2

Laurent series $$f(z) := \sum_{n=-\infty}^\infty a_n (z-c)^n$$ converge for $r<|z-c|<R$ where $$r = \limsup_{n\to\infty}|a_{-n}|^{\frac1n}, \\\frac1R = \limsup_{n\to\infty}|a_n|^{\frac1n}.$$

But what lies on the boundary of such an annulus that breaks convergence? If $r\neq R$, is it always isolated singularities (of the analytical continuation; essential or not?), or could something else also be the cause?

Or asked differently, is such an $f(z)$ always analytically continuable for almost all $|z|\in\{r,R\}$?

  • 2
    Not if by singularity you mean "isolated singularity of an analytic continuation". You could for example have each boundary point a limit point of zeros of $f$. – Daniel Fischer Aug 19 '13 at 13:13
  • @DanielFischer Yes, that's what I mean. What do you mean by limit point of zeros - that $f|_{|z|=R}\equiv 0$? – Tobias Kienzler Aug 19 '13 at 13:51
  • No, if $f \not\equiv 0$, and every boundary point of the annulus is a limit point of zeros of $f$, then you can't define $f$ on the boundary (to continuously extend $f$), so then you don't have $f\big\lvert_{\lvert z\rvert = R} \equiv 0$. – Daniel Fischer Aug 19 '13 at 13:58
  • I agree that $f$ cannot be regular at all boundary points, the question is more is it regular for almost all boundary points. @Daniel Do you know any such function as an example? It's difficult to merely believe its existence... – Tobias Kienzler Aug 19 '13 at 14:14
  • The answer to the regularity question is: in general, no. There are functions whose natural boundary is the boundary of the annulus, that means they cannot be extended meromorphically across any part of the boundary. The existence of such functions is an easy consequence of the Weierstraß product theorem (which is not very easy to prove in full generality, but for annuli, it's relatively easy), but is more than I'm willing to write a proof of today. – Daniel Fischer Aug 19 '13 at 14:20
  • @DanielFischer No problem, you've already contributed a lot here. Is this similar to why the sum of all primes is not regulizable? Or something where you have to quite artificially construct the $a_n$'s? – Tobias Kienzler Aug 20 '13 at 06:47

2 Answers2

3

For an open set $U \subset \mathbb{C}$, there always are $f \in \mathcal{O}(U)$ which cannot be continued analytically across any part of the boundary $\partial U$.

That is an easy consequence of the (general) Weierstraß product theorem, which I quote here from Rudin (Real and Complex Analysis; Thm 15.11):

Let $\Omega$ be an open set in $S^2$, $\Omega \neq S^2$. Suppose $A \subset \Omega$ and $A$ has no limit point in $\Omega$. With each $\alpha \in A$ associate a positive integer $m(\alpha)$. Then there exists an $f \in H(\Omega)$ all of whose zeros are in $A$, and such that $f$ has a zero of order $m(\alpha)$ at each $\alpha \in A$.

With that, all one needs is the existence of a set $A$ contained in the annulus $K = \{ z : r < \lvert z\rvert < R\}$ such that $A$ has no limit point in $K$, and every boundary point of $K$ is a limit point of $A$. Then, choosing all multiplicities as $1$ for simplicity, one obtains a function $f\not\equiv 0$ such that every boundary point is a limit of zeros of $f$, hence $f$ cannot be analytically continued across any part of the boundary with isolated singularities, since such a continuation would vanish on a non-discrete set without vanishing identically, contradicting the identity theorem.

For the special case of annuli, we can construct such a function relatively explicitly.

For $n \in \mathbb{Z}^+$, let $\alpha_n = \left(1 - \frac{1}{(n+1)^2}\right)e^{in}$. Then $(\alpha_n)_{n \in \mathbb{Z}^+}$ is a sequence in the unit disk $\mathbb{D}$ whose limit points are exactly the points on the unit circle $\partial \mathbb{D}$. (That no other points are limit points is immediate, that every point on the unit circle is a limit point follows from the fact that $A_k := \{e^{in} : n \geqslant k \}$ is dense in the unit circle for all $k\in \mathbb{Z}^+$.)

Then consider the Blaschke product

$$B(z) := \prod_{n=1}^\infty \frac{\alpha_n - z}{1 - \overline{\alpha_n}z}\frac{\lvert \alpha_n\rvert}{\alpha_n}.$$

Since $\sum (1 - \lvert\alpha_n\rvert) = \pi^2/6 - 1 < \infty$, $B \in H^\infty(\mathbb{D})$ and $B$ has simple zeros in each $\alpha_n$ and no other zeros, by the general theory of Blaschke products.

