Complex Analysis

Chapter VI. The Maximum Modulus Theorem

VI.4. Phragmén-Lindelöf Theorem—Proofs of Theorems

September 22, 2017

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 1 / 13

Table of contents

1 Theorem VI.4.A

2 Theorem VI.4.1. Phragmén-Lindelöf Theorem

3 Corollary VI.4.2

4 Corollary VI.4.4

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 2 / 13

 Theorem VI.4.A

Theorem VI.4.A
Theorem VI.4.A. Suppose f is an entire function, M > 0, and
0 < α < 1. Suppose |f (z)| ≤ M + |z|α for all z ∈ C. Then f is constant.
Z
0 n! f (w )
Proof. We take n = 1 in Corollary VI.2.13: f (a) = dw
2πi γ (w − a)2
where γ(t) = a + re it and 0 ≤ t ≤ 2π.

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 3 / 13

 Theorem VI.4.A

Theorem VI.4.A
Theorem VI.4.A. Suppose f is an entire function, M > 0, and
0 < α < 1. Suppose |f (z)| ≤ M + |z|α for all z ∈ C. Then f is constant.
Z
0 n! f (w )
Proof. We take n = 1 in Corollary VI.2.13: f (a) = dw
2πi γ (w − a)2
where γ(t) = a + re it and 0 ≤ t ≤ 2π. We have
 
|f (w )|
Z Z
0
 n! f (w )  n!
|f (a)| =  
2
dw  ≤
 |dw |
2πi γ (w − a) 2π γ |w − a|2
|f (w )|
Z Z
n! n!
= |dw | ≤ (M + |z|α ) |dw |
2π γ r 2 2πr 2 γ
Z
n!
≤ (M + (|a| + r )α ) |dw | since |w | ≤ |a| + r
2πr 2 γ
n!
= 2πr (M + (|a| + r )α ).
2πr 2

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 3 / 13

 Theorem VI.4.A

Theorem VI.4.A
Theorem VI.4.A. Suppose f is an entire function, M > 0, and
0 < α < 1. Suppose |f (z)| ≤ M + |z|α for all z ∈ C. Then f is constant.
Z
0 n! f (w )
Proof. We take n = 1 in Corollary VI.2.13: f (a) = dw
2πi γ (w − a)2
where γ(t) = a + re it and 0 ≤ t ≤ 2π. We have
 
|f (w )|
Z Z
0
 n! f (w )  n!
|f (a)| =  
2
dw  ≤
 |dw |
2πi γ (w − a) 2π γ |w − a|2
|f (w )|
Z Z
n! n!
= |dw | ≤ (M + |z|α ) |dw |
2π γ r 2 2πr 2 γ
Z
n!
≤ (M + (|a| + r )α ) |dw | since |w | ≤ |a| + r
2πr 2 γ
n!
= 2πr (M + (|a| + r )α ).
2πr 2

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 3 / 13

 Theorem VI.4.A

Theorem VI.4.A (continued)

Theorem VI.4.A. Suppose f is an entire function, M > 0, and

0 < α < 1. Suppose |f (z)| ≤ M + |z|α for all z ∈ C. Then f is constant.

Proof (continued). . . .

n!
|f 0 (a)| ≤ 2πr (M + (|a| + r )α ).
2πr 2
Since this holds for arbitrary r (f is entire), then we see that r → ∞
implies that f 0 (a) = 0. Also, a is arbitrary, so f 0 (z) = 0 for all z ∈ C and
hence f is constant.

