Notes on Complex Analysis
Export PDFGitHub

§9.3 Boundary Continuity of Biholomorphisms

9.3 Boundary Continuity of Biholomorphisms

Suppose Ω1 and Ω2 are two regions in the complex plane such that there is a biholomorphism 𝜑 from Ω1 to Ω2. Naturally, we are concerned about the existence of a continuous extension of 𝜑 to Ω1‾.

In fact, it is almost always true that such an extension exists. We will give three examples of this phenomenon, each with increasing regularity assumptions on the boundaries 𝜕Ω1 and 𝜕Ω2:

  1. If 𝜕Ω1 and 𝜕Ω2 are two Jordan curves, then 𝜑 (whose existence is given by the Riemann Mapping Theorem or Theorem 5.3.2Theorem 5.3.2Theorem 5.3.2) extends homeomorphically to 𝜕Ω1 (Theorem 9.3.3Theorem 9.3.3Theorem 9.3.3).
  2. If 𝜕Ω1 and Ω2 are 𝐶∞ Jordan curves, then 𝜑 extends continuously and injectively to 𝜕Ω1 and is 𝐶∞ on Ω1‾.
  3. If 𝜕Ω1 and 𝜕Ω2 are real-analytic Jordan curves (the boundary is parameterizable by functions such that at every point, there is a power series expansion that converge to the function on a neighborhood), then 𝜑 extends analytically past 𝜕Ω1 (Theorem 9.3.14Theorem 9.3.14Theorem 9.3.14).
Figure 9.3: The region 𝑈 with a comb-shaped boundary.

Example 9.3.1.

Let

𝑈={𝑥+i𝑦:0<𝑥,𝑦<2}∖⋃𝑛=1∞{i𝑡+1𝑛:𝑡∈[0,1]}
be an open, simply connected region with a comb-shaped boundary (Figure 9.3Figure 9.3Figure 9.3). By the Riemann Mapping Theorem, it is conformally equivalent to 𝔻 via some biholomorphism 𝑓. Then there is no homeomorphism 𝑓̃:𝑈‾→𝔻‾ whose restriction to 𝑈 is 𝑓.
Proof.

Suppose that such a homeomorphism 𝑓̃ exists. Since 𝑓̃(𝑈)=𝔻 and 𝑓̃ is bijective, it restricts to a homeomorphism from 𝜕𝑈=𝑈‾∖𝑈 onto 𝜕𝔻=𝔻‾∖𝔻. Here

𝜕𝑈={𝑥+i𝑦:𝑥∈{0,2},𝑦∈[0,2]}∪{𝑥+i𝑦:𝑥∈[0,2],𝑦∈{0,2}}∪⋃𝑛=1∞{i𝑡+1𝑛:𝑡∈[0,1]}

Consider the comb “tooth” 𝐿={1+i𝑡:𝑡∈[0,1]}. If its base point 1 is removed from 𝜕𝑈, there is no path in the remaining boundary from 𝐿∖{1} to the rest of 𝜕𝑈, since 𝐿 meets the rest of the boundary only at 1 (topologically, this is known as a “cut point”). Hence 𝜕𝑈∖{1} is not path-connected. However, removing 𝑓̃(1) from the circle 𝜕𝔻 leaves an open, path-connected arc.

Then 𝑓̃|𝜕𝑈∖{1} is a homeomorphism. Let 𝑧1∈𝐿∖{1}, 𝑧2∈𝜕𝑈∖𝐿 be two arbitrary points. Then there exists an arc in 𝜕𝔻∖𝑓̃(1) joining 𝑓̃(𝑧1) and 𝑓̃(𝑧2). Then the image of this arc under 𝑓̃−1 is a path joining 𝑧1 and 𝑧2, a contradiction. Thus no such homeomorphism exists. ⁠□

Example 9.3.2.

The biholomorphism 𝜑:𝔻→𝔻∩ℍ+ defined by

𝜑:𝑧↦1+ii(1−𝑧)1+𝑧1−ii(1−𝑧)1+𝑧
extends continuously but not differentiably to ±1. The boundary of 𝔻∩ℍ+ is piecewise 𝐶∞.

Theorem 9.3.3 (Osgood–Taylor–Carathéodory).

Suppose that Ω1 and Ω2 are two bounded regions in ℂ such that 𝜕Ω1 and 𝜕Ω2 each comprises a single Jordan curve. If 𝜑:Ω1→Ω2 is a biholomorphism (provided by the Riemann Mapping Theorem in Theorem 5.3.2Theorem 5.3.2Theorem 5.3.2), then ∃𝜑̃:Ω1‾→Ω2‾ homeomorphic such that 𝜑̃|Ω1≡𝜑 (the restriction of 𝜑̃ to Ω1 agrees with 𝜑).
Proof.

The theorem will be first proven in the case that Ω1 is the unit disk 𝔻. The general case will then be reduced to this special case.

Let 𝜇1,𝜇2:[0,1]→𝔻‾ be two curves such that 𝜇1([0,1)),𝜇2([0,1))⊂𝔻 and 𝜇1(1)=1, 𝜇2(1)=1 (as in Figure 9.4Figure 9.4Figure 9.4). We now aim to show that lim𝑡→1−𝜑(𝜇1(𝑡))=lim𝑡→1−𝜑(𝜇2(𝑡)) (existence and equality).

