Exercises — Complex analysis — analytic functions, Cauchy-Riemann equations
Here means , "the rate of change of as only moves," and likewise for the others. Every symbol below is used exactly as the parent defined it.
Level 1 — Recognition
L1·Q1. Read off and
For , write in the form .
Recall Solution — L1·Q1
Substitute : since . So WHY the split works: any complex number splits uniquely into (real part) (imaginary part); we just collected the terms with no into and the terms multiplying into .
L1·Q2. Does this pair even look like it could satisfy CR?
Given and , compute all four partials (don't check CR yet — just list them).
Recall Solution — L1·Q2
Differentiate treating the other variable as a constant:
- (the is constant in ),
- ,
- ,
- . WHAT this is: the four entries of the Jacobian — notice the "rotation+scale" shape flagged in the parent.
Level 2 — Application
L2·Q1. Full analyticity test
Is analytic anywhere? If so, find in terms of .
Recall Solution — L2·Q1
Here , . CR check 1: but . These are equal only where , i.e. (since always). That is a set of isolated lines, not an open set. Conclusion: CR fails on every open region, so is nowhere analytic. (In fact — a function of , which the parent warned can't be analytic.)
L2·Q2. Find the constant that makes it analytic
For which real constant is the real part of an analytic function? Then find a valid .
Recall Solution — L2·Q2
An analytic must be harmonic: (parent's Laplace result). So . Recover from CR:
- (integrate in ; the "constant" can depend on ).
- . Now so , and . Matching: . This rebuilds (up to the imaginary constant ), matching Example 1 of the parent. See Harmonic functions and Laplace's equation for why "harmonic" is the gatekeeper.
Level 3 — Analysis
L3·Q1. CR at a point but not analytic
Show satisfies CR only on a line, and state where (if anywhere) it is differentiable vs analytic.
Recall Solution — L3·Q1
, so , .
- CR-1: .
- CR-2: . Both hold only at the single point (the intersection ). A single point is not open, so is (at most) complex-differentiable at and nowhere analytic. The partials are continuous, so differentiability does hold at that one point, with .
L3·Q2. Where does a "quadratic-with-conjugate" break?
Let . Find all points where CR holds. Is analytic anywhere?
Recall Solution — L3·Q2
and , so
- CR-1: , impossible.
- CR-2: , always true. CR-1 fails at every point, so is nowhere analytic. The offending piece is exactly the : it single-handedly shifts and apart by the constant , and no choice of can heal a constant mismatch.
Level 4 — Synthesis
L4·Q1. Build the analytic function from a harmonic part
Given the harmonic function , construct the analytic (find ), and identify in closed form. Which vault tool guaranteed a exists?
Recall Solution — L4·Q1
First confirm harmonic: , , sum ✅ — so a harmonic conjugate is guaranteed to exist (locally), the fact from Harmonic functions and Laplace's equation. Use CR to recover :
- (integrate in ).
- . Compute , so . Also . Match: . Then (taking ), using Euler's formula from Complex numbers — polar form and Euler's formula. This reconstructs Example 3 of the parent.
L4·Q2. CR forces rigidity
Suppose is analytic on an open connected region and its imaginary part is constant there. Prove is constant.
Recall Solution — L4·Q2
constant means and everywhere in the region. Apply CR:
- ,
- . So all four partials of vanish, hence is locally constant; on a connected region "all partials zero" forces to be a single constant. Therefore is constant. The moral: you cannot fix the imaginary part and freely wiggle the real part — CR chains them together. This rigidity is what makes analytic functions so powerful in Contour integration and Cauchy's integral theorem.
Level 5 — Mastery
L5·Q1. The Jacobian view — prove CR ⟺ "rotation+scale"
Let be real-differentiable at a point with Jacobian . Prove that acts as multiplication by a single complex number if and only if the CR equations hold, and that then .
Recall Solution — L5·Q1
Setup. Multiplying a point by the fixed complex number gives so as a real-linear map on this multiplication is the matrix This is a rotation-by- scaled by , where (see Complex numbers — polar form and Euler's formula).
(⇐) CR ⇒ special form. If and , set and . Then So is exactly multiplication by , and .
(⇒) Special form ⇒ CR. Conversely if for some , then reading entries: (top-left = bottom-right) and (top-right = bottom-left). Those are precisely the two CR equations.
Determinant. For the special form, WHAT this means geometrically (figure below): the map scales every little area by and rotates by , uniformly in all directions — that is the "spin-and-zoom, no shear, no flip" of the parent's rubber-sheet story, and the reason analytic maps are conformal (Conformal mappings). The Jacobian and the multivariable chain rule is the machinery that turns local stretching into this matrix.

L5·Q2. A discontinuity trap (CR holds at 0, yet not differentiable)
Consider Show that the CR equations hold at , yet is not complex-differentiable at . Explain which hypothesis of the sufficiency theorem fails.
Recall Solution — L5·Q2
Step 1 — CR at via partial derivatives. Along the real axis (, ): , so , giving . Hence . Along the imaginary axis (, ): , , and . So , giving . Check: ✅ and ✅. CR holds at .
Step 2 — But the limit depends on direction. Take and let along a fixed ray. Since , This value changes with the approach angle : along it is ; along it is . Different directions give different answers, so the derivative limit does not exist. is not complex-differentiable at .
Step 3 — Which hypothesis broke? The sufficiency theorem needs CR plus continuity of the partials on a neighborhood. Here the partials of are not continuous at (the difference-quotient wobbles as ), so having CR only at the isolated point never earned us differentiability. This is the sharpest form of the parent's warning: CR at a point is necessary, not sufficient.