When proper functions are rational functions.












2















Let $f:mathbb{C}-Arightarrow mathbb{C}$ be analytic and proper, where $A$ is a finite point set in $mathbb{C}$.



I.e. $f^{-1}(C)$ is compact for all compact sets $Csubset mathbb{C}$.



Is it true that $f$ is a rational function, i.e. $f(z)=frac {p(z)}{q(z)}$ for complex polynomials $p(z)$ and $q(z)$, such that $f$ has poles at $A$ and $infty$ ? Does the converse hold as well? I.e. if $f$ is a rational function with poles at $A$ and $infty$, then $f$ is proper.




I am pretty sure this is true, but am new with the concept of poles and am not sure where to start. I would appreciate any hints/help if possible. I apologize for the lack fo work. Thanks in advance!










share|cite|improve this question





























    2















    Let $f:mathbb{C}-Arightarrow mathbb{C}$ be analytic and proper, where $A$ is a finite point set in $mathbb{C}$.



    I.e. $f^{-1}(C)$ is compact for all compact sets $Csubset mathbb{C}$.



    Is it true that $f$ is a rational function, i.e. $f(z)=frac {p(z)}{q(z)}$ for complex polynomials $p(z)$ and $q(z)$, such that $f$ has poles at $A$ and $infty$ ? Does the converse hold as well? I.e. if $f$ is a rational function with poles at $A$ and $infty$, then $f$ is proper.




    I am pretty sure this is true, but am new with the concept of poles and am not sure where to start. I would appreciate any hints/help if possible. I apologize for the lack fo work. Thanks in advance!










    share|cite|improve this question



























      2












      2








      2








      Let $f:mathbb{C}-Arightarrow mathbb{C}$ be analytic and proper, where $A$ is a finite point set in $mathbb{C}$.



      I.e. $f^{-1}(C)$ is compact for all compact sets $Csubset mathbb{C}$.



      Is it true that $f$ is a rational function, i.e. $f(z)=frac {p(z)}{q(z)}$ for complex polynomials $p(z)$ and $q(z)$, such that $f$ has poles at $A$ and $infty$ ? Does the converse hold as well? I.e. if $f$ is a rational function with poles at $A$ and $infty$, then $f$ is proper.




      I am pretty sure this is true, but am new with the concept of poles and am not sure where to start. I would appreciate any hints/help if possible. I apologize for the lack fo work. Thanks in advance!










      share|cite|improve this question
















      Let $f:mathbb{C}-Arightarrow mathbb{C}$ be analytic and proper, where $A$ is a finite point set in $mathbb{C}$.



      I.e. $f^{-1}(C)$ is compact for all compact sets $Csubset mathbb{C}$.



      Is it true that $f$ is a rational function, i.e. $f(z)=frac {p(z)}{q(z)}$ for complex polynomials $p(z)$ and $q(z)$, such that $f$ has poles at $A$ and $infty$ ? Does the converse hold as well? I.e. if $f$ is a rational function with poles at $A$ and $infty$, then $f$ is proper.




      I am pretty sure this is true, but am new with the concept of poles and am not sure where to start. I would appreciate any hints/help if possible. I apologize for the lack fo work. Thanks in advance!







      complex-analysis






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 29 '18 at 3:28







      Math is Life

















      asked Nov 29 '18 at 1:53









      Math is LifeMath is Life

      574




      574






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          The first part is not true without $f$ also being holomorphic. To see this, observe that if any such proper map existed at all, holomorphic or not, we could turn it into a non-holomorphic map by adding a radial bump function around some far away point. This is still proper since we're changing nothing in most places, and if we do this radially, the pre-image of any non-zero point is changed only by adding some small circle, which is compact. Bump functions are not real analytic, so this means that we must assume your map is holomorphic.



          So we'll assume $f$ is holomorphic.