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 4 / 13

 Theorem VI.4.1. Phragmén-Lindelöf Theorem

Proposition VI.4.1
Theorem VI.4.1. Phragmén-Lindelöf Theorem.
Let G be a simply connected region and let f be an analytic function on
G . Suppose there is an analytic function φ : G → C which is nonzero and
is bounded on G . If M is a constant and ∂∞ G = A ∪ B such that
(a) for every a ∈ A we have lim supz→a |f (z)| ≤ M, and
(b) for every b ∈ B and η > 0, we have
lim supz→b |f (z)||φ(z)|η ≤ M,
then |f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
Proof. Let |ϕ(z)| ≤ κ for all z ∈ G . Since G is simply connected and ϕ is
nonzero on G , then by Corollary IV.6.17, there is a branch of log ϕ(z) on
G . Hence g (z) = exp(η log ϕ(z)) is an analytic branch of (ϕ(z))η for
η > 0, and |g (z)| = |ϕ(z)|η . Define F : G → C as F (z) = f (z)g (z)κ−η .
Then F is analytic on G and |F (z)| ≤ |f (z)|. Now for a ∈ ∂∞ G for which
condition (a) holds, we have lim supz→a |F (z)| ≤ lim supz→∞ |f (z)| ≤ M.
() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 5 / 13
 Theorem VI.4.1. Phragmén-Lindelöf Theorem

Proposition VI.4.1
Theorem VI.4.1. Phragmén-Lindelöf Theorem.
Let G be a simply connected region and let f be an analytic function on
G . Suppose there is an analytic function φ : G → C which is nonzero and
is bounded on G . If M is a constant and ∂∞ G = A ∪ B such that
(a) for every a ∈ A we have lim supz→a |f (z)| ≤ M, and
(b) for every b ∈ B and η > 0, we have
lim supz→b |f (z)||φ(z)|η ≤ M,
then |f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
Proof. Let |ϕ(z)| ≤ κ for all z ∈ G . Since G is simply connected and ϕ is
nonzero on G , then by Corollary IV.6.17, there is a branch of log ϕ(z) on
G . Hence g (z) = exp(η log ϕ(z)) is an analytic branch of (ϕ(z))η for
η > 0, and |g (z)| = |ϕ(z)|η . Define F : G → C as F (z) = f (z)g (z)κ−η .
Then F is analytic on G and |F (z)| ≤ |f (z)|. Now for a ∈ ∂∞ G for which
condition (a) holds, we have lim supz→a |F (z)| ≤ lim supz→∞ |f (z)| ≤ M.
() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 5 / 13
 Theorem VI.4.1. Phragmén-Lindelöf Theorem

Proposition VI.4.1

Proof. For b ∈ ∂∞ G for which condition (b) holds, we have

lim sup |F (z)| = lim sup |f (z)g (z)κ−η | = κ−η lim sup |f (z)||ϕ(z)|η ≤ κ−η M.
z→b z→b z→b

So F satisfies the hypotheses of the Maximum Modulus Theorem—Third

Version (Theorem VI.1.4) with M of Theorem VI.1.4 replaced with
max{M, κ−η M} here. so, by Theorem VI.1.4, |f (z)| ≤ max{M, κ−η M} for
all z ∈ G . So
η
κη

|F (z)| κ
|f (z)| = κη = |F (z)| ≤ max{M, κ−η M}
|g (z)| |ϕ(z)|η |ϕ(z)|

for all z ∈ G and for all η > 0. Letting η → 0+ implies |f (z)| ≤ M for all
z ∈ G.

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 6 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.2

Corollary VI.4.2

Corollary VI.4.2. Let a ≥ 1/2 and let G = {z | |arg(z)| < π/(2a)}.

Suppose that f is analytic on G and suppose there is a constant M such
that lim supz→w |f (z)| ≤ M for all w ∈ ∂G . If there are positive constants
P and b < a such that |f (z)| ≤ P exp(|z|b ) for all z with |z| sufficiently
large, then |f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
Proof. Let 0 < b < c < a and define ϕ(z) = exp(−z c ) for z ∈ G . If
z = re iθ where |θ| < π/(2a), then Re(z c ) = r c cos(cθ). So for z ∈ G ,

|ϕ(z)| = | exp(−z c )| = | exp(Re(−z c ))| = exp(−r c cos(cθ))

when z = re iθ .

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 7 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.2

Corollary VI.4.2

Corollary VI.4.2. Let a ≥ 1/2 and let G = {z | |arg(z)| < π/(2a)}.

