vEnhance's avatar

Feb 16, 2017

🖉 Holomorphic Logarithms and Roots

In this post we’ll make sense of a holomorphic square root and logarithm. Wrote this up because I was surprised how hard it was to find a decent complete explanation.

Let f ⁣:UCf \colon U \rightarrow \mathbb C be a holomorphic function. A holomorphic nn-th root of ff is a function g ⁣:UCg \colon U \rightarrow \mathbb C such that f(z)=g(z)nf(z) = g(z)^n for all zUz \in U. A logarithm of ff is a function g ⁣:UCg \colon U \rightarrow \mathbb C such that f(z)=eg(z)f(z) = e^{g(z)} for all zUz \in U.

The main question we’ll try to figure out is: when do these exist? In particular, what if f=idf = \operatorname{id}?

1. Motivation: Square Root of a Complex Number

To start us off, can we define z\sqrt z for any complex number zz?

The first obvious problem that comes up is that there for any zz, there are two numbers ww such that w2=zw^2 = z. How can we pick one to use? For our ordinary square root function, we had a notion of “positive”, and so we simply took the positive root.

Let’s expand on this: given z=r(cosθ+isinθ)z = r \left( \cos\theta + i \sin\theta \right) (here r0r \ge 0) we should take the root to be w=r(cosα+isinα).w = \sqrt{r} \left( \cos \alpha + i \sin \alpha \right). such that 2αθ(mod2π)2\alpha \equiv \theta \pmod{2\pi}; there are two choices for α(mod2π)\alpha \pmod{2\pi}, differing by π\pi.

For complex numbers, we don’t have an obvious way to pick α\alpha. Nonetheless, perhaps we can also get away with an arbitrary distinction: let’s see what happens if we just choose the α\alpha with 12π<α12π-\frac{1}{2}\pi < \alpha \le \frac{1}{2}\pi.

Pictured below are some points (in red) and their images (in blue) under this “upper-half” square root. The condition on α\alpha means we are forcing the blue points to lie on the right-half plane.

Trying to take the square root with positive real component.
Trying to take the square root with positive real component.

Here, wi2=ziw_i^2 = z_i for each ii, and we are constraining the wiw_i to lie in the right half of the complex plane. We see there is an obvious issue: there is a big discontinuity near the point z5z_5 and z7z_7! The nearby point w6w_6 has been mapped very far away. This discontinuity occurs since the points on the negative real axis are at the “boundary”. For example, given 4-4, we send it to 2i-2i, but we have hit the boundary: in our interval 12πα<12π-\frac{1}{2}\pi \le \alpha < \frac{1}{2}\pi, we are at the very left edge.

The negative real axis that we must not touch is what we will later call a branch cut, but for now I call it a ray of death. It is a warning to the red points: if you cross this line, you will die! However, if we move the red circle just a little upwards (so that it misses the negative real axis) this issue is avoided entirely, and we get what seems to be a “nice” square root.

Dodging the ray of death by moving upwards a bit.
Dodging the ray of death by moving upwards a bit.

In fact, the ray of death is fairly arbitrary: it is the set of “boundary issues” that arose when we picked 12π<α12π-\frac{1}{2}\pi < \alpha \le \frac{1}{2}\pi. Suppose we instead insisted on the interval 0α<π0 \le \alpha < \pi; then the ray of death would be the positive real axis instead. The earlier circle we had now works just fine.

Choosing a different ray of death.
Choosing a different ray of death.

What we see is that picking a particular α\alpha-interval leads to a different set of edge cases, and hence a different ray of death. The only thing these rays have in common is their starting point of zero. In other words, given a red circle and a restriction of α\alpha, I can make a nice “square rooted” blue circle as long as the ray of death misses it.

So, what exactly is going on?