Let 𝑉=𝔻∩𝐷(1,12), which has a finite area. Since 𝜑 is a biholomorphism, 𝜑(𝑉)⊂Ω2 also has a finite area (call this 𝑀) and is simply connected since its complement in Ω2, 𝜑(𝔻∖𝑉), is connected.

Figure 9.4: Configuration of 𝑉, and possible 𝜇1,𝜇2.
Figure 9.5: Possible positioning of 𝜑(𝑉) relative to Ω2.

Let 𝐾⊂Ω2 be compact. Since 𝜑−1 is continuous, it maps 𝐾 to a compact set 𝜑−1(𝐾) (a function providing the compactness of the pre-image of every compact set is more generally known as proper). This implies that for any sequence {𝑧𝑗}𝑗∈ℕ⊂𝔻 with accumulation points only in 𝜕𝔻, {𝜑(𝑧𝑗)}𝑗∈ℕ will have its accumulation points in 𝜕Ω2 (because otherwise, there would be a corresponding subsequence of {𝑧𝑗}𝑗∈ℕ that converges to a point in 𝔻). Therefore, 𝜑(𝑉) does not have relatively compact closure in Ω2 (a representation of a possible configuration in Figure 9.5Figure 9.5Figure 9.5).

Figure 9.6: Possible configuration of 𝛾𝑟.
Figure 9.7: Concept configuration of 𝜑(𝛾𝑟)

For 0<𝑟<12, we now introduce polar coordinates (𝑟,𝜃) centered at 1 with angles offset by π. Let 𝜃0(𝑟) be the supremum of 𝜃 for fixed 𝑟 such that 1−𝑟ei𝜃∈𝑉. Define 𝛾𝑟:(−𝜃0(𝑟),𝜃0(𝑟))→𝑉 to be the curve with 𝜃↦1−𝑟ei𝜃 (as in Figure 9.6Figure 9.6Figure 9.6).

Lemma 9.3.4.

Let 𝑙𝑟 be the length of 𝜑∘𝛾𝑟. Then

∫012𝑙𝑟2π𝑟d𝑟
is finite.
Proof.

Notice that

𝑙𝑟=∫𝜑∘𝛾𝑟([−𝜃0(𝑟),𝜃0(𝑟)])|d𝑧|=∫−𝜃0(𝑟)𝜃0(𝑟)|d𝜑(1−𝑟ei𝜃)d𝜃|d𝜃=∫−𝜃0(𝑟)𝜃0(𝑟)𝑟|𝜑′(1−𝑟ei𝜃)|d𝜃.

Hence,

∫012𝑙𝑟2π𝑟d𝑟=∫0121π𝑟[∫−𝜃0(𝑟)𝜃0(𝑟)|𝜑′(1−𝑟ei𝜃)|𝑟d𝜃]2d𝑟=∫0121π𝑟[∫−𝜃0(𝑟)𝜃0(𝑟)|𝜑′(1−𝑟ei𝜃)|𝑟𝑟d𝜃]2d𝑟≤∫0121π𝑟[∫−𝜃0(𝑟)𝜃0(𝑟)|𝜑′(1−𝑟ei𝜃)|2𝑟d𝜃][∫−𝜃0(𝑟)𝜃0(𝑟)𝑟d𝜃]d𝑟≤∫012∫−𝜃0(𝑟)𝜃0(𝑟)|𝜑′(1−𝑟ei𝜃)|2𝑟d𝜃d𝑟=∬𝑉|𝜑′(𝑧)|2d𝑥d𝑦=area(𝜑(𝑉))≤area(Ω2)<∞,
where the last step uses the Lusin Area Theorem (see Theorem 3.1.1Theorem 3.1.1Theorem 3.1.1). ⁠□

Assume that ∃𝑐>0,𝜀>0 such that 𝑙𝑟≥𝑐 for all 0<𝑟<𝜀. Then, this implies that

∫012𝑙𝑟2π𝑟d𝑟≥∫0𝜀𝑙𝑟2π𝑟d𝑟≥∫0𝜀𝑐2π𝑟d𝑟=𝑐2π∫0𝜀d𝑟𝑟,

which is a divergent integral. This contradicts Lemma 9.3.4Lemma 9.3.4Lemma 9.3.4. Therefore, we must have lim inf𝑟→0+𝑙𝑟=0. Thus, there exists a sequence {𝑟𝑗}𝑗∈ℕ⊂(0,12) such that 𝑟𝑗→0 and 𝑙𝑟𝑗→0 as 𝑗→∞.

Proposition 9.3.5.

For each such 𝑟𝑗 as above, the limits

lim𝜃→𝜃0(𝑟𝑗)−𝜑(1−𝑟𝑗ei𝜃)andlim𝜃→−𝜃0(𝑟𝑗)+𝜑(1−𝑟𝑗ei𝜃)
exist.
Proof.

Since 𝑙𝑟𝑗 is finite, ∀𝜀>0, ∃𝛿>0 such that for 𝜃>𝜃0(𝑟𝑗)−𝛿,

∫𝜃𝜃0(𝑟𝑗)𝑟|𝜑′(1−𝑟ei𝜗)|d𝜗<𝜀.

