Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Q on proof of periods of non-constant meromorphic functions watch

1. Theorem attached.

I know the theorem holds for a discrete subgroup of more generally, the complex plane, and that the set of periods of a non-constant meromorphic function are a discrete subset.

I have a question on part of the proof (showing the second type, integral muliples )

On proving the second case , the set of periods , is considered and we show that exists with the least value of .

A step of doing this in my text is, and this is my problem:

Since is discrete, there is some st for any disc contains no elements of , it follows that for any , the disc contains no elements of

. I don't understand why/ how this follows from the fact that is a group, why this 'translation' is possible with the same radius follows from the fact it is a group?

No idea where to start, any help much appreciated, but my guess would be that the proof will depend on what the operation of the group is, but this isn't specified in the theorem? or is just assumed to be addition?

Many thanks
Attached Images

2. (Original post by xfootiecrazeesarax)
Since is discrete, there is some st for any disc contains no elements of , it follows that for any , the disc contains no elements of
Is this actually true? It seems easy to construct a pair of periods where it fails e.g. take and .

But I know very little about periodic complex functions, so maybe I'm confused.
3. (Original post by xfootiecrazeesarax)
A step of doing this in my text is, and this is my problem:

Since is discrete, there is some st for any disc contains no elements of , it follows that for any , the disc contains no elements of

. I don't understand why/ how this follows from the fact that is a group, why this 'translation' is possible with the same radius follows from the fact it is a group?
Suppose it's false, then we can find z with and . But then since is a group, if then . But this then contradicts the definition of epsilon.[/QUOTE]

(Original post by atsruser)
Is this actually true? It seems easy to construct a pair of periods where it fails e.g. take and .
I'm using this to give an explict example of what's going on. If Omega is as you describe, then f(z) = f(z+1) and f(z) = f(z+1+i/4) for all z. But then f(z+1) = f(z+1+i/4) for all z and so f(z) = f(z+i/4) for all z. So and so you can't take epsilon = 1/2 as you suggest.
4. (Original post by DFranklin)
I'm using this to give an explict example of what's going on. If Omega is as you describe, then f(z) = f(z+1) and f(z) = f(z+1+i/4) for all z. But then f(z+1) = f(z+1+i/4) for all z and so f(z) = f(z+i/4) for all z. So and so you can't take epsilon = 1/2 as you suggest.
I'm glad there's someone here who knows what they're talking about. Yes, my example fails since it's not a group of periods - I guess it's the generators at best.

And PRSOM

Turn on thread page Beta

### Related university courses

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: January 29, 2017
Today on TSR

### Exam Jam 2018

Join thousands of students this half term

Poll
Useful resources

## Make your revision easier

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read the updated guidelines here

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams

Can you help? Study help unanswered threads

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE