4
4
=
−2i sin (π/4)
4
= −
i
2
√
2
.
Substitution of this into (5.7.2) gives the desired result.
(b) Let γ be the closed curve given by θ → e
iθ
, for θ ∈ [0, 2π]. Then
(5.7.3)
2π
0
e
−iθ
exp(e
iθ
)dθ = −i
γ
e
z
z
2
dz.
By the Residue Theorem, one has
γ
e
z
z
2
dz = 2πiRes
e
z
z
2
, 0
= 2πi,
since
e
z
z
2
has Laurent expansion
1
z
2
+
1
z
+
1
2
+
z
3!
+... about the point z = 0. Substituting
this into equation (5.7.3) completes the solution.
Problem 5.8. Let S := ¦z ∈ C : 0 < Re z < 2¦ and for each z ∈ S let l
z
(t) :=
tz + 1 − t, for 0 ≤ t ≤ 1. Without assuming that a primitive of f exists, show that
F(z) :=
l
z
f deﬁnes a holomorphic function in S such that F
= f. Explain why the
conclusion fails whenever f is not holomorphic.
Key terms: Cauchy’s Theorem in a Convex Set, complex diﬀerentiability.
Solution. This is problem is a speciﬁc example of the following more general result,
whose proof follows the statement:
45
Theorem 5.8.1 (Cauchy’s Theorem in a Convex Set). Let f be a function deﬁned
on a convex open subset Ω of C. Show that f ∈ H(Ω) if and only if there exists
F ∈ H(Ω) such that F
= f.
Proof. (⇒) Fix a ∈ Ω. Since Ω is convex, it contains the line segment [a, z], for
every z ∈ Ω. Deﬁne F : C → C by F(z) :=
[a,z]
f(ξ)dξ. Now, ﬁx z
0
∈ Ω. For any
z ∈ Ω, Cauchy’s Theorem for a triangle gives
[z,z
0
]
f(ξ)dξ = −
[z
0
,a]
f(ξ)dξ −
[a,z]
f(ξ)dξ =
[a,z
0
]
f(ξ)dξ −F(z)
= F(z
0
) −F(z).
Hence, for z ∈ Ω` ¦z
0
¦, we have
F(z
0
) −F(z)
z
0
−z
−f(z
0
)
=
1
z
0
−z
[z,z
0
]
f(ξ)dξ −
1
z
0
−z
[z,z
0
]
f(z
0
)dξ
≤
1
[z
0
−z[
[z,z
0
]
[f(ξ) −f(z
0
)[ d [ξ[ . (5.8.1)
Let > 0 be given. Using the continuity of f, choose δ > 0 so small so that
[ξ −z
0
[ < δ implies ξ ∈ Ω and [f(ξ) −f(z
0
)[ < . Now, if 0 < [z −z
0
[ < δ, then
[ξ −z
0
[ < δ, for each ξ ∈ [z, z
0
]. Thus, from (5.8.1) we may deduce that
F(z
0
) −F(z)
z
0
−z
−f(z
0
)
<
1
[z
0
−z[
[z,z
0
]
d [ξ[ = ,
for all z ∈ Ω with 0 < [z −z
0
[ < δ. This proves that F is diﬀerentiable at z
0
, and
moreover, F
(z
0
) = f(z
0
). As z
0
∈ Ω is arbitrary, the proof of this implication is
complete.
(⇐) As holomorphic functions have complex derivatives of all orders, F ∈ H(Ω)
with F
= f implies that f ∈ H(Ω).
46
Index
additivity
countable, 40
ﬁnite, 40
almost everywhere (a.e.), 7, 12
BeppoLevi Theorem, 7, 9, 32, 36
BolzanoWeierstrass Theorem, 20, 31
CasoratiWeierstrass Theorem, 11
Cauchy’s Formula, 16
Cauchy’s Theorem
in a Convex Set, 45, 46
Chain Rule, 27, 28
complex logarithm, 42
conformal mapping, 27, 28
conjugate exponent, 38
convergence
in measure, 23
pnorm, 7
pointwise, 7, 23
uniform, 2, 22
convolution, 39
counting measure, 6
diﬀerentiability
complex, 4, 42, 45
enssential supremum, 32, 34
entire function, 8, 11, 21, 43
exponential map, 42
Fubini’s Theorem, 1, 15, 39
Fundamental Theorem of Algebra, 31, 32
Fundamental Theorem of Calculus, 42
H¨older’s Inequality, 38
harmonic function, 21
homeomorphism, 28
index of a closed curve, 2, 42
integration
abstract, 41
contour, 3, 18, 44
Laurent series, 44
Lebesgue
Dominated Convergence Theorem, 1, 4
measure, 4–6, 12, 19, 32, 37, 38, 41
Monotone Convergence Theorem, 9, 20, 32,
39
point, 12
Liouville’s Theorem, 8, 21, 43
L
p
space, 6, 16, 19, 20, 26, 32, 36, 38, 41
47
Maximum Modulus Principle, 12, 20, 27, 28,
31
measurable
function, 4, 39
set, 5, 39
measure
positive, 34, 40
measure space
complete, 5
ﬁnite, 26, 34, 38
metric space
complete, 7
Morera’s Theorem, 1
negligible set, 5
OpenMapping Theorem, 31
ptest, 36
polar coordinates, 15, 16
pole, 3, 11, 18, 44
power series, 22, 30
ratio test, 32
residue, 3, 11, 18
Residue Theorem, 3, 18, 44
rotation, 27
Schwarz Lemma, 27
σalgebra, 40
simple function, 41
singularity
removable, 11, 27, 43
translation invariance, 39
uniform continuity, 32
Uniqueness Theorem for Holomorphic
Functions, 22
variation
bounded, 10
total, 10
weak L
p
, 36
WellOrdering Principle (in N), 30
zeroset, 20, 43
48
Bibliography
[CAB] R. V. Churchill, J. W. Brown,
Complex Variables and Applications. (Seventh Edition)
McGrawHill (2003)
[PAM] M. H. Protter, C. B. Morrey,
A First Course in Real Analysis. (Second Edition)
SpringerVerlag New York, Inc. (1991)
[ROY] H. L. Royden,
Real Analysis. (Third Edition)
Prentice Hall, Inc. (1988)
[RUD] W. Rudin,
Real and Complex Analysis. (Third Edition)
McGrawHill. (1987)
49