          View $f$ as a map from the Riemann sphere $mathbb{CP}^1 to mathbb{CP}^1$. This is possible since the extension of $f$ to the sphere cannot have an essential singularity at $infty$, as Picard's theorem would imply $f$ is not proper (preimage of any point is now an infinite set). Now that the map is holomorphic, it is a rational function, as all holomorphic maps from the sphere to itself are rational functions, or is identically $infty$. This is elementary enough, so I'll explain why below, if you'd like to see a proof.



          There are at most finitely many zeros and poles of this map, if it is not identically $0$ or $infty$. This is because infinitely many such points plus the compactness of the sphere would give a subsequence converging to something in the sphere along which the function would be $0$ or $infty$, and the identity theorem forbids this. Now let $g(z) = prod(z-a_i)$, where the $a_i$ are the poles. We are not assuming all of these are distinct, as poles can have order bigger than $1$. We can consider the product $h(z) = f(z)g(z)$. This is also a holomorphic function from the sphere to itself as $f$ and $g$ are. However, $h$ has a finite value at every pole of $f$ by construction of $g$.



          Now this implies that $h$ is a polynomial in $z$. To see this, work in the coordinates on the sphere containing $0$ and not $infty$. At every finite value, $h$ is finite. At $infty$, we either have $h(infty) neq infty$, in which case, compactness of the sphere plus the maximum modulus principle implies $h$ is constant, and it is a polynomial, or $h(infty) = infty$.



          Now let's switch to looking near $infty$, and consider $tilde{h}(w) = 1/(h(1/w)$ near $0$. Clearly $tilde{h}(0) = 0$. Now let $n$ be the order of $0$ at $0$, so that $tilde{h}(w)$ can be written as $tilde{h}(w) = sum_{k=n}^infty a_k w^k$. We get a $delta>0$ so that when $|w| < delta$, $|tilde{h}(w)| geq |a_nw^n|/2$.



          For $h$, this means that $|z| geq 1/delta$ implies $|g(z)| leq 2 |z^n|/|a_n|$. Now we use the integral formula for $j > n$ around a contour $gamma$ containing a ball of radius $R > 0$, and we get:



          $$g^{(j)}(0) = frac{j!}{2 pi i} int_{gamma} frac{g(z)}{z^{j+1}} dz $$



          Now taking $R > 1/delta$ and taking norms, we get the estimate using $LM$ (length times maximum value):



          $$|g^{(j)}(0)| leq frac{ j}{2 pi |a_n|} int_gamma frac{|z|^n}{|z^{j+1}|} dz leq frac{2j!}{ |a_n|R^{j-n}} $$



          Taking $R to infty$ now, we see that for $j geq n+1$, the derivatives all identically vanish (note that we're just imitating the proof of Liouville's theorem here), and this establishes $h$ is a polynomial.



          Now that we've established $h$ is a polynomial, $h = fg$ implies $f = h/g$, and $g$ is clearly a polynomial. This completes the proof.






          share|cite|improve this answer























          • I'm not immediately sure about the converse right now.
            – Alfred Yerger
            Nov 29 '18 at 3:24



















          2














          For the easy direction, suppose $f$ has poles at $A$ and $infty$, and let $N>0$. Then $frac{1}{f}$ is continuous there with value $0$, so there is an open set around each point in this finite collection in which $frac{1}{f}$ takes values of magnitude at most $frac{1}{N}$. Then $f^{-1}(B_N(0))$ is a subset of the complement of these open sets, which is compact, so $f$ is proper.






          share|cite|improve this answer





















            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018042%2fwhen-proper-functions-are-rational-functions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3














            The first part is not true without $f$ also being holomorphic. To see this, observe that if any such proper map existed at all, holomorphic or not, we could turn it into a non-holomorphic map by adding a radial bump function around some far away point. This is still proper since we're changing nothing in most places, and if we do this radially, the pre-image of any non-zero point is changed only by adding some small circle, which is compact. Bump functions are not real analytic, so this means that we must assume your map is holomorphic.



            So we'll assume $f$ is holomorphic.



