TITLE: Showing that $a$ is a removable singularity if $\mathrm{Im}(f(z))$ is bounded from above
QUESTION [8 upvotes]: Problem: Suppose $f$ is analytic on the domain $\Omega$ except at the isolated
  singularity $a \in \Omega$.  Show that $a$ is a removable singularity
  if $\mathrm{Im}(f(z))$ is bounded from above.

Attempt:

We have that $a$ is a removable singularity if and only if we have that
$$
\lim_{z\rightarrow a} (z-a)f(z) =0
$$
Since $\mathrm{Im}(f(z))$ is bounded from above, there exists some $M \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}$ s.t. $\mathrm{Im}(f(z)) \le M$ for all $z \in \Omega$.
If we could show 
$$
\mathrm{Im}(f(z)) \le M \implies |f(z)| \le M_1 \text{ for some } M_1 \in \mathbb{R}_{\ge 0}
$$
then we would immediately have (1) since 
$$
\lim_{z \rightarrow a}|(z-a)f(z)| \le \lim_{z \rightarrow a}|(z-a)|M_1 = 0
$$

Question: Is this the right approach?

REPLY [2 votes]: Holomorphic functions are very very firms. So I thought: there must be a link (beyond Cauchy-Riemann conditions) between the behaviour of the real and the imaginary part of a such function.
Let
$
f:\Omega\setminus\{a\}\longrightarrow\mathbb C
$
be an holomorphic function where $a$ is an isolated singularity and $\exists M\ge0$ s.t. $|v|\le M$ on $\Omega\setminus\{a\}$, with $f=u+iv$.
Then $a$ is a removable singularity.
Let's show that if $a$ is not a removable singularity then $v$ can't be bounded on $\Omega\setminus\{a\}$.
There are only two possibilities for $a$ to be not a removable singularity: be a pole or an essential singularity.

