Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • VisualComplexAnalysis Needham PDF

    Uploaded by

    Makilosa
    13 views612 pages

    Original Title

    VisualComplexAnalysis-Needham (1).pdf

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    PDF or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    13 views612 pages

    VisualComplexAnalysis Needham PDF

    Uploaded by

    Makilosa

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as PDF or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    of 612
    Visual Complex Analysis Visual Complex Analysis Tristan Needham Department of Mathematics University of San Francisco CLARENDON PRESS + OXFORD OXFORD ‘UNIVERSITY PRESS Great Clarendon Street, Oxford ox2z 6DP Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University’s objective of excellence in tesearch, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide in Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogoté Buenos Aires Calcutta CapeTown Chennai DaresSalaam Delhi Florence HongXong Istanbul Karachi KualaLumpur Madrid Melbourne MexicoCity Mumbai Nairobi Paris Sio Paulo Singapore Taipei Tokyo Toronto Warsaw with associated companies in Berlin Ibadan Oxford is a registered trade mark of Oxford University Press in the UK and in certain other countries Published in the United States by Oxford University Press Inc., New York © Tristan Needham, 1997 The moral rights of the author have been asserted Database right Oxford University Press (maker) First published 1997 Reprinted 1997, 1998 First published in paperback 1998 (with corrections) Reprinted 2000 (with corrections) All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior permission in writing of Oxford University Press, or as expressly permitted by law, or under terms agreed with the appropriate reprographics rights organization. Enquiries concerning reproduction outside the scope of the above should be sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University Press, at the address above You must not circulate this book in any other binding or cover and you must impose this same condition on any acquirer A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data (Data available) ISBN0 19 853447 7 (Hbk) ISBN 0 19 853446 9 (Pbk) Printed in Great Britain on acid-free paper by Biddles Ltd., Guildford and King’s Lynn For Roger Penrose and George Burnett-Stuart Preface Theories of the known, which are described by different physical ideas, may be equivalent in all their predictions and hence scientifically indistinguishable. However, they are not psychologically identical when trying to move from that base into the unknown. For dif- ferent views suggest different kinds of modifications which might be made and hence are not equivalent in the hypotheses one generates from them in one’s attempt to understand what is not yet understood. R. P, Feynman [1966] A Parable Imagine a society in which the citizens are encouraged, indeed compelled up to a certain age, to read (and sometimes write) musical scores. All quite admirable. However, this society also has a very curious—few remember how it all started— and disturbing law: Music must never be listened to or performed! Though its importance is universally acknowledged, for some reason music is not widely appreciated in this society. To be sure, professors still excitedly pore over the great works of Bach, Wagner, and the rest, and they do their utmost to communicate to their students the beautiful meaning of what they find there, but they still become tongue-tied when brashly asked the question, “What's the point of all this?!” In this parable, it was patently unfair and irrational to have a law forbidding would-be music students from experiencing and understanding the subject directly through “sonic intuition.” But in our society of mathematicians we have such a law. It is not a written law, and those who flout it may yet prosper, but it says, Mathematics must not be visualized! More likely than not, when one opens a random modern mathematics text on a random subject, one is confronted by abstract symbolic reasoning that is divorced from one’s sensory experience of the world, despite the fact that the very phenomena one is studying were often discovered by appealing to geometric (and perhaps physical) intuition. This reflects the fact that steadily over the last hundred years the honour of visual reasoning in mathematics has been besmirched. Although the great mathe- maticians have always been oblivious to such fashions, it is only recently that the “mathematician in the street” has picked up the gauntlet on behalf of geometry. The present book openly challenges the current dominance of purely symbolic logical reasoning by using new, visually accessible arguments to explain the truths of elementary complex analysis. viii Preface Computers In part, the resurgence of interest in geometry can be traced to the mass-availability of computers to draw mathematical objects, and perhaps also to the related, some- what breathless, popular interest in chaos theory and in fractals. This book instead advocates the more sober use of computers as an aid to geometric reasoning. Thave tried to encourage the reader to think of the computer as a physicist would his laboratory—it may be used to check existing ideas about the construction of the world, or as a tool for discovering new phenomena which then demand new ideas for their explanation. Throughout the text I have suggested such uses of the computer, but I have deliberately avoided giving detailed instructions. The reason is simple: whereas a mathematical idea is a timeless thing, few things are more ephemeral than computer hardware and software. Having said this, the program “f(z)” is currently the best tool for visually exploring the ideas in this book; a free demonstration version can be downloaded directly from Lascaux Graphics [http://www.primenet.com/“lascaux/]. On occa- sion it would also be helpful if one had access to an all-purpose mathematical engine such as Maple® or Mathematica®. However, I would like to stress that none of the above software is essential: the entire book can be fully understood without any use of a computer. Finally, some readers may be interested in knowing how computers were used to produce this book. Perhaps five of the 501 diagrams were drawn us- ing output from Mathematica®; the remainder I drew by hand (or rather “by mouse”) using CorelDRAW™, occasionally guided by output from “f(z)”. I typeset the book in IATgX using the wonderful Y&Y 7X System for Windows [http://www. YandY.com/], the figures being included as EPS files. The text is Times, with Helvetica heads, and the mathematics is principally