Then for any 𝜃′,𝜃″∈(𝜃0(𝑟)−𝛿,𝜃0(𝑟)),

|𝜑(1−𝑟ei𝜃′)−𝜑(1−𝑟ei𝜃″)|≤length(𝜑(𝛾𝑟([𝜃′,𝜃″])))=∫𝜃′𝜃″𝑟|𝜑′(1−𝑟ei𝜗)|d𝜗<𝜀,
implying that {𝜑(1−𝑟ei𝜃)}𝜃→𝜃0(𝑟𝑗)− is Cauchy and hence convergent. The proof for the other limit follows symmetrically. ⁠□

Lemma 9.3.6.

Let 𝜏=𝜕Ω2. Then there is a function 𝜂(𝛿) defined for sufficiently small 𝛿, such that 𝜂(𝛿)→0 as 𝛿→0+, such that for all 𝑎,𝑏∈𝜏 satisfying |𝑎−𝑏|≤𝛿, then there is exactly one curve in 𝜏 with endpoints 𝑎 and 𝑏 with diameter ≤𝜂(𝛿).
Proof.

Since 𝜏 is a Jordan curve, it admits a homeomorphic parameterization 𝜓:𝑆1→𝜏, and 𝜓 is a bicontinuous bijection (onto its image) between compact Hausdorff spaces, so 𝜓−1 is continuous.

Since 𝜓−1 is uniformly continuous on the compact set 𝜏, for every 𝜀>0 there exists 𝛿′>0 such that if |𝑝−𝑞|<𝛿′ with 𝑝,𝑞∈𝜏, then |𝜓−1(𝑝)−𝜓−1(𝑞)|<𝜀.

In particular, choose 𝛿0>0 small enough so that whenever |𝜓(𝜁)−𝜓(𝜁′)|≤𝛿0, then |𝜁−𝜁′|<2.

Now define

𝜂(𝛿)=sup{diam𝜌:|𝜓(𝜁)−𝜓(𝜁′)|≤𝛿}

for 0<𝛿≤𝛿0, where 𝜌=𝜓(𝜎) and 𝜎⊆𝑆1 is the shorter arc connecting 𝜁,𝜁′∈𝑆1.

First, 𝜂(𝛿)→0 as 𝛿→0+; if not, there exists 𝜀>0 and a sequence 𝛿𝑛→0+ with 𝜂(𝛿𝑛)≥𝜀. Then for each 𝑛∈ℕ, there are 𝜁𝑛,𝜁𝑛′∈𝑆1 with |𝜓(𝜁𝑛)−𝜓(𝜁𝑛′)|≤𝛿𝑛 such that the shorter arc on 𝑆1 between 𝜁𝑛 and 𝜁𝑛′ has image 𝜌𝑛 with diam𝜌𝑛≥𝜀. By compactness of 𝑆1, we may assume (by passing to a subsequence if necessary) that 𝜁𝑛→𝜁 and 𝜁𝑛′→𝜁′. Then 𝜓(𝜁)=lim𝑛→∞𝜓(𝜁𝑛)=lim𝑛→∞𝜓(𝜁𝑛′)=𝜓(𝜁′), so 𝜁=𝜁′. But then the images of the shorter arcs between each 𝜁𝑛 and 𝜁𝑛′ must have diameters tending to zero (by continuity of 𝜓), contradicting that diam𝜌𝑛≥𝜀 for each 𝑛.

To finish, choose 0<𝛿1<𝛿0 small enough that 𝜂(𝛿1)<12diam𝜏 (possible since 𝜂(𝛿)→0 as 𝛿→0 and diam𝜏>0).

Then the assertion holds for all 𝛿≤𝛿1 with this 𝜂: for 𝑎,𝑏∈𝜏 with |𝑎−𝑏|≤𝛿≤𝛿1, let 𝜁,𝜁′∈𝑆1 with 𝜓(𝜁)=𝑎, 𝜓(𝜁′)=𝑏. The shorter arc on 𝑆1 between 𝜁,𝜁′ has image 𝜌 with diam𝜌≤𝜂(𝛿). The image of the other arc on 𝜏 between 𝑎,𝑏, 𝜌̃, satisfies

diam𝜌̃+diam𝜌≥diam𝜏,

which is sufficient to imply that

diam𝜌̃≥diam𝜏−diam𝜌>diam𝜏−12diam𝜏=12diam𝜏>𝜂(𝛿).

Thus, exactly one arc’s image (specifically, the image of the shorter arc on 𝑆1) has diameter ≤𝜂(𝛿). ⁠□

By the uniqueness as described by Lemma 9.3.6Lemma 9.3.6Lemma 9.3.6, for any two points 𝑎,𝑏 sufficiently close together, we now identify the unique curve in 𝜏 (joining 𝑎 and 𝑏) with diameter less than 𝜂(|𝑎−𝑏|) as the smaller arc of 𝜏 joining 𝑎 and 𝑏, denoted by 𝜏𝑎,𝑏.

Figure 9.8: Two possibilities for the endpoints of 𝜑(𝛾𝑟𝑗)

Lemma 9.3.7.

