Why: A holomorphic function with constant magnitude must be constant.












17












$begingroup$


How can I prove the following assertion?



Let $f$ be a holomorphic function such that $|f|$ is a constant. Then $f$ is constant.



Edit: The more elementary the proof, the better. I'm working my way through a complex analysis workbook, and by this exercise, the only substantial thing covered has been the Cauchy-Riemann equations.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the domain of $f$? If it's all of $mathbb C$, then you can use Liouville's theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    May 21 '12 at 18:57










  • $begingroup$
    The domain is allowed to be any open set.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    May 23 '12 at 0:03






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I suspect that the domain $Omega$ must be a connected open set for this result to bind. Otherwise, isn't it possible for $vert f(z) vert$ to to be constant, with $f'(z) = 0$, but $f(z)$ to take different values, each with the same modulus, on different components of $Omega$? Note that some of the proofs given rely (perhaps tacitly) on integrating along a path . . .
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Lewis
    Sep 21 '15 at 1:26












  • $begingroup$
    @RobertLewis I had a comment saying you were wrong but now I think you are right! Why not have two disconnected disks and the first disk maps to 1 and the second disk maps to i!
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Sep 21 '15 at 5:29










  • $begingroup$
    Exactly my point! Thanks, and Cheers!
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Lewis
    Sep 21 '15 at 5:37
















17












$begingroup$


How can I prove the following assertion?



Let $f$ be a holomorphic function such that $|f|$ is a constant. Then $f$ is constant.



Edit: The more elementary the proof, the better. I'm working my way through a complex analysis workbook, and by this exercise, the only substantial thing covered has been the Cauchy-Riemann equations.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the domain of $f$? If it's all of $mathbb C$, then you can use Liouville's theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    May 21 '12 at 18:57










  • $begingroup$
    The domain is allowed to be any open set.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    May 23 '12 at 0:03






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I suspect that the domain $Omega$ must be a connected open set for this result to bind. Otherwise, isn't it possible for $vert f(z) vert$ to to be constant, with $f'(z) = 0$, but $f(z)$ to take different values, each with the same modulus, on different components of $Omega$? Note that some of the proofs given rely (perhaps tacitly) on integrating along a path . . .
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Lewis
    Sep 21 '15 at 1:26












  • $begingroup$
    @RobertLewis I had a comment saying you were wrong but now I think you are right! Why not have two disconnected disks and the first disk maps to 1 and the second disk maps to i!
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Sep 21 '15 at 5:29










  • $begingroup$
    Exactly my point! Thanks, and Cheers!
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Lewis
    Sep 21 '15 at 5:37














17












17








17


12



$begingroup$


How can I prove the following assertion?



Let $f$ be a holomorphic function such that $|f|$ is a constant. Then $f$ is constant.



Edit: The more elementary the proof, the better. I'm working my way through a complex analysis workbook, and by this exercise, the only substantial thing covered has been the Cauchy-Riemann equations.










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




How can I prove the following assertion?



Let $f$ be a holomorphic function such that $|f|$ is a constant. Then $f$ is constant.



Edit: The more elementary the proof, the better. I'm working my way through a complex analysis workbook, and by this exercise, the only substantial thing covered has been the Cauchy-Riemann equations.







complex-analysis






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Sep 6 '17 at 5:02







Mark

















asked May 21 '12 at 18:46









MarkMark

2,04222449




2,04222449








  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the domain of $f$? If it's all of $mathbb C$, then you can use Liouville's theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    May 21 '12 at 18:57










  • $begingroup$
    The domain is allowed to be any open set.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    May 23 '12 at 0:03






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I suspect that the domain $Omega$ must be a connected open set for this result to bind. Otherwise, isn't it possible for $vert f(z) vert$ to to be constant, with $f'(z) = 0$, but $f(z)$ to take different values, each with the same modulus, on different components of $Omega$? Note that some of the proofs given rely (perhaps tacitly) on integrating along a path . . .
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Lewis
    Sep 21 '15 at 1:26












  • $begingroup$
    @RobertLewis I had a comment saying you were wrong but now I think you are right! Why not have two disconnected disks and the first disk maps to 1 and the second disk maps to i!
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Sep 21 '15 at 5:29










  • $begingroup$
    Exactly my point! Thanks, and Cheers!
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Lewis
    Sep 21 '15 at 5:37














  • 2




    $begingroup$
    What is the domain of $f$? If it's all of $mathbb C$, then you can use Liouville's theorem.
    $endgroup$
    – lhf
    May 21 '12 at 18:57










  • $begingroup$
    The domain is allowed to be any open set.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    May 23 '12 at 0:03






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    I suspect that the domain $Omega$ must be a connected open set for this result to bind. Otherwise, isn't it possible for $vert f(z) vert$ to to be constant, with $f'(z) = 0$, but $f(z)$ to take different values, each with the same modulus, on different components of $Omega$? Note that some of the proofs given rely (perhaps tacitly) on integrating along a path . . .
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Lewis
    Sep 21 '15 at 1:26












  • $begingroup$
    @RobertLewis I had a comment saying you were wrong but now I think you are right! Why not have two disconnected disks and the first disk maps to 1 and the second disk maps to i!
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Sep 21 '15 at 5:29










  • $begingroup$
    Exactly my point! Thanks, and Cheers!
    $endgroup$
    – Robert Lewis
    Sep 21 '15 at 5:37








2




2




$begingroup$
What is the domain of $f$? If it's all of $mathbb C$, then you can use Liouville's theorem.
$endgroup$
– lhf
May 21 '12 at 18:57




$begingroup$
What is the domain of $f$? If it's all of $mathbb C$, then you can use Liouville's theorem.
$endgroup$
– lhf
May 21 '12 at 18:57












$begingroup$
The domain is allowed to be any open set.
$endgroup$
– Mark
May 23 '12 at 0:03




$begingroup$
The domain is allowed to be any open set.
$endgroup$
– Mark
May 23 '12 at 0:03




3




3




$begingroup$
I suspect that the domain $Omega$ must be a connected open set for this result to bind. Otherwise, isn't it possible for $vert f(z) vert$ to to be constant, with $f'(z) = 0$, but $f(z)$ to take different values, each with the same modulus, on different components of $Omega$? Note that some of the proofs given rely (perhaps tacitly) on integrating along a path . . .
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Sep 21 '15 at 1:26