MathTime™, though nine other mathematical fonts make cameo appearances. All of these Adobe Type 1 fonts were obtained from Y&Y, Inc., with the exception of Adobe’s MathematicalPi-Six font, which 1 used to represent quaternions. Having typeset the book, I used the DVIPSONE™ component of the Y&Y TEX System for Win- dows to generate a fully page-independent, DSC-compliant PostScript® file, which I transmitted to Oxford via the Internet (using FTP) in the form of a single ZIP file. Finally, OUP printed the book directly from this PostScript® file. The Book’s Newtonian Genesis In the summer of 1982, having been inspired by Westfall’s [1980] excellent biog- raphy, I made an intense study of Newton’s [1687] masterpiece, Philosophiae Nat- uralis Principia Mathematica. While the Nobel physicist S. Chandrasekhar [1995] has sought to lay bare the remarkable nature of Newton’s results in the Principia, the present book instead arose out of a fascination with Newton’s methods. It is fairly well known that Newton’s original 1665 version of the calculus was different from the one we learn today: its essence was the manipulation of power series, which Newton likened to the manipulation of decimal expansions in arithmetic. The symbolic calculus—the one in every standard textbook, and the one now associated with the name of Leibniz—was also perfectly familiar to Preface ix Newton, but apparently it was of only incidental interest to him. After all, armed with his power series, Newton could evaluate an integral like f en dx just as easily as f sinx dx. Let Leibniz try that! It is less well known that around 1680 Newton became disenchanted with both these approaches, whereupon he proceeded to develop a third version of calculus, based on geometry. This “geometric calculus” is the mathematical engine that propels the brilliant physics of Newtons Principia. Having grasped Newton’s method, I immediately tried my own hand at using it to simplify my teaching of introductory calculus. An example will help to explain what 1 mean by this. Let us show that if 7 = tand, then 40 = 1 4 T?. If we increase 9 by a small amount d@ then T will increase by the amount dT in the figure below. To obtain the result, we need only observe that in the limit as d6 tends to zero, the black triangle is ultimately similar [exercise] to the shaded triangle. Thus, in this Jimit, aT OL aT, a Sat eS Daeraitr’. Ld 1 6 + Only gradually did I come to realize how naturally this mode of thought could be applied—almost exactly 300 years later!—to the geometry of the complex plane. Reading This Book In the hope of making the book fun to read, I have attempted to write as though I were explaining the ideas directly to a friend. Correspondingly, I have tried to make you, the reader, into an active participant in developing the ideas. For example, as an argument progresses, I have frequently and deliberately placed a pair of logical stepping stones sufficiently far apart that you may need to pause and stretch slightly to pass from one to the next. Such places are marked “[exercise]”; they often require nothing more than a simple calculation or a moment of reflection. This brings me to the exercises proper, which may be found at the end of each chapter. In the belief that the essential prerequisite for finding the answer to a question is the desire to find it, I have made every effort to provide exercises that provoke curiosity. They are considerably more wide-ranging than is common, and they often establish important facts which are then used freely in the text itself. While problems whose be all and end all is routine calculation are thereby avoided, x Preface I believe that readers will automatically develop considerable computational skill in the process of seeking solutions to these problems. On the other hand, my intention in a large number of the exercises is to illustrate how geometric thinking can often replace lengthy calculation. Any part of the book marked with a star (“*”) may be omitted on a first reading. If you do elect to read a starred section, you may in turn choose to omit any starred subsections. Please note, however, that a part of the book that is starred is not necessarily any more difficult, nor any less interesting or important, than any other part of the book. Teaching from this Book The entire book can probably be covered in a year, but in a single semester course one must first decide what kind of course to teach, then choose a corresponding path through the book. Here I offer just three such possible paths: Traditional Course. Chapters 1 to 9, omitting all starred material (e.g., the whole of Chapter 6). Vector Field Course. In order to take advantage of the Pélya vector field ap- proach to visualizing complex integrals, one could follow the “Traditional Course” above, omitting Chapter 9, and adding the unstarred parts of Chapters 10 and 11. Non-Euclidean Course. At the expense of teaching any integration, one could give a course focused on Mébius transformations and non-Euclidean geometry. These two related parts of complex analysis are probably the most important ones for contemporary mathematics and physics, and yet they are also the ones that are almost entirely neglected in undergraduate-level texts. On the other hand, graduate- level works tend to assume that you have already encountered the main ideas as an undergraduate: Catch 22! Such a course might go as follows: All of Chapter 1; the unstarred parts of Chapter 2; all of Chapter 3, including the starred sections but (possibly) omitting the starred subsections; all of Chapter 4; all of Chapter 6, including the starred sections but (possibly) omitting the starred subsections. Omissions and Apologies If one believes in the ultimate unity of mathematics and physics, as I do, then a very strong case for the necessity of complex numbers can be built on their apparently fundamental role in the quantum mechanical laws governing matter. Also, the work of Sir Roger Penrose has shown (with increasing force) that com- plex numbers play an equally central role in the relativistic laws governing the structure of space-time. Indeed, if the laws of matter and of space-time are ever to be reconciled, then it seems very likely that it will be through the auspices of the complex numbers. This book cannot explore these matters; instead, we refer the interested reader to Feynman [1963, 1985], to Penrose [1989, 1994], and to Penrose and Rindler [1984]. A more serious omission is the lack of discussion of Riemann surfaces, which 1 had originally intended to treat in a final chapter. This plan was aborted once it be- Preface xi came clear that a serious treatment would entail expanding the book beyond reason. By this