Let {𝑟𝑗}𝑗∈ℕ be the sequence such that 𝑙𝑟𝑗→0 as 𝑗→∞ (in the discussion preceding Proposition 9.3.5Proposition 9.3.5Proposition 9.3.5). Then, for each 𝑗∈ℕ, either

Ω2∋𝑎𝑗=lim𝜃→𝜃0(𝑟𝑗)−𝜑(1−𝑟𝑗ei𝜃)≠lim𝜃→−𝜃0(𝑟𝑗)+𝜑(1−𝑟𝑗ei𝜃)=𝑏𝑗∈𝜕Ω2(9.3.1)

or

lim𝜃→𝜃0(𝑟𝑗)−𝜑(1−𝑟𝑗ei𝜃)=lim𝜃→−𝜃0(𝑟𝑗)+𝜑(1−𝑟𝑗ei𝜃)=𝑝𝑗∈𝜕Ω2(9.3.2)
is satisfied. The two situations are represented in Figure 9.8Figure 9.8Figure 9.8.
Proof.By virtue of Proposition 9.3.5Proposition 9.3.5Proposition 9.3.5, both described limits exist. Similarly, since any sequences {1−𝑟𝑗ei𝜃}𝜃→𝜃0(𝑟𝑗)− and {1−𝑟𝑗ei𝜃}𝜃→−𝜃0(𝑟𝑗)+ approach 𝜕𝔻, their images under 𝜑 approach 𝜕Ω2 by properness (refer to the discussions preceding Lemma 9.3.4Lemma 9.3.4Lemma 9.3.4). Therefore, both limits must lie in 𝜕Ω2, and the conclusion follows. ⁠□

For fixed 𝑟𝑗, in the case of (9.3.1)(9.3.1)(9.3.1), let 𝜑(𝛾𝑟𝑗) be the described curve joining 𝑎𝑗 and 𝑏𝑗 (where 𝛾𝑟𝑗 is represented by the arc as labeled in Figure 9.7Figure 9.7Figure 9.7). Except for the two boundary points, the curve 𝜑(𝛾𝑟𝑗) lies entirely in Ω2 since 𝛾𝑟𝑗⊂𝑉⊂𝔻. Let the shorter arc on Ω2 joining the two points 𝑎𝑗 and 𝑏𝑗 be denoted by 𝜏𝑗. Therefore, the curve 𝜑(𝛾𝑟𝑗)∪𝜏𝑗 forms a Jordan curve (simplicity by injectivity).

In the event that (9.3.2)(9.3.2)(9.3.2) is assumed, let 𝜏𝑗={𝑝𝑗}, and 𝜑(𝛾𝑟𝑗)(∪𝜏𝑗) forms a Jordan curve. By the Jordan Curve Theorem (Theorem 1.2.5Theorem 1.2.5Theorem 1.2.5), the selected curve bounds a region, which we will denote by 𝑊𝑗⊆Ω2.

For each 𝑗, let 𝑉𝑗={1−𝑟ei𝜃:0<𝑟<𝑟𝑗,−𝜃0(𝑟)<𝜃<𝜃0(𝑟)}. Since 𝜑(𝛾𝑟𝑗) is a curve with endpoints 𝑎𝑗 and 𝑏𝑗 (or 𝑝𝑗) and lies in Ω2 except for its endpoints, it splits Ω2 into two disconnected regions, 𝑊𝑗 or Ω2∖𝑊𝑗‾. Since 𝛾𝑟𝑗 splits 𝔻 into two regions, one of which being 𝑉𝑗, the image 𝜑(𝑉𝑗) is either 𝑊𝑗 or Ω2∖𝑊𝑗‾.

Proposition 9.3.8.

As 𝑗→∞,

diam𝑊𝑗→0andarea𝑊𝑗→0.
Proof.

Lemma 9.3.6Lemma 9.3.6Lemma 9.3.6 provides the existence of 𝜂 such that diam𝜏𝑗≤𝜂(𝑙𝑟𝑗) for sufficiently large 𝑗 (since |𝑎𝑗−𝑏𝑗|≤𝑙𝑟𝑗 or 0 for the 𝑝𝑗 case) such that 𝜂(𝑙𝑟𝑗)→0 as 𝑗→∞.

Let 𝐷𝑗=𝐷(𝑎𝑗,𝑙𝑟𝑗+𝜂(𝑙𝑟𝑗)) (or 𝐷𝑗=𝐷(𝑝𝑗,𝑙𝑟𝑗+𝜂(𝑙𝑟𝑗)) in the case of the same point) for each 𝑗. By the previous diameter estimate, the entire Jordan curve 𝜑(𝛾𝑟𝑗)∪𝜏𝑗 lies in 𝐷𝑗, and hence 𝑊𝑗⊂𝐷𝑗. This implies that

area(𝑊𝑗)≤area(𝐷𝑗)=π(𝑙𝑟𝑗+𝜂(𝑙𝑟𝑗))2→0as𝑗→∞.□(9.3.3)

Lemma 9.3.9.

For sufficiently large 𝑗∈ℕ, 𝜑(𝑉𝑗)=𝑊𝑗.
Proof.

For fixed 𝑗, let 𝑇𝑗 be the complementary region of 𝑉𝑗 in 𝔻 (as 𝔻∖𝑉𝑗‾). Then for an arbitrary 𝑤0∈𝑊𝑗, there exists a point 𝑧0∈𝔻 (specifically, either in 𝑇𝑗 or 𝑉𝑗) such that 𝜑(𝑧0)=𝑤0.

