Why is the proof that contour integrals of triangles on holomorphic domains not trivial? The Next CEO of Stack OverflowOn the proof of Goursat's LemmaComplex integral on a smooth curve contained in an open setIndependence of Circular Contour Radius - Part 2$oint_C(A-lambda I)^-1,dlambda=0$ implies interior of $C$ is in the resolvent.Hypotheses in Morera's theoremA modified version of Goursat's TheoremProof of residue thereomHelp understanding Stein's proof of the Cauchy Integral FormulaHow to show that the integral $frac12pi i int_gamma fracdzz - a$ is integer-valued when the curve $gamma$ is not piecewise smooth?Piece-wise smooth Rectifiable Jordan Curve with Grid Overlay.winding number of a triangle
Method for adding error messages to a dictionary given a key
Would a completely good Muggle be able to use a wand?
Why is quantifier elimination desirable for a given theory?
Flying from Cape Town to England and return to another province
How to sed chunks text from a stream of files from find
Does Germany produce more waste than the US?
Rotate a column
Why does the flight controls check come before arming the autobrake on the A320?
Is French Guiana a (hard) EU border?
Math-accent symbol over parentheses enclosing accented symbol (amsmath)
What steps are necessary to read a Modern SSD in Medieval Europe?
What is the value of α and β in a triangle?
Is there a way to save my career from absolute disaster?
Where do students learn to solve polynomial equations these days?
Can MTA send mail via a relay without being told so?
Why is the US ranked as #45 in Press Freedom ratings, despite its extremely permissive free speech laws?
Why did CATV standarize in 75 ohms and everyone else in 50?
Won the lottery - how do I keep the money?
How many extra stops do monopods offer for tele photographs?
If Nick Fury and Coulson already knew about aliens (Kree and Skrull) why did they wait until Thor's appearance to start making weapons?
Domestic-to-international connection at Orlando (MCO)
Axiom Schema vs Axiom
How to invert MapIndexed on a ragged structure? How to construct a tree from rules?
Does soap repel water?
Why is the proof that contour integrals of triangles on holomorphic domains not trivial?
The Next CEO of Stack OverflowOn the proof of Goursat's LemmaComplex integral on a smooth curve contained in an open setIndependence of Circular Contour Radius - Part 2$oint_C(A-lambda I)^-1,dlambda=0$ implies interior of $C$ is in the resolvent.Hypotheses in Morera's theoremA modified version of Goursat's TheoremProof of residue thereomHelp understanding Stein's proof of the Cauchy Integral FormulaHow to show that the integral $frac12pi i int_gamma fracdzz - a$ is integer-valued when the curve $gamma$ is not piecewise smooth?Piece-wise smooth Rectifiable Jordan Curve with Grid Overlay.winding number of a triangle
$begingroup$
My professor proved to us the following:
If γ is a closed [piecewise-smooth] curve in an open set Ω whose interior is also contained in Ω, f is continuous and has a primitive in Ω, then
$oint_gammaf(z)dz=0$.
He then went on to prove this:
Let Ω ⊂ C be an open set and T ⊂ Ω be a triangle [piecewise-smooth curve] whose interior is also contained in Ω, then whenever f is holomorphic in Ω
$oint_Tf(z)dz=0$.
The second proof was very long. He used it to justify that the contour integral of any polygon is zero, since any polygon is the union of triangles.
My question is, why was the second proof necessary? Surely it follows immediately from the first result? Apart from the square brackets, everything I've written is directly copy-pasted from his lecture notes. I don't see why the first result doesn't just make the second trivial.
complex-analysis analysis
asked Mar 26 at 13:19
otah007otah007
1568
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My professor proved to us the following:
If γ is a closed [piecewise-smooth] curve in an open set Ω whose interior is also contained in Ω, f is continuous and has a primitive in Ω, then
$oint_gammaf(z)dz=0$.
He then went on to prove this:
Let Ω ⊂ C be an open set and T ⊂ Ω be a triangle [piecewise-smooth curve] whose interior is also contained in Ω, then whenever f is holomorphic in Ω
$oint_Tf(z)dz=0$.
The second proof was very long. He used it to justify that the contour integral of any polygon is zero, since any polygon is the union of triangles.
My question is, why was the second proof necessary? Surely it follows immediately from the first result? Apart from the square brackets, everything I've written is directly copy-pasted from his lecture notes. I don't see why the first result doesn't just make the second trivial.
complex-analysis analysis
asked Mar 26 at 13:19
otah007otah007
1568
$endgroup$
5
$begingroup$
The entire point of the second statement (Goursat’s theorem) is that you’re no longer assuming that $f$ has a primitive—this is a key step towards eventually proving that holomorphic functions are analytic.