$begingroup$
I suspect that the domain $Omega$ must be a connected open set for this result to bind. Otherwise, isn't it possible for $vert f(z) vert$ to to be constant, with $f'(z) = 0$, but $f(z)$ to take different values, each with the same modulus, on different components of $Omega$? Note that some of the proofs given rely (perhaps tacitly) on integrating along a path . . .
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Sep 21 '15 at 1:26














$begingroup$
@RobertLewis I had a comment saying you were wrong but now I think you are right! Why not have two disconnected disks and the first disk maps to 1 and the second disk maps to i!
$endgroup$
– Mark
Sep 21 '15 at 5:29




$begingroup$
@RobertLewis I had a comment saying you were wrong but now I think you are right! Why not have two disconnected disks and the first disk maps to 1 and the second disk maps to i!
$endgroup$
– Mark
Sep 21 '15 at 5:29












$begingroup$
Exactly my point! Thanks, and Cheers!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Sep 21 '15 at 5:37




$begingroup$
Exactly my point! Thanks, and Cheers!
$endgroup$
– Robert Lewis
Sep 21 '15 at 5:37










5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















23












$begingroup$

Let $f(z) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y)$, where $u(x,y),v(x,y) in mathbb{R}$. We then have that $$lvert f rvert^2 = u(x,y)^2 + v(x,y)^2 = text{constant}$$
Hence, $$frac{partial (u^2 + v^2) }{partial x} = 0 = frac{partial (u^2 + v^2) }{partial y}$$
This implies $$u frac{partial u}{partial x} + v frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0 = u frac{partial u}{partial y} + v frac{partial v}{partial y}$$
Making use of the Cauchy-Riemann equations, we get $$u frac{partial v}{partial y} + v frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0 = -u frac{partial v}{partial x} + v frac{partial v}{partial y}$$
Multiply the left equation by $u$ and the right equation by $v$ and add them up to get
$$(u^2 + v^2) frac{partial v}{partial y} = 0$$
If $u^2+v^2 = 0$, then $f=0$ throughout the domain since $lvert f rvert = text{constant}$.
If $u^2+v^2 neq 0$, then $dfrac{partial v}{partial y}=0$ which also gives us $dfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$. Now by Cauchy-Riemann, we also get that $dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=0$. Hence, $f'(z) = 0$ which gives us that $f$ is constant.



Also if $f(z)$ happens to be entire, then the conclusion immediately follows from Liouville's theorem.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    This was the approach I was attempting.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    May 21 '12 at 19:21






  • 7




    $begingroup$
    why $v_y = 0$ give us $v_x = 0$ ? this is not clear.
    $endgroup$
    – Richard Clare
    Jul 6 '17 at 14:24






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @RichardClare Geometrically rotate the domain by 90 degrees. $g(z) = g(x,y) = f( i z) = u(-y, x) + i v(-y, x)$ Clearly $g$ also satisfies the hypothesis since its magnitude is the same as $f$, so re-use the proof to show that the derivative of the imaginary component of $g$ as we travel along the $y$ axis is zero $D_2(Im(g)) = 0$. But this is the same as $-D_1(Im(f)) = v_x$
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    Jun 23 '18 at 4:31





















34












$begingroup$

If $|f|$ is constant, then the image of $f$ is a subset of a circle in $mathbb{C}$. Apply the Open Mapping Theorem.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$









  • 3




    $begingroup$
    In other words, any subset of the fixed circle cannot contain an open set, and therefore f is not an open map.
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    May 21 '12 at 19:07










  • $begingroup$
    @Mark: yes, exactly.
    $endgroup$
    – Pete L. Clark
    May 21 '12 at 20:13










  • $begingroup$
    Hi Professor Clark, why is a subset of a circle a closed (and bounded) set? Wouldn't an arc be analogous to an open interval on the real line? I am trying to apply the open mapping theorem but am struggling with this line of reasoning. Thanks, @PeteL.Clark
    $endgroup$
    – User001
    Nov 20 '15 at 0:46






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @Lebron: A subset of a circle is not necessarily closed. However, it has empty interior, which is what is being used.
    $endgroup$
    – Pete L. Clark
    Nov 20 '15 at 1:12






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @User001 You should be careful with the invocation of area, since that uses heavier tools (namely Lebesgue measure in R^2) and is not necessary here. Roughly speaking, you can see that it has an empty interior since the neighborhoods in R^2 are "two dimensional" while a circle is an arc which is "one dimensional." Thus, taking a neighborhood around any point of the circle, we can never have that neighborhood be a subset of the circle.
    $endgroup$
    – MCT
    Mar 6 '16 at 23:04



















6












$begingroup$

Pete's answer is quite sufficient, but I'll add another one which applies to more general maps (namely, complex-valued harmonic). Write $f=u+iv$, where $u$ and $v$ are real harmonic functions. As an exercise with the chain rule, verify the identity
$$Delta(u^2+v^2)=2|nabla u|^2+2|nabla v|^2$$
Conclude that if $u^2+v^2$ is constant, then so are $u$ and $v$.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$













  • $begingroup$
    Triangle is laplacian while upside-down triangle is divergence, correct?
    $endgroup$
    – Mark
    May 21 '12 at 19:12






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @Mark Yes, $Delta$ is the Laplacian. The meaning of $nabla$ depends on context: in Vector Calculus $nabla$ can be gradient, divergence, or curl, depending on what you apply it to. Here it is applied to a real-valued function, hence it is the gradient $nabla u=langle u_x,u_yrangle$ .
    $endgroup$
    – user31373
    May 21 '12 at 19:24





















