Marco has worked hard to create this superb introduction to complex analysis which is one of the most beautiful and useful branches of mathematics.

I strongly recommend this study group to everyone!

Please look at the 3rd question in Quiz 1. The question asks whether a given point is stereographically projected into the lower or the upper hemisphere of the Riemann sphere. In fact, the magnitude of the point is exactly 1, so that the given point lies on the equator. But that's not an available answer.

So, what's the right response?

I find the projection of the Reimann sphere is extremely distorted. I prefer that both sides of the sphere be projected on the inner disk separately so that the two projections have symmetry.

So, I asked this question during the lecture and Marco did not have an answer for it. I had never heard of the stereographic projection of complex numbers. I was wondering if anybody knows of a practical application for it. It seemed to me that it might be used in modulation/coding theory or maybe image recognition problems but I'm just shooting in the dark. Anybody know?

Attached is an updated list of the References provided, with a link to the publisher’s page first and then a link to the corresponding Amazon page.

Attachments:

Updated References.pdf

Lesson 2 The Complex Plane

There might be an error in the proof for the formulas of the stereographic projection: "... And because the triangles (0,z,N) and (z',z,Overscript[z, ^]) are similar, then |z'|/|z|=1/(1-Z)...."

correct: |z|/|z'|=1/(1-Z) <--- This formula was used for the rest of the proof. The formulas itself are valid.

Quiz 1 Question 3: Is the stereo graphic representation of z1=1/2+i*(3^1/2)/2 in the northern (upper?) or southern (lower?) hemisphere? The text says: "Numbers with absolute value less than 1 are mapped to the southern hemisphere, and 0 to the south pole. Numbers with absolute value greater than 1 are mapped to the northern hemisphere."

Abs[z1] = 1, but the answer "in the upper hemisphere" comes back wrong. Can you explain?

You are right, I'll have the exercise fixed. Thanks

You are right, I'll have to fix the exercise. Thank you

I tried to describe the only application I know of in a reply to Joseph Smith, above.

Although I have encountered and used complex numbers over the decades, I never understood what motivated their introduction until your first lecture. Thanks.

I am wondering about the history of complex numbers, Girolamo and Rafel, in 16C. How did they find the need, and what profession both were in? Did mathematician careers exist in 16C?

Hi Michael, What references (texts) would you recommend for studying the topics "(differential) topology" and integrals of the form (2) that you referred to?

Trying to catch up here. Surely this is a simple question. When plotting Re[z] and Im[z], shouldn't these plots be confined to either the {z, Re[z]} or the {z,Im[z]} planes? I don't see why these plots appear to be surfaces in 3 dimensions.

Thanks!

The idea behind that plot is to look at the function f(z)=z^2 as a complex function of the complex variable z. The horizontal plane is the z plane, so if you write z = x + I * y, the x axis corresponds to Re[z] and the y axis to Im[z]. Remember that Re[f(z)]=Re[z^2] is real-valued. So, it will be a surface in the plot, constructed as follows: the height of the surface at coordinates (x,y) is Re[(x+I*y)^2]. Don't confuse the meaning of z (a complex number) with the vertical axis of the plot. For example, try calculating the height of the yellow curve at the point (1,2) which corresponds to z=(1+2* I) . It will be Re[(1+2* I)^2] = -3.

In Lesson 3, why does the Postfix instruction //Labeled[#,Text[ ...]& result in just one Text for the entire row rather than a separate text for each of the 3 ComplexPlot3D[...] entries in the Row[...] for the following code?