2. Square Roots of Holomorphic Functions

To get a picture of what’s happening, we would like to consider a more general problem: let f ⁣:UCf \colon U \rightarrow \mathbb C be holomorphic. Then we want to decide whether there is a holomorphic g ⁣:UCg \colon U \rightarrow \mathbb C such that f(z)=g(z)2.f(z) = g(z)^2. Our previous discussion when f=idf = \operatorname{id} tells us we cannot hope to achieve this for U=CU = \mathbb C; there is a “half-ray” which causes problems. However, there are certainly functions f ⁣:CCf \colon \mathbb C \rightarrow \mathbb C such that a gg exists. As a simplest example, f(z)=z2f(z) = z^2 should definitely have a square root!

Now let’s see if we can fudge together a square root. Earlier, what we did was try to specify a rule to force one of the two choices at each point. This is unnecessarily strict. Perhaps we can do something like the following: start at a point in z0Uz_0 \in U, pick a square root w0w_0 of f(z0)f(z_0), and then try to “fudge” from there the square roots of the other points. What do I mean by fudge? Well, suppose z1z_1 is a point very close to z0z_0, and we want to pick a square root w1w_1 of f(z1)f(z_1). While there are two choices, we also would expect w0w_0 to be close to w1w_1. Unless we are highly unlucky, this should tell us which choice of w1w_1 to pick. (Stupid concrete example: if I have taken the square root 4.12i-4.12i of 17-17 and then ask you to continue this square root to 16-16, which sign should you pick for ±4i\pm 4i?)

There are two possible ways we could get unlucky in the scheme above: first, if w0=0w_0 = 0, then we’re sunk. But even if we avoid that, we have to worry that we are in a situation, where we run around a full loop in the complex plane, and then find that our continuous perturbation has left us in a different place than we started. For concreteness, consider the following situation, again with f=idf = \operatorname{id}:

The blue circle only completes half a lap.
The blue circle only completes half a lap.

We started at the point z0z_0, with one of its square roots as w0w_0. We then wound a full red circle around the origin, only to find that at the end of it, the blue arc is at a different place where it started!

The interval construction from earlier doesn’t work either: no matter how we pick the interval for α\alpha, any ray of death must hit our red circle. The problem somehow lies with the fact that we have enclosed the very special point 00.

Nevertheless, we know that if we take f(z)=z2f(z) = z^2, then we don’t run into any problems with our “make it up as you go” procedure. So, what exactly is going on?

3. Covering Projections

By now, if you have read the part of algebraic topology. this should all seem very strangely familiar. The “fudging” procedure exactly describes the idea of a lifting.

More precisely, recall that there is a covering projection ()2 ⁣:C{0}C{0}(-)^2 \colon \mathbb C \setminus \{0\} \rightarrow \mathbb C \setminus \{0\} Let V={zUf(z)0}V = \left\{ z \in U \mid f(z) \neq 0 \right\}. For zUVz \in U \setminus V, we already have the square root g(z)=f(z)=0=0g(z) = \sqrt{f(z)} = \sqrt 0 = 0. So the burden is completing g ⁣:VCg \colon V \rightarrow \mathbb C.

Then essentially, what we are trying to do is construct a lifting gg for the following diagram:

Covering projection for square function.
Covering projection for square function.

Our map pp can be described as “winding around twice”. From algebraic topology, we now know that this lifting exists if and only if f(π1(V))p(π1(E))f_\ast(\pi_1(V)) \subseteq p_\ast(\pi_1(E)) is a subset of the image of π1(E)\pi_1(E) by pp. Since BB and EE are both punctured planes, we can identify them with S1S^1.

Exercise 1

Show that the image under pp is exactly 2Z2\mathbb Z once we identify π1(B)=Z\pi_1(B) = \mathbb Z.

That means that for any loop γ\gamma in VV, we need fγf \circ \gamma to have an even winding number around 0B0 \in B. This amounts to 12πγffdz2Z\frac{1}{2\pi} \oint_\gamma \frac{f'}{f} dz \in 2\mathbb Z since ff has no poles.

Replacing 22 with nn and carrying over the discussion gives the first main result.