time, however, I had already erected much of the necessary scaffolding, and this material remains in the finished book. In pasticular, I hope that the inter- ested reader will find the last three chapters helpful in understanding Riemann's original physical insights, as expounded by Klein [1881]. See also Springer [1957, Chap. 1], which essentially reproduces Klein’s monograph, but with additional helpful commentary. I consider the history of mathematics to be a vital tool in understanding both the current state of mathematics, and its trajectory into the future. Sadly, however, I can do no more than touch on historical matters in the present work; instead I refer you to the remarkable book, Mathematics and Its History, by John Stillwell [1989]. Indeed, I strongly encourage you to think of his book as a companion to mine: not only does it trace and explain the development of complex analysis, but it also explores and illuminates the connections with other areas of mathematics. To the expert reader I would like to apologize for having invented the word “amplitwist” [Chapter 4] as a synonym (more or less) for “derivative”, as well the component terms “amplification” and “twist”. I can only say that the need for some such terminology was forced on me in the classroom: if you try teaching the ideas in this book without using such language, I think you will quickly discover what I mean! Incidentally, a precedence argument in defence of “amplitwist” might be that a similar term was coined by the older German school of Klein, Bieberbach, etal. They spoke of “eine Drehstreckung”, from “drehen” (to twist) and “strecken” (to stretch). A significant proportion of the geometric observations and arguments con- tained in this book are, to the best of my knowledge, new. I have not drawn atten- tion to this in the text itself as this would have served no useful purpose: students don’t need to know, and experts will know without being told. However, in cases where an idea is clearly unusual but I am aware of it having been published by someone else, I have tried to give credit where credit is due. In attempting to rethink so much classical mathematics, I have no doubt made mistakes; the blame for these is mine alone. Corrections will be gratefully received, and then posted, at http://www.usfca.edu/vca. My book will no doubt be flawed in many ways of which I am not yet aware, but there is one “sin” that I have intentionally committed, and for which I shall not re- pent: many of the arguments are not rigorous, at least as they stand. This is a serious crime if one believes that our mathematical theories are merely elaborate mental constructs, precariously hoisted aloft. Then rigour becomes the nerve-racking bal- ancing act that prevents the entire structure from crashing down around us. But suppose one believes, as I do, that our mathematical theories are attempting to capture aspects of a robust Platonic world that is not of our making. I would then contend that an initial lack of rigour is a small price to pay if it allows the reader to see into this world more directly and pleasurably than would otherwise be possible. San Francisco, California TN. June, 1996 Acknowledgements First and foremost I wish to express my indebtedness to Dr. Stanley Nel. He is my friend, my colleague, and my Dean, and in all three of these capacities he has helped me to complete this book. As a friend he offered support when progress was slow and my spirits were low; as a mathematical colleague he read much of the book and offered helpful criticisms; as Dean he granted me a succession of increasingly powerful computers, and when the US Immigration Service sought to have my position filled by an “equally qualified” American, he successfully fought them on my behalf. For all this, and much else besides, 1 offer him my deep gratitude. Next I would like to thank Prof. John Stillwell of Monash University. The great value I place on his writings should be clear from the frequency with which I refer to them in the pages that follow. Also, though I lack his gift for conciseness, I have sought to emulate elements of his approach in an attempt to give back meaning to mathematical concepts. Finally, my greatest and most concrete debt arises from the fact that he read each draft chapter as it was written, and this despite the fact that we had never even met! The book owes a great deal to his numerous helpful suggestions and corrections. I consider myself very fortunate that the mathematics department here at the University of San Francisco is completely free of political intrigue, rivalry, and other assorted academic blights. I am grateful to all my colleagues for creating sucha friendly and supportive atmosphere in which to work. In particular, however, I should like to single out the following people for thanks: e Nancy Campagna for her diligent proof-reading of half the book; Allan Cruse and Millianne Lehmann, not only for granting all my software requests during their respective tenures as department chair, but also for all their kind and sage advice since my arrival in the United States; e James Finch for his patience and expertise in helping me overcome various problems associated with my typesetting of the book in I4T5X; e Robert Wolf for having built up a superb mathematics collection in our library; Paul Zeitz for his great faith in me and in the value of what I was trying to accomplish, for his concrete suggestions and corrections, and for his courage in being the first person (other than myself) to teach complex analysis using chapters of the book. Prof. Gerald Alexanderson of Santa Clara University has my sincere thanks for the encouragement he offered me upon reading some of the earliest chapters, as well as for his many subsequent acts of kindness. Acknowledgements xiii Iwill always be grateful for the education I received at Merton College, Oxford. It is therefore especially pleasing and fitting to have this book published by OUP, and J would particularly like to thank Dr. Martin Gilchrist, the former Senior Mathematics Editor, for his enthusiastic encouragement when I first approached him with the idea of the book. When I first arrived at USF from England in 1989 I had barely seen a com- puter. The fact that OUP printed this book directly from my Internet-transmitted PostScript® files is an indication of how far I have come since then. I owe all this to James Kabage. A mere graduate student at the time we met, Jim quickly rose through the ranks to become Director of Network Services. Despite this fact, he never hesitated to spend hours with me in my office resolving my latest hard- ware or software crisis. He always took the extra time to clearly explain to me the reasoning leading to his solution, and in this way ] became his student. Talso thank Dr. Benjamin Baab, the Executive Director of Information Tech- nology Services at USF. Despite his lofty position, he too was always willing to roll up his sleeves in order to help me resolve my latest Microsoft® conundrum. Eric Scheide (our multitalented Webmaster) has my sincere gratitude for writ- ing an extremely nifty Perl program that greatly speeded my creation of the index. 1 thank Prof. Berthold Horn of MIT for creating the magnificent Y&Y TEX Sys- tem for Windows [http://www. YandY.com/], for his generous help with assorted ‘TEXnical problems, and for his willingness to adopt my few suggestions for im- proving what I consider to be the Mercedes-Benz of the TeX world. Similarly, I thank Martin Lapidus of Lascaux Graphics for incorporating many of my suggestions into his “ f(z)” program [http://www.primenet.com/~lascaux/], thereby making it into an even better tool for doing “visual complex analysis”. This new printing of the book incorporates a great many corrections. Most of these were reported by readers, and I very much appreciate their efforts. While I cannot thank each one of these readers by name, I must acknowledge Dr. R. von Randow for single-handedly having reported more than 30 errors. Asa student of Roger Penrose I had the privilege of watching him think out loud by means of his beautiful blackboard drawings. In the process, I became convinced that if only one tried hard enough—or were clever enough!—every mathematical mystery could be resolved through geometric reasoning, George Burnett-Stuart and I became firm friends while students of Penrose. In the course of our endless discussions of music, physics, and mathematics, George helped me to refine both my conception of the nature of mathematics, and of what constitutes an acceptable explanation within that subject. My dedication of this book to these two friends scarcely repays the great debt I owe them. The care of several friends helped me to cope with depression following the death of my beloved mother Claudia, In addition to my brother Guy and my father Rodney, I wish to express my appreciation to Peter and Ginny Pacheco, and to Amy Miller. I don’t know what I would have done without their healing affection. Lastly, I thank my dearest wife Mary. During the writing of this book she allowed me to pretend that science was the most important thing in life; now that the book is over, she is my daily proof that there is something even more important. Contents 1 Geometry and Complex Arithmetic I Introduction 1 Historical Sketch 2 Bombell’s “Wild Thought” 3 Some Terminology and Notation 4 Practice 5 Symbolic and Geometric Arithmetic Il Euler’s Formula 1 Introduction 2 Moving Particle Argument 3 Power Series Argument 4 Sine and Cosine in Terms of Euler’s Formula ll one Applications Introduction 3 Trigonometry 3 Geometry 4 Calculus 5 Algebra 6 Vectorial Operations IV Transformations and Euclidean Geometry* 1 Geometry Through the Eyes of Felix Klein 2 Classifying Motions 3 Three Reflections Theorem 4 Similarities and Complex Arithmetic 5 Spatial Complex Numbers? Vv Exercises 2 Complex Functions as Transformations | Introduction Il Polynomials 1 Positive Integer Powers 2 Cubics Revisited" 3 Cassinian Curves* Ill Power Series 1 The Mystery of Real Power Series 2 The Disc of Convergence 55 55 57 57 59 60 64 67 xvi Contents 3 Approximating a Power Series with a Polynomial 4 Uniqueness 5 Manipulating Power Series 6 Finding the Radius of Convergence 7 Fourier Series* IV The Exponential Function 1 Power Series Approach 2 The Geometry of the Mapping 3 Another Approach V_ Cosine and Sine 1 Definitions and Identities 2 Relation to Hyperbolic Functions 3 The Geometry of the Mapping VI Multifunctions 1 Example: Fractional Powers 2 Single-Valued Branches of a Multifunction 3 Relevance to Power Series 4 An Example with Two Branch Points VIL The Logarithm Function 1 Inverse of the Exponential Function 2 The Logarithmic Power Series 3 General Powers VIIL_ Averaging over Circles* 1 The Centroid 2 Averaging over Regular Polygons 3 Averaging over Circles IX Exercises MGbius Transformations and Inversion | Introduction 1 Definition of Mébius Transformations 2 Connection with Einstein's Theory of Relativity” 3 Decomposition into Simple Transformations Il Inversion 1 Preliminary Definitions and Facts 2 Preservation of Circles 3 Construction Using Orthogonal Circles 4 Preservation of Angles 5 Preservation of Symmetry 6 Inversion in a Sphere T 1 2 3 Ml hree Illustrative Applications of Inversion A Problem on Touching Circles Quadrilaterals with Orthogonal Diagonals Ptolemy's Theorem 122 122 122 122 123 124 124 126 128 130 133 133 136 136 137 138 Vi Vil Vill Xx Contents The Riemann Sphere The Point at Infinity Stereographic Projection Transferring Complex Functions to the Sphere Behaviour of Functions at Infinity Stereographic Formulae* Mobius Transformations: Basic Results Preservation of Circles, Angles, and Symmetry Non-Uniqueness of the Coefficients The Group Property Fixed Points Fixed Points at infinity The Cross-Ratio Mobius Transformations as Matrices* 1 Evidence of a Link with Linear Algebra 2 The Explanation: Homogeneous Coordinates 3 Eigenvectors and Eigenvalues* 4 Rotations of the Sphere" Visualization and Classification” The Main Idea Elliptic, Hyperbolic, and Loxodromic types Local Geometric Interpretation of the Multiplier Parabolic Transformations Computing the Multiplier Eigenvalue Interpretation of the Multiplier” jecomposition into 2 or 4 Reflections* Introduction Elliptic Case Hyperbolic Case Parabolic Case Summary utomorphisms of the Unit Disc* Counting Degrees of Freedom Finding the Formula via the Symmetry Principle Interpreting the Formula Geometrically* Introduction to Riemann's Mapping Theorem Exercises agaons Oarona enrons oO RONAy aaona Differentiation: The Amplitwist Concept Introduction A Puzzling Phenomenon Local Description of Mappings in the Plane 1 Introduction 2 The Jacobian Matrix 3 The Amplitwist Concept xvii 139 139 140 143 146 148 149 150 151 152 154 156 156 157 158 161 162 162 166 168 169 170 172 172 172 173 174 175 176 176 177 178 180 181 189 189 189 191 191 192 193, xviii Contents IV vi Vil Vill IX The Complex Derivative as Amplitwist 1 The Real Derivative Re-examined 2 The Complex Derivative 3 Analytic Functions 4 A Brief Summary Some Simple Examples Conformal = Analytic 1 Introduction 2 Conformality Throughout a Region 3 Conformality and the Riemann Sphere Critical Points 1 Degrees of Crushing 2 Breakdown of Conformality 3 Branch Points The Cauchy-Riemann Equations 1 Introduction 2 The Geometry of Linear Transformations 3 The Cauchy-Riemann Equations