-2
$\begingroup$

Prove for $a\gt0$ that following series is holomorphic

$$ \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac {1}{(a+n)^z} \quad \textrm{for} \quad \operatorname{Re}z \gt 1 $$

I'm trying to prove this given that $Re \quad z \gt 1$ implies that there exists an $\varepsilon \gt 0$ such that $ Re \quad z \gt 1+ \varepsilon $.

I've said that if $$\frac {1}{(a+n)^z} = f_n(z)$$,how do I prove the $$|f_n(z)| \le \frac {1}{n^{1+\varepsilon}} $$

Can anyone help with this? Thanks

  • 2
    The past 15 minutes you have asked 3 different questions on the same subject yet you have not made any effort at all in any of them! Before asking a new question, try to make your post readable and show us your effort. I am downvoting.2012-12-02
  • 0
    If I knew how to start the question I would be able to at least attempt but since I do not know how to start I am asking others to help me2012-12-02
  • 0
    Can you comment on the convergence of $\sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{1}{n^{1 + \epsilon}}$, given $\epsilon > 0$?2012-12-02
  • 2
    John, no one asked you to know how to start. But why 3 questions at the same time? Post a question, wait for an answer, discuss in the comments and if you still don't understand how to solve the problem, then ask a similar question.2012-12-02
  • 0
    I have posted 3 similar questions so that hopefully I can get an answer on one which will allow me to try the other ones.2012-12-02
  • 1
    @CJC It doesn't work that way. Instead you irritate people who regularly visit this site like me, because the front page is full of the same questions.2012-12-02
  • 0
    Ok, sorry if I have irritated you, I am new to this site and didn't realise that asking multiple questions weren't allowed.2012-12-02
  • 0
    You keep writing "$\operatorname{Re} > \underline{\quad}$", but you actually need there to be a variable after the "$\operatorname{Re}$" or something. Remember that "$\operatorname{Re}$" means "the real part of...", so what comes after the "of" in your question here?2012-12-02
  • 0
    Sorry, it is supposed to be the Real part of z, I have now changed it. Thanks for the heads up2012-12-02

1 Answers 1

2

The following theorem is relevant: let $\Omega$ a domain in $\mathbb{C}$ and $\{f_n\}$ a sequence of holomorphic functions in $\Omega$. If $\{f_n\}$ converges uniformly to a function $f$ in every compact subset of $\Omega$, then $f$ is holomorphic in $\Omega$ (taken from Stein and Shakarchi).

Does that help?

Edited based on your edits:

You want to show that given $a > 0$ and $\Re(z) \ge 1 + \epsilon$ we have that $|\frac{1}{(n+a)^z}| \le \frac{C}{n^{1 + \epsilon}}$. To do this, first note that if $c$ is a real number larger than $1$, using our branch of the logarithm we have that $|c^z| = |e^{z\log(c)}| = |e^{\Re(z)\log(c)}| = c^{\Re(z)} \ge c^{1 + \epsilon}$. Thus by the sub-triangle inequality, we have that $|\frac{1}{(n + a)^z}| \le \frac{1}{(n - a)^{1 + \epsilon}}$, for large $n$.

Next, observe that since $\frac{n}{n-a} \to 1$ as $n \to \infty$, for large $n$ we have the estimate $n \le \frac{3}{2}(n-a)$. So we may take $C > 0$ to have $n \le C(n-a)$, for large $n$.

Thus: for sufficiently large $n$, we obtain the estimate $|\frac{1}{(n-a)^z}| \le C\frac{1}{n^{1 + \epsilon}}$.

From here, we deduce uniform convergence.

  • 0
    Hi, I've seen this theorem before from my notes, not really sure how to apply it though. Thanks anyway2012-12-02
  • 0
    First, consider a branch of the exponential defined for $\{z: \Re(z) > 1\}$, say the principal branch. Next, consider a compact subset $K$ of $\{\Re(z) > 1\}$. Show that for some $\epsilon > 0$, we have that $K \subset \{z: \Re(z) \ge 1 + \epsilon\}$. Deduce that the series converges uniformly to a function on $K$ and apply the theorem.2012-12-02
  • 0
    Could it be done by taking the modulus of the function and showing that it is less than or equal to 1/n^(1+ε)? Form previous questions I know that this converges?2012-12-02
  • 0
    Almost. You'll want to obtain the estimate $|\frac{1}{(a+n)^z}| \le \frac{C}{|a + n|^{1 + \epsilon}}$, for some constant $C > 0$ (the issue being that for large n, your estimate is more or less correct, but you do have that factor of a in the denominator; the constant accounts for this).2012-12-02
  • 0
    Ok I understand what you mean. Thanks for your help2012-12-02