Difference between revisions of "Talk:Aufgaben:Problem 14"
From Ferienserie MMP2
m |
|||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
Cheers, the tables | Cheers, the tables | ||
| + | |||
| + | Let's say u and v are meromorphic and everything is okay again, I guess. f has a Taylorexpansion, can be divided into an a and ib part, yadiyadiya, v is elliptic and so on. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Cheers, the guy hating you for pointing out his mistakes | ||
Revision as of 14:02, 31 December 2014
What should this "Pierre's lemma" be? It's clearly false: let \( f = u + iv \) (with \( u \) and \( v \) real-valued) be any non-constant analytic function; then clearly \( u \) or \( v \) is not constant. Following "Pierre's lemma" they should both be analytic, but we've showed in Ch. II.3 that any analytic real-valued function is constant, which is a contradiction. (And in any case, in the "proof" \( a \) and \( b \) should be different from \( 0 \)...)
Cheers, the tables
Let's say u and v are meromorphic and everything is okay again, I guess. f has a Taylorexpansion, can be divided into an a and ib part, yadiyadiya, v is elliptic and so on.
Cheers, the guy hating you for pointing out his mistakes