Exercises 5 Further Geometry of Differentiation vi Vil vill Cauchy-Riemann Revealed 1 Introduction 2 The Cartesian Form 3 The Polar Form An Intimation of Rigidity Visual Differentiation of log(z) Rules of Differentiation 1 Composition 2 Inverse Functions 3 Addition and Multiplication Polynomials, Power Series, and Rational Func- tions 1 Polynomials 2 Power Series 3 Rational Functions Visual Differentiation of the Power Function Visual Differentiation of exp(z) Geometric Solution of E’ = E An Application of Higher Derivatives: Curva- ture* 1 Introduction 194 194 195 197 198 199 200 200 201 203 204 204 205 206 207 207 208 209 211 216 216 216 216 217 219 222 223 223 224 225 226 226 227 228 229 231 232 234 234 xl xil 2 3 Cc 1 2 3 4 5 6 A 1 2 3 4 5 Analytic Transformation of Curvature Complex Curvature elestial Mechanics* Central Force Fields Two Kinds of Elliptical Orbit Changing the First into the Second The Geometry of Force An Explanation The Kasner—Arnol'd Theorem nalytic Continuation* Introduction Rigidity Uniqueness Preservation of Identities Analytic Continuation via Reflections Exercises Non-Euclidean Geometry* Introduction C©OVOHFONAT DHONMAGD Vousons 10 1 12 The Parallel Axiom Some Facts from Non-Euclidean Geometry Geometry on a Curved Surface Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Geometry Gaussian Curvature Surfaces of Constant Curvature The Connection with Mébius Transformations pherical Geometry The Angular Excess of a Spherical Triangle Motions of the Sphere A Conformal Map of the Sphere Spatial Rotations as Mobius Transformations Spatial Rotations and Quaternions lyperbolic Geometry The Tractrix and the Pseudosphere The Constant Curvature of the Pseudosphere* A Conformal Map of the Pseudosphere Beltrami’s Hyperbolic Plane Hyperbolic Lines and Reflections The Bolyai-Lobachevsky Formula* The Three Types of Direct Motion Decomposition into Two Reflections The Angular Excess of a Hyperbolic Triangle The Poincaré Disc Motions of the Poincaré Disc The Hemisphere Model and Hyperbolic Space Exercises Contents xix 235 238 241 241 241 243 244 245 246 247 247 249 250 251 252 258 267 267 267 269 270 273 273 275 277 278 278 279 283 286 290 293 293 295 296 298 301 305 306 311 313 315 319 322 328 xx Contents 7 Winding Numbers and Topology 338 | Winding Number 338 1 The Definition 338 2 What does “inside” mean? 339 3 Finding Winding Numbers Quickly 340 ll Hopf’s Degree Theorem 341 1 The Result 341 2 Loops as Mappings of the Circle* 342 3 The Explanation’ 343 II Polynomials and the Argument Principle 344 !V__ A Topological Argument Principle* 346 1 Counting Preimages Algebraically 346 2 Counting Preimages Geometrically 347 3 Topological Characteristics of Analyticity 349 4 A Topological Argument Principle 350 5 Two Examples 352 Vv Rouché’s Theorem 353 1 The Result 353 2 The Fundamental Theorem of Algebra 354 3 Brouwer's Fixed Point Theorem 354 VI Maxima and Minima 355 1 Maximum-Modulus Theorem 355 2 Related Results 357 VIL The Schwarz-Pick Lemma* 357 1 Schwarz’s Lemma 357 2 Liouville’s Theorem 359 3 Pick’s Result 360 VII The Generalized Argument Principle 363 1 Rational Functions 363 2 Poles and Essential Singularities 365 3 The Explanation* 367 IX Exercises 369 8 Complex Integration: Cauchy’s Theorem 377 | Introduction 377 ll The Real Integral 378 1 The Riemann Sum 378 2 The Trapezoidal Rule 379 3 Geometric Estimation of Errors 380 Ill The Complex Integral 383 1 Complex Riemann Sums 383 2 A Visual Technique 386 3 A Useful Inequality 386 4 Rules of Integration IV Complex Inversion 1 A Circular Arc 2 General Loops 3 Winding Number V_ Conjugation 1 Introduction 2 Area Interpretation 3 General Loops VI Power Functions 1 Integration along a Circular Arc 2 Complex Inversion as a Limiting Case* 3 General Contours and the Deformation Theorem 4 A Further Extension of the Theorem 5 Residues Vil The Exponential Mapping VII|_ The Fundamental Theorem Introduction ‘An Example The Fundamental Theorem The Integral as Antiderivative Logarithm as Integral IX Parametric Evaluation X Cauchy’s Theorem anons 1 Some Preliminaries 2 The Explanation XI The General Cauchy Theorem 1 The Result 2 The Explanation 3 A Simpler Explanation XIl_ The General Formula of Contour Integration XIll_ Exercises Cauchy’s Formula and Its Applications ! Cauchy’s Formula 1 Introduction 2 First Explanation 3 Gauss’ Mean Value Theorem 4 General Cauchy Formula ll Infinite Differentiability and Taylor Series 1 Infinite Differentiability 2 Taylor Series Ill Calculus of Residues Contents xxi 387 388 388 390 391 392 392 393 395 395 395 397 397 399 400 401 402 402 403 404 406 408 409 410 410 412 414 414 415 417 418 420 427 427 427 427 429 429 431 431 432 434 xxii Contents Vv 1 Laurent Series Centred at a Pole 2 A Formula for Calculating Residues 3 Application to Real Integrals 4 Calculating Residues using Taylor Series 5 Application to Summation of Series Al 1 2 nnular Laurent Series An Example Laurent's Theorem Exercises 10 Vector Fields: Physics and Topology IV Vector Fields 1 Complex Functions as Vector Fields 2 Physical Vector Fields 3 Flows and Force Fields 4 Sources and Sinks Winding Numbers and Vector Fields* 1 The Index of a Singular Point 2 The Index According to Poincaré 3 The Index Theorem Flows on Closed Surfaces* 1 Formulation of the Poincaré-Hopf Theorem 2 Defining the Index on a Surface 3 An Explanation of the Poincaré-Hopf Theorem Exercises 11 Vector Fields and Complex Integration Flux and Work Flux Work Local Flux and Local Work Divergence and Curl in Geometric Form* Divergence-Free and Curl-Free Vector Fields omplex Integration in Terms of Vector Fields The Pélya Vector Field Cauchy's Theorem Example: Area as Flux Example: Winding Number as Flux Local Behaviour of Vector Fields* Cauchy's Formula Positive Powers Negative Powers and Multipoles Multipoles at Infinity (0 —_Laurent's Series as a Multipole Expansion The Complex Potential QO 7RONA= BOVIS H AYN 434 435 436 438 439 442 442 442 446 450 450 450 451 453 454 456 456 459 460 462 462 464 465 468 472 472 472 474 476 478 479 481 481 483 484 485 486 488 489 490 492 493 494 Contents 1 Introduction 2 The Stream Function 3 The Gradient Field 4 The Potential Function 5 The Complex Potential 6 Examples IV Exercises 12 Flows and Harmonic Functions | Harmonic Duals 1 Dual Flows 2 Harmonic Duals ll Conformal Invariance 1 Conformal Invariance of Harmonicity 2 Conformal Invariance of the Laplacian 3 The Meaning of the Laplacian Ill A Powerful Computational Tool |v The Complex Curvature Revisited* 1 Some Geometry of Harmonic Equipotentials 2 The Curvature of Harmonic Equipotentials 3 Further Complex Curvature Calculations 4 Further Geometry of the Complex Curvature V__ Flow Around an Obstacle 1 Introduction 2 An