me that jf(z)j > 0 8 jzj _ rnk0 . Let z 2 C; jzj _ rnk0 , and choose k so that nkr > jzj.

By the Minimum Modulus Principle, jfj assumes its minimum on the boundary of the annulus fnk0r _ jwj _ rnkg. But min _ inf
jwj=nk0 r

jf(w)j ; inf
jwj=nkr

jf(w)j _ >M and therefore, jf(z)j _ inf

nk0 r_jwj_nkr

jf(w)j > M Since z was arbitrary, we conclude that jf(z)j > M 8 jzj _ rnk0 . Since M > 0 was arbitrary, we conclude that f has a pole at 1.

5.5.5 Exercise 4
Let F be a family of meromorphic functions in a given region , which is not normal in . By Ahlfors Theorem 17 (p. 226), there must exist a compact set K _ such that the expression _(f)(z) = 2 jf0(z)j 1 + jf(z)j2 f 2 F 25 is not locally bounded on K. Hence, we can choose a sequence of functions (fn) _ F and of points (zn) _ K such that 2 jf0n (zn)j 1 + jfn(zn)j2 % 1; n ! 1 Suppose for every z 2 , there exists an open disk D(z; rz) _ on which F is normal, equivalently _(f) is locally bounded. Let Mz > 0 bound _(f) on the closed disk D(z; 2 1rz). The collection _ D(z; 2 1rz) : z 2 K forms an open cover of K. By compactness, there exist _nitely many disks D(z1; 2 1r1); _ _ _ ;D(zn; 2 1rn) such that K_ [n
i=1

D(zi; 2 1ri) and 8i = 1; _ _ _ ; n j_(f)(z)j _ Mi 8z 2 D(zi; 2 1r) 8f 2 F Setting M = max1_i_nMi, we conclude that j_(f)(z)j _ M 8z 2 K 8f 2 F This is obviously a contradiction since limn!1 _(fn)(zn) = +1. We conclude that there must exist z0 2 such that F is not normal in any neighborhood of z0. 26

Conformal Mapping, Dirichlet's Problem

The Riemann Mapping Theorem
6.1.1 Exercise 1
Lemma 6. Let f : ! C be a holomorphic function on a symmetric region (i.e. = ). Then the function g : ! C; g(z) = f(z) is holomorphic.

Proof. Writing z = x+iy, if f(z) = u(x; y)+iv(x; y), where u; v are real, then g(z) = u(x; y) iv(x; y) = _u(x; y) + i_v(x; y). It is then evident that g is continuous and u; v have C1 partials. We verify the CauchyRiemann equations. @_u @x (x; y) = @u @x (x; y); @_u @y (x; y) = @u @y (x; y) @_v @x (x; y) = @v @x (x; y); @_v @y (x; y) = @v @y (x; y) The claim follows immediately from the fact that u; v satisfy the Cauchy-Riemann equations. Let _ C be simply connected symmetric region, z0 2 be real, and f : ! D be the unique conformal map satisfying f(z0) = 0; f0(z0) > 0 (as guaranteed by the Riemann Mapping Theorem). De_ne g(z) = f(z). Then g : ! D is holomorphic by the lemma and bijective, being the composition of bijections; hence, g is conformal. Furthermore, g(z0) = 0 since z0; f(z0) 2 R. Since 0 < f0(z0) = @u @x (z0) = @u @x (z0) = g0(z0) we conclude by uniqueness that f = g. Equivalently, f(z) = f(z) 8z 2 .

6.1.1 Exercise 2
Suppose now that is symmetric with respect to z0 (i.e. z 2 () 2z0 z 2 ). I claim that f satis_es f(z) = 2f(z0) f(2z0 z) = f(2z0 z) De_ne g : ! D by g(z) = f(2z0 z). Clearly, g is conformal, being the composition of conformal maps, and g(z0) = 0. Furthermore, by the chain rule, g0(z0) = f0(z0) > 0. We conclude from the uniqueness statement of the Riemann Mapping Theorem that g(z) = f(z) 8z 2 . 27

Elliptic Functions
Weierstrass Theory
7.3.2 Exercise 1 Let f be an even elliptic function periods !1; !2. If f is constant then there is nothing to prove, so assume otherwise. First, suppose that 0 is neither a zero nor a pole of f. Observe that since f is even, its zeroes and poles occur in pairs. Since f is elliptic, f has the same number of poles as zeroes. So, let a1; _ _ _ ; an,

and b1; _ _ _ ; bn denote the incongruent zeroes and poles of f in some fundamental parallelogram Pa, where ai 6_ aj mod M; bi 6_ bj mod M 8i; j and where we repeat for multiplicity. De_ne a function g by g(z) = f(z) Yn
k=1

}(z) }(ak) }(z) }(bk) ! 1 and where } is the Weierstrass p-function with respect to the lattice generated by !1; !2. I claim that g is a holomorphic elliptic function. Since }(z) }(ak) and }(z) }(bk) have double poles at each z 2 M for all k, g has a removable singularity at each z 2 M. For each k, }(z) }(bk) has the same poles as } and is therefore an elliptic function of order 2. Since bk 6= 0 and } is even, it follows that }(z) }(bk) has zeroes of order 1 at z = _bk. From our convention for repeating zeroes and poles, we conclude that g has a removable singularity at _bk. The argument that g has removable singularity at each ak is completely analogous. Clearly, g(z + !1) = g(z + !2) = g(z) for z =2 ai +M [ bi +M [M so by continuity, we conclude that g is a holomorphic elliptic function with periods !1; !2 and is therefore equal to a constant C. Hence, f(z) = C Yn
k=1

}(z) }(ak) }(z) }(bk) Since f is even, its Laurent series about the origin only has nonzero terms with even powers. So if f vanishes or has a pole at the origin, the order is 2m;m 2 N. Suppose that f vanishes with order 2m. The function given by ~ f(z) = f(z) _ }(z)m is elliptic with periods !1; !2. ~ f has a removable singularity at z = 0, since }(z)k has a pole of order 2k at z = 0. Hence, we are reduced to the previous case of elliptic function, so applying the preceding argument, we conclude that ~ f(z) = C Yn
k=1

}(z) }(ak) }(z) }(bk) ) f(z) = C }(z)m Yn

k=1

}(z) }(ak) }(z) }(bk) If f has a pole of order 2m at the origin, then the function given by ~ f(z) = f(z) }(z)m is elliptic with periods !1; !2 and has a removable singularity at the origin. From the same argument, we conclude that f(z) = C}(z)m Yn
k=1

}(z) }(z)

}(ak) }(bk)