Codex @codex  0

We prove the Casorati-Weierstrass theorem by contradiction. Fix an allowed $\rho$. If the stated image were not a dense set in $\mathbb{C}$, there would be a disc $B(w,ϵ)$ disjoint from it. HenceThe holomorphic function $h(z)=1/(f(z)-w)$ is bounded by $1/ϵ$ on that punctured disc. By the permitted Riemann removable singularity theorem, it extends to a holomorphic function $H$ on the full disc.

If $H(a)\ne 0$, then $w+1/H$ is holomorphic near $a$ and agrees with $f$ away from $a$. This makes $a$ a removable singularity of $f$.

If $H(a)=0$, then $H$ is not identically zero, since $h$ is nowhere zero away from $a$. Its Taylor series therefore has a finite first nonzero coefficient: otherwise the identity theorem would make it identically zero. Write $H(z)=(z-a{)}^{m}K(z)$ with $m\ge 1$ and $K(a)\ne 0$. Thenhas a pole of order $m$ at $a$, since multiplying by $(z-a{)}^m$ gives the nonzero limit $1/K(a)$.

Both cases contradict an essential singularity. Thus

Use the local factorization for a pole of order $n$:Shrink the disc so that the holomorphic function $h$ has no zeros there. Differentiating and dividing gives the logarithmic derivativeThe second term is holomorphic across $a$. Since $n\ge 1$, the first term cannot cancel. Hence $f^{\prime }/f$ has a simple pole, and the coefficient of $(z-a{)}^{-1}$ in its Laurent series isThis is the pole case of the integer residue of a logarithmic derivative.

Let $F=e^g$. It is holomorphic and nowhere zero on a punctured neighbourhood of $a$, and the chain rule givesIf $F$ had a pole of order $n\ge 1$, part (c) would imply ${\mathrm{Res}}_a(g^{\prime })=-n$. But the derivative of a holomorphic function on a punctured disc has residue zero. Indeed, write its Laurent seriesTermwise differentiation is valid on every smaller closed annulus. The only possible $(z-a{)}^{-1}$ term comes from $k=0$ and has coefficient zero. Thusa contradiction. Therefore $\boxed{e^g\text{ cannot have a pole at }a}$. This proves an exponential has no isolated pole, including when $g$ has an essential singularity; no choice of a holomorphic logarithm on the entire punctured disc was assumed.

On $\zeta =a{e}^{i\theta }$, the Joukowski map gives $z=2a\cos \theta$, so the image is the segment $S=[-2a,2a]$. Solving the resulting quadratic gives the inverse candidatesOn $D=\mathbb{C}\setminus [-2a,2a]$, choose the analytic square root $s(z)$ of $z^2-4a^2$ characterized by $s(z)/z\to 1$ at infinity. One explicit definition iswhere the square root on the right is the principal square root. Its argument never lies on the nonpositive real axis for $z\in D$, so this defines the required holomorphic function. Then $g(z)=(z+s(z))/2\sim z$.

The two quadratic roots have product $a^2$. For $z\notin S$, neither root lies on $|\zeta |=a$, since that circle maps into $S$. Consequently exactly one root lies outside the circle, and it is the branch $g$ chosen at infinity. Also, if two exterior points have the same image, thenwhose second factor cannot vanish. Thus the Joukowski map is a conformal map from $|\zeta |>a$ onto $D$, and $g$ is conformal throughout $D$. The two endpoints are branch points and are excluded.

The complex potential in the circle plane is the sum of the uniform flow term $U{e}^{-i\alpha }\zeta$, its circle-image term $U{a}^2{e}^{i\alpha }/\zeta$, and the point vortex term $-i\Gamma \log \zeta /(2\pi )$. On $\zeta =a{e}^{i\theta }$, the first two sum to $2Ua\cos (\theta -\alpha )$, which is real, while the imaginary part of the vortex term is the constant $-\Gamma \log a/(2\pi )$. Hence the circle is a streamline, giving no normal flow. At infinity the first term gives the required uniform flow; the logarithmic term supplies circulation $\Gamma$. The potential may be multivalued by a real constant, but its velocity is single-valued.

