# Complex analysis f'/f , f meromorphic, laurent seriesWatch

Announcements
#1
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

consider a meromorphic function with a finite pole at of order .

Thus has a laurent expansion:

I want to show that And so where a holomporphic function is one where the laurent expansion above will instead start at n=0

2. Relevant equations

So I've tried writing out a few terms in the both f'(z) and f(z) to try and see this, but I don't seem to be going anywhere..

. , for a meromorphic function with pole at a of order m , for a holomorphic function

3. The attempt at a solution

I have no idea how to divide properly.

So I look at the terms with the

coefficient and see that

which looks sort of on track,however....i get the same when i do this with each of the next coefficients of a , i.e. the

help greatly appreciated, many thanks.
0
3 years ago
#2
(Original post by xfootiecrazeesarax)
1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data

consider a meromorphic function with a finite pole at of order .

Thus has a laurent expansion:

I want to show that And so where a holomporphic function is one where the laurent expansion above will instead start at n=0
1. You need to improve your presentation a bit. This was hard to follow and incorrect in at least one place. And I think your quoted result is missing a - sign on the first term.

2. Note that where is analytic. Now form and bear in mind that the quotient of two analytic functions is analytic.
0
#3
(Original post by atsruser)
1. You need to improve your presentation a bit. This was hard to follow and incorrect in at least one place. And I think your quoted result is missing a - sign on the first term.

2. Note that where is analytic. Now form and bear in mind that the quotient of two analytic functions is analytic.

ahh thanks man !
0
#4
(Original post by atsruser)
1. You need to improve your presentation a bit. This was hard to follow and incorrect in at least one place. And I think your quoted result is missing a - sign on the first term.

2. Note that where is analytic. Now form and bear in mind that the quotient of two analytic functions is analytic.
ahh yes I believe my final result is missing a minus sign,
0
#5
(Original post by atsruser)
1. You need to improve your presentation a bit. This was hard to follow and incorrect in at least one place. And I think your quoted result is missing a - sign on the first term.

2. Note that where is analytic. Now form and bear in mind that the quotient of two analytic functions is analytic.
sorry to re-bump an old thread, but it seemed best suited here.

how is holomorphic?
I have ,

for the pole of to be 'cancelled out' we needed to multiply by . The first term however will now have a term derivaitve of and the second is now multiplied only by ?

thanks
0
2 years ago
#6
(Original post by xfootiecrazeesarax)
sorry to re-bump an old thread, but it seemed best suited here.

how is ##g'(z)## holomorphic
Well, unless I'm confused about what you're asking, is the derivative of which is holomorphic, and since holomorphic functions are infinitely differentiable, then it's holomorphic.

I have ##g'(z) = f'(z)(z-a)^{m}+m(z-a)^{m-1}f(z)##,

for the pole of ##f## to be 'cancelled out' we needed to multiply by ##(z-a)^{m}##. The first term however will now have a term ##m+1## derivaitve of ##z-a## and the second is now multiplied only by ##(z-a)^{m-1}## ?

thanks
I'm finding it hard to follow this. Could you latex it up a bit and write it out in full mathematically, rather than merely describing it in words?
0
2 years ago
#7
(Original post by xfootiecrazeesarax)
sorry to re-bump an old thread, but it seemed best suited here.

how is ##g'(z)## holomorphic?
I have ##g'(z) = f'(z)(z-a)^{m}+m(z-a)^{m-1}f(z)##,
g(z) is holomorphic, therefore so are all its derivatives.

for the pole of ##f## to be 'cancelled out' we needed to multiply by ##(z-a)^{m}##. The first term however will now have a term ##m+1## derivaitve of ##z-a## and the second is now multiplied only by ##(z-a)^{m-1}## ?
If you look at the actual series, the term you are worried about is constant. I.e. it's of the form C(z-a)^0. When k = 0, we don't need to worry that the rule for derivatives seems to imply we get a k/(z-a) term - the term is constant and so its derivaitve is 0.
0
#8
(Original post by atsruser)
Well, unless I'm confused about what you're asking, is the derivative of which is holomorphic, and since holomorphic functions are infinitely differentiable, then it's holomorphic.

I'm finding it hard to follow this. Could you latex it up a bit and write it out in full mathematically, rather than merely describing it in words?
apologies i was using latex tags from the wrong forum ! will edit now
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### University open days

• Norwich University of the Arts
Thu, 23 Jan '20
• SOAS University of London
Development Studies, Interdisciplinary Studies, Anthropology and Sociology, Languages, Cultures and Linguistics, Arts, Economics, Law, History, Religions and Philosophies, Politics and International Studies, Finance and Management, East Asian Languages & Cultures Postgraduate
Sat, 25 Jan '20
• University of Huddersfield
Sat, 25 Jan '20

### Poll

Join the discussion

14.1%
12.37%
12.37%
18.15%
23.12%
19.88%