  1. If 𝑧0∈𝑉𝑗, then 𝜑(𝑧0)∈𝑊𝑗 and connectivity suffices to ensure that 𝜑(𝑉𝑗)=𝑊𝑗.
  2. If 𝑧0∈𝑇𝑗, then from 𝜑(𝑧0)∈𝑊𝑗, connectivity implies that 𝜑(𝑇𝑗)⊆𝑊𝑗. Now by the Lusin Area Theorem (Theorem 3.1.1Theorem 3.1.1Theorem 3.1.1),

    area(𝜑(𝑇𝑗))=area(Ω2)−area(𝜑(𝑉𝑗))=area(Ω2)−∬𝑉𝑗|𝜑′(𝑧)|d𝑥d𝑦.

    Since 𝑉𝑗 shrinks to the empty set, ∬𝑉𝑗|𝜑′(𝑧)|d𝑥d𝑦→0 as 𝑗→∞, and hence

    area(𝜑(𝑇𝑗))→area(Ω2).(9.3.4)

    Proposition 9.3.8Proposition 9.3.8Proposition 9.3.8 implies that

    area(𝑊𝑗)→0
    as 𝑗→∞. Hence, for sufficiently large 𝑗, we cannot have 𝜑(𝑇𝑗)⊆𝑊𝑗 (by the induced contradiction with (9.3.4)(9.3.4)(9.3.4)). Therefore, 𝜑(𝑇𝑗)=Ω2∖𝑊𝑗‾ and 𝜑(𝑉𝑗)=𝑊𝑗. □

Lemma 9.3.10.

If the two complex curves 𝜇1,𝜇2:[0,1]→𝔻‾ map 1 to 1 such that 𝜇1([0,1)),𝜇2([0,1))⊂𝔻, then

lim𝑡→1−𝜑(𝜇1(𝑡))=lim𝑡→1−𝜑(𝜇2(𝑡))
exist and are equal.
Proof.

By Lemma 9.3.9Lemma 9.3.9Lemma 9.3.9 and Proposition 9.3.8Proposition 9.3.8Proposition 9.3.8, ∃𝑗∈ℕ such that diam𝑊𝑗<𝜀 and 𝜑(𝑉𝑗)=𝑊𝑗. Since 𝜇1(𝑡),𝜇2(𝑡)→1 as 𝑡→1−, ∃𝑆∈(0,1) such that ∀𝑡:𝑆<𝑡<1, |𝜇1(𝑡)−1|<𝑟𝑗 and |𝜇2(𝑡)−1|<𝑟𝑗. Recall the definition of 𝑉𝑗 as the set of points {1−𝑟ei𝜃:0<𝑟<𝑟𝑗,−𝜃0(𝑟)<𝜃<𝜃0(𝑟)}; then 𝜇1(𝑡),𝜇2(𝑡)∈𝑉𝑗 for all 𝑆<𝑡<1. Therefore,

𝜑(𝜇1(𝑡)),𝜑(𝜇2(𝑡))∈𝑊𝑗

for all 𝑆<𝑡<1. Then

|𝜑(𝜇1(𝑡))−𝜑(𝜇2(𝑡))|≤diam𝑊𝑗<𝜀
for all 𝑆<𝑡<1, thus equality is derived. Moreover, ⋂𝑗𝑊𝑗‾ shrinks to a single point, which is precisely the prescribed limit. ⁠□

Corollary 9.3.10.1.

There is a continuous extension of 𝜑 to 𝜕𝔻.
Proof.

Let 𝜁∈𝜕𝔻. Let 𝛾:[0,1]→𝔻‾ satisfy 𝜑([0,1))⊆𝔻 and 𝛾(1)=1. Suppose 𝜑𝜁:𝑧↦𝜑∘(𝑧𝜁). Then by Lemma 9.3.10Lemma 9.3.10Lemma 9.3.10, lim𝑡→1−𝜑𝜁(𝛾(𝑡)) exists and is independent of the choice of 𝛾. Now define 𝜑̃(𝜁) to be the unique value of this limit and let 𝜑̃|𝔻=𝜑.

Fix 𝜀>0 and suppose {𝑧𝑛}𝑛∈ℕ⊂𝔻‾ be a sequence such that 𝑧𝑛→1 as 𝑛→∞. By Lemma 9.3.9Lemma 9.3.9Lemma 9.3.9 and Proposition 9.3.8Proposition 9.3.8Proposition 9.3.8, ∃𝑗∈ℕ such that diam𝑊𝑗<𝜀 and 𝜑(𝑉𝑗)=𝑊𝑗. By the geometry of 𝑉𝑗, ∃𝑁∈ℕ such that ∀𝑛>𝑁, there exists some 0<𝑡0=𝑡0(𝑛)<1 such that the line segment (𝑡0𝑧𝑛,𝑧𝑛) lies in 𝑉𝑗. By the previous result, we have

𝜑(𝑡𝑧𝑛)∈𝑊𝑗⟹𝜑̃(𝑧𝑛)=lim𝑡→1−𝜑(𝑡𝑧𝑛)∈𝑊𝑗‾.

Hence, any two 𝑧𝑛,𝑧𝑚 for 𝑛,𝑚>𝑁 satisfy |𝜑̃(𝑧𝑛)−𝜑̃(𝑧𝑚)|≤diam𝑊𝑗<𝜀. Hence, {𝜑̃(𝑧𝑛)}𝑛∈ℕ is Cauchy and hence convergent to 𝜑̃(1).