Case 1: $a$ is a pole.
Let's write the Laurent series for $f$ around $a$, pole of order $m$:
$$
f(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{m}\frac{c_{-n}}{(z-a)^n}+
\sum_{n=0}^{+\infty}c_{n}(z-a)^n\;,\;\;\;z\in B(a,r[\setminus\{a\}
$$
where
$$
P_{f,a}(z)=\sum_{n=1}^{m}\frac{c_{-n}}{(z-a)^n}
$$
is the principal (or sometimes singular) part of $f$ around $a$. The name "principal part" is because the nature of the singularity is its her responsability.
Now, $a$ is a pole for $f$ iff $\lim_{z\rightarrow a}f(z)=\infty_{\mathbb C}$, and naturally this holds iff $\lim_{z\rightarrow a}P_{f,a}(z)=\infty_{\mathbb C}$.
Then, being $v$ bounded, $\lim_{z\rightarrow a}f(z)=\infty_{\mathbb C}$ iff $\lim_{z\rightarrow a}u(z)=\infty$ which implies that $\lim_{z\rightarrow a}\Re(P_{f,a}(z))=\infty$. Moreover $v$ bounded implies $\Im P_{f,a}$ bounded.
Let's now reach the contradiction showing by induction on $m$ that
$$
\left.
\begin{array}{lllllll}
(a) \; \lim_{z\rightarrow a}P_{f,a}(z)=\infty_{\mathbb C}\\
(b) \; \lim_{z\rightarrow a}\Re(P_{f,a}(z))=\infty\\
\end{array}
\right\}\Longrightarrow \lim_{z\rightarrow a}\Im(P_{f,a}(z))=\infty\;.
$$
Let us suppose now $m=1,\; z=x+iy,\; a=\alpha+i\beta$.
\begin{align*}
P_{f,a}(z)=&\frac{c_{-1}}{z-a}\\
=&\frac{\Re c_{-1}+i\Im c_{-1}}{(z-a)(\overline{z-a})}\overline{z-a}\\
=&\frac{\Re c_{-1}(x-\alpha)+\Im c_{-1}(y-\beta)}{(x-\alpha)^2+(y-\beta)^2}+
i\frac{\Im c_{-1}(x-\alpha)-\Re c_{-1}(y-\beta)}{(x-\alpha)^2+(y-\beta)^2}
\end{align*}
Then\begin{align*}
\Re(P_{f,a}(z))=&\frac{\Re c_{-1}(x-\alpha)+\Im c_{-1}(y-\beta)}{(x-\alpha)^2+(y-\beta)^2}\\
=&\frac{\Re c_{-1}}{(x-\alpha)+\frac{(y-\beta)^2}{(x-\alpha)}}+
\frac{\Im c_{-1}}{(y-\beta)+\frac{(x-\alpha)^2}{(y-\beta)}}\;;
\end{align*}
and being by hypotesis $\lim_{z\rightarrow a}\Re(P_{f,a}(z))=\infty$, then at least one between 
$\frac{(x-\alpha)^2}{(y-\beta)}$ and $\frac{(y-\beta)^2}{(x-\alpha)}$ must tend to $0$ as $z\rightarrow a$ (equivalently $(x,y)\rightarrow(\alpha,\beta)$). Then we can conclude, with a simmetry argument, that also $\lim_{z\rightarrow a}\Im(P_{f,a}(z))=\infty$.
Note that the role of $c_{-1}$ is not trivial: we have supposed $\Re c_{-1}\neq0\neq\Im c_{-1}$; the other two cases are easier; if $\Re c_{-1}\neq0=\Im c_{-1}$, suppose wlog $c_{-1}=1$ and $a=0$. Then we're facing the case $P_{f,a}(z)=\frac1{z}$. Now $\frac1{z}=\frac{x-iy}{x^2+y^2}=\frac{x}{x^2+y^2}-i\frac{y}{x^2+y^2}$; by hypotesis $\frac{x}{x^2+y^2}\rightarrow\infty$ as $(x,y)\rightarrow(0,0)$. But $a=0\in\Omega$ hence $\exists t>0$ s.t. $B(0,t[\subseteq\Omega$, so we can argue by simmetry to conclude that also $\frac{y}{x^2+y^2}\rightarrow\infty$ as $(x,y)\rightarrow(0,0)$.
The case $\Re c_{-1}=0\neq\Im c_{-1}$ is similar.
Inductive step: call now
$$
P_{f,a}^{m}=\sum_{n=1}^{m}\frac{c_{-n}}{(z-a)^n}
$$
(we only highlight the $m$). So, let the statement true for $P_{f,a}^{m-1}$ and show it holds for $P_{f,a}^{m}$.
$$
P_{f,a}^{m}
=\sum_{n=1}^{m}\frac{c_{-n}}{(z-a)^n}
=\frac{c_{-m}}{(z-a)^m}+P_{f,a}^{m-1}
$$
so
$$
\Re\left(P_{f,a}^{m}\right)
=\Re\left(\frac{c_{-m}}{(z-a)^m}\right)+\Re\left(P_{f,a}^{m-1}\right)\stackrel{z\rightarrow a}{\longrightarrow}\infty
$$
hence exists at least one $k$ in $\{1,\dots,m\}$ s.t. $\Re\left(\frac{c_{-k}}{(z-a)^k}\right)\stackrel{z\rightarrow a}{\longrightarrow}\infty$:
$\bullet$ if $k\le m-1$ then $\Re\left(P_{f,a}^{m-1}\right)\stackrel{z\rightarrow a}{\longrightarrow}\infty$ and by inductive hyp we have 
$\Im\left(P_{f,a}^{m-1}\right)\stackrel{z\rightarrow a}{\longrightarrow}\infty$ and so also $\Im\left(P_{f,a}^{m}\right)\stackrel{z\rightarrow a}{\longrightarrow}\infty$ which concludes.
$\bullet$ if $k=m$, observing that
$
\frac{c_{-m}}{(z-a)^m}=\frac{c_{-m}}{(z-a)^{m-1}}\frac1{z-a}\;
$
we have
\begin{align*}
\Re\left(\frac{c_{-m}}{(z-a)^m}\right)=&
\Re\left(\frac{c_{-m}}{(z-a)^{m-1}}\frac{1}{z-a}\right)\\
=&\underbrace{\Re\left(\frac{c_{-m}}{(z-a)^{m-1}}\right)}_{\xi_1}
\underbrace{\Re\left(\frac1{(z-a)}\right)}_{\xi_2}-
\underbrace{\Im\left(\frac{c_{-m}}{(z-a)^{m-1}}\right)}_{\eta_1}
\underbrace{\Im\left(\frac1{(z-a)}\right)}_{\eta_2}
\end{align*}
which goes to infinity; hence al least one between $\xi_1,\xi_2,\eta_1,\eta_2$ goes to infinity; if were $\xi_{1}$ and/or $\xi_2$ we fall in the previous case then we conclude.
If otherwise were one of the $\eta$'s then $\Im\left(P_{f,a}^{m}\right)\rightarrow\infty$, so we have finished too.
Then we reached the contradiction , so $a$ can't be a pole.

Case 2: $a$ is an essential singularity.
Simply use Casorati-Weierstra$\beta$ theorem: let $U$ be an open nhb of $a$ in $\Omega$. Then $f(U\setminus\{a\})$ is dense in $\mathbb C$, hence $v$ can't be bounded, absurd.

So we proved that the isolated singularity can't be neither a pole nor an essential singularity. Hence it must be a removable singularity.