$endgroup$
– Branimir Ćaćić
Mar 26 at 13:24
$begingroup$
@BranimirĆaćić Add that as an answer and I can accept it.
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:53
$begingroup$
You can take a look at thisone for Goursat not being such a big deal. Goursat says for $f$ holomorphic then $F(z)=int_a^z f(s)ds$ is well-defined (it doesn't depend on the path $a to z$) so $F$ is a primitive of $f$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Mar 27 at 0:32
add a comment |
$begingroup$
My professor proved to us the following:
If γ is a closed [piecewise-smooth] curve in an open set Ω whose interior is also contained in Ω, f is continuous and has a primitive in Ω, then
$oint_gammaf(z)dz=0$.
He then went on to prove this:
Let Ω ⊂ C be an open set and T ⊂ Ω be a triangle [piecewise-smooth curve] whose interior is also contained in Ω, then whenever f is holomorphic in Ω
$oint_Tf(z)dz=0$.
The second proof was very long. He used it to justify that the contour integral of any polygon is zero, since any polygon is the union of triangles.
My question is, why was the second proof necessary? Surely it follows immediately from the first result? Apart from the square brackets, everything I've written is directly copy-pasted from his lecture notes. I don't see why the first result doesn't just make the second trivial.
complex-analysis analysis
asked Mar 26 at 13:19
otah007otah007
1568
$endgroup$
My professor proved to us the following:
If γ is a closed [piecewise-smooth] curve in an open set Ω whose interior is also contained in Ω, f is continuous and has a primitive in Ω, then
$oint_gammaf(z)dz=0$.
He then went on to prove this:
Let Ω ⊂ C be an open set and T ⊂ Ω be a triangle [piecewise-smooth curve] whose interior is also contained in Ω, then whenever f is holomorphic in Ω
$oint_Tf(z)dz=0$.
The second proof was very long. He used it to justify that the contour integral of any polygon is zero, since any polygon is the union of triangles.
My question is, why was the second proof necessary? Surely it follows immediately from the first result? Apart from the square brackets, everything I've written is directly copy-pasted from his lecture notes. I don't see why the first result doesn't just make the second trivial.
complex-analysis analysis
complex-analysis analysis
asked Mar 26 at 13:19
otah007otah007
1568
asked Mar 26 at 13:19
otah007otah007
1568
asked Mar 26 at 13:19
otah007otah007
1568
asked Mar 26 at 13:19
otah007otah007
1568
asked Mar 26 at 13:19
otah007otah007
1568
1568
5
$begingroup$
The entire point of the second statement (Goursat’s theorem) is that you’re no longer assuming that $f$ has a primitive—this is a key step towards eventually proving that holomorphic functions are analytic.
$endgroup$
– Branimir Ćaćić
Mar 26 at 13:24
$begingroup$
@BranimirĆaćić Add that as an answer and I can accept it.
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:53
$begingroup$
You can take a look at thisone for Goursat not being such a big deal. Goursat says for $f$ holomorphic then $F(z)=int_a^z f(s)ds$ is well-defined (it doesn't depend on the path $a to z$) so $F$ is a primitive of $f$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Mar 27 at 0:32
add a comment |
5
$begingroup$
The entire point of the second statement (Goursat’s theorem) is that you’re no longer assuming that $f$ has a primitive—this is a key step towards eventually proving that holomorphic functions are analytic.
$endgroup$
– Branimir Ćaćić
Mar 26 at 13:24
$begingroup$
@BranimirĆaćić Add that as an answer and I can accept it.
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:53
$begingroup$
You can take a look at thisone for Goursat not being such a big deal. Goursat says for $f$ holomorphic then $F(z)=int_a^z f(s)ds$ is well-defined (it doesn't depend on the path $a to z$) so $F$ is a primitive of $f$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Mar 27 at 0:32
5
5
$begingroup$
The entire point of the second statement (Goursat’s theorem) is that you’re no longer assuming that $f$ has a primitive—this is a key step towards eventually proving that holomorphic functions are analytic.
$endgroup$
– Branimir Ćaćić
Mar 26 at 13:24
$begingroup$
The entire point of the second statement (Goursat’s theorem) is that you’re no longer assuming that $f$ has a primitive—this is a key step towards eventually proving that holomorphic functions are analytic.
$endgroup$
– Branimir Ćaćić
Mar 26 at 13:24
$begingroup$
@BranimirĆaćić Add that as an answer and I can accept it.
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:53
$begingroup$
@BranimirĆaćić Add that as an answer and I can accept it.