This is sufficient to show that 𝜑̃ is continuous at 1. Indeed, assuming otherwise implies ∃𝜀>0 such that ∀𝛿>0, ∃𝑧𝛿∈𝔻‾ within 𝛿 apart from 1 such that |𝜑̃(𝑧𝛿)−𝜑̃(1)|≥𝜀. Let 𝛿𝑛=1𝑛, and hence 𝛿𝑛→0 with the sequence {𝑧𝛿𝑛}𝑛∈ℕ converging to 1. By the previous result, 𝜑̃(𝑧𝛿𝑛)→𝜑̃(1), which contradicts |𝜑̃(𝑧𝛿𝑛)−𝜑̃(1)|≥𝜀 for all 𝑛∈ℕ. The same argument can be repeated to show that 𝜑̃ is continuous at every point of 𝜕𝔻. ⁠□

Proposition 9.3.11.

Let 𝑓∈𝐶(𝔻‾) such that 𝑓 is holomorphic on 𝔻. If there exists an open arc 𝛾⊆𝜕𝔻 such that 𝑓≡𝑐 on 𝛾 (𝑐 is some complex constant), then 𝑓 is constant on 𝔻.
Proof.

Without loss of generality, assume 𝑐=0. If 𝛾=𝜕𝔻, then by the continuity of |𝑓|, it attains its maximum somewhere in 𝔻‾ (by the Extreme Value Theorem in Theorem 1.2.23Theorem 1.2.23Theorem 1.2.23). If |𝑓| attains its maximum at some 𝑧0∈𝔻, it must be an isolated extrema (otherwise the Identity Theorem implies constancy on all of 𝔻), and thus the Maximum Modulus Principle (Theorem 3.4.2Theorem 3.4.2Theorem 3.4.2) implies that 𝑓 is constant and subsequently identically zero. If |𝑓| attains its maximum on 𝜕𝔻, the conclusion follows trivially.

Hence we may assume that ∃𝑧∈𝜕𝔻 such that 𝑓(𝑧)≠0. Without loss of generality, we assume 𝑧=−1 (generality by applying a rotation). Then the Möbius transform 𝜙:𝑧↦i1−𝑧1+𝑧 (in the inverse form of Example 5.1.7Example 5.1.7Example 5.1.7) maps 𝛾 bijectively to a connected segment Γ⊂ℝ. Then the function 𝑓∘𝜙−1 maps Γ=𝜙(𝛾) to {0} and is continuous on ℍ+∪ℝ and holomorphic on ℍ+. Let 𝑈 define the upper half-disk with diameter Γ. By the Schwarz Reflection Principle (Theorem 5.5.2Theorem 5.5.2Theorem 5.5.2), 𝑓∘𝜙−1 may be analytically continued to a function 𝑔̃ on 𝑈∪Γ∪{𝑧‾:𝑧∈𝑈}. Since the zero set Γ has an accumulation point in 𝑈∪Γ∪{𝑧‾:𝑧∈𝑈}, the Identity Theorem (Theorem 3.3.3Theorem 3.3.3Theorem 3.3.3) implies that 𝑔 vanishes on all of 𝑈∪Γ∪{𝑧‾:𝑧∈𝑈}→𝑈→ℍ+, or equivalently, that 𝑓 vanishes on 𝔻. ⁠□

Lemma 9.3.12.

The extension 𝜑̃ of the biholomorphism 𝜑 to 𝔻‾ is injective.
Figure 9.9: Two line segments 𝛼 and 𝛽 mapping to a Jordan curve bounding 𝑊
Proof.

Notice that 𝜑̃(𝔻)=Ω2, and from the earlier discussion regarding properness, 𝜑̃(𝑆1)⊆𝜕Ω2. By the biholomorphy on 𝔻, it thus suffices to show that 𝜑̃|𝜕𝔻 is one-to-one, or that for any two points 𝜁,𝜁′∈𝜕𝔻 such that 𝜑̃(𝜁)=𝜑̃(𝜁′), 𝜁=𝜁′. Assume, for the sake of contradiction, that 𝜁≠𝜁′. The straight line segment connecting 0 to 𝜁 (denoted 𝛼), and the straight line segment joining 0 and 𝜁′ (denoted 𝛽) then split 𝔻 into two domains 𝑈1 and 𝑈2, and 𝜑̃(𝛼)∪𝜑̃(𝛽) forms a Jordan curve enclosing some region 𝑊. See Figure 9.9Figure 9.9Figure 9.9. By connectivity, either 𝑈1 or 𝑈2 maps to 𝑊. Without loss of generality, assume 𝜑̃(𝑈1)=𝑊. Since 𝜑̃ is continuous on 𝑈1‾, it follows that

𝜑̃(𝜕𝔻∩𝜕𝑈1)⊆𝜕Ω2∩𝜕𝑊={𝜑̃(𝜁)}={𝜑̃(𝜁′)}.