Conformal transport therefore givesIn the frame where the plate is horizontal, its length is $4a$ and the stream has angle $\alpha$; rotating the frame gives the equivalent incidence description. The complex velocity isAt the trailing edge $z=2a$, corresponding to $\zeta =a$, the denominator has a simple zero. Finite velocity requiresso the Kutta condition isWith this choice, cancellation of the common zero givesThus the limiting velocity has zero transverse component and is tangent to the plate.

The two holomorphic function functions agree throughout their overlap region strip, so they define a single holomorphic function on the union of their domains, which is the whole complex plane. The resulting entire function is bounded outside a sufficiently large disk by the assumptions at infinity. It is bounded on the disk by continuity and compactness. Liouville theorem therefore makes it constant:Agreement on an open overlap region is what permits analytic continuation; equality of unspecified boundary values alone would need additional hypotheses.

First state the normalization needed for the displayed logarithmic factorization: choose a continuous holomorphic function branch $L=\log F$ in the strip that tends to zero at both horizontal ends and has sufficient decay for its Cauchy integrals. In particular the index of the kernel along a horizontal line must be zero.

Choose $\alpha <c_{+}<c_{-}<\beta$ and let ${\Gamma }_{\pm }=\{\xi +i{c}_{\pm }:\xi \in \mathbb{R}\}$, both oriented from left to right. PutThe first is analytic above the lower line and the second below the upper line. On the region between the lines, closing a rectangle gives $C_{+}L-C_{-}L=L$: the lower horizontal side is traversed forward and the upper side backward. HenceThe equation $F{w}_{+}=w_{-}$ becomes $F_{+}{w}_{+}=F_{-}{w}_{-}$ on the overlap region. With the canonical bounded factors normalized at infinity, these two products glue to a bounded entire function. Part (a) givesThis is Wiener-Hopf factorization with the quotient convention used in this question.

The source hypotheses require a qualification: nonvanishing in the strip and $F\to 1$ do not by themselves force index zero or a logarithm tending to zero at both ends. For exampleis analytic and nonzero for $|\mathrm{Im}z|<1/2$, tends to one at both ends, but winds once around zero along the real line. A logarithm continued along that line changes by $2\pi i$, so it cannot have the stated normalization at both ends. One must first separate the index factor, or allow appropriately subtracted factors and a correspondingly different common-function growth class. The displayed constant conclusion follows under the canonical zero-index assumptions above; it is not an unconditional consequence of the two printed properties of $F$. This is the issue measured by the Index of a Wiener-Hopf kernel.

Set $A=x^2-y^2$ and $B=2xy$. Direct differentiation givesTheir sum vanishes, proving that $u$ is a harmonic function. More generally the Cauchy-Riemann equations give $u_{xx}+u_{yy}=v_{yx}-v_{xy}=0$ and $v_{xx}+v_{yy}=-u_{yx}+u_{xy}=0$; the mixed partial derivatives commute because a holomorphic function is smooth. Since $e^{i{z}^2}=e^{-B}(\cos A+i\sin A)$, a harmonic conjugate and the resulting holomorphic function areThese expressions also verify the Cauchy-Riemann equations directly.

Choose a continuous branch of a multivalued function of the complex logarithm on a simply connected region avoiding zero. ThenAlternatively $u_r=-e^{-\theta }\sin (\ln r)/r=v_{\theta }/r$ and $v_r=e^{-\theta }\cos (\ln r)/r=-u_{\theta }/r$, verifying the Cauchy-Riemann equations. The holomorphy is local to a chosen branch of a multivalued function: increasing $\theta$ by $2\pi$ multiplies $g$ by $e^{-2\pi }$, so this is not a single-valued holomorphic function on the whole punctured plane.

Cauchy's integral theorem states that a holomorphic function on a simply connected open region has zero contour integral around every closed piecewise smooth contour in that region. More generally the same holds for a contour homologous to zero in its domain of holomorphy. Having no singularity on the curve alone is insufficient: $1/z$ has a nonzero contour integral around the unit circle.

Use the principal complex square root, $\sqrt{z}=\sqrt{r}{e}^{i\theta /2}$ with $-\pi <\theta <\pi$. For $F(z)=e^{z-\sqrt{z}}/z$, the local expansion on this holomorphic branch isThe fractional power prevents a single-valued Laurent series in a punctured disc. In particular, zero is a branch point, not an isolated singularity classified as a pole. Merely observing that $zF(z)\to 1$ on the slit plane would not establish a simple pole: $zF(z)$ does not extend as a holomorphic function through a whole disc around zero.