Suppose that f is analytic on G and suppose there is a constant M such
that lim supz→w |f (z)| ≤ M for all w ∈ ∂G . If there are positive constants
P and b < a such that |f (z)| ≤ P exp(|z|b ) for all z with |z| sufficiently
large, then |f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
Proof. Let 0 < b < c < a and define ϕ(z) = exp(−z c ) for z ∈ G . If
z = re iθ where |θ| < π/(2a), then Re(z c ) = r c cos(cθ). So for z ∈ G ,

|ϕ(z)| = | exp(−z c )| = | exp(Re(−z c ))| = exp(−r c cos(cθ))

when z = re iθ . Since c < a, cos(cθ) ≥ ρ > 0 for some ρ (since c < a

implies cθ < aθ < a(π/(2a)) = π/2 for z ∈ G ). So
|ϕ(z)| = | exp(−z c )| = exp(−r c cos(cθ)) ≤ exp(−r c ρ) for all z ∈ G , and
ϕ is bounded on G . Also, if η > 0 and z = re iθ is sufficiently large, then

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 7 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.2

Corollary VI.4.2

Corollary VI.4.2. Let a ≥ 1/2 and let G = {z | |arg(z)| < π/(2a)}.

Suppose that f is analytic on G and suppose there is a constant M such
that lim supz→w |f (z)| ≤ M for all w ∈ ∂G . If there are positive constants
P and b < a such that |f (z)| ≤ P exp(|z|b ) for all z with |z| sufficiently
large, then |f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
Proof. Let 0 < b < c < a and define ϕ(z) = exp(−z c ) for z ∈ G . If
z = re iθ where |θ| < π/(2a), then Re(z c ) = r c cos(cθ). So for z ∈ G ,

|ϕ(z)| = | exp(−z c )| = | exp(Re(−z c ))| = exp(−r c cos(cθ))

when z = re iθ . Since c < a, cos(cθ) ≥ ρ > 0 for some ρ (since c < a

implies cθ < aθ < a(π/(2a)) = π/2 for z ∈ G ). So
|ϕ(z)| = | exp(−z c )| = exp(−r c cos(cθ)) ≤ exp(−r c ρ) for all z ∈ G , and
ϕ is bounded on G . Also, if η > 0 and z = re iθ is sufficiently large, then

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 7 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.2

Corollary VI.4.2 (continued)

Proof (continued).

|f (z)||ϕ(z)|η ≤ P exp(|z|b )|ϕ(z)|η by hypothesis

≤ P exp(|z|b )(exp(−r c ρ))η
= P exp(r b − ηr c ρ) since z = re iθ

(the “sufficiently large” is required of z = re iθ to get the bound

|f (z)| ≤ P exp(|z|b ) for z “sufficiently large” as is hypothesized). But
r b − ηr c ρ = r c (r b−c − ηρ). Since b < c, we have b − c < 0 and so
r b−c → 0+ as r → +∞. so we have r b − ηr c ρ − r c (r b−c − ηρ) → −∞ as
r → +∞. Now lim supz→a |f (z)| ≤ M for all a ∈ ∂G by hypothesis. For
b = ∞, lim supz → ∞||f (z)||ϕ(z)|η = limr →∞ P exp(r b − ηr c ρ) = 0 ≤ M.

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 8 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.2

Corollary VI.4.2 (continued)

Proof (continued).

|f (z)||ϕ(z)|η ≤ P exp(|z|b )|ϕ(z)|η by hypothesis

≤ P exp(|z|b )(exp(−r c ρ))η
= P exp(r b − ηr c ρ) since z = re iθ

(the “sufficiently large” is required of z = re iθ to get the bound

|f (z)| ≤ P exp(|z|b ) for z “sufficiently large” as is hypothesized). But
r b − ηr c ρ = r c (r b−c − ηρ). Since b < c, we have b − c < 0 and so
r b−c → 0+ as r → +∞. so we have r b − ηr c ρ − r c (r b−c − ηρ) → −∞ as
r → +∞. Now lim supz→a |f (z)| ≤ M for all a ∈ ∂G by hypothesis. For
b = ∞, lim supz → ∞||f (z)||ϕ(z)|η = limr →∞ P exp(r b − ηr c ρ) = 0 ≤ M.
So f satisfies the hypotheses of the Phragmén-Lindelöf Theorem (as does
nonzero, analytic ϕ), and so |f (z)| ≤ M for z ∈ G .