4












$begingroup$

Another way: if $f(z_0) = u_0$ and $f'(z_0) = p ne 0$, consider the directional derivative of $|f(z)|^2 = f(z) overline{f(z)}$ at $z_0$ in the direction of some complex number $q$, i.e.
$$ eqalign{frac{d}{dt} left(f(z_0 + tq) overline{f(z_0 + tq)}right) &= f(z_0 + tq) overline{frac{d}{dt} f(z_0 + t q)} + overline{f(z_0 + tq)} frac{d}{dt} f(z_0 + t q) cr
&= f(z_0 + t q) overline{ q f'(z_0 + t q)} + overline{f(z_0 + tq)} q f'(z_0 + t q)cr}$$
At $t=0$ this would be $u_0 overline{q p} + overline{u_0} q p = 2 text{Re}(u_0 overline{qp})$. If $u_0 ne 0$ and $p ne 0$, choose $q = u_0/p$ and this is $2 |u_0|^2 > 0$. But that's impossible if $|f(z_0)|^2$ is to be constant. So either $u_0 = 0$ (and then $|f(z)| = 0$ so $f(z) = 0$ everywhere) or $f'(z) = 0$ everywhere, and that implies $f$ is constant.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    This follows from the Maximum Modulus Theorem. However, the proof that comes to mind of the Maximum Modulus Theorem using the Cauchy Integral Formula actually uses this fact, so that might be circular.



    To prove this special case of the Maximum Modulus Theorem, Pete L. Clark has already mentioned that the Open Mapping Theorem applies.



    An alternative is to use the Cauchy-Riemann equations. If $f(z)=f(x+iy)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y)$, by hypothesis there exists a constant $rgeq 0$ such that $u^2+v^2 = r^2$. It follows that $uu_x+vv_x=0$ and $uu_y+vv_y=0$. You also have $u_x=v_y$ and $u_y=-v_x$. A little algebraic manipulation yields $u(u_x^2+v_x^2)=v(u_x^2+v_x^2)=0$. Assuming $rneq 0$, $u$ and $v$ are never simultaneously $0$, so it follows that $u_x^2+v_x^2equiv 0$, which implies that $u_x=v_y=0$ and $v_x=-u_y=0$. Therefore $f$ is constant.



    Another way to use the Cauchy-Riemann equations is to first map the circle $|z|=r$ into the real axis, either using a Möbius tranformation, or using logarithms. E.g., consider $gcirc f$, where $g(z)=idfrac{1+frac{z}{r}}{1-frac{z}{r}}$. (Such maps won't be defined on the entire circle, but it is enough to show that $f$ is locally constant.)






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$













      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
      });


      }
      });














      draft saved

      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function () {
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147834%2fwhy-a-holomorphic-function-with-constant-magnitude-must-be-constant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
      }
      );

      Post as a guest















      Required, but never shown

























      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes








      5 Answers
      5






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes









      23












      $begingroup$

      Let $f(z) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y)$, where $u(x,y),v(x,y) in mathbb{R}$. We then have that $$lvert f rvert^2 = u(x,y)^2 + v(x,y)^2 = text{constant}$$
      Hence, $$frac{partial (u^2 + v^2) }{partial x} = 0 = frac{partial (u^2 + v^2) }{partial y}$$
      This implies $$u frac{partial u}{partial x} + v frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0 = u frac{partial u}{partial y} + v frac{partial v}{partial y}$$
      Making use of the Cauchy-Riemann equations, we get $$u frac{partial v}{partial y} + v frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0 = -u frac{partial v}{partial x} + v frac{partial v}{partial y}$$
      Multiply the left equation by $u$ and the right equation by $v$ and add them up to get
      $$(u^2 + v^2) frac{partial v}{partial y} = 0$$
      If $u^2+v^2 = 0$, then $f=0$ throughout the domain since $lvert f rvert = text{constant}$.
      If $u^2+v^2 neq 0$, then $dfrac{partial v}{partial y}=0$ which also gives us $dfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$. Now by Cauchy-Riemann, we also get that $dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=0$. Hence, $f'(z) = 0$ which gives us that $f$ is constant.



      Also if $f(z)$ happens to be entire, then the conclusion immediately follows from Liouville's theorem.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        This was the approach I was attempting.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:21






      • 7




        $begingroup$
        why $v_y = 0$ give us $v_x = 0$ ? this is not clear.
        $endgroup$
        – Richard Clare
        Jul 6 '17 at 14:24






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @RichardClare Geometrically rotate the domain by 90 degrees. $g(z) = g(x,y) = f( i z) = u(-y, x) + i v(-y, x)$ Clearly $g$ also satisfies the hypothesis since its magnitude is the same as $f$, so re-use the proof to show that the derivative of the imaginary component of $g$ as we travel along the $y$ axis is zero $D_2(Im(g)) = 0$. But this is the same as $-D_1(Im(f)) = v_x$
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        Jun 23 '18 at 4:31


















      23












      $begingroup$

      Let $f(z) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y)$, where $u(x,y),v(x,y) in mathbb{R}$. We then have that $$lvert f rvert^2 = u(x,y)^2 + v(x,y)^2 = text{constant}$$
      Hence, $$frac{partial (u^2 + v^2) }{partial x} = 0 = frac{partial (u^2 + v^2) }{partial y}$$
      This implies $$u frac{partial u}{partial x} + v frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0 = u frac{partial u}{partial y} + v frac{partial v}{partial y}$$
      Making use of the Cauchy-Riemann equations, we get $$u frac{partial v}{partial y} + v frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0 = -u frac{partial v}{partial x} + v frac{partial v}{partial y}$$
      Multiply the left equation by $u$ and the right equation by $v$ and add them up to get
      $$(u^2 + v^2) frac{partial v}{partial y} = 0$$
      If $u^2+v^2 = 0$, then $f=0$ throughout the domain since $lvert f rvert = text{constant}$.
      If $u^2+v^2 neq 0$, then $dfrac{partial v}{partial y}=0$ which also gives us $dfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$. Now by Cauchy-Riemann, we also get that $dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=0$. Hence, $f'(z) = 0$ which gives us that $f$ is constant.