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:53
$begingroup$
You can take a look at thisone for Goursat not being such a big deal. Goursat says for $f$ holomorphic then $F(z)=int_a^z f(s)ds$ is well-defined (it doesn't depend on the path $a to z$) so $F$ is a primitive of $f$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Mar 27 at 0:32
$begingroup$
You can take a look at thisone for Goursat not being such a big deal. Goursat says for $f$ holomorphic then $F(z)=int_a^z f(s)ds$ is well-defined (it doesn't depend on the path $a to z$) so $F$ is a primitive of $f$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Mar 27 at 0:32
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Branimir Ćaćić already explained why the first result doesn't imply the second result. But there's something else: The first result is stated in a strange way. There is no need to assume the interior of $gamma$ is contained in $Omega.$ If $f$ is continuous on an open set $Omegasubset mathbb C$ and $f$ has a primitive in $Omega,$ then $int_gamma f(z),dz=0$ for any closed contour $gamma$ in $Omega.$ This follows from the fundamental theorem of calculus. Yes, the FTC you learned in ordinary calculus. There's nothing of any depth (beyond the depth of Calc. 1) happening here. It's good to understand this.
answered Mar 26 at 21:40
zhw.zhw.
74.8k43175
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I know the second result doesn't follow from the first, I'm asking why it doesn't. Branimir Ćaćić's comment is correct - it is to do with the assumption of the existence of a primitive. Also, it does depend on the interior of γ being contained in Ω, since if it wasn't then there might be a pole inside γ and the integral would be non-zero. Restating the result and closing with 'I don't know' isn't a very helpful answer...
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:52
$begingroup$
@zhw: Nothing weird is happening; as far as I know this is a perfectly normal sequence of results in a complex analysis course. Perhaps you have misread the question? The OP is asking why the second result cannot be deduced immediately from the first.
$endgroup$
– Will R
Mar 26 at 22:06
$begingroup$
@otah007 Yes, the comment of Branimir Ćaćić explained why the second result doesn't follow from the first. I felt no need to comment further on it. But I noticed something else, which was the way you stated the first result. That result does not depend on the interior of $gamma$ being contained in $Omega.$ As i said, the proof is elementary; it follows from the FTC. If your professor stated it as you have it, then that is indeed strange.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:49
$begingroup$
@WillR It's not normal to state the first result as the OP has it. That's what I was addressing.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:52
$begingroup$
I edited my answer; hopefully it's clearer now.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 19:02
|
show 2 more comments
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3163159%2fwhy-is-the-proof-that-contour-integrals-of-triangles-on-holomorphic-domains-not%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
Branimir Ćaćić already explained why the first result doesn't imply the second result. But there's something else: The first result is stated in a strange way. There is no need to assume the interior of $gamma$ is contained in $Omega.$ If $f$ is continuous on an open set $Omegasubset mathbb C$ and $f$ has a primitive in $Omega,$ then $int_gamma f(z),dz=0$ for any closed contour $gamma$ in $Omega.$ This follows from the fundamental theorem of calculus. Yes, the FTC you learned in ordinary calculus. There's nothing of any depth (beyond the depth of Calc. 1) happening here. It's good to understand this.
answered Mar 26 at 21:40
zhw.zhw.
74.8k43175
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I know the second result doesn't follow from the first, I'm asking why it doesn't. Branimir Ćaćić's comment is correct - it is to do with the assumption of the existence of a primitive. Also, it does depend on the interior of γ being contained in Ω, since if it wasn't then there might be a pole inside γ and the integral would be non-zero. Restating the result and closing with 'I don't know' isn't a very helpful answer...
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:52
$begingroup$
@zhw: Nothing weird is happening; as far as I know this is a perfectly normal sequence of results in a complex analysis course. Perhaps you have misread the question? The OP is asking why the second result cannot be deduced immediately from the first.
$endgroup$
– Will R
Mar 26 at 22:06
$begingroup$
@otah007 Yes, the comment of Branimir Ćaćić explained why the second result doesn't follow from the first. I felt no need to comment further on it. But I noticed something else, which was the way you stated the first result. That result does not depend on the interior of $gamma$ being contained in $Omega.$ As i said, the proof is elementary; it follows from the FTC. If your professor stated it as you have it, then that is indeed strange.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:49
$begingroup$
@WillR It's not normal to state the first result as the OP has it. That's what I was addressing.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:52
$begingroup$
I edited my answer; hopefully it's clearer now.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 19:02
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Branimir Ćaćić already explained why the first result doesn't imply the second result. But there's something else: The first result is stated in a strange way. There is no need to assume the interior of $gamma$ is contained in $Omega.$ If $f$ is continuous on an open set $Omegasubset mathbb C$ and $f$ has a primitive in $Omega,$ then $int_gamma f(z),dz=0$ for any closed contour $gamma$ in $Omega.$ This follows from the fundamental theorem of calculus. Yes, the FTC you learned in ordinary calculus. There's nothing of any depth (beyond the depth of Calc. 1) happening here. It's good to understand this.
answered Mar 26 at 21:40
zhw.zhw.