Then the arc of 𝜕𝔻 in 𝜕𝑈1 maps to a constant, which by Proposition 9.3.11Proposition 9.3.11Proposition 9.3.11, implies that 𝜑̃ is constant, which is an impossibility. (The same argument is used for 𝑈2)

Therefore, by the induced contradiction, we must have 𝜁=𝜁′, which implies the injectivity of 𝜑̃. ⁠□

Thus, the preceding results gives the construction of an injective, continuous extension of 𝜑 to 𝔻‾. Moreover, the extension is onto since a continuous function maps compact sets to compact sets.

Next, we show that the extension is a homeomorphism.

Proposition 9.3.13.

The extension 𝜑̃ of the biholomorphism 𝜑 to 𝔻‾ is a homeomorphism.
Proof.It suffices to show that the restriction 𝜑̃|𝜕𝔻 is a homeomorphism between 𝜕𝔻 and 𝜕Ω1. Since 𝜕𝔻 is compact (and one under the subspace topology, a compact space) and 𝜕Ω1 is trivially Hausdorff (under the subspace topology), the continuity and injectivity of 𝜑̃|𝜕𝔻 suffices to show that it is a homeomorphism (by Theorem 3.2.1.16Theorem 3.2.1.16Theorem 3.2.1.16). ⁠□
Proof (Alternate).

We show that the inverse of 𝜑̃|𝜕𝔻 is continuous, which also suffices to show that 𝜑̃|𝜕𝔻 is a homeomorphism.

By the final argument of the proof of Corollary 9.3.10.1Corollary 9.3.10.1Corollary 9.3.10.1, it suffices to show that any sequence {𝑧𝑛}𝑛∈ℕ⊂𝜕Ω2 that converges to a point 𝑧∈𝜕Ω2 has a corresponding sequence {𝑤𝑛}𝑛∈ℕ={(𝜑̃|𝜕𝔻)−1(𝑧𝑛)}𝑛∈ℕ in 𝜕𝔻 which converges to 𝑤=(𝜑̃|𝜕𝔻)−1(𝑧). Assume, for contradiction, that some sequence as labeled above does not converge to 𝑤. By the Bolzano–Weierstrass Theorem (Theorem 1.1.10Theorem 1.1.10Theorem 1.1.10), some subsequence of {𝑤𝑛}𝑛∈ℕ, denoted by {𝑤𝑛𝑘}𝑘∈ℕ, converges to 𝑤∞∈𝜕𝔻 (which is not equal to 𝑤). Then 𝜑̃(𝑤𝑛𝑘)→𝜑̃(𝑤∞) as 𝑘→∞ by the continuity of (𝜑̃). However, each 𝜑̃(𝑤𝑛𝑘)=𝑧𝑛𝑘→𝑧=𝜑̃(𝑤). Hence, 𝜑̃(𝑤)=𝜑̃(𝑤∞) which by injectivity, implies 𝑤=𝑤∞, which is a contradiction. Thus 𝜑̃ establishes a homeomorphism between 𝔻‾ and Ω1‾. ⁠□

Now consider the general case for arbitrary Ω1 as in the theorem statement. Let 𝜑:Ω1→Ω2 be a biholomorphism.

By the Riemann Mapping Theorem (Theorem 5.3.2Theorem 5.3.2Theorem 5.3.2), there exist biholomorphisms 𝜑1:𝔻→Ω1 and 𝜑2:𝔻→Ω2, which extend homeomorphically to 𝜑̃1 and 𝜑̃2, respectively, by the preceding results.

Thus, 𝜓=𝜑2−1∘𝜑∘𝜑1∈Aut(𝔻), which by Theorem 3.5.3Theorem 3.5.3Theorem 3.5.3, is the composition of a Möbius transformation and a rotation, which extends homeomorphically to some function 𝜓̃ on 𝔻‾. Thus, we define 𝜑̃=𝜑̃2∘𝜓̃∘𝜑̃1−1 to be the composition of three continuous functions, defining a continuous extension of 𝜑, completing the proof. ⁠□

The second case pertaining to 𝐶∞ boundaries will be proved later. We now entertain the third.

Theorem 9.3.14.

Let Ω1 and Ω2 be two regions in ℂ each bounded by a single real-analytic Jordan curve. Then a biholomorphism 𝜑:Ω1→Ω2 can be analytically continued to a neighborhood of Ω1‾.
Figure 9.10: The construction of 𝑁2, 𝑉𝑞, 𝜂2, and 𝜓, and similarly, that of 𝑁1, 𝑉𝑝, 𝜂1, and 𝜙.
Proof.

By the Osgood–Taylor–Carathéodory Theorem (Theorem 9.3.3Theorem 9.3.3Theorem 9.3.3), 𝜑 extends continuously to Ω1‾ with 𝜑(𝜕Ω1)=𝜕Ω2; retain the name 𝜑 for this extension.

Fix 𝑝∈𝜕Ω1 and set 𝑞=𝜑(𝑝)∈𝜕Ω2. Since 𝜕Ω2 is real-analytic, the function 𝜂2 defined by a locally injective power series on a subset of the real axis extends (by power series) to a biholomorphism 𝜂2:𝑁2→𝑉𝑞 from a region 𝑁2∋0 onto a neighborhood 𝑉𝑞∋𝑞, with 𝜂2(0)=𝑞 and 𝜂2(𝑁2∩ℝ)=𝑉𝑞∩𝜕Ω2 (existence by real-analyticity and biholomorphy by Theorem 5.1.3Theorem 5.1.3Theorem 5.1.3). Set 𝜓=𝜂2−1:𝑉𝑞→𝑁2.