            View $f$ as a map from the Riemann sphere $mathbb{CP}^1 to mathbb{CP}^1$. This is possible since the extension of $f$ to the sphere cannot have an essential singularity at $infty$, as Picard's theorem would imply $f$ is not proper (preimage of any point is now an infinite set). Now that the map is holomorphic, it is a rational function, as all holomorphic maps from the sphere to itself are rational functions, or is identically $infty$. This is elementary enough, so I'll explain why below, if you'd like to see a proof.



            There are at most finitely many zeros and poles of this map, if it is not identically $0$ or $infty$. This is because infinitely many such points plus the compactness of the sphere would give a subsequence converging to something in the sphere along which the function would be $0$ or $infty$, and the identity theorem forbids this. Now let $g(z) = prod(z-a_i)$, where the $a_i$ are the poles. We are not assuming all of these are distinct, as poles can have order bigger than $1$. We can consider the product $h(z) = f(z)g(z)$. This is also a holomorphic function from the sphere to itself as $f$ and $g$ are. However, $h$ has a finite value at every pole of $f$ by construction of $g$.



            Now this implies that $h$ is a polynomial in $z$. To see this, work in the coordinates on the sphere containing $0$ and not $infty$. At every finite value, $h$ is finite. At $infty$, we either have $h(infty) neq infty$, in which case, compactness of the sphere plus the maximum modulus principle implies $h$ is constant, and it is a polynomial, or $h(infty) = infty$.



            Now let's switch to looking near $infty$, and consider $tilde{h}(w) = 1/(h(1/w)$ near $0$. Clearly $tilde{h}(0) = 0$. Now let $n$ be the order of $0$ at $0$, so that $tilde{h}(w)$ can be written as $tilde{h}(w) = sum_{k=n}^infty a_k w^k$. We get a $delta>0$ so that when $|w| < delta$, $|tilde{h}(w)| geq |a_nw^n|/2$.



            For $h$, this means that $|z| geq 1/delta$ implies $|g(z)| leq 2 |z^n|/|a_n|$. Now we use the integral formula for $j > n$ around a contour $gamma$ containing a ball of radius $R > 0$, and we get:



            $$g^{(j)}(0) = frac{j!}{2 pi i} int_{gamma} frac{g(z)}{z^{j+1}} dz $$



            Now taking $R > 1/delta$ and taking norms, we get the estimate using $LM$ (length times maximum value):



            $$|g^{(j)}(0)| leq frac{ j}{2 pi |a_n|} int_gamma frac{|z|^n}{|z^{j+1}|} dz leq frac{2j!}{ |a_n|R^{j-n}} $$



            Taking $R to infty$ now, we see that for $j geq n+1$, the derivatives all identically vanish (note that we're just imitating the proof of Liouville's theorem here), and this establishes $h$ is a polynomial.



            Now that we've established $h$ is a polynomial, $h = fg$ implies $f = h/g$, and $g$ is clearly a polynomial. This completes the proof.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • I'm not immediately sure about the converse right now.
              – Alfred Yerger
              Nov 29 '18 at 3:24
















            3














            The first part is not true without $f$ also being holomorphic. To see this, observe that if any such proper map existed at all, holomorphic or not, we could turn it into a non-holomorphic map by adding a radial bump function around some far away point. This is still proper since we're changing nothing in most places, and if we do this radially, the pre-image of any non-zero point is changed only by adding some small circle, which is compact. Bump functions are not real analytic, so this means that we must assume your map is holomorphic.



            So we'll assume $f$ is holomorphic.



            View $f$ as a map from the Riemann sphere $mathbb{CP}^1 to mathbb{CP}^1$. This is possible since the extension of $f$ to the sphere cannot have an essential singularity at $infty$, as Picard's theorem would imply $f$ is not proper (preimage of any point is now an infinite set). Now that the map is holomorphic, it is a rational function, as all holomorphic maps from the sphere to itself are rational functions, or is identically $infty$. This is elementary enough, so I'll explain why below, if you'd like to see a proof.