      Also if $f(z)$ happens to be entire, then the conclusion immediately follows from Liouville's theorem.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        This was the approach I was attempting.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:21






      • 7




        $begingroup$
        why $v_y = 0$ give us $v_x = 0$ ? this is not clear.
        $endgroup$
        – Richard Clare
        Jul 6 '17 at 14:24






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @RichardClare Geometrically rotate the domain by 90 degrees. $g(z) = g(x,y) = f( i z) = u(-y, x) + i v(-y, x)$ Clearly $g$ also satisfies the hypothesis since its magnitude is the same as $f$, so re-use the proof to show that the derivative of the imaginary component of $g$ as we travel along the $y$ axis is zero $D_2(Im(g)) = 0$. But this is the same as $-D_1(Im(f)) = v_x$
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        Jun 23 '18 at 4:31
















      23












      23








      23





      $begingroup$

      Let $f(z) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y)$, where $u(x,y),v(x,y) in mathbb{R}$. We then have that $$lvert f rvert^2 = u(x,y)^2 + v(x,y)^2 = text{constant}$$
      Hence, $$frac{partial (u^2 + v^2) }{partial x} = 0 = frac{partial (u^2 + v^2) }{partial y}$$
      This implies $$u frac{partial u}{partial x} + v frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0 = u frac{partial u}{partial y} + v frac{partial v}{partial y}$$
      Making use of the Cauchy-Riemann equations, we get $$u frac{partial v}{partial y} + v frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0 = -u frac{partial v}{partial x} + v frac{partial v}{partial y}$$
      Multiply the left equation by $u$ and the right equation by $v$ and add them up to get
      $$(u^2 + v^2) frac{partial v}{partial y} = 0$$
      If $u^2+v^2 = 0$, then $f=0$ throughout the domain since $lvert f rvert = text{constant}$.
      If $u^2+v^2 neq 0$, then $dfrac{partial v}{partial y}=0$ which also gives us $dfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$. Now by Cauchy-Riemann, we also get that $dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=0$. Hence, $f'(z) = 0$ which gives us that $f$ is constant.



      Also if $f(z)$ happens to be entire, then the conclusion immediately follows from Liouville's theorem.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      Let $f(z) = u(x,y) + iv(x,y)$, where $u(x,y),v(x,y) in mathbb{R}$. We then have that $$lvert f rvert^2 = u(x,y)^2 + v(x,y)^2 = text{constant}$$
      Hence, $$frac{partial (u^2 + v^2) }{partial x} = 0 = frac{partial (u^2 + v^2) }{partial y}$$
      This implies $$u frac{partial u}{partial x} + v frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0 = u frac{partial u}{partial y} + v frac{partial v}{partial y}$$
      Making use of the Cauchy-Riemann equations, we get $$u frac{partial v}{partial y} + v frac{partial v}{partial x} = 0 = -u frac{partial v}{partial x} + v frac{partial v}{partial y}$$
      Multiply the left equation by $u$ and the right equation by $v$ and add them up to get
      $$(u^2 + v^2) frac{partial v}{partial y} = 0$$
      If $u^2+v^2 = 0$, then $f=0$ throughout the domain since $lvert f rvert = text{constant}$.
      If $u^2+v^2 neq 0$, then $dfrac{partial v}{partial y}=0$ which also gives us $dfrac{partial v}{partial x}=0$. Now by Cauchy-Riemann, we also get that $dfrac{partial u}{partial x}=dfrac{partial u}{partial y}=0$. Hence, $f'(z) = 0$ which gives us that $f$ is constant.



      Also if $f(z)$ happens to be entire, then the conclusion immediately follows from Liouville's theorem.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered May 21 '12 at 19:12







      user17762



















      • $begingroup$
        This was the approach I was attempting.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:21






      • 7




        $begingroup$
        why $v_y = 0$ give us $v_x = 0$ ? this is not clear.
        $endgroup$
        – Richard Clare
        Jul 6 '17 at 14:24






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @RichardClare Geometrically rotate the domain by 90 degrees. $g(z) = g(x,y) = f( i z) = u(-y, x) + i v(-y, x)$ Clearly $g$ also satisfies the hypothesis since its magnitude is the same as $f$, so re-use the proof to show that the derivative of the imaginary component of $g$ as we travel along the $y$ axis is zero $D_2(Im(g)) = 0$. But this is the same as $-D_1(Im(f)) = v_x$
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        Jun 23 '18 at 4:31




















      • $begingroup$
        This was the approach I was attempting.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:21






      • 7




        $begingroup$
        why $v_y = 0$ give us $v_x = 0$ ? this is not clear.
        $endgroup$
        – Richard Clare
        Jul 6 '17 at 14:24






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @RichardClare Geometrically rotate the domain by 90 degrees. $g(z) = g(x,y) = f( i z) = u(-y, x) + i v(-y, x)$ Clearly $g$ also satisfies the hypothesis since its magnitude is the same as $f$, so re-use the proof to show that the derivative of the imaginary component of $g$ as we travel along the $y$ axis is zero $D_2(Im(g)) = 0$. But this is the same as $-D_1(Im(f)) = v_x$
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        Jun 23 '18 at 4:31


















      $begingroup$
      This was the approach I was attempting.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      May 21 '12 at 19:21




      $begingroup$
      This was the approach I was attempting.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      May 21 '12 at 19:21




      7




      7




      $begingroup$
      why $v_y = 0$ give us $v_x = 0$ ? this is not clear.
      $endgroup$
      – Richard Clare
      Jul 6 '17 at 14:24




      $begingroup$
      why $v_y = 0$ give us $v_x = 0$ ? this is not clear.
      $endgroup$
      – Richard Clare
      Jul 6 '17 at 14:24




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      @RichardClare Geometrically rotate the domain by 90 degrees. $g(z) = g(x,y) = f( i z) = u(-y, x) + i v(-y, x)$ Clearly $g$ also satisfies the hypothesis since its magnitude is the same as $f$, so re-use the proof to show that the derivative of the imaginary component of $g$ as we travel along the $y$ axis is zero $D_2(Im(g)) = 0$. But this is the same as $-D_1(Im(f)) = v_x$
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      Jun 23 '18 at 4:31






      $begingroup$
      @RichardClare Geometrically rotate the domain by 90 degrees. $g(z) = g(x,y) = f( i z) = u(-y, x) + i v(-y, x)$ Clearly $g$ also satisfies the hypothesis since its magnitude is the same as $f$, so re-use the proof to show that the derivative of the imaginary component of $g$ as we travel along the $y$ axis is zero $D_2(Im(g)) = 0$. But this is the same as $-D_1(Im(f)) = v_x$
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      Jun 23 '18 at 4:31













