I am confused by the definitions put up for a branch of logarithm. I have two questions in mind.
- Why do some books define a branch on just an open subset whereas some books define it on an open connected subset?
- Why some texts define a branch to be continuous but then some texts take the extra leap and define the branch to be a holomorphic function?
Here are some examples.
In Sarason's Complex Function Theory, it states the definition:
Let $G$ be an open connected subset of $\mathbb{C}-\{0\}$. A branch of $\log z$ in $G$ is a continuous function $\ell$ in $G$ such that for each $z \in G$, $\ell(z)$ is a logarithm of $z$.
In Ivan Wilde's Lecture Notes on Complex Analysis, we have:
A branch of the logarithm is a pair $(D, f)$, where $D$ is a domain (an open connected subset of $\mathbb{C}$) such that $0 \notin D$ and $f: D \to \mathbb{C}$ is continuous and satisfies $e^{f(z)} = z$ for all $z \in D$.
In Stein-Shakarchi's Complex Analysis, we have:
Suppose that $\Omega$ is simply connected with $1 \in \Omega$, and $0 \notin \Omega$. Then, in $\Omega$ there is a branch of logarithm $F(z) = \log_\Omega z$ so that $F$ is holomorphic in $\Omega$ and $e^{F(z)} = z$ for all $z \in \Omega$.
In lecture notes I found online:
Let $\Omega \subset \mathbb{C} - \{0 \}$ be open. Then, a branch of $\log z$ on $\Omega$ is a holomorphic function $L: \Omega \to \mathbb{C}$ such that $e^{L(z)} = z$ for every $z \in \Omega$.
A lot of the definitions assume that the logarithm is defined on a domain/region/open-connected subset of $\mathbb{C}$. Why is this so? Moreover, what do we lose if we define it on just an open, not necessarily connected subset of $\mathbb{C}$? Would this be the same case to as why we sometimes define holomorphic functions just on an open set rather than on a domain?
The only thing that I could think why assuming connectedness is important is to be more careful in the sense that the branch wouldn't take two different values on different subsets whose union is the subset where the branch is defined.
Similarly, what do we lose if we define the branch to be just a continuous function rather than a holomorphic one?
Usually, the domain of a holomorphic function is connected. Otherwise, what happens in a connected component is disconnected (pun intended) with what happens in the other ones. But no harm is done if we just assume that the domain is any non-empty open set.
And, in this context, being holomorphic and being continuous is the same thing. That's so because any branch of the logarithm has a left inverse (the exponential function) which is holomorphic and whose derivative is non-zero everywhere; every continuous map with such a left inverse is holomorphic. So, there is, in fact, no difference between these two definitions.