2
$\begingroup$

Let $f : U \to \Bbb C$ be a holomorphic function in a neighborhood of 0 (or a polynomial). Is it true that for any integer $k \geq 1$, $$ |f^{(k)}(0)| \leq \|D^k_0 |f|\| \left( = \max_{|u_1|=\dotsb = |u_k|=1} \| D^k_0 |f| (u_1,\dotsc,u_k)\| \right)? $$ where $D^k_0 |f|$ is the $k$th derivative at zero of the map $|f| : \Bbb C \simeq \Bbb R^2 \to \Bbb R$.

For $k=1$ there is an equality. For $k=2$, the inequality holds true (I computed it, but I have no easy way to prove it).

It holds that $\| D^k_0 \log |f|\| = \left|\frac{\partial^k}{\partial z^k} \log f(z)\right|$ (because $\log |f| = \Re(\log f)$) but I can't obtain anything out of that.

I tried also to exploit the formula $f^{(k)}(0) = \frac{1}{2\pi i}\oint z^{-k-1} f(z) dz$ but without success.

Any idea?

$\endgroup$
0

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

It is true for $k=1,2$ but not for $k\ge 3$.

Write $f=g^2$ near $0$ and let $g(z)=\sum_{m\ge 0}a_m z^m$. Then $|f|(z)=\overline{g(z)}g(z)$, so we want (up to $k!$ on both sides) that $$ \left|\sum_{0\le m\le k/2}a_ma_{k-m}\right|\le \max_u\left|\Re\sum_{0\le m\le k/2}\bar a_ma_{k-m}P_{m}(u)\right| $$ where $P_{m}(u)$ is the average of all products of $u_1,\dots,u_k$ with exactly $m$ conjugation bars over $u$'s and if $k=2m$, then the last term in the sum should be taken with the coefficient $1/2$.

Now notice that if we multiply $a_m$ and $a_{k-m}$ by any $\zeta_m\in\mathbb T$, then we can rotate the terms on the LHS in any way we want without changing the ones on the RHS. Also we can make $\bar a_ma_{k-m}$ any numbers we want except $a_m\bar a_m$ should be positive when $k$ is even and $m=k/2$. Thus, the desired inequality is equivalent to $$ \sum_{0\le m\le k/2}|b_m|\le \max\left|\Re\sum_{0\le m\le k/2}b_mP_m(u)\right| $$ However, the only way to achieve this is to align all terms in all $b_mP_m(u)$ with either $+1$ or $-1$ simultaneously.

If $k=1$, then $P_0(u)=u_1$, so it is not a problem. If $k=2$, then $P_0(u)=u_1u_2$ and $P_1(u)=\frac 12(u_1\bar u_2+u_2\bar u_1)$ and we know that $b_1$ is already aligned with $+1$, so we can align $P_1$ with $+1$ by choosing $u_1=u_2=\zeta\in\mathbb T$ and we still have enough freedom to rotate $u_1u_2$ to anything we want.

However, when $k>2$, we have arbitrary $b_0$ and $b_1$ and aligning all terms in $P_1$ between themselves requires that all $u_k=\pm\zeta$ for some $\zeta\in \mathbb T$. Thus, our sum starts with $\pm (b_0\zeta^k+b_1\zeta^{k-2})$ and for generic $b_0,b_1$ we just don't have enough freedom to bring even these two terms to the real line simultaneously.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ This is convincing, thanks! So I will have to use weaker norm... $\endgroup$
    – Lierre
    Nov 13, 2017 at 9:20

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.