Row[{
ComplexPlot3D[z,{z,3},PlotRange->{{-3,3},{-3,3},{0,6}},BoxRatios->{1,1,1},PlotStyle->Directive[Opacity[0.8`]],AxesLabel->{Style[ToString[Re[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[Im[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[Abs[z],TraditionalForm],12]},ImageSize->160],
ComplexPlot3D[Conjugate[z],{z,3},PlotRange->{{-3,3},{-3,3},{0,6}},BoxRatios->{1,1,1},PlotStyle->Directive[Opacity[0.8`]],AxesLabel->{Style[ToString[Re[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[Im[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[Abs[Overscript[z, _]],TraditionalForm],12]},ImageSize->160],
ComplexPlot3D[1/z,{z,3},PlotRange->{{-3,3},{-3,3},{0,6}},BoxRatios->{1,1,1},PlotStyle->Directive[Opacity[0.8`]],AxesLabel->{Style[ToString[Re[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[Im[z],TraditionalForm],12],Style[ToString[HoldForm[Abs[1/z]],TraditionalForm],12]},ImageSize->160,PlotLegends->Automatic]
}]//Labeled[#,Text[StringJoin["Fig. 4. Plots of the functions ",ToString[z,TraditionalForm],", ",ToString[Overscript[z, _],TraditionalForm],", ",ToString[1/z,TraditionalForm],"."]]]&

I think I see the answer to my question. The Postfix code is just a function; no Map (/@) is specified.

Thxs, Marco.

I am wondering how you got into complex number analysis. What trigger made you enter this field?

Hi Gerald,

I learned these things back in the 1980s, some facts as an undergraduate but mainly in graduate school from lectures. The professors sometimes recommended books as ancillary materials, but only a few used books as textbooks and followed them. Further, I've been at an institution teaching only 1st and 2nd year students for 30 years, so I haven't taught this or related material for a long time. Nonetheless, I can give you some recommendations, but I personally have not field-tested them, so to speak.

Integrals of the form (2) first showed up for me as an undergraduate in physics. Integrals with the square of 3rd and 4th degree polynomials are called elliptic integrals. The arc length of an ellipse can be expressed with such an integral, hence the name, and they first came to the attention of mathematicians in the mid 18th century. They were studied somewhat intensely in the early 19th century by Gauss, Jacobi, Legendre, and in particular by Abel, who extended the scope to include integrals involving square roots of higher degree polynomials. These are called hyperelliptic or "Abelian* integrals. Much knowledge of them was developed before the Riemann sphere or topology was even invented. These facts give you some keywords to google, but they also warn you that you will find a lot of information about (2) not relating to my remarks above.

I came to know more about elliptic integrals from a sideways direction. I was studying number theory and algebraic geometry in grad school; in particular, "elliptic curves" was a hot topic. They come from the square-roots in the elliptic integrals, that is, curves of the form $y^2 = \text{cubic or quartic}$. In the 1980s, they were thought to hold a key to proving Fermat's Last Theorem (which turned out to be the case). They also yielded a powerful factorization algorithm, which was important because of the then relatively new RSA encryption algorithm. It's truly amazing the connections the integral (2) has to seemingly unrelated branches of mathematics.

It turns out there is a book that "does it all", or almost:

Elliptic Curves: Function Theory, Geometry, Arithmetic by McKean and Moll

The book was recommended to me by a friend, and on that basis, I am recommending it here. It gives an explicit construction of the differential manifold structure on the Riemann sphere, which is fairly simple, considering. It also gives a definition of manifold. So it covers everything that is necessary. However, it is question in my mind whether, having given someone the needed tool, they will know why, when, and how to use it. But it's less likely to be a problem than the general case, because the goal is to understand this manifold, namely the Riemann sphere, not manifolds in general. That aside, it covers elliptic integrals, elliptic functions, elliptic curves (though not the connections to Fermat's Last Theorem and factorization), and a few other things.

For differential topology, it's a bit harder to suggest a book. Many assume the reader is familiar with topology, especially manifolds. General introductions to topology include manifolds and much else that isn't strictly necessary for the question at hand. The following was my undergraduate textbook. I remember liking it and using it as a reference in grad school from time to time. And it seems to have the right scope, at least through, say, Chapter 5, which covers differentiable manifolds:

Singer and Thorpe, Lecture Notes on Elementary Topology and Geometry.