Example 3 The Method of Images 4 Mapping One Flow Onto Another VI The Physics of Riemann’s Mapping Theorem 1 Introduction 2 Exterior Mappings and Flows Round Obstacles 3 Interior Mappings and Dipoles 4 Interior Mappings, Vortices, and Sources 5 An Example: Automorphisms of the Disc 6 Green's Function VII Dirichlet’s Problem 1 Introduction 2 Schwarz's Interpretation 3 Dirichlet’s Problem for the Disc 4 The Interpretations of Neumann and Bécher 5 Green's General Formula VIL Exercises References Index xxiii 494 494 497 498 500 503 505 508 508 508 511 513 513 515 516 517 520 520 520 523 525 527 527 527 532 538 540 540 541 544 546 549 550 554 554 556 558 560 565 570 573 579 1 Geometry and Complex Arithmetic | Introduction 1 Historical Sketch Four and a half centuries have elapsed since complex numbers were first discov- ered. Here, as the reader is probably already aware, the term complex number refers to an entity of the form a + ib, where a and b are ordinary real numbers and, unlike any ordinary number, i has the property that i? = —1. This discovery would ultimately have a profound impact on the whole of mathematics, unifying much that had previously seemed disparate, and explaining much that had previously seemed inexplicable. Despite this happy ending—in reality the story continues to unfold to this day—progress following the initial discovery of complex numbers was painfully slow. Indeed, relative to the advances made in the nineteenth century, little was achieved during the first 250 years of the life of the complex numbers. How is it possible that complex numbers lay dormant through ages that saw the coming and the passing of such great minds as Descartes, Fermat, Leibniz, and even the visionary genius of Newton? The answer appears to lie in the fact that, far from being embraced, complex numbers were initially greeted with suspicion, confusion, and even hostility. Girolamo Cardano’s Ars Magna, which appeared in 1545, is conventionally taken to be the birth certificate of the complex numbers. Yet in that work Car- dano introduced such numbers only to immediately dismiss them as “subtle as they are useless”. As we shall discuss, the first substantial calculations with com- plex numbers were carried out by Rafael Bombelli, appearing in his L’Algebra of 1572. Yet here too we find the innovator seemingly disowning his discoveries (at least initially), saying that “the whole matter seems to rest on sophistry rather than truth”. As late as 1702, Leibniz described i, the square root of —1, as “that amphibian between existence and nonexistence”. Such sentiments were echoed in the terminology of the period. To the extent that they were discussed at all, complex numbers were called “impossible” or “imaginary”, the latter term having (unfortunately) lingered to the present day!. Even in 1770 the situation was still sufficiently confused that it was possible for so great a mathematician as Euler to mistakenly argue that /—2 /—3 = V6. THowever, an “imaginary number” now refers to a real multiple of i, rather than to a general complex number. Incidentally, the term “real number” was introduced precisely to distinguish such a number from an “imaginary number”. 2 Geometry and Complex Arithmetic The root cause of all this trouble seems to have been a psychological or philo- sophical block. How could one investigate these matters with enthusiasm or confi- dence when nobody felt they knew the answer to the question, “What is a complex number?” A Satisfactory answer to this question was only found at the end of the eigh- teenth century”. Independently, and in rapid succession, Wessel, Argand, and Gauss all recognized that complex numbers could be given a simple, concrete, geometric interpretation as points (or vectors) in the plane: The mystical quantity a + ib should be viewed simply as the point in the xy-plane having Cartesian coordinates (a, b), or equivalently as the vector connecting the origin to that point. See [1]. When thought of in this way, the plane is denoted C and is called the complex plane>. 3i —Tt+i poe The Complex Plane Cc . 2-31 Figure [1] The operations of adding or multiplying two complex numbers could now be given equally definite meanings as geometric operations on the two corresponding points (or vectors) in the plane. The rule for addition is illustrated in [2a]: The sum A+B oftwo complex numbersis given by the parallelogram (4. rule of ordinary vector addition. Note that this is consistent with [1], in the sense that 4 + 3i (for example) is indeed the sum of 4 and 37. Figure [2b] illustrates the much less obvious rule for multiplication: The length of AB is the product of the lengths of A and B, and the Q) angle of AB is the sum of the angles of A and B. This rule is not forced on us in any obvious way by [1], but note that it is at least consistent with it, in the sense that 3/ (for example) is indeed the product of 3 and 2Wallis almost hit on the answer in 1673; see Stillwell [1989, p. 191] for an account of this interesting near miss. 3lso known as the “Gauss plane” or the “Argand plane”. Introduction 3 Ly A+B a Figure [2] i. Check this for yourself. As a more exciting example, consider the product of i with itself. Since i has unit length and angle (r/2), i has unit length and angle x. Thus i? = —1. The publication of the geometric interpretation by Wessel and by Argand went all but unnoticed, but the reputation of Gauss (as great then as it is now) ensured wide dissemination and acceptance of complex numbers as points in the plane. Perhaps less important than the details of this new interpretation (at least initially) was the mere fact that there now existed some way of making sense of these numbers—that they were now /egitimate objects of investigation. In any event, the floodgates of invention were about to open. It had taken more than two and a half centuries to come to terms with complex numbers, but the development of a beautiful new theory of how to do calculus with such numbers (what we now call complex analysis) was astonishingly rapid. Most of the fundamental results were obtained (by Cauchy, Riemann, and others) between 1814 and 1851—a span of less than forty years! Other views of the history of the subject are certainly possible. For example, Stewart and Tall [1983, p. 7] suggest that the geometric interpretation* was some- what incidental to the explosive development of complex analysis. However, it should be noted that Riemann’s ideas, in particular, would simply not have been possible without prior knowledge of the geometry of the complex plane. 