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 8 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.2

Corollary VI.4.2 (continued)

Proof (continued).

|f (z)||ϕ(z)|η ≤ P exp(|z|b )|ϕ(z)|η by hypothesis

≤ P exp(|z|b )(exp(−r c ρ))η
= P exp(r b − ηr c ρ) since z = re iθ

(the “sufficiently large” is required of z = re iθ to get the bound

|f (z)| ≤ P exp(|z|b ) for z “sufficiently large” as is hypothesized). But
r b − ηr c ρ = r c (r b−c − ηρ). Since b < c, we have b − c < 0 and so
r b−c → 0+ as r → +∞. so we have r b − ηr c ρ − r c (r b−c − ηρ) → −∞ as
r → +∞. Now lim supz→a |f (z)| ≤ M for all a ∈ ∂G by hypothesis. For
b = ∞, lim supz → ∞||f (z)||ϕ(z)|η = limr →∞ P exp(r b − ηr c ρ) = 0 ≤ M.
So f satisfies the hypotheses of the Phragmén-Lindelöf Theorem (as does
nonzero, analytic ϕ), and so |f (z)| ≤ M for z ∈ G .

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 8 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4
Corollary VI.4.4. Let a ≥ 1/2 and let G = {z | arg(z) < π/(2a)}, and
suppose that for every w ∈ ∂G , lim supz→w |f (z)| ≤ M. Moreover, assume
that for every δ > 0 there is a constant P (which may depend on δ) such
that |f (z)| ≤ P exp(δ|z|a ) for z ∈ G and |z| sufficiently large. Then
|f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
Proof. Define F : G → C as F (z) = f (z) exp(−εz 1 ) where ε > 0 is fixed.
If x > 0 and δ satisfies 0 < δ < ε then there is a constant P with
|f (x)| = |f (x) exp(−εx a )|
≤ P exp(δx a ) exp(−εx a ) for x sufficiently large
= P exp((δ − ε)x a ).

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 9 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4
Corollary VI.4.4. Let a ≥ 1/2 and let G = {z | arg(z) < π/(2a)}, and
suppose that for every w ∈ ∂G , lim supz→w |f (z)| ≤ M. Moreover, assume
that for every δ > 0 there is a constant P (which may depend on δ) such
that |f (z)| ≤ P exp(δ|z|a ) for z ∈ G and |z| sufficiently large. Then
|f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
Proof. Define F : G → C as F (z) = f (z) exp(−εz 1 ) where ε > 0 is fixed.
If x > 0 and δ satisfies 0 < δ < ε then there is a constant P with
|f (x)| = |f (x) exp(−εx a )|
≤ P exp(δx a ) exp(−εx a ) for x sufficiently large
= P exp((δ − ε)x a ).
But then |F (x)| → 0 as x → ∞ (x ∈ R). So
M1 = sup{|F (x)| | 0 < x < ∞} < ∞ (since, say, |F (x)| ≤ 1 for x
sufficiently large and then F is continuous on the complement of
“sufficiently large” and so has a MAX there).
() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 9 / 13
 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4
Corollary VI.4.4. Let a ≥ 1/2 and let G = {z | arg(z) < π/(2a)}, and
suppose that for every w ∈ ∂G , lim supz→w |f (z)| ≤ M. Moreover, assume
that for every δ > 0 there is a constant P (which may depend on δ) such
that |f (z)| ≤ P exp(δ|z|a ) for z ∈ G and |z| sufficiently large. Then
|f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
Proof. Define F : G → C as F (z) = f (z) exp(−εz 1 ) where ε > 0 is fixed.
If x > 0 and δ satisfies 0 < δ < ε then there is a constant P with
|f (x)| = |f (x) exp(−εx a )|
≤ P exp(δx a ) exp(−εx a ) for x sufficiently large
= P exp((δ − ε)x a ).
But then |F (x)| → 0 as x → ∞ (x ∈ R). So
M1 = sup{|F (x)| | 0 < x < ∞} < ∞ (since, say, |F (x)| ≤ 1 for x
sufficiently large and then F is continuous on the complement of
“sufficiently large” and so has a MAX there).
() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 9 / 13
 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4 (continued 1)