This Math.SE Q&A contains some good recommendations:

https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/46482/introductory-texts-on-manifolds

These two have a good reputation:

• L. Tu, An Introduction to Manifolds (includes differentiable a.k.a. smooth manifolds†)
• John M. Lee, Introduction to Smooth Manifolds

†Note: Usually there is a slight difference between these two; however, every smooth manifold is a differentiable manifold.

I hope that helps.

All code can already be seen, including that for images and animations. You just have to double click on the bracket that hides the input, identifiable by the little upward-pointing arrow:

Double clicking will expand the code:

Lesson 9 states "for the limit of a complex function to exist, it must exist no matter the direction by which it is approached." Is a necessary and sufficient condition for this that the limit exists and is the same for all approaches along straight lines? Is it possible for the limit to exist and be the same for all approaches along straight lines but for that not to be the case when approaching along some curve that is not a straight line?

In Lesson 13, in the proof of Cauchy's Theorem, I think there is a sign error in the first (left) integrand. I think partial of u with respect to y (du/dy) should have a negative sign in accordance with Green's Theorem. Then, the Cauchy-Riemann equations yield that the first integrand is 0. Is that the case?

Thanks so much for your response!

The Wolfram Function Repository has a function StereographicProjection[]. Documentation at https://resources.wolframcloud.com/FunctionRepository/resources/StereographicProjection/ . Does that do what you are hoping for?

Check out the neat example at the bottom of the function's documentation:

Perhaps the contributed function RiemannSphereComplexPlot[] -- a 3D rotatable Riemann sphere version of ComplexPlot -- is what you are seeking: https://resources.wolframcloud.com/FunctionRepository/resources/RiemannSphereComplexPlot/

This is not a specific answer to your question...but

The Schaum's Outline text gives some physical examples relating to fluid flow in the chapter on Conformal Transformations.

Michael, I've written some code that enhances the ComplexPlot3D display of the function

f[z_] := ((z + Conjugate[z])^2 (z - 
      Conjugate[z]))/((z - Conjugate[z])^2 - (z + Conjugate[z])^4)

The code is in the attached Notebook, file ComplexLimitCounterExample_16nov24.nb .

From the plots, it appears that the values of function f have only two arguments (angles with the real axis) and that they are determined by whether Im[z} is positive or negative. I have not analyzed f to confirm this. Am I correct? Do you see a simple analysis to determine this?

BTW, "Calculus Volume II" by Tom M. Apostol, Copyright 1962 by Blaisdell Publishing Company has on page 70 a simple real-valued function of two real variables that is not continuous at 0 even though approaching 0 along either axis has limit 0. However, when approaching 0 along the line x = y, its limit is 1/2. Here is the function:
f(x,y) = x*y / (x^2 + y^2) if (x,y) != (0,0) and f(0,0) = 0.

Attachments:

ComplexLimitCoun...nb

In the Bonus Material we encounter the following figure:

Shouldn't the Riemann Sphere sit on the complex plane and only touch it at point {0,0}? If I am reading the figure correctly, it suggests the Riemann Sphere is bisected by the complex plane, which I believe is incorrect.

Hi Michael,

In my Complex Analysis textbook (Bak & Newman), the Riemann Sphere has unit diameter and sits above the complex plane tangent at $z=0$ (the origin), just as you say. It has the nice property that the equator maps to the unit circle.

In my code, I used a sphere with a unit radius, since this seemed to be quite common in a google search. I thought maybe things had changed since I took the course. The equator in this model is nothing special, though.

I have seen before the Riemann Sphere presented as the standard unit sphere (unit radius centered at the origin) so that the complex plane cuts it in two. This model seems less common to me. It does have the property that the equator is the unit circle.