            There are at most finitely many zeros and poles of this map, if it is not identically $0$ or $infty$. This is because infinitely many such points plus the compactness of the sphere would give a subsequence converging to something in the sphere along which the function would be $0$ or $infty$, and the identity theorem forbids this. Now let $g(z) = prod(z-a_i)$, where the $a_i$ are the poles. We are not assuming all of these are distinct, as poles can have order bigger than $1$. We can consider the product $h(z) = f(z)g(z)$. This is also a holomorphic function from the sphere to itself as $f$ and $g$ are. However, $h$ has a finite value at every pole of $f$ by construction of $g$.



            Now this implies that $h$ is a polynomial in $z$. To see this, work in the coordinates on the sphere containing $0$ and not $infty$. At every finite value, $h$ is finite. At $infty$, we either have $h(infty) neq infty$, in which case, compactness of the sphere plus the maximum modulus principle implies $h$ is constant, and it is a polynomial, or $h(infty) = infty$.



            Now let's switch to looking near $infty$, and consider $tilde{h}(w) = 1/(h(1/w)$ near $0$. Clearly $tilde{h}(0) = 0$. Now let $n$ be the order of $0$ at $0$, so that $tilde{h}(w)$ can be written as $tilde{h}(w) = sum_{k=n}^infty a_k w^k$. We get a $delta>0$ so that when $|w| < delta$, $|tilde{h}(w)| geq |a_nw^n|/2$.



            For $h$, this means that $|z| geq 1/delta$ implies $|g(z)| leq 2 |z^n|/|a_n|$. Now we use the integral formula for $j > n$ around a contour $gamma$ containing a ball of radius $R > 0$, and we get:



            $$g^{(j)}(0) = frac{j!}{2 pi i} int_{gamma} frac{g(z)}{z^{j+1}} dz $$



            Now taking $R > 1/delta$ and taking norms, we get the estimate using $LM$ (length times maximum value):



            $$|g^{(j)}(0)| leq frac{ j}{2 pi |a_n|} int_gamma frac{|z|^n}{|z^{j+1}|} dz leq frac{2j!}{ |a_n|R^{j-n}} $$



            Taking $R to infty$ now, we see that for $j geq n+1$, the derivatives all identically vanish (note that we're just imitating the proof of Liouville's theorem here), and this establishes $h$ is a polynomial.



            Now that we've established $h$ is a polynomial, $h = fg$ implies $f = h/g$, and $g$ is clearly a polynomial. This completes the proof.






            share|cite|improve this answer























            • I'm not immediately sure about the converse right now.
              – Alfred Yerger
              Nov 29 '18 at 3:24














            3












            3








            3






            The first part is not true without $f$ also being holomorphic. To see this, observe that if any such proper map existed at all, holomorphic or not, we could turn it into a non-holomorphic map by adding a radial bump function around some far away point. This is still proper since we're changing nothing in most places, and if we do this radially, the pre-image of any non-zero point is changed only by adding some small circle, which is compact. Bump functions are not real analytic, so this means that we must assume your map is holomorphic.



            So we'll assume $f$ is holomorphic.



            View $f$ as a map from the Riemann sphere $mathbb{CP}^1 to mathbb{CP}^1$. This is possible since the extension of $f$ to the sphere cannot have an essential singularity at $infty$, as Picard's theorem would imply $f$ is not proper (preimage of any point is now an infinite set). Now that the map is holomorphic, it is a rational function, as all holomorphic maps from the sphere to itself are rational functions, or is identically $infty$. This is elementary enough, so I'll explain why below, if you'd like to see a proof.



            There are at most finitely many zeros and poles of this map, if it is not identically $0$ or $infty$. This is because infinitely many such points plus the compactness of the sphere would give a subsequence converging to something in the sphere along which the function would be $0$ or $infty$, and the identity theorem forbids this. Now let $g(z) = prod(z-a_i)$, where the $a_i$ are the poles. We are not assuming all of these are distinct, as poles can have order bigger than $1$. We can consider the product $h(z) = f(z)g(z)$. This is also a holomorphic function from the sphere to itself as $f$ and $g$ are. However, $h$ has a finite value at every pole of $f$ by construction of $g$.