2 Bombelli’s “Wild Thought” The power and beauty of complex analysis ultimately springs from the multipli- cation rule (2) in conjunction with the addition rule (1). These rules were first discovered by Bombelli in symbolic form; more than two centuries passed before the complex plane revealed figure [2]. Since we merely plucked the rules out of thin air, let us return to the sixteenth century in order to understand their algebraic origins. Many texts seek to introduce complex numbers with a convenient historical fiction based on solving quadratic equations, 4We must protest one piece of their evidence: Wallis did not possess the geometric interpretation in 1673; see footnote 2. 4 Geometry and Complex Arithmetic x =mxte. (3) Two thousand years Bc, it was already known that such equations could be solved using a method that is equivalent to the modern formula, x=} [mtvm2 +a]. But what if m? + 4c is negative? This was the very problem that led Cardano to consider square roots of negative numbers. Thus far the textbook is being histor- ically accurate, but next we read that the need for (3) to always have a solution ‘forces us to take complex numbers seriously. This argument carries almost as little weight now as it did in the sixteenth century. Indeed, we have already pointed out that Cardano did not hesitate to discard such “solutions” as useless. Tt was not that Cardano lacked the imagination to pursue the matter further, rather he had a fairly compelling reason not to. For the ancient Greeks mathematics was synonymous with geometry, and this conception still held sway in the sixteenth century. Thus an algebraic relation such as (3) was not so much thought of as a problem in its own right, but rather as a mere vehicle for solving a genuine problem of geometry. For example, (3) may be considered to represent the problem of finding the intersection points of the parabola y = x? and the line y = mx +c. See [3a]. Figure [3] In the case of L; the problem has a solution; algebraically, (m? + 4c) > 0 and the two intersection points are given by the formula above. In the case of L2 the problem clearly does not have a solution; algebraically, (m? + 4c) < O and the absence of solutions is correctly manifested by the occurrence of “impossible” numbers in the formula. It was not the quadratic that forced complex numbers to be taken seriously, it was the cubic, x) = 3px +29. (Ex. 1 shows that a general cubic can always be reduced to this form.] This equation represents the problem of finding the intersection points of the cubic curve y = x? and the line y = 3px + 2q. See [3b]. Building on the work of del Ferro and Introduction 5 Tartaglia, Cardano’s Ars Magna showed that this equation could be solved by means of a remarkable formula [see Ex. 2]: x= yatye-p + ya-ye-P. (4) Try it yourself on x3 = 6x + 6. Some thirty years after this formula appeared, Bombelli recognized that there was something strange and paradoxical about it. First note that if the line y = 3px + 2q is such that p? > q? then the formula involves complex numbers. For example, Bombelli considered x3 = 15x + 4, which yields x= V24Mli + /2—Mi. In the previous case of [3a] this merely signalled that the geometric problem had no solution, but in [3b] it is clear that the line will always hit the curve! In fact inspection of Bombelli’s example yields the solution x = 4. As he struggled to resolve this paradox, Bombelli had what he called a “wild thought”: perhaps the solution x = 4 could be recovered from the above expression if /2411i = 2+ni and Y2—T1i = 2 — ni. Of course for this to work he would have to assume that the addition of two complex numbers A = a + i@ and B = b + ib obeyed the plausible rule, A+B=(a+id) + O+ib) =@+b)+iGt5). (5) Next, to see if there was indeed a value of n for which /2-++ Ili = 2+ in, he needed to calculate (2 + in)?. To do so he assumed that he could multiply out brackets as in ordinary algebra, so that (a+i@) (b+ib) =ab+i(ab+Gb)+i7ab. Using i? = —1, he concluded that the product of two complex numbers would be given by AB = (a +i@) (b+ id) = (ab—@b) + i(ab+ ad). © This rule vindicated his “wild thought”, for he was now able to show that (2+i)> = 2+ 111. Check this for yourself. While complex numbers themselves remained mysterious, Bombelli’s work on cubic equations thus established that perfectly real problems required complex arithmetic for their solution. Just as with its birth, the subsequent development of the theory of complex numbers was inextricably bound up with progress in other areas of mathematics (and also physics). Sadly, we can only touch on these matters in this book; for a full and fascinating account of these interconnections, the reader is instead referred to Stillwell [1989]. Repeating what was said in the Preface, we cannot overstate the value of reading Stillwell’s book alongside this one. 6 Geometry and Complex Arithmetic 3 Some Terminology and Notation Leaving history behind us, we now introduce the modern terminology and notation used to describe complex numbers. The information is summarized in the table below, and is illustrated in [4]. Name Meaning Notation | ‘modulus of z length r of z lal argument of z angle 0 of z arg (z) real part of z x coordinate of z Re(z) imaginary part of z y coordinate of z Im(z) imaginary number real multiple of i real axis set of real numbers imaginary axis set of imaginary numbers complex conjugate of z | reflection of z in the real axis Zz > A L ase _ partiy=rde y = Im(2) = imaginary part of z imaginary axis - 6 = arg(z) = argument of z | 0 Teal axis, x = Re(z) = real part of z = complex conjugate of z = x —iy Figure [4] It is valuable to grasp from the outset that (according to the geometric view) acomplex number is a single, indivisible entity—a point in the plane. Only when we choose to describe such a point with numerical coordinates does a complex number appear to be compound or “complex”. More precisely, C is said to be nwo dimensional, meaning that two real numbers (coordinates) are needed to label a point within it, but exactly how the labelling is done is entirely up to us. One way to label the points is with Cartesian coordinates (the real part x and the imaginary part y), the complex number being written as z = x +iy. This is the natural labelling when we are dealing with the addition of two complex numbers, because (5) says that the real and imaginary parts of A + B are obtained by adding the real and imaginary parts of A and B. In the case of multiplication, the Cartesian labelling no longer appears natural, for it leads to the messy and unenlightening rule (6). The much simpler geometric tule (2) makes it clear that we should instead label a typical point z with its polar Introduction 7 coordinates, r = |z| and @ = arg z. In place of z = x + iy we may now write z=rZ@, where the symbol Z serves to remind us that 6 is the angle of z. [Although this notation is still used by some, we shall only employ it briefly; later in this chapter we will discover a much better notation (the standard one) which will then be used throughout the remainder of the book.] The geometric multiplication rule (2) now takes the simple form, (RLO) (70) = (Rr)L(b +8). a In common with the Cartesian label x + iy, a given polar label r £0 specifies a unique point, but (unlike the Cartesian case) a given point does not have a unique polar label. Since any two angles that differ by a multiple of 27 correspond to the same direction, a given point has infinitely many different labels: 1 = rl = 42) =r LO — 20) =rl0 =r L(0 +22) =r LO +4n) = This simple fact about angles will become increasingly important as our subject unfolds. The Cartesian and polar coordinates are the most common ways of labelling complex numbers, but they are not the only ways. In Chapter 3 we will meet another particularly useful method, called “stereographic” coordinates. 