Since 𝜑 is continuous at 𝑝 and 𝜑(𝑝)=𝑞∈𝑉𝑞, the set 𝜑−1(𝑉𝑞) is an open neighborhood of 𝑝. Since 𝜕Ω1 is real-analytic, choose a biholomorphism 𝜂1:𝑁1→𝑉𝑝 from a region 𝑁1∋0 onto a neighborhood 𝑉𝑝∋𝑝 contained in 𝜑−1(𝑉𝑞), with 𝜂1(0)=𝑝 and 𝜂1(𝑁1∩ℝ)=𝑉𝑝∩𝜕Ω1. Set 𝜙=𝜂1−1:𝑉𝑝→𝑁1. Denote by 𝑁1+ the component of 𝑁1∖ℝ whose image under 𝜂1 is 𝑉𝑝∩Ω1. See Figure 9.10Figure 9.10Figure 9.10.

By construction 𝜑(𝑉𝑝∩Ω1‾)⊆𝑉𝑞, so the composition 𝐹=𝜓∘𝜑∘𝜂1 is defined on

𝑁1+∪(𝑁1∩ℝ).(the striped region with the thick line inFigure 9.10Figure 9.10Figure 9.10)

On 𝑁1+, 𝜂1 maps to 𝑉𝑝∩Ω1 on which 𝜑 is holomorphic, and 𝜑∘𝜂1 maps to a subset of 𝑉𝑞∩Ω2, on which 𝜓 is holomorphic, so 𝐹 is holomorphic on 𝑁1+ (the regions mapped from here are visualized in Figure 9.10Figure 9.10Figure 9.10 with striped lines). By Osgood–Taylor–Carathéodory (Theorem 9.3.3Theorem 9.3.3Theorem 9.3.3), 𝐹 is continuous up to 𝑁1∩ℝ with

𝐹(𝑁1∩ℝ)=𝜓(𝜑(𝜂1(𝑁1∩ℝ)))⊆𝜓(𝑉𝑞∩𝜕Ω2)=𝑁2∩ℝ.

Since 𝜓(𝑉𝑞∩Ω2) is connected and disjoint from ℝ, the image 𝐹(𝑁1+)⊂𝜓(𝑉𝑞∩Ω2) lies entirely in one component of ℂ∖ℝ; without loss of generality 𝐹(𝑁1+)⊂ℍ+.

Thus 𝐹:𝑁1+→ℍ+ is univalent, continuous up to 𝑁1∩ℝ, and real-valued there. The Schwarz Reflection Principle (Theorem 5.5.2Theorem 5.5.2Theorem 5.5.2) extends 𝐹 biholomorphically to

𝑈=𝑁1+∪(𝑁1∩ℝ)∪{𝑧‾:𝑧∈𝑁1+}

an open neighborhood of 0, and maps to

𝑉=𝐹(𝑁1+)∪𝐹(𝑁1∩ℝ)∪{𝑧‾:𝑧∈𝐹(𝑁1+)}∋0.

Setting

𝑊𝑝=𝜂1(𝑈∩𝐹−1(𝑉∩𝑁2)∩𝑁1)

(the ⋅∩𝑁1 is added here to ensure that the region in the parenthesis is in the domain of 𝜂1), an open neighborhood of 𝑝, the map

𝜑𝑝=𝜂2∘𝐹∘𝜙:𝑊𝑝→ℂ

is holomorphic and agrees with 𝜑 on 𝑊𝑝∩Ω1. To justify the domain restrictions, observe that applying 𝜙 on 𝑊𝑝 gives 𝑈∩𝐹−1(𝑉∩𝑁2)∩𝑁1, and 𝐹 is defined thereon (since it is a subset of 𝑈), and maps to a subset of 𝑉∩𝑁2, on which 𝜂 is defined.

The main observation here is that each composition will map open sets to open sets and vice versa (although we are being a bit pedantic).

Applying this construction at every 𝑧∈𝜕Ω1 yields an open neighborhood 𝑊𝑧∋𝑧 and a holomorphic map 𝜑𝑧 extending 𝜑|Ω1‾.

The collection of all 𝑊𝑧’s form an open cover of 𝜕Ω1; thus the Heine–Borel Theorem (Theorem 1.1.9Theorem 1.1.9Theorem 1.1.9) gives the existence of a finite subcover 𝒲︀={𝑊𝑧𝑘}𝑘 where each 𝑧𝑘∈𝜕Ω1.

For two sets 𝑊1,𝑊2∈𝒲︀ where 𝑊1∩𝑊2≠⌀, both 𝜑𝑧1 and 𝜑𝑧2 agree with 𝜑 on the nonempty open connected set 𝑊𝑧1∩𝑊𝑧2∩Ω1, so the Identity Theorem (Theorem 3.3.3Theorem 3.3.3Theorem 3.3.3) gives 𝜑𝑧1≡𝜑𝑧2 on 𝑊𝑧1∩𝑊𝑧2.

The local extensions are therefore mutually consistent and, together with 𝜑|Ω1, define a holomorphic extension of 𝜑 to the open neighborhood Ω1∪⋃𝑊∈𝒲︀𝑊. ⁠□