Alphabeta Math
CorollaryStatement: Literature-sourcedProof: AI-adaptedprecheck passaudited 2026-08-28
How statement and proof provenance work

The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.

  • Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
  • AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
  • AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.

These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.

The argument principle counts preimages of a target value

Statement

Let Ω⊆C be open, let f be meromorphic on Ω, let Γ be admissible for the residue theorem in Ω, and let w∈C satisfy f(z)≠w for every z∈Γ∗. Then

12πi∫Γf′(z)f(z)−w dz=Nw(f,Γ)−P(f,Γ),

where

Nw(f,Γ):=∑f(a)=wn(Γ,a)ord⁡a(f−w)

is the weighted multiplicity count of the preimages of w, and P(f,Γ) is the weighted pole count of f.

In particular, if f is holomorphic on Ω, then the pole term vanishes and the integral counts the preimages of w with multiplicity.

Facts & Assumptions

Given: A meromorphic function f on an open set Ω, an admissible cycle Γ, and a complex number w with f(z)≠w on Γ∗.

[L1]

The argument principle applied to a meromorphic function g gives 12πi∫Γg′(z)g(z) dz=Z(g,Γ)−P(g,Γ) (The argument principle for an admissible null-homologous cycle).

[L2]

Derivatives ignore constants, so (f−w)′=f′ (Linearity, product, reciprocal, and quotient rules for complex derivatives).

Proof

technique · direct
1.1givenL2

Put g:=f−w. Then g is meromorphic on Ω, has the same poles as f, and has no zero on Γ∗ by the hypothesis on w. Its zeros are exactly the points a with f(a)=w.

2.1step 1.1L1L2

Applying [L1] to g and then using [L2] gives 12πi∫Γf′(z)f(z)−w dz=12πi∫Γg′(z)g(z) dz=Z(g,Γ)−P(g,Γ).

3.1step 1.1step 2.1∎

By step 1.1, the zero count Z(g,Γ) is exactly Nw(f,Γ) and the pole count P(g,Γ) is exactly P(f,Γ). Substituting that into step 2.1 proves the formula. If f is holomorphic, then it has no poles, so P(f,Γ)=0.

Depends on

Used by

Dependency tree · two levels

14 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.

Sources