      34












      $begingroup$

      If $|f|$ is constant, then the image of $f$ is a subset of a circle in $mathbb{C}$. Apply the Open Mapping Theorem.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 3




        $begingroup$
        In other words, any subset of the fixed circle cannot contain an open set, and therefore f is not an open map.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:07










      • $begingroup$
        @Mark: yes, exactly.
        $endgroup$
        – Pete L. Clark
        May 21 '12 at 20:13










      • $begingroup$
        Hi Professor Clark, why is a subset of a circle a closed (and bounded) set? Wouldn't an arc be analogous to an open interval on the real line? I am trying to apply the open mapping theorem but am struggling with this line of reasoning. Thanks, @PeteL.Clark
        $endgroup$
        – User001
        Nov 20 '15 at 0:46






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @Lebron: A subset of a circle is not necessarily closed. However, it has empty interior, which is what is being used.
        $endgroup$
        – Pete L. Clark
        Nov 20 '15 at 1:12






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @User001 You should be careful with the invocation of area, since that uses heavier tools (namely Lebesgue measure in R^2) and is not necessary here. Roughly speaking, you can see that it has an empty interior since the neighborhoods in R^2 are "two dimensional" while a circle is an arc which is "one dimensional." Thus, taking a neighborhood around any point of the circle, we can never have that neighborhood be a subset of the circle.
        $endgroup$
        – MCT
        Mar 6 '16 at 23:04
















      34












      $begingroup$

      If $|f|$ is constant, then the image of $f$ is a subset of a circle in $mathbb{C}$. Apply the Open Mapping Theorem.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$









      • 3




        $begingroup$
        In other words, any subset of the fixed circle cannot contain an open set, and therefore f is not an open map.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:07










      • $begingroup$
        @Mark: yes, exactly.
        $endgroup$
        – Pete L. Clark
        May 21 '12 at 20:13










      • $begingroup$
        Hi Professor Clark, why is a subset of a circle a closed (and bounded) set? Wouldn't an arc be analogous to an open interval on the real line? I am trying to apply the open mapping theorem but am struggling with this line of reasoning. Thanks, @PeteL.Clark
        $endgroup$
        – User001
        Nov 20 '15 at 0:46






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @Lebron: A subset of a circle is not necessarily closed. However, it has empty interior, which is what is being used.
        $endgroup$
        – Pete L. Clark
        Nov 20 '15 at 1:12






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @User001 You should be careful with the invocation of area, since that uses heavier tools (namely Lebesgue measure in R^2) and is not necessary here. Roughly speaking, you can see that it has an empty interior since the neighborhoods in R^2 are "two dimensional" while a circle is an arc which is "one dimensional." Thus, taking a neighborhood around any point of the circle, we can never have that neighborhood be a subset of the circle.
        $endgroup$
        – MCT
        Mar 6 '16 at 23:04














      34












      34








      34





      $begingroup$

      If $|f|$ is constant, then the image of $f$ is a subset of a circle in $mathbb{C}$. Apply the Open Mapping Theorem.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$



      If $|f|$ is constant, then the image of $f$ is a subset of a circle in $mathbb{C}$. Apply the Open Mapping Theorem.







      share|cite|improve this answer














      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer








      edited Jan 13 at 19:41









      amWhy

      1




      1










      answered May 21 '12 at 18:49









      Pete L. ClarkPete L. Clark

      80.3k9161311




      80.3k9161311








      • 3




        $begingroup$
        In other words, any subset of the fixed circle cannot contain an open set, and therefore f is not an open map.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:07










      • $begingroup$
        @Mark: yes, exactly.
        $endgroup$
        – Pete L. Clark
        May 21 '12 at 20:13










      • $begingroup$
        Hi Professor Clark, why is a subset of a circle a closed (and bounded) set? Wouldn't an arc be analogous to an open interval on the real line? I am trying to apply the open mapping theorem but am struggling with this line of reasoning. Thanks, @PeteL.Clark
        $endgroup$
        – User001
        Nov 20 '15 at 0:46






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @Lebron: A subset of a circle is not necessarily closed. However, it has empty interior, which is what is being used.
        $endgroup$
        – Pete L. Clark
        Nov 20 '15 at 1:12






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @User001 You should be careful with the invocation of area, since that uses heavier tools (namely Lebesgue measure in R^2) and is not necessary here. Roughly speaking, you can see that it has an empty interior since the neighborhoods in R^2 are "two dimensional" while a circle is an arc which is "one dimensional." Thus, taking a neighborhood around any point of the circle, we can never have that neighborhood be a subset of the circle.
        $endgroup$
        – MCT
        Mar 6 '16 at 23:04














      • 3




        $begingroup$
        In other words, any subset of the fixed circle cannot contain an open set, and therefore f is not an open map.
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:07










      • $begingroup$
        @Mark: yes, exactly.
        $endgroup$
        – Pete L. Clark
        May 21 '12 at 20:13










      • $begingroup$
        Hi Professor Clark, why is a subset of a circle a closed (and bounded) set? Wouldn't an arc be analogous to an open interval on the real line? I am trying to apply the open mapping theorem but am struggling with this line of reasoning. Thanks, @PeteL.Clark
        $endgroup$
        – User001
        Nov 20 '15 at 0:46






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @Lebron: A subset of a circle is not necessarily closed. However, it has empty interior, which is what is being used.
        $endgroup$
        – Pete L. Clark
        Nov 20 '15 at 1:12






      • 3




        $begingroup$
        @User001 You should be careful with the invocation of area, since that uses heavier tools (namely Lebesgue measure in R^2) and is not necessary here. Roughly speaking, you can see that it has an empty interior since the neighborhoods in R^2 are "two dimensional" while a circle is an arc which is "one dimensional." Thus, taking a neighborhood around any point of the circle, we can never have that neighborhood be a subset of the circle.
        $endgroup$
        – MCT
        Mar 6 '16 at 23:04








      3




      3




      $begingroup$
      In other words, any subset of the fixed circle cannot contain an open set, and therefore f is not an open map.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      May 21 '12 at 19:07