4 Practice Before continuing, we strongly suggest that you make yourself comfortable with the concepts, terminology, and notation introduced thus far. To do so, try to con- vince yourself geometrically (and/or algebraically) of each of the following facts: Re(z) = $lz +2] Im) = $z-71 l2l = Vx? + y? tan[arg d= 28 zz= (22 76 =r (cos + i sind) Defining } by (1/z)z = 1, it follows that 1 = a =1L-8). RLo _ R 1 . (+i) =-4 d+)8 =-2%0 +i (1 +iv3)6 = 26 G+iv3? 4, G+ ~_ ay 7 =rl(- aia VIL —(a/12) 7Z6 =rd(-0) at2=1+% m2 =71% 2/22 = %1/22- Lastly, establish the so-called generalized triangle inequality: 8 Geometry and Complex Arithmetic ler +22 bee ten] S [eal + zal + +++ + lend (8) When does equality hold? 5 Equivalence of Symbolic and Geometric Arithmetic We have been using the symbolic rules (5) and (6) interchangeably with the geo- metric rules (1) and (2), and we now justify this by showing that they are indeed equivalent. The equivalence of the addition rules (1) and (5) will be familiar to those who have studied vectors; in any event, the verification is sufficiently straight- forward that we may safely leave it to the reader. We therefore only address the equivalence of the multiplication rules (2) and (6). First we will show how the symbolic rule may be derived from the geometric rule. To do so we shall rephrase the geometric rule (7) in a particularly useful and important way. Let z denote a general point in C, and consider what happens to it— where it moves to—when it is multiplied by a fixed complex number A = R/¢. According to (7), the length of z is magnified by R, while the angle of z is increased by ¢. Now imagine that this is done simultaneously to every point of the plane: Geometrically, multiplication by a complex number A = RL@ is a rotation of the plane through angle $, and an expansion of the plane__(9) by factor R. A few comments are in order: © Both the rotation and the expansion are centred at the origin. It makes no difference whether we do the rotation followed by the expansion, or the expansion followed by the rotation. e If R < 1 then the “expansion” is in reality a contraction. Figure [5] illustrates the effect of such a transformation, the lightly shaded shapes being transformed into the darkly shaded shapes. Check for yourself that in this example A = 1 + iV3 = 2/3. It is now a simple matter to deduce the symbolic rule from the geometric tule, Recall the essential steps taken by Bombelli in deriving (6): (i) i? = —1; (ii) brackets can be multiplied out, i.e., if A, B, C, are complex numbers then A(B + C) = AB + AC. We have already seen that the geometric rule gives us (i), and figure [5] now reveals that (ii) is also true, for the simple reason that rotations and expansions preserve parallelograms. By the geometric definition of addition, B + C is the fourth vertex of the parallelogram with vertices 0, B, C. To establish (ii), we merely observe that multiplication by A rotates and expands this parallelogram into another parallelogram with vertices 0, AB, AC and A(B+C). This completes the derivation of (6). Conversely, we now show how the geometric rule may be derived from the Introduction 9 A(B+C) Figure [5] Figure [6] symbolic rule>. We begin by considering the transformation z +> iz. According to the symbolic rule, this means that (x + iy) + (—y + ix), and [6a] reveals that iz is z rotated through a right angle. We now use this fact to interpret the transformation z +» A z, where A is a general complex number. How this is done may be grasped sufficiently well using the example A = 4 + 3i = 52, where Sin every text we have examined this is done using trigonometric identities. We believe that the present argument supports the view that such identities are merely complicated manifestations of the simple rule for complex multiplication. 10 Geometry and Complex Arithmetic ¢ = tan7! (3/4). See [6b]. The symbolic rule says that brackets can be multiplied out, so our transformation may be rewritten as follows: zreAz = (44+3i)z 4z + 3(iz) 4z +3 (< rotated by 5). This is visualized in [6c]. We can now see that the shaded triangles in [6c] and [6b] are similar, so multiplication by 5Z@ does indeed rotate the plane by @, and expand it by 5. Done. i Euler’s Formula 1 Introduction It is time to replace the r6 notation with a much better one that depends on the following miraculous fact: if =cos@ +i sind (10) This result was discovered by Leonhard Euler around 1740, and itis called Euler’s formula in his honour. Before attempting to explain this result, let us say something of its meaning and utility. As illustrated in [7a], the formula says that e’® is the point on the unit circle at angle 0. Instead of writing a general complex number as z = rZ6, we can now write z = r e’®. Concretely, this says that to reach z we must take the unit vector e’® that points at z, then stretch it by the length of z. Part of the beauty of this representation is that the geometric rule (7) for multiplying complex numbers now looks almost obvious: (Re) (re) = preion, Put differently, algebraically manipulating e”® in the same way as the real function e* yields true facts about complex numbers. In order to explain Euler’s formula we must first address the more basic ques- tion, “What does e’? mean?” Surprisingly, many authors answer this by defining e®, out of the blue, to be (cos 6 +i sin)! This gambit is logically unimpeachable, but it is also a low blow to Euler, reducing one of his greatest achievements to a mere tautology. We will therefore give two heuristic arguments in support of (10); deeper arguments will emerge in later chapters. 2 Moving Particle Argument Recalll the basic fact that e* is its own derivative: “

    You might also like