In the case 
, this condition is equivalent to the existence of the limit
.
Indeed, if this limit is 
, then the 
-linear map in the above definition is just multiplication by 
, and vice-versa, any linear map 
 is simply multiplicaton by an element of 
, which is then the limit.
Proposition (Osgood's lemma):
Let 
 be a continuous function.
 
The Cauchy–Riemann equations
Suppose that 
 is a function which is complex differentiable in a ball 
, where 
 is an element of 
 and 
 is a small constant (to which we shall refer as a radius).
A complex function can be uniquely written as 
, where 
 and 
 are functions 
. The function 
 corresponds to the real part of 
, whereas the function 
 corresponds to the imaginary part of 
, so that for all 
, 
.
Now since 
 was supposed to be complex differentiable, it was supposed not to matter from which direction 
 approaches 
. In particular, 
 may approach 
 along the 
-axis of the complex plane

or the 
-axis (which is defined in a similar way).
Definition (Cauchy–Riemann equations):
 
Theorem (Cauchy–Riemann equations):
Let 
 be a continuously differentiable function and 
. Then 
 is holomorphic if and only if it satisfies the Cauchy–Riemann equations.
 
Proof: We have, by the Cauchy–Riemann equations and Clairaut's theorem,

and
. 
Note that this means that 
 is a harmonic function.
Computation rules
In the case of real differentiable functions, we have computation rules such as the chain rule, the product rule or even the inverse rule. In the case of complex functions, we have, in fact, precisely the same rules.
Theorem 2.2:
Let 
 be complex functions.
- If 
 and 
 are complex differentiable in 
 and 
, the function 
 is complex differentiable in 
 and 
 (linearity of the derivative) 
- If 
 and 
 are complex differentiable in 
, then so is 
 (pointwise product with respect to complex multiplication!) and we have the product rule 
 
- If 
 is complex differentiable at 
 and 
 is complex differentiable at 
, then 
 is complex differentiable at 
 and we have the chain rule 
 
- If 
 is bijective, complex differentiable in a neighbourhood of 
 and 
, then 
 is differentiable at 
 (inverse rule) 
- If 
 are differentiable at 
 and 
, then 
 (quotient rule) 
 
Proof:
First note that the maps of addition and multiplication

and

are continuous; indeed, let for instance 
 be an open ball. Take 
 such that 
. Now suppose that we have
,
where 
 is to be determined later. Then we have
,
where 
. Upon choosing
,
we obtain by the triangle inequality
,
whence 
 is open. If then 
 is an open set, then 
 will also be open, since 
 is the union of open balls and inverse images under a function commute with unions.
The proof for addition is quite similar.
But from these two it follows that if 
 are functions such that
 and 
,
then

and
;
indeed, this follows from the continuity of 
 and 
 at the respective points. In particular, if 
 is constant (say 
 where 
 is a fixed complex number), we get things like
.
1. Now suppose indeed that 
 (
 open, so that we have a neighbourhood around 
 and the derivative is defined in the sense that the direction in which 
 goes to zero doesn't matter) are differentiable at 
. We will have
.
4. Let indeed 
 be a bijection between 
 and 
 which is differentiable in a neighbourhood of 
. By the inverse function theorem, 
 is real-differentiable at 
, and we have, by the chain rule for real numbers,
 (
 denoting the identity matrix in 
 and the primes (e.g. 
) denoting the Jacobian matrices of the functions 
 seen as functions 
, "
" denoting matrix multiplication),
since we may just differentiate the function 
. However, regarding 
 and 
 as 
-algebras (or as rings; it doesn't matter for our purposes), we have a morphism of algebras (or rings)
.
Moreover, due to the Cauchy
Holomorphic (and meromorphic) functions
Let 
 be an open subset of the complex plane, and let 
 be a function which is complex differentiable in 
 (that means, in every point of 
). Then we call 
 holomorphic in 
.
If 
 happens to be, in fact, equal to 
, so that 
 is complex differentiable at every complex number, 
 is called an entire function. We will see examples of entire functions in the chapter on trigonometry, where the exponential, sine and cosine function play central roles. Another important class of entire functions are polynomials.
Polynomials are entire functions
In algebra, one studies polynomial rings such as 
, 
 or, more generally, 
, where 
 is a ring (one then has theorems that "lift" properties of 
 to 
, eg. if 
 is an integral domain, a UFD  or noetherian, then so is 
).
Now all elements of 
 are entire functions. This is seen as follows:
Analogous to real analysis (with exactly the same proof), the function 
 is complex differentiable. Thus, any polynomial
 (
 complex coefficients, ie. constants)
is complex differentiable by linearity.
We may also define 
, an extension of 
 in 
. This extension turns out to be equal to
.
From this, there arises a polynomial ring 
. Let now 
 be any compact subset of the complex plane, or even a bounded subset. Then it is easy to see from direct arguments that with respect to the topology of uniform convergence, 
 is dense in 
. Alternatively, one finds that
Exercises
- Prove that whenever 
 are holomorphic, then 