      $begingroup$
      In other words, any subset of the fixed circle cannot contain an open set, and therefore f is not an open map.
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      May 21 '12 at 19:07












      $begingroup$
      @Mark: yes, exactly.
      $endgroup$
      – Pete L. Clark
      May 21 '12 at 20:13




      $begingroup$
      @Mark: yes, exactly.
      $endgroup$
      – Pete L. Clark
      May 21 '12 at 20:13












      $begingroup$
      Hi Professor Clark, why is a subset of a circle a closed (and bounded) set? Wouldn't an arc be analogous to an open interval on the real line? I am trying to apply the open mapping theorem but am struggling with this line of reasoning. Thanks, @PeteL.Clark
      $endgroup$
      – User001
      Nov 20 '15 at 0:46




      $begingroup$
      Hi Professor Clark, why is a subset of a circle a closed (and bounded) set? Wouldn't an arc be analogous to an open interval on the real line? I am trying to apply the open mapping theorem but am struggling with this line of reasoning. Thanks, @PeteL.Clark
      $endgroup$
      – User001
      Nov 20 '15 at 0:46




      3




      3




      $begingroup$
      @Lebron: A subset of a circle is not necessarily closed. However, it has empty interior, which is what is being used.
      $endgroup$
      – Pete L. Clark
      Nov 20 '15 at 1:12




      $begingroup$
      @Lebron: A subset of a circle is not necessarily closed. However, it has empty interior, which is what is being used.
      $endgroup$
      – Pete L. Clark
      Nov 20 '15 at 1:12




      3




      3




      $begingroup$
      @User001 You should be careful with the invocation of area, since that uses heavier tools (namely Lebesgue measure in R^2) and is not necessary here. Roughly speaking, you can see that it has an empty interior since the neighborhoods in R^2 are "two dimensional" while a circle is an arc which is "one dimensional." Thus, taking a neighborhood around any point of the circle, we can never have that neighborhood be a subset of the circle.
      $endgroup$
      – MCT
      Mar 6 '16 at 23:04




      $begingroup$
      @User001 You should be careful with the invocation of area, since that uses heavier tools (namely Lebesgue measure in R^2) and is not necessary here. Roughly speaking, you can see that it has an empty interior since the neighborhoods in R^2 are "two dimensional" while a circle is an arc which is "one dimensional." Thus, taking a neighborhood around any point of the circle, we can never have that neighborhood be a subset of the circle.
      $endgroup$
      – MCT
      Mar 6 '16 at 23:04











      6












      $begingroup$

      Pete's answer is quite sufficient, but I'll add another one which applies to more general maps (namely, complex-valued harmonic). Write $f=u+iv$, where $u$ and $v$ are real harmonic functions. As an exercise with the chain rule, verify the identity
      $$Delta(u^2+v^2)=2|nabla u|^2+2|nabla v|^2$$
      Conclude that if $u^2+v^2$ is constant, then so are $u$ and $v$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Triangle is laplacian while upside-down triangle is divergence, correct?
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:12






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @Mark Yes, $Delta$ is the Laplacian. The meaning of $nabla$ depends on context: in Vector Calculus $nabla$ can be gradient, divergence, or curl, depending on what you apply it to. Here it is applied to a real-valued function, hence it is the gradient $nabla u=langle u_x,u_yrangle$ .
        $endgroup$
        – user31373
        May 21 '12 at 19:24


















      6












      $begingroup$

      Pete's answer is quite sufficient, but I'll add another one which applies to more general maps (namely, complex-valued harmonic). Write $f=u+iv$, where $u$ and $v$ are real harmonic functions. As an exercise with the chain rule, verify the identity
      $$Delta(u^2+v^2)=2|nabla u|^2+2|nabla v|^2$$
      Conclude that if $u^2+v^2$ is constant, then so are $u$ and $v$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$













      • $begingroup$
        Triangle is laplacian while upside-down triangle is divergence, correct?
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:12






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @Mark Yes, $Delta$ is the Laplacian. The meaning of $nabla$ depends on context: in Vector Calculus $nabla$ can be gradient, divergence, or curl, depending on what you apply it to. Here it is applied to a real-valued function, hence it is the gradient $nabla u=langle u_x,u_yrangle$ .
        $endgroup$
        – user31373
        May 21 '12 at 19:24
















      6












      6








      6





      $begingroup$

      Pete's answer is quite sufficient, but I'll add another one which applies to more general maps (namely, complex-valued harmonic). Write $f=u+iv$, where $u$ and $v$ are real harmonic functions. As an exercise with the chain rule, verify the identity
      $$Delta(u^2+v^2)=2|nabla u|^2+2|nabla v|^2$$
      Conclude that if $u^2+v^2$ is constant, then so are $u$ and $v$.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$



      Pete's answer is quite sufficient, but I'll add another one which applies to more general maps (namely, complex-valued harmonic). Write $f=u+iv$, where $u$ and $v$ are real harmonic functions. As an exercise with the chain rule, verify the identity
      $$Delta(u^2+v^2)=2|nabla u|^2+2|nabla v|^2$$
      Conclude that if $u^2+v^2$ is constant, then so are $u$ and $v$.







      share|cite|improve this answer












      share|cite|improve this answer



      share|cite|improve this answer










      answered May 21 '12 at 19:00







      user31373



















      • $begingroup$
        Triangle is laplacian while upside-down triangle is divergence, correct?
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:12






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @Mark Yes, $Delta$ is the Laplacian. The meaning of $nabla$ depends on context: in Vector Calculus $nabla$ can be gradient, divergence, or curl, depending on what you apply it to. Here it is applied to a real-valued function, hence it is the gradient $nabla u=langle u_x,u_yrangle$ .
        $endgroup$
        – user31373
        May 21 '12 at 19:24




















      • $begingroup$
        Triangle is laplacian while upside-down triangle is divergence, correct?
        $endgroup$
        – Mark
        May 21 '12 at 19:12






      • 1




        $begingroup$
        @Mark Yes, $Delta$ is the Laplacian. The meaning of $nabla$ depends on context: in Vector Calculus $nabla$ can be gradient, divergence, or curl, depending on what you apply it to. Here it is applied to a real-valued function, hence it is the gradient $nabla u=langle u_x,u_yrangle$ .
        $endgroup$
        – user31373
        May 21 '12 at 19:24


















