Talk:Zero (complex analysis)

Suggestion

What is said about entire functions isn't right; no zeroes is equivalent to having a well-defined logarithm without branch points, but any function exp(f(z)) with f entire will do.

This article should surely mention the contour integral way to count zeroes (integrate the logarithmic derivative); Rouché's theorem; and perhaps the construction of functions with given zeroes (infinite products, Blaschke products).

Charles Matthews 16:27, 10 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think this page should be merged with root(mathematics) and a reference to rouché' theorem should be given. other opinions? Hottiger 15:28, 12 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like it more this way. If merged, the new root (mathematics) will be unnecessarily biased towards complex analysis in my view. Other views? 23:26, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't the fourth line of the Section Multiplicity of a Zero read: "Generally, the multiplicity of the zero of f at a is the LEAST positive integer n...", or if you don't want to say that, then wouldn't we need to specify that $g(a)\neq 0$ AND $g(a)\neq \pm \infty$ ? Monsterman222 (talk) 20:17, 13 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

naming convention

I think it would be helpful, to -at least- add the notion of "root" instead of "zero".

The "zero" of a function should simply be its value.

In other articles in wikipedia, the value of x, where a function f(x) of x has its value f(x)=0, is called a "root" of the function.

It would be helpful, to -at least- introduce the crossreference (term "root") here.

--Gotti 10:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification: Isolated zeros only if single variable

I added "in one variable" to the sentence "An important property of the set of zeros of a holomorphic function (that is not identically zero) is that the zeros are isolated" because, for example, the two-variable holomorphic function

f(x,y)=xy-1

is zero in the circle a^2 + b^2 = 1, where x=a+ib and y=a-ib. —GraemeMcRae^talk 16:00, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Zero (complex analysis). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070217063843/http://math.fullerton.edu:80/mathews/c2003/SingularityZeroPoleMod.html to http://math.fullerton.edu/mathews/c2003/SingularityZeroPoleMod.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Zeroes isolation proof?

The "Properties" section of the article as of now states "An important property [...] is that the zeros are isolated" without providing any justifications. No matter how trivial, wouldn't it be fair to include a proof of this statement?

(Sketch of a proof: non isolated zeroes => exists sequence of zeroes with adherent point => exists converging subsequence => recursively all nth derivatives of f are null at point of convergence of the subsequence => f = sum nth derivative / n! etc. = 0 on the connected domain containing the point of convergence on which f is holomorphic i.e. coincides with its series)

I understand this proof may need formatting, I lack the confidence of brute force inserting it into the article. 46.193.1.224 (talk) 08:29, 12 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]