Proof (continued). Define M2 = max{M1 , M} and
H+ = {z ∈ G | 0 < arg(z) < π/(2a)},
H− = {z ∈ G | −π/(2a) < arg(z) < 0}. Notice that H+ and H− are
sectors which share the boundary {x | 0 < x < ∞}. For any
w ∈ ∂H− ∪ ∂H+ with |arg(w )| = π/(2a) we have

lim sup |F (z)| = lim sup |f (z)|| exp(−εz a )|

z→w z→w
= lim sup |f (z)| exp(Re (−εz a ))
z→w
= lim sup |f (z)| exp(−εr a cos(aθ)) for z = re iθ
z→w
≤ lim sup |f (z)| since − εr z cos(aθ) < 0
z→w
because |zθ| < π/2
≤ M by hypothesis (i.e., definition of M).

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 10 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4 (continued 1)

Proof (continued). Define M2 = max{M1 , M} and
H+ = {z ∈ G | 0 < arg(z) < π/(2a)},
H− = {z ∈ G | −π/(2a) < arg(z) < 0}. Notice that H+ and H− are
sectors which share the boundary {x | 0 < x < ∞}. For any
w ∈ ∂H− ∪ ∂H+ with |arg(w )| = π/(2a) we have

lim sup |F (z)| = lim sup |f (z)|| exp(−εz a )|

z→w z→w
= lim sup |f (z)| exp(Re (−εz a ))
z→w
= lim sup |f (z)| exp(−εr a cos(aθ)) for z = re iθ
z→w
≤ lim sup |f (z)| since − εr z cos(aθ) < 0
z→w
because |zθ| < π/2
≤ M by hypothesis (i.e., definition of M).

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 10 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4 (continued 2)

Proof (continued). So for all w ∈ ∂H− ∪ ∂H+ we have

lim supz→w |f (z)| ≤ M2 . In addition, we claim that the hypothesized
condition |f (z)| ≤ P exp(δ|z|a ) for all z ∈ G and |z| sufficiently large
implies that F satisfies the hypotheses of Corollary VI.4.2. (We have

|f (z)| = |f (z) exp(−εz a )| ≤ P exp(δ|z|a )| exp(−εz a )|

= P exp(δ|z|a ) exp(Re(−εz a ) = P exp(δ|z|z − εRe(z a ))

but this must be less than or equal to P1 exp(|z|b ) for positive P1 and
0 < b < a?)

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 11 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4 (continued 2)

Proof (continued). So for all w ∈ ∂H− ∪ ∂H+ we have

lim supz→w |f (z)| ≤ M2 . In addition, we claim that the hypothesized
condition |f (z)| ≤ P exp(δ|z|a ) for all z ∈ G and |z| sufficiently large
implies that F satisfies the hypotheses of Corollary VI.4.2. (We have

|f (z)| = |f (z) exp(−εz a )| ≤ P exp(δ|z|a )| exp(−εz a )|

= P exp(δ|z|a ) exp(Re(−εz a ) = P exp(δ|z|z − εRe(z a ))

but this must be less than or equal to P1 exp(|z|b ) for positive P1 and
0 < b < a?) So. . . applying Corollary VI.4.2 to F (z) gives |F (z)| ≤ M2 for
all z ∈ H+ ∪ H− . So |f (z)| ≤ M2 for all z ∈ G .