The negative real half-line is a chosen branch cut. Its upper and lower boundary values differ because $\sqrt{-x+i0}=i\sqrt{x}$ and $\sqrt{-x-i0}=-i\sqrt{x}$ for $x>0$. Continuation once around zero changes the sign of the complex square root, and hence changes $F$ in general. Other branch cuts are possible; this one defines the principal holomorphic branch.

Excise a small disc about zero and a thin slit along the negative real axis, using the orientations shown in the source: $C_1$ upwards, $C_3$ towards zero above the slit, $C_4$ clockwise around zero, and $C_5$ away from zero below the slit. On the resulting region $F$ is a single-valued holomorphic function; zero lies in the excluded disc and there are no poles in the region. Cauchy's integral theorem givesHere the paths on the cut mean limiting paths from its two sides. Apply Cauchy's integral theorem before taking those limits, when the entire contour lies inside the slit domain.

Singularities. The complex exponential factors as $F(z)=e^{z/2}{e}^{1/(2z)}$. The second factor has an essential singularity at zero, and multiplication by the nonvanishing holomorphic function $e^{z/2}$ does not remove it. There are no other finite singularities. On the Riemann sphere, infinity is also an essential singularity, since $F(1/\zeta )=F(\zeta )$.

Symmetry and integral formula. The identity $F(1/z)=F(z)$ and uniqueness of the Laurent series on $0<|z|<\infty$ give $F_{-k}=F_k$ for every integer $k$. The Laurent coefficient formula, on the positively oriented unit circle, givesThe imaginary part vanishes by the substitution $\theta \mapsto 2\pi -\theta$. Hence

Polynomial contour integral. For an integer $n\ge 0$ and integer $p$, the binomial theorem gives $(1+z^2{)}^n={\sum }_{j=0}^n(\genfrac{}{}{0ex}{}{n}{j})z^{2j}$. The residue theorem selects $2j-n-p-1=-1$, that is $j=(n+p)/2$. Therefore the correct complete statement isThe printed nonnegative-integer condition alone misses $j\le n$. For example $n=0,p=2$ satisfies that condition, but the integral is zero and the displayed factorial $(-1)!$ is undefined.

Explicit coefficients. Both Taylor series inconverge absolutely and uniformly on every compact annulus away from zero, so their product can be regrouped. For $k\ge 0$, put $r=s+k$ and $s=m$. For arbitrary integer $k$, use the already proved symmetry:Here $I_j$ is a modified Bessel function. The printed series is directly meaningful for $k\ge 0$; for negative $k$ the absolute values, or an appropriately shifted lower summation limit, are essential.

Conformality and analyticity. Use the orientation-preserving convention for a conformal map, with a continuously differentiable, nonzero differential. Its Jacobian matrix must be a positive scale times a rotation,Thus $u_x=v_y$, $u_y=-v_x$, the Cauchy-Riemann equations; continuous partial derivatives then imply that $u+iv$ is a holomorphic function. If angle preservation is allowed to reverse orientation, the statement needs this qualification: $z\mapsto \bar{z}$ preserves unsigned angles but is an anticonformal map and is not a holomorphic function.

The mapping. Put $a=\pi /L$. The displayed components combine to giveIts derivative does not vanish in the open half-strip $x>0$, $0<y<L$, so it is a conformal map there. Also $\mathrm{Im}w=\sinh (ax)\sin (ay)>0$. The lower edge maps to $[1,\infty )$, the upper edge to $(-\infty ,-1]$, and the vertical edge to $[-1,1]$. The open half-strip maps bijectively onto the upper half-plane. Indeed, $\cosh \zeta =\cosh \eta$ implies $\zeta =\pm \eta +2\pi im$; the half-strip allows only equality. Surjectivity follows by solving $t+t^{-1}=2w$ and choosing the root $t=e^{az}$ with $|t|>1$ and $0<\arg t<\pi$. The two corners are boundary critical points, not interior failures of conformality.

Transformed boundary values. A conformal map preserves Laplace's equation up to a positive scale. Thus the transformed Dirichlet problem is to find a real harmonic function $U(u,v)$ on $v>0$ withThe conflicting values at the original corners are interpreted as one-sided edge limits.