74.8k43175
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I know the second result doesn't follow from the first, I'm asking why it doesn't. Branimir Ćaćić's comment is correct - it is to do with the assumption of the existence of a primitive. Also, it does depend on the interior of γ being contained in Ω, since if it wasn't then there might be a pole inside γ and the integral would be non-zero. Restating the result and closing with 'I don't know' isn't a very helpful answer...
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:52
$begingroup$
@zhw: Nothing weird is happening; as far as I know this is a perfectly normal sequence of results in a complex analysis course. Perhaps you have misread the question? The OP is asking why the second result cannot be deduced immediately from the first.
$endgroup$
– Will R
Mar 26 at 22:06
$begingroup$
@otah007 Yes, the comment of Branimir Ćaćić explained why the second result doesn't follow from the first. I felt no need to comment further on it. But I noticed something else, which was the way you stated the first result. That result does not depend on the interior of $gamma$ being contained in $Omega.$ As i said, the proof is elementary; it follows from the FTC. If your professor stated it as you have it, then that is indeed strange.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:49
$begingroup$
@WillR It's not normal to state the first result as the OP has it. That's what I was addressing.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:52
$begingroup$
I edited my answer; hopefully it's clearer now.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 19:02
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
Branimir Ćaćić already explained why the first result doesn't imply the second result. But there's something else: The first result is stated in a strange way. There is no need to assume the interior of $gamma$ is contained in $Omega.$ If $f$ is continuous on an open set $Omegasubset mathbb C$ and $f$ has a primitive in $Omega,$ then $int_gamma f(z),dz=0$ for any closed contour $gamma$ in $Omega.$ This follows from the fundamental theorem of calculus. Yes, the FTC you learned in ordinary calculus. There's nothing of any depth (beyond the depth of Calc. 1) happening here. It's good to understand this.
answered Mar 26 at 21:40
zhw.zhw.
74.8k43175
$endgroup$
Branimir Ćaćić already explained why the first result doesn't imply the second result. But there's something else: The first result is stated in a strange way. There is no need to assume the interior of $gamma$ is contained in $Omega.$ If $f$ is continuous on an open set $Omegasubset mathbb C$ and $f$ has a primitive in $Omega,$ then $int_gamma f(z),dz=0$ for any closed contour $gamma$ in $Omega.$ This follows from the fundamental theorem of calculus. Yes, the FTC you learned in ordinary calculus. There's nothing of any depth (beyond the depth of Calc. 1) happening here. It's good to understand this.
answered Mar 26 at 21:40
zhw.zhw.
74.8k43175
edited Mar 27 at 19:01
answered Mar 26 at 21:40
zhw.zhw.
74.8k43175
answered Mar 26 at 21:40
zhw.zhw.
74.8k43175
answered Mar 26 at 21:40
zhw.zhw.
74.8k43175
74.8k43175
$begingroup$
I know the second result doesn't follow from the first, I'm asking why it doesn't. Branimir Ćaćić's comment is correct - it is to do with the assumption of the existence of a primitive. Also, it does depend on the interior of γ being contained in Ω, since if it wasn't then there might be a pole inside γ and the integral would be non-zero. Restating the result and closing with 'I don't know' isn't a very helpful answer...
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:52
$begingroup$
@zhw: Nothing weird is happening; as far as I know this is a perfectly normal sequence of results in a complex analysis course. Perhaps you have misread the question? The OP is asking why the second result cannot be deduced immediately from the first.
$endgroup$
– Will R
Mar 26 at 22:06
$begingroup$
@otah007 Yes, the comment of Branimir Ćaćić explained why the second result doesn't follow from the first. I felt no need to comment further on it. But I noticed something else, which was the way you stated the first result. That result does not depend on the interior of $gamma$ being contained in $Omega.$ As i said, the proof is elementary; it follows from the FTC. If your professor stated it as you have it, then that is indeed strange.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:49
$begingroup$
@WillR It's not normal to state the first result as the OP has it. That's what I was addressing.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:52
$begingroup$
I edited my answer; hopefully it's clearer now.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 19:02
|
show 2 more comments
$begingroup$
I know the second result doesn't follow from the first, I'm asking why it doesn't. Branimir Ćaćić's comment is correct - it is to do with the assumption of the existence of a primitive. Also, it does depend on the interior of γ being contained in Ω, since if it wasn't then there might be a pole inside γ and the integral would be non-zero. Restating the result and closing with 'I don't know' isn't a very helpful answer...