All three models are effectively equivalent: Any proof or explanation based on one can be translated to another, changing projection formulas if necessary. In all three, the south pole corresponds to $z=0$ and the north pole to $z=\infty$, which is convenient.

Because of this, it seems more a matter of convention than correctness to me. I personally prefer the tangent-sphere models to the sphere centered at the origin. (And I like the unit diameter one better than the unit radius one, but I went with the peer-pressure of google in my previous reply.) Possibly the one centered at the origin is easier to deal with pedagogically.

Hi Tingting,

The only problem is if the "north pole" $N$, the point that you connect with $z$, lies in the complex plane. If it's not in the complex plane, then the line through $N$ and $z$ intersects the sphere in another point $P(z)$, which we may define as the projection of $z$ onto the sphere.

If the sphere is tangent to the complex plane at $N$, then all lines through $N$ and $z$ are tangent to the sphere at $N$. The projection is undefined. (Or all numbers $z$ are projected onto $N$, which is pretty useless.)

Nice!

Even better (?) is the package pointed to in the reference.

BUT - it needs a package complexVisualize.m which I can't find. So I cannot do anything but look at the pretty pictures.

My knowledge of Mathematica is not up to the task of downloading and using packages...yet.

Thanks to another student, I found this article in the Mathematica Journal: "Domain Coloring on the Riemann Sphere. I would like to use the code. But simply downloading the article as a notebook fails to give me anything other than the ability to look at the pictures.

I think I need to download and instal a package called complexVisualize.m.

Are you able to tell me where to find that file?

I am using this course to both extend my Mathematica knowledge and refresh my Complex Analysis.

No, (z - z*) = 2 i Im(z)

I suppose if we choose to use lines instead of rays for projection then after the sphere moved below the complex plane the projection will be an inverse image of the one from above?

Marco, My mistake. Thanks for the correction.

Hi;

In working with the properties of Harmonic Functions, how is the mean value calculated when you are given the formula of (x,y) along with the radius and center of a circle? I have gone through the course materials up to include unit 18 and have not found anything to help me set-up the problem. Thanks, Mitch Sandlin

You are right, I'll have it fixed. Thank you

If f(z)=2+2z+ Sum(z^n), where n = 2,3, ..., Infinity, the output of SeriesCoefficient[f[z],{z,0,n}] is:

1 n>1

2 n==0||n==1

0 True

What does "0 True" mean?

It refers to all other possibilities for n, so n<0. So there are no negative-power terms in the series.

In Example 5.3, shouldn't the text read: "In other words, the branch cut corresponds to either z purely imaginary or to z real between -1 and 1."

You are right, much appreciated. I'll get it fixed.

Are branch cuts in a unique location? In Lesson 5 exercise 3 we are asked to "describe the branch cuts" of the function Sqrt[(e^2+1)]. Given the definition from Wolfram Mathworld "A branch cut is a curve (with ends possibly open, closed, or half-open) in the complex plane across which an analytic multivalued function is discontinuous. For convenience, branch cuts are often taken as lines or line segments." The solution states: ![enter image description here][1]

I can see from the figure that there are discontinuities for any line parallel to the Im axis for x>0. Is the branch cut where these discontinuities start or can the branch cut be anywhere x>0?

You are right... thanks again... I'll get it fixed

Question on notation in Section 12. Should the equation read the contour integral over C1 equals the contour integral over C2 (it says it equals the contour integral over negative C2)? I believe that C2 is defined as being in the clockwise direction, so the negative sign will naturally arise when the integral is done in the counterclockwise direction.

I intended C2 to be defined clockwise in that specific figure (because I drew the arrow that way) So the integral over (C1+C2) is zero by Cauchy. So int_C1 = - int_C2 or int_C1 = int_(-C2) . So I don't think there are typos there. In this example it is (-C2) which is counterclockwise. An exception to our regular convention since normally one always takes paths to be counterclockwise. But it is marked by an arrow so I hope it's clear.