Now, if $0 < r < R < \infty$, the function

$$f(z) = B\left(\frac{z}{R}\right)\cdot B\left(\frac{r}{z}\right)$$

is holomorphic on the annulus and has simple zeros [$R\cdot\alpha_k = r/\alpha_m$ can't happen, because $e^{i(k+m)} \neq 1$ for $k,\,m \in \mathbb{Z}^+$, so the zeros remain simple] only in the points $R\cdot\alpha_n$ and $r/\alpha_n$ for $n$ sufficiently large, so that $R\lvert\alpha_n\rvert > r$ resp. $r/\lvert\alpha_n\rvert < R$. Every point on $\lvert z\rvert = R$ is a limit point of the $R\cdot\alpha_n$, and every point on $\lvert z\rvert = r$ is a limit point of the $r/\alpha_n$, so every boundary point of the annulus is a limit point of zeros of $f$.

If $r = 0$, then $0$ is trivially an isolated singularity of each $g \in \mathcal{O}(K)$, and if $R = \infty$, then $\infty$ is trivially an isolated singularity of each $g \in \mathcal{O}(K)$. If $r = 0$ and $R = \infty$, then each boundary point of $K$ is an isolated singularity of all $g \in \mathcal{O}(K)$, if only one of these equations hold then drop the corresponding $B(z/R)$ or $B(r/z)$ from $f$ to obtain a function that cannot be analytically continued (with isolated singularities) across any part of the boundary.

Daniel Fischer
  • 206,697
  • Thanks for this exhaustive answer. It's a rather artificial example (for me as a Physicist) the $a_n$ of which are probably highly non-trivial to determine, but valid nonetheless - reminds me of the Weierstrass function somehow... – Tobias Kienzler Aug 20 '13 at 12:40
  • 1
    In a sense, it's "typical", given any sequence $(z_n)$ without limit point in $U$, the set of $f \in \mathcal{O}(U)$ that are bounded on ${z_n}$ is meagre. As a consequence, for any boundary point $p$, the set of functions that can be analytically continued to a neighbourhood of $p$ is meagre, and choosing a countable dense subset of $\partial U$, we see that the set of $f\in\mathcal{O}(U)$ that can be analytically continued to a neighbourhood of any boundary point is meagre. On the other hand, the functions one typically works with can be analytically continued across most boundary points. – Daniel Fischer Aug 20 '13 at 13:03
  • 2
    If you have the Laurent coefficients given by a reasonably concise formula, I'd be very surprised if you couldn't analytically continue the function across all but finitely many boundary points, and the finitely many exceptions would be isolated singularities of a continuation. The Laurent coefficients of my example would be "easy" to compute if the Taylor coefficients of the Blaschke product $B$ are known. You can get the Taylor expansion of each factor easily, but the product of infinitely many Taylor series would be inconvenient to compute indeed. – Daniel Fischer Aug 20 '13 at 13:09
  • Thanks for the elaboration. Concerning a "reasonably concise formula", I recently started wondering what happened if the $a_n$ themselves were given by a sufficiently convergent Laurent-series in $n$ (where for $n$ outside the convergence region either analytical continuation or $a_n=0$ would be used)... – Tobias Kienzler Aug 20 '13 at 13:15
2

Yes.

Hint: Otherwise you could extend the function to larger domain using the compactness of the circle.

njguliyev
  • 14,473
  • 1
  • 26
  • 43
  • Could you elaborate on that please? With extension, do you refer to analytical continuation? – Tobias Kienzler Aug 19 '13 at 12:55
  • 1
    If each point of the circle $|z-c| = R$ is regular then the function is holomorphic at some (say, circular) neighborhood of every point of that circle. These neighborhoods cover the circle (which is a compact set). You can choose a finite subcover and deduce that the function is holomorphic on $r < |z-c| < R+\varepsilon$ for some $\varepsilon > 0$. – njguliyev Aug 19 '13 at 13:48
  • That makes sense, thanks. But as Daniel Fischer hints at, is it certain that the disturbance is an isolated singularity (or multiple ones, but isolated nonetheless)? – Tobias Kienzler Aug 19 '13 at 13:54
  • Of course. Singular means "not regular". – njguliyev Aug 19 '13 at 13:58
  • Sorry for rephrasing my question a bit and turning your answer ambiguous, but I'm interested in whether the singularities are always isolated or not. Daniel Fischer commented on what else there might be, though due to a lack of example/construction/proof I'm not entirely convinced yet – Tobias Kienzler Aug 20 '13 at 06:50
  • 1
    note to future readers The original version of my question wasn't phrased well enough and merely asked for the presence of singularities on the convergence circles in general, to which njguliyev's answer is correctly "yes" – Tobias Kienzler Aug 20 '13 at 06:53
  • I took the liberty to edit in your comment to make the answer more self-contained. I hope the preface and change of tense is ok to you? – Tobias Kienzler Aug 22 '13 at 06:38