            Now this implies that $h$ is a polynomial in $z$. To see this, work in the coordinates on the sphere containing $0$ and not $infty$. At every finite value, $h$ is finite. At $infty$, we either have $h(infty) neq infty$, in which case, compactness of the sphere plus the maximum modulus principle implies $h$ is constant, and it is a polynomial, or $h(infty) = infty$.



            Now let's switch to looking near $infty$, and consider $tilde{h}(w) = 1/(h(1/w)$ near $0$. Clearly $tilde{h}(0) = 0$. Now let $n$ be the order of $0$ at $0$, so that $tilde{h}(w)$ can be written as $tilde{h}(w) = sum_{k=n}^infty a_k w^k$. We get a $delta>0$ so that when $|w| < delta$, $|tilde{h}(w)| geq |a_nw^n|/2$.



            For $h$, this means that $|z| geq 1/delta$ implies $|g(z)| leq 2 |z^n|/|a_n|$. Now we use the integral formula for $j > n$ around a contour $gamma$ containing a ball of radius $R > 0$, and we get:



            $$g^{(j)}(0) = frac{j!}{2 pi i} int_{gamma} frac{g(z)}{z^{j+1}} dz $$



            Now taking $R > 1/delta$ and taking norms, we get the estimate using $LM$ (length times maximum value):



            $$|g^{(j)}(0)| leq frac{ j}{2 pi |a_n|} int_gamma frac{|z|^n}{|z^{j+1}|} dz leq frac{2j!}{ |a_n|R^{j-n}} $$



            Taking $R to infty$ now, we see that for $j geq n+1$, the derivatives all identically vanish (note that we're just imitating the proof of Liouville's theorem here), and this establishes $h$ is a polynomial.



            Now that we've established $h$ is a polynomial, $h = fg$ implies $f = h/g$, and $g$ is clearly a polynomial. This completes the proof.






            share|cite|improve this answer














            The first part is not true without $f$ also being holomorphic. To see this, observe that if any such proper map existed at all, holomorphic or not, we could turn it into a non-holomorphic map by adding a radial bump function around some far away point. This is still proper since we're changing nothing in most places, and if we do this radially, the pre-image of any non-zero point is changed only by adding some small circle, which is compact. Bump functions are not real analytic, so this means that we must assume your map is holomorphic.



            So we'll assume $f$ is holomorphic.



            View $f$ as a map from the Riemann sphere $mathbb{CP}^1 to mathbb{CP}^1$. This is possible since the extension of $f$ to the sphere cannot have an essential singularity at $infty$, as Picard's theorem would imply $f$ is not proper (preimage of any point is now an infinite set). Now that the map is holomorphic, it is a rational function, as all holomorphic maps from the sphere to itself are rational functions, or is identically $infty$. This is elementary enough, so I'll explain why below, if you'd like to see a proof.



            There are at most finitely many zeros and poles of this map, if it is not identically $0$ or $infty$. This is because infinitely many such points plus the compactness of the sphere would give a subsequence converging to something in the sphere along which the function would be $0$ or $infty$, and the identity theorem forbids this. Now let $g(z) = prod(z-a_i)$, where the $a_i$ are the poles. We are not assuming all of these are distinct, as poles can have order bigger than $1$. We can consider the product $h(z) = f(z)g(z)$. This is also a holomorphic function from the sphere to itself as $f$ and $g$ are. However, $h$ has a finite value at every pole of $f$ by construction of $g$.



            Now this implies that $h$ is a polynomial in $z$. To see this, work in the coordinates on the sphere containing $0$ and not $infty$. At every finite value, $h$ is finite. At $infty$, we either have $h(infty) neq infty$, in which case, compactness of the sphere plus the maximum modulus principle implies $h$ is constant, and it is a polynomial, or $h(infty) = infty$.