Theorem 2 (Existence of Holomorphic nn-th Roots)

Let f ⁣:UCf \colon U \rightarrow \mathbb C be holomorphic. Then ff has a holomorphic nn-th root if and only if 12πiγffdznZ\frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_\gamma \frac{f'}{f} dz \in n\mathbb Z for every contour γ\gamma in UU.

4. Complex Logarithms

The multivalued nature of the complex logarithm comes from the fact that exp(z+2πi)=exp(z).\exp(z+2\pi i) = \exp(z). So if ew=ze^w = z, then any complex number w+2πikw + 2\pi i k is also a solution.

We can handle this in the same way as before: it amounts to a lifting of the following diagram.

Covering projection for exponential function.
Covering projection for exponential function.

There is no longer a need to work with a separate VV since:

Exercise 3

Show that if ff has any zeros then gg possibly can’t exist.

In fact, the map exp ⁣:CC{0}\exp \colon \mathbb C \rightarrow \mathbb C\setminus\{0\} is a universal cover, since C\mathbb C is simply connected. Thus, p(π1(C))p(\pi_1(\mathbb C)) is trivial. So in addition to being zero-free, ff cannot have any winding number around 0B0 \in B at all. In other words:

Theorem 4 (Existence of Logarithms)

Let f ⁣:UCf \colon U \rightarrow \mathbb C be holomorphic. Then ff has a logarithm if and only if 12πiγffdz=0\frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint_\gamma \frac{f'}{f} dz = 0 for every contour γ\gamma in UU.

5. Some Special Cases

The most common special case is

Corollary 5 (Nonvanishing Functions from Simply Connected Domains)

Let f ⁣:ΩCf \colon \Omega \rightarrow \mathbb C be continuous, where Ω\Omega is simply connected. If f(z)0f(z) \neq 0 for every zΩz \in \Omega, then ff has both a logarithm and holomorphic nn-th root.

Finally, let’s return to the question of f=idf = \operatorname{id} from the very beginning. What’s the best domain UU such that we can define  ⁣:UC\sqrt{-} \colon U \rightarrow \mathbb C? Clearly U=CU = \mathbb C cannot be made to work, but we can do almost as well. For note that the only zero of f=idf = \operatorname{id} is at the origin. Thus, if we want to make a logarithm exist, all we have to do is make an incision in the complex plane that renders it impossible to make a loop around the origin. The usual choice is to delete negative half of the real axis, our very first ray of death; we call this a branch cut, with branch point at 0C0 \in \mathbb C (the point which we cannot circle around). This gives

Theorem 6 (Branch Cut Functions)

There exist holomorphic functions

log ⁣:C(,0]Cn ⁣:C(,0]C \begin{aligned} \log &\colon \mathbb C \setminus (-\infty, 0] \rightarrow \mathbb C \\ \sqrt[n]{-} &\colon \mathbb C \setminus (-\infty, 0] \rightarrow \mathbb C \end{aligned}

satisfying the obvious properties.

There are many possible choices of such functions (nn choices for the nn-th root and infinitely many for log\log); a choice of such a function is called a branch. So this is what is meant by a “branch” of a logarithm.

The principal branch is the “canonical” branch, analogous to the way we arbitrarily pick the positive branch to define  ⁣:R0R0\sqrt{-} \colon \mathbb R_{\ge 0} \rightarrow \mathbb R_{\ge 0}. For log\log, we take the ww such that ew=ze^w = z and the imaginary part of ww lies in (π,π](-\pi, \pi] (since we can shift by integer multiples of 2πi2\pi i). Often, authors will write Logz\operatorname{Log} z to emphasize this choice.

Example 7. Let UU be the complex plane minus the real interval [0,1][0,1]. Then the function UCU \rightarrow \mathbb C by zz(z1)z \mapsto z(z-1) has a holomorphic square root.

Corollary 8. A holomorphic function f ⁣:UCf \colon U \rightarrow \mathbb C has a holomorphic nn-th root for all n1n \ge 1 if and only if it has a holomorphic logarithm.