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:52
$begingroup$
@zhw: Nothing weird is happening; as far as I know this is a perfectly normal sequence of results in a complex analysis course. Perhaps you have misread the question? The OP is asking why the second result cannot be deduced immediately from the first.
$endgroup$
– Will R
Mar 26 at 22:06
$begingroup$
@otah007 Yes, the comment of Branimir Ćaćić explained why the second result doesn't follow from the first. I felt no need to comment further on it. But I noticed something else, which was the way you stated the first result. That result does not depend on the interior of $gamma$ being contained in $Omega.$ As i said, the proof is elementary; it follows from the FTC. If your professor stated it as you have it, then that is indeed strange.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:49
$begingroup$
@WillR It's not normal to state the first result as the OP has it. That's what I was addressing.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:52
$begingroup$
I edited my answer; hopefully it's clearer now.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 19:02
$begingroup$
I know the second result doesn't follow from the first, I'm asking why it doesn't. Branimir Ćaćić's comment is correct - it is to do with the assumption of the existence of a primitive. Also, it does depend on the interior of γ being contained in Ω, since if it wasn't then there might be a pole inside γ and the integral would be non-zero. Restating the result and closing with 'I don't know' isn't a very helpful answer...
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:52
$begingroup$
I know the second result doesn't follow from the first, I'm asking why it doesn't. Branimir Ćaćić's comment is correct - it is to do with the assumption of the existence of a primitive. Also, it does depend on the interior of γ being contained in Ω, since if it wasn't then there might be a pole inside γ and the integral would be non-zero. Restating the result and closing with 'I don't know' isn't a very helpful answer...
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:52
$begingroup$
@zhw: Nothing weird is happening; as far as I know this is a perfectly normal sequence of results in a complex analysis course. Perhaps you have misread the question? The OP is asking why the second result cannot be deduced immediately from the first.
$endgroup$
– Will R
Mar 26 at 22:06
$begingroup$
@zhw: Nothing weird is happening; as far as I know this is a perfectly normal sequence of results in a complex analysis course. Perhaps you have misread the question? The OP is asking why the second result cannot be deduced immediately from the first.
$endgroup$
– Will R
Mar 26 at 22:06
$begingroup$
@otah007 Yes, the comment of Branimir Ćaćić explained why the second result doesn't follow from the first. I felt no need to comment further on it. But I noticed something else, which was the way you stated the first result. That result does not depend on the interior of $gamma$ being contained in $Omega.$ As i said, the proof is elementary; it follows from the FTC. If your professor stated it as you have it, then that is indeed strange.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:49
$begingroup$
@otah007 Yes, the comment of Branimir Ćaćić explained why the second result doesn't follow from the first. I felt no need to comment further on it. But I noticed something else, which was the way you stated the first result. That result does not depend on the interior of $gamma$ being contained in $Omega.$ As i said, the proof is elementary; it follows from the FTC. If your professor stated it as you have it, then that is indeed strange.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:49
$begingroup$
@WillR It's not normal to state the first result as the OP has it. That's what I was addressing.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:52
$begingroup$
@WillR It's not normal to state the first result as the OP has it. That's what I was addressing.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 18:52
$begingroup$
I edited my answer; hopefully it's clearer now.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 19:02
$begingroup$
I edited my answer; hopefully it's clearer now.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 27 at 19:02
|
show 2 more comments
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3163159%2fwhy-is-the-proof-that-contour-integrals-of-triangles-on-holomorphic-domains-not%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
5
$begingroup$
The entire point of the second statement (Goursat’s theorem) is that you’re no longer assuming that $f$ has a primitive—this is a key step towards eventually proving that holomorphic functions are analytic.
$endgroup$
– Branimir Ćaćić
Mar 26 at 13:24
$begingroup$
@BranimirĆaćić Add that as an answer and I can accept it.
$endgroup$
– otah007
Mar 26 at 21:53
$begingroup$
You can take a look at thisone for Goursat not being such a big deal. Goursat says for $f$ holomorphic then $F(z)=int_a^z f(s)ds$ is well-defined (it doesn't depend on the path $a to z$) so $F$ is a primitive of $f$.
$endgroup$
– reuns
Mar 27 at 0:32