            Now let's switch to looking near $infty$, and consider $tilde{h}(w) = 1/(h(1/w)$ near $0$. Clearly $tilde{h}(0) = 0$. Now let $n$ be the order of $0$ at $0$, so that $tilde{h}(w)$ can be written as $tilde{h}(w) = sum_{k=n}^infty a_k w^k$. We get a $delta>0$ so that when $|w| < delta$, $|tilde{h}(w)| geq |a_nw^n|/2$.



            For $h$, this means that $|z| geq 1/delta$ implies $|g(z)| leq 2 |z^n|/|a_n|$. Now we use the integral formula for $j > n$ around a contour $gamma$ containing a ball of radius $R > 0$, and we get:



            $$g^{(j)}(0) = frac{j!}{2 pi i} int_{gamma} frac{g(z)}{z^{j+1}} dz $$



            Now taking $R > 1/delta$ and taking norms, we get the estimate using $LM$ (length times maximum value):



            $$|g^{(j)}(0)| leq frac{ j}{2 pi |a_n|} int_gamma frac{|z|^n}{|z^{j+1}|} dz leq frac{2j!}{ |a_n|R^{j-n}} $$



            Taking $R to infty$ now, we see that for $j geq n+1$, the derivatives all identically vanish (note that we're just imitating the proof of Liouville's theorem here), and this establishes $h$ is a polynomial.



            Now that we've established $h$ is a polynomial, $h = fg$ implies $f = h/g$, and $g$ is clearly a polynomial. This completes the proof.







            share|cite|improve this answer














            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer








            edited Nov 29 '18 at 3:39

























            answered Nov 29 '18 at 3:17









            Alfred YergerAlfred Yerger

            10.3k2147




            10.3k2147












            • I'm not immediately sure about the converse right now.
              – Alfred Yerger
              Nov 29 '18 at 3:24


















            • I'm not immediately sure about the converse right now.
              – Alfred Yerger
              Nov 29 '18 at 3:24
















            I'm not immediately sure about the converse right now.
            – Alfred Yerger
            Nov 29 '18 at 3:24




            I'm not immediately sure about the converse right now.
            – Alfred Yerger
            Nov 29 '18 at 3:24











            2














            For the easy direction, suppose $f$ has poles at $A$ and $infty$, and let $N>0$. Then $frac{1}{f}$ is continuous there with value $0$, so there is an open set around each point in this finite collection in which $frac{1}{f}$ takes values of magnitude at most $frac{1}{N}$. Then $f^{-1}(B_N(0))$ is a subset of the complement of these open sets, which is compact, so $f$ is proper.






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              2














              For the easy direction, suppose $f$ has poles at $A$ and $infty$, and let $N>0$. Then $frac{1}{f}$ is continuous there with value $0$, so there is an open set around each point in this finite collection in which $frac{1}{f}$ takes values of magnitude at most $frac{1}{N}$. Then $f^{-1}(B_N(0))$ is a subset of the complement of these open sets, which is compact, so $f$ is proper.






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                2












                2








                2






                For the easy direction, suppose $f$ has poles at $A$ and $infty$, and let $N>0$. Then $frac{1}{f}$ is continuous there with value $0$, so there is an open set around each point in this finite collection in which $frac{1}{f}$ takes values of magnitude at most $frac{1}{N}$. Then $f^{-1}(B_N(0))$ is a subset of the complement of these open sets, which is compact, so $f$ is proper.






                share|cite|improve this answer












                For the easy direction, suppose $f$ has poles at $A$ and $infty$, and let $N>0$. Then $frac{1}{f}$ is continuous there with value $0$, so there is an open set around each point in this finite collection in which $frac{1}{f}$ takes values of magnitude at most $frac{1}{N}$. Then $f^{-1}(B_N(0))$ is a subset of the complement of these open sets, which is compact, so $f$ is proper.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Nov 29 '18 at 23:50









                Daniel SpivakDaniel Spivak

                212




                212






























                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3018042%2fwhen-proper-functions-are-rational-functions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Quarter-circle Tiles

                    build a pushdown automaton that recognizes the reverse language of a given pushdown automaton?

                    Mont Emei