      $begingroup$
      Triangle is laplacian while upside-down triangle is divergence, correct?
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      May 21 '12 at 19:12




      $begingroup$
      Triangle is laplacian while upside-down triangle is divergence, correct?
      $endgroup$
      – Mark
      May 21 '12 at 19:12




      1




      1




      $begingroup$
      @Mark Yes, $Delta$ is the Laplacian. The meaning of $nabla$ depends on context: in Vector Calculus $nabla$ can be gradient, divergence, or curl, depending on what you apply it to. Here it is applied to a real-valued function, hence it is the gradient $nabla u=langle u_x,u_yrangle$ .
      $endgroup$
      – user31373
      May 21 '12 at 19:24






      $begingroup$
      @Mark Yes, $Delta$ is the Laplacian. The meaning of $nabla$ depends on context: in Vector Calculus $nabla$ can be gradient, divergence, or curl, depending on what you apply it to. Here it is applied to a real-valued function, hence it is the gradient $nabla u=langle u_x,u_yrangle$ .
      $endgroup$
      – user31373
      May 21 '12 at 19:24













      4












      $begingroup$

      Another way: if $f(z_0) = u_0$ and $f'(z_0) = p ne 0$, consider the directional derivative of $|f(z)|^2 = f(z) overline{f(z)}$ at $z_0$ in the direction of some complex number $q$, i.e.
      $$ eqalign{frac{d}{dt} left(f(z_0 + tq) overline{f(z_0 + tq)}right) &= f(z_0 + tq) overline{frac{d}{dt} f(z_0 + t q)} + overline{f(z_0 + tq)} frac{d}{dt} f(z_0 + t q) cr
      &= f(z_0 + t q) overline{ q f'(z_0 + t q)} + overline{f(z_0 + tq)} q f'(z_0 + t q)cr}$$
      At $t=0$ this would be $u_0 overline{q p} + overline{u_0} q p = 2 text{Re}(u_0 overline{qp})$. If $u_0 ne 0$ and $p ne 0$, choose $q = u_0/p$ and this is $2 |u_0|^2 > 0$. But that's impossible if $|f(z_0)|^2$ is to be constant. So either $u_0 = 0$ (and then $|f(z)| = 0$ so $f(z) = 0$ everywhere) or $f'(z) = 0$ everywhere, and that implies $f$ is constant.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$


















        4












        $begingroup$

        Another way: if $f(z_0) = u_0$ and $f'(z_0) = p ne 0$, consider the directional derivative of $|f(z)|^2 = f(z) overline{f(z)}$ at $z_0$ in the direction of some complex number $q$, i.e.
        $$ eqalign{frac{d}{dt} left(f(z_0 + tq) overline{f(z_0 + tq)}right) &= f(z_0 + tq) overline{frac{d}{dt} f(z_0 + t q)} + overline{f(z_0 + tq)} frac{d}{dt} f(z_0 + t q) cr
        &= f(z_0 + t q) overline{ q f'(z_0 + t q)} + overline{f(z_0 + tq)} q f'(z_0 + t q)cr}$$
        At $t=0$ this would be $u_0 overline{q p} + overline{u_0} q p = 2 text{Re}(u_0 overline{qp})$. If $u_0 ne 0$ and $p ne 0$, choose $q = u_0/p$ and this is $2 |u_0|^2 > 0$. But that's impossible if $|f(z_0)|^2$ is to be constant. So either $u_0 = 0$ (and then $|f(z)| = 0$ so $f(z) = 0$ everywhere) or $f'(z) = 0$ everywhere, and that implies $f$ is constant.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$
















          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          Another way: if $f(z_0) = u_0$ and $f'(z_0) = p ne 0$, consider the directional derivative of $|f(z)|^2 = f(z) overline{f(z)}$ at $z_0$ in the direction of some complex number $q$, i.e.
          $$ eqalign{frac{d}{dt} left(f(z_0 + tq) overline{f(z_0 + tq)}right) &= f(z_0 + tq) overline{frac{d}{dt} f(z_0 + t q)} + overline{f(z_0 + tq)} frac{d}{dt} f(z_0 + t q) cr
          &= f(z_0 + t q) overline{ q f'(z_0 + t q)} + overline{f(z_0 + tq)} q f'(z_0 + t q)cr}$$
          At $t=0$ this would be $u_0 overline{q p} + overline{u_0} q p = 2 text{Re}(u_0 overline{qp})$. If $u_0 ne 0$ and $p ne 0$, choose $q = u_0/p$ and this is $2 |u_0|^2 > 0$. But that's impossible if $|f(z_0)|^2$ is to be constant. So either $u_0 = 0$ (and then $|f(z)| = 0$ so $f(z) = 0$ everywhere) or $f'(z) = 0$ everywhere, and that implies $f$ is constant.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          Another way: if $f(z_0) = u_0$ and $f'(z_0) = p ne 0$, consider the directional derivative of $|f(z)|^2 = f(z) overline{f(z)}$ at $z_0$ in the direction of some complex number $q$, i.e.
          $$ eqalign{frac{d}{dt} left(f(z_0 + tq) overline{f(z_0 + tq)}right) &= f(z_0 + tq) overline{frac{d}{dt} f(z_0 + t q)} + overline{f(z_0 + tq)} frac{d}{dt} f(z_0 + t q) cr
          &= f(z_0 + t q) overline{ q f'(z_0 + t q)} + overline{f(z_0 + tq)} q f'(z_0 + t q)cr}$$
          At $t=0$ this would be $u_0 overline{q p} + overline{u_0} q p = 2 text{Re}(u_0 overline{qp})$. If $u_0 ne 0$ and $p ne 0$, choose $q = u_0/p$ and this is $2 |u_0|^2 > 0$. But that's impossible if $|f(z_0)|^2$ is to be constant. So either $u_0 = 0$ (and then $|f(z)| = 0$ so $f(z) = 0$ everywhere) or $f'(z) = 0$ everywhere, and that implies $f$ is constant.







          share|cite|improve this answer












          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer










          answered May 21 '12 at 19:12









          Robert IsraelRobert Israel

          321k23210463




          321k23210463























              2












              $begingroup$

              This follows from the Maximum Modulus Theorem. However, the proof that comes to mind of the Maximum Modulus Theorem using the Cauchy Integral Formula actually uses this fact, so that might be circular.



