Return to Revisions

There are others strange affirmations in the paper. For instance p. 131. The author wants to prove (Theorem 7.3) that that a certain meromorphic function $P/f$ has no pole, where the holomorphic function $f$ has (at least) a simple zero at $\omega\in \mathbb C$, and $P$ is a polynomial. The proof is very odd:First of all, it is never proved that $U=P/f$ is has no pole. Secondly, $U$ is treated... like it was already proved that it has... no pole. More precisely, the author considers $U$ as a formal series in $X$ (like $1/X= 1/z$ is a Laurent series). Then he derives $P=Uf$ and gets $P'=U'f +Uf'$. But now he says "specializing the formal variable $X$ to the complex variable $z$" and gets $P'(z) = U'(z)f(z) +U(z)f'(z)$, forgetting that this formal hocus-pocus does not make $U(z)$ (and $U'(z)$) a defined complex number! He then makes $z$ equal the root $\omega$ of $f$ and obtains $P'(\omega) = U(\omega) f'(\omega)$, forgetting that $U$ is still a formal series. In fact this argument adapts for $P=1$ and $f=z$. He it would be proved that $U(z) =1/z$... is holomorphic at $0$!