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 11 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4 (continued 2)

Proof (continued). So for all w ∈ ∂H− ∪ ∂H+ we have

lim supz→w |f (z)| ≤ M2 . In addition, we claim that the hypothesized
condition |f (z)| ≤ P exp(δ|z|a ) for all z ∈ G and |z| sufficiently large
implies that F satisfies the hypotheses of Corollary VI.4.2. (We have

|f (z)| = |f (z) exp(−εz a )| ≤ P exp(δ|z|a )| exp(−εz a )|

= P exp(δ|z|a ) exp(Re(−εz a ) = P exp(δ|z|z − εRe(z a ))

but this must be less than or equal to P1 exp(|z|b ) for positive P1 and
0 < b < a?) So. . . applying Corollary VI.4.2 to F (z) gives |F (z)| ≤ M2 for
all z ∈ H+ ∪ H− . So |f (z)| ≤ M2 for all z ∈ G .

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 11 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4 (continued 3)

Proof (continued). We claim that M2 = M. If not, then M1 = M1 > M.
But then we have that |f (z)| assumes its maximum value in G at some
positive real number x ∈ G because limx→∞ |F (x)| = 0 as argued above
and
lim sup |F (x)| = lim sup |f (x)|| exp(−εx a )|
x→0 x→0
= lim sup |f (x)| exp(0) = lim sup |f (x)| ≤ M < M1 ,
x→0 x→0
so |f | as a continuous function on (0, ∞) must attain its supremum over
this set:

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 12 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4 (continued 3)

Proof (continued). We claim that M2 = M. If not, then M1 = M1 > M.
But then we have that |f (z)| assumes its maximum value in G at some
positive real number x ∈ G because limx→∞ |F (x)| = 0 as argued above
and
lim sup |F (x)| = lim sup |f (x)|| exp(−εx a )|
x→0 x→0
= lim sup |f (x)| exp(0) = lim sup |f (x)| ≤ M < M1 ,
x→0 x→0
so |f | as a continuous function on (0, ∞) must attain its supremum over
this set:

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 12 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4 (continued 3)

Proof (continued). We claim that M2 = M. If not, then M1 = M1 > M.
But then we have that |f (z)| assumes its maximum value in G at some
positive real number x ∈ G because limx→∞ |F (x)| = 0 as argued above
and
lim sup |F (x)| = lim sup |f (x)|| exp(−εx a )|
x→0 x→0
= lim sup |f (x)| exp(0) = lim sup |f (x)| ≤ M < M1 ,
x→0 x→0
so |f | as a continuous function on (0, ∞) must attain its supremum over
this set:

() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 12 / 13

 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4 (continued 4)

Corollary VI.4.4. Let a ≥ 1/2 and let G = {z | arg(z) < π/(2a)}, and
suppose that for every w ∈ ∂G , lim supz→w |f (z)| ≤ M. Moreover, assume
that for every δ > 0 there is a constant P (which may depend on δ) such
that |f (z)| ≤ P exp(δ|z|a ) for z ∈ G and |z| sufficiently large. Then
|f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
Proof (continued). But then by the Maximum Modulus Theorem—First
Version (Theorem VI.1.1), f must be a constant and then M = M1 = M2 .
So we have established that M2 = M and |F (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G . That
is,

|f (z)| = |F (z) exp(εz a )| by definition of F

≤ M exp(εRe(z a ))

for all z ∈ G . Since M is independent of ε, we can let arbitrary ε → 0 and

conclude that |f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 13 / 13
 Corollary VI.4.4

Corollary VI.4.4 (continued 4)

Corollary VI.4.4. Let a ≥ 1/2 and let G = {z | arg(z) < π/(2a)}, and
suppose that for every w ∈ ∂G , lim supz→w |f (z)| ≤ M. Moreover, assume
that for every δ > 0 there is a constant P (which may depend on δ) such
that |f (z)| ≤ P exp(δ|z|a ) for z ∈ G and |z| sufficiently large. Then
|f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
Proof (continued). But then by the Maximum Modulus Theorem—First
Version (Theorem VI.1.1), f must be a constant and then M = M1 = M2 .
So we have established that M2 = M and |F (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G . That
is,

|f (z)| = |F (z) exp(εz a )| by definition of F

≤ M exp(εRe(z a ))

for all z ∈ G . Since M is independent of ε, we can let arbitrary ε → 0 and

conclude that |f (z)| ≤ M for all z ∈ G .
() Complex Analysis September 22, 2017 13 / 13