Logarithmic solution. Choose the complex logarithms of $w\pm 1$ with arguments between zero and $\pi$ in the upper half-plane. A linear combination $F(w)=\alpha \log (w+1)+\beta \log (w-1)+\gamma$ is a complex-valued harmonic function, since it is a holomorphic function; the real physical potential must be a real or imaginary part. In particular, setThenOn the three real boundary intervals, the argument difference is respectively $0,\pi ,0$, which gives the required values. This is the bounded harmonic solution, with $U\to V_0$ at infinity; uniqueness holds in this bounded class by the maximum principle. Without a boundedness or far-field condition, the edge data alone do not give uniqueness: one may add $C\sinh (\pi x/L)\sin (\pi y/L)$.

Back substitution. Sincethe required continuous argument difference is $2\arctan [\sin (ay)/\sinh (ax)]$ in the open half-strip. ConsequentlyAs $y\to 0,L$ with $x>0$, the arctangent tends to zero; as $x\to 0^{+}$ with $0<y<L$, it tends to $\pi /2$. These limits verify every open edge of the Dirichlet problem.

Set $A=x^2-y^2$ and $B=2xy$. Direct differentiation givesTheir sum vanishes, proving that $u$ is a harmonic function. More generally the Cauchy-Riemann equations give $u_{xx}+u_{yy}=v_{yx}-v_{xy}=0$ and $v_{xx}+v_{yy}=-u_{yx}+u_{xy}=0$; the mixed partial derivatives commute because a holomorphic function is smooth. Since $e^{i{z}^2}=e^{-B}(\cos A+i\sin A)$, a harmonic conjugate and the resulting holomorphic function areThese expressions also verify the Cauchy-Riemann equations directly.

Choose a continuous branch of a multivalued function of the complex logarithm on a simply connected region avoiding zero. ThenAlternatively $u_r=-e^{-\theta }\sin (\ln r)/r=v_{\theta }/r$ and $v_r=e^{-\theta }\cos (\ln r)/r=-u_{\theta }/r$, verifying the Cauchy-Riemann equations. The holomorphy is local to a chosen branch of a multivalued function: increasing $\theta$ by $2\pi$ multiplies $g$ by $e^{-2\pi }$, so this is not a single-valued holomorphic function on the whole punctured plane.

Cauchy's integral theorem states that a holomorphic function on a simply connected open region has zero contour integral around every closed piecewise smooth contour in that region. More generally the same holds for a contour homologous to zero in its domain of holomorphy. Having no singularity on the curve alone is insufficient: $1/z$ has a nonzero contour integral around the unit circle.

The Joukowski map $f(z)=z+z^{-1}$ is holomorphic on $\mathbb{C}\setminus \{0\}$. A holomorphic function is locally conformal where its derivative is nonzero. Here $f^{\prime }(z)=1-z^{-2}$ vanishes at $z=\pm 1$. Thereforewhere the exclusion of zero is because the function is undefined there. Holomorphy alone does not supply conformality at the two critical points.

Put $z=1+\zeta$. Expanding the holomorphic function near its critical point givesFor a small ray $\zeta =r{e}^{i\theta }$, the leading image displacement is $r^2{e}^{2i\theta }$. Thus oriented ray angles are doubled modulo $2\pi$ at $z=1$. This is angle multiplication at a holomorphic critical point of multiplicity two; an unoriented angle between full tangent lines must also be interpreted modulo $\pi$. The map is not locally one-to-one there.

A conformal map preserves the magnitude and orientation of angles between intersecting smooth curves locally. For a complex holomorphic function, the condition at $z_0$ is $f^{\prime }(z_0)\ne 0$: the first-order change $\delta w=f^{\prime }(z_0)\delta z$ rotates and uniformly scales every tangent vector by the same complex factor. This local statement does not require a globally one-to-one map.

Cauchy's theorem says that a holomorphic function integrates to zero around a closed contour homologous to zero in its domain. Thus deforming one contour into another without crossing a singularity preserves the integral. More generally for a meromorphic $f$, the exact condition isEqual winding numbers about every singularity are sufficient. They are not necessary for one particular function because residues can cancel; even arbitrary contours have equal integrals for $f=0$. A topological deformation criterion must not be confused with a necessary condition for accidental equality.