3
$\begingroup$

I have the following theorem on my notes of a course on complex analysis I'm taking:

If f(z) is not bounded in a neighborhood of its isolated singular point z0, then z0 is a pole.

I think this cannot be right, for example sin(1/z) at z0=0 is not bounded, but has an essential singularity, not a pole. Just need some confirmation. Thanks.

  • 0
    Perhaps it was a slip of the tongue, "$|f(z)|\to\infty$" being (incorrectly) replaced with "$f$ is unbounded".2011-01-20

3 Answers 3

6

Yes you are right. Great Picard's theorem states that if $w$ is an essential singularity of the analytic function $f$, then in any open set containing $w$, $f$ takes all possible values (with at most one exception), infinitely often.

3

Riemann's removable singularity theorem says that $f$ has a removable singularity at $a$ if and only if $\lim_{z\to a}(z-a)f(z)=0$. This condition is easily satisfied if $f$ is bounded in a neighborhood of $a$, and therefore boundedness in a neighborhood of $a$ is equivalent to having a removable singularity.

2

Let $G$ be an open connected set in $\mathbb{C}$. If $f$ is analytic on $G-\{w\}$ for some $w \in G$ then $w$ is a pole of $f$ if and only $\lim_{z \rightarrow w} f(z) = \infty$. So $\sin(1/z)$ does not have a pole at zero, since $\sin(1/z)$ does not approach $\infty$ at $z=0$