              To prove this special case of the Maximum Modulus Theorem, Pete L. Clark has already mentioned that the Open Mapping Theorem applies.



              An alternative is to use the Cauchy-Riemann equations. If $f(z)=f(x+iy)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y)$, by hypothesis there exists a constant $rgeq 0$ such that $u^2+v^2 = r^2$. It follows that $uu_x+vv_x=0$ and $uu_y+vv_y=0$. You also have $u_x=v_y$ and $u_y=-v_x$. A little algebraic manipulation yields $u(u_x^2+v_x^2)=v(u_x^2+v_x^2)=0$. Assuming $rneq 0$, $u$ and $v$ are never simultaneously $0$, so it follows that $u_x^2+v_x^2equiv 0$, which implies that $u_x=v_y=0$ and $v_x=-u_y=0$. Therefore $f$ is constant.



              Another way to use the Cauchy-Riemann equations is to first map the circle $|z|=r$ into the real axis, either using a Möbius tranformation, or using logarithms. E.g., consider $gcirc f$, where $g(z)=idfrac{1+frac{z}{r}}{1-frac{z}{r}}$. (Such maps won't be defined on the entire circle, but it is enough to show that $f$ is locally constant.)






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$


















                2












                $begingroup$

                This follows from the Maximum Modulus Theorem. However, the proof that comes to mind of the Maximum Modulus Theorem using the Cauchy Integral Formula actually uses this fact, so that might be circular.



                To prove this special case of the Maximum Modulus Theorem, Pete L. Clark has already mentioned that the Open Mapping Theorem applies.



                An alternative is to use the Cauchy-Riemann equations. If $f(z)=f(x+iy)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y)$, by hypothesis there exists a constant $rgeq 0$ such that $u^2+v^2 = r^2$. It follows that $uu_x+vv_x=0$ and $uu_y+vv_y=0$. You also have $u_x=v_y$ and $u_y=-v_x$. A little algebraic manipulation yields $u(u_x^2+v_x^2)=v(u_x^2+v_x^2)=0$. Assuming $rneq 0$, $u$ and $v$ are never simultaneously $0$, so it follows that $u_x^2+v_x^2equiv 0$, which implies that $u_x=v_y=0$ and $v_x=-u_y=0$. Therefore $f$ is constant.



                Another way to use the Cauchy-Riemann equations is to first map the circle $|z|=r$ into the real axis, either using a Möbius tranformation, or using logarithms. E.g., consider $gcirc f$, where $g(z)=idfrac{1+frac{z}{r}}{1-frac{z}{r}}$. (Such maps won't be defined on the entire circle, but it is enough to show that $f$ is locally constant.)






                share|cite|improve this answer











                $endgroup$
















                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  This follows from the Maximum Modulus Theorem. However, the proof that comes to mind of the Maximum Modulus Theorem using the Cauchy Integral Formula actually uses this fact, so that might be circular.



                  To prove this special case of the Maximum Modulus Theorem, Pete L. Clark has already mentioned that the Open Mapping Theorem applies.



                  An alternative is to use the Cauchy-Riemann equations. If $f(z)=f(x+iy)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y)$, by hypothesis there exists a constant $rgeq 0$ such that $u^2+v^2 = r^2$. It follows that $uu_x+vv_x=0$ and $uu_y+vv_y=0$. You also have $u_x=v_y$ and $u_y=-v_x$. A little algebraic manipulation yields $u(u_x^2+v_x^2)=v(u_x^2+v_x^2)=0$. Assuming $rneq 0$, $u$ and $v$ are never simultaneously $0$, so it follows that $u_x^2+v_x^2equiv 0$, which implies that $u_x=v_y=0$ and $v_x=-u_y=0$. Therefore $f$ is constant.



                  Another way to use the Cauchy-Riemann equations is to first map the circle $|z|=r$ into the real axis, either using a Möbius tranformation, or using logarithms. E.g., consider $gcirc f$, where $g(z)=idfrac{1+frac{z}{r}}{1-frac{z}{r}}$. (Such maps won't be defined on the entire circle, but it is enough to show that $f$ is locally constant.)






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$



                  This follows from the Maximum Modulus Theorem. However, the proof that comes to mind of the Maximum Modulus Theorem using the Cauchy Integral Formula actually uses this fact, so that might be circular.



                  To prove this special case of the Maximum Modulus Theorem, Pete L. Clark has already mentioned that the Open Mapping Theorem applies.



                  An alternative is to use the Cauchy-Riemann equations. If $f(z)=f(x+iy)=u(x,y)+iv(x,y)$, by hypothesis there exists a constant $rgeq 0$ such that $u^2+v^2 = r^2$. It follows that $uu_x+vv_x=0$ and $uu_y+vv_y=0$. You also have $u_x=v_y$ and $u_y=-v_x$. A little algebraic manipulation yields $u(u_x^2+v_x^2)=v(u_x^2+v_x^2)=0$. Assuming $rneq 0$, $u$ and $v$ are never simultaneously $0$, so it follows that $u_x^2+v_x^2equiv 0$, which implies that $u_x=v_y=0$ and $v_x=-u_y=0$. Therefore $f$ is constant.



                  Another way to use the Cauchy-Riemann equations is to first map the circle $|z|=r$ into the real axis, either using a Möbius tranformation, or using logarithms. E.g., consider $gcirc f$, where $g(z)=idfrac{1+frac{z}{r}}{1-frac{z}{r}}$. (Such maps won't be defined on the entire circle, but it is enough to show that $f$ is locally constant.)







                  share|cite|improve this answer














                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer








                  answered May 21 '12 at 19:16


























                  community wiki





                  Jonas Meyer































                      draft saved

                      draft discarded




















































                      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.




                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function () {
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f147834%2fwhy-a-holomorphic-function-with-constant-magnitude-must-be-constant%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                      }
                      );

                      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







                      Popular posts from this blog

                      Mario Kart Wii

                      What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

                      Antonio Litta Visconti Arese