The Pseudo-Hyperbolic Metric

and Lindelöf’s Inequality

In this document we aim to prove Lindelöf’s inequality which states that every holomorphic
function f : ∆ → ∆ satisfies

|f (0)| − |z| |f (0)| + |z|

≤ |f (z)| ≤ for all z ∈ ∆.
1 − |f (0)||z| 1 + |f (0)||z|

Before the proof however, we proceed with a few preliminaries. To begin, for z, a ∈ ∆
define the pseudo-hyperbolic metric on ∆ to be

z−a
d∆ (z, a) = |ϕa (z)| = .
1 − āz

Observe that if f : ∆ → ∆ is holomorphic then by the Schwarz-Pick Theorem

f (z) − f (a) z−a

d∆ (f (z), f (a)) = ≤ = d∆ (z, a)
1 − f (a)f (z) 1 − āz
and if f ∈ Aut(∆) then equality holds, i.e.

d∆ (f (z), f (a)) = d(z, a) for all z, a ∈ ∆.

Theorem 1. d∆ is a metric

Proof. Let z, a ∈ ∆. For ease of notation, we will omit the subscript ∆ and use d to denote
d∆ . That d(z, a) ≥ 0 is clear, as is the fact that d(z, a) = 0 if and only if z = a.

To see that d(z, a) = d(a, z) simply observe that

z−a a−z
d(z, a) = |ϕa (z)| = and d(a, z) = |ϕz (a)| = . (1)
1 − āz 1 − z̄a

1
But

|1 − āz|2 = (1 − āz)(1 − az̄)

= (1 − z̄a)(1 − zā)
= |1 − z̄a|2

and so |1 − āz| = |1 − z̄a|. This implies, referring back to (1), that d(z, a) = d(a, z).

It remains to show the triangle inequality, and we claim it suffices to prove

d(t1 , t2 ) ≤ |t1 | + |t2 |, for all t1 , t2 ∈ ∆. (2)

Indeed for z, w, a ∈ ∆, the triangle inequality d(z, w) ≤ d(z, a) + d(a, w) holds if and only
if d(ϕa (z), ϕa (w)) ≤ d(ϕa (z), 0) + d(0, ϕa (w)) since ϕa ∈ Aut(∆) and ϕa (a) = 0. Letting
t1 = ϕa (z) and t2 = ϕa (w), this becomes d(t1 , t2 ) ≤ d(t1 , 0) + d(0, t2 ) which is precisely (2)
since d(z, 0) = |z| for any z ∈ ∆.

Thus our goal is to prove (2), but in fact we aim to prove a much stronger result, namely:

Theorem 2. For any t1 , t2 ∈ ∆,

|t1 | + |t2 |
d(t1 , t2 ) ≤
1 + |t1 ||t2 |.

This of course implies (2) since 1/(1 + |t1 ||t2 |) ≤ 1. To prove Theorem 2, we begin by
observing that

2
2 t1 − t2
1 − d(t1 , t2 ) = 1 −
1 − t1 t̄2
(1 − t1 t̄2 )(1 − t̄1 t2 ) − (t1 − t2 )(t̄1 − t̄2 )
=
|1 − t1 t̄2 |2
(1 − |t1 |2 )(1 − |t2 |2 )
=
|1 − t1 t̄2 |2
(1 − |t1 |2 )(1 − |t2 |2 )
≥ , (3)
(1 + |t1 ||t2 |)2

where the last line follows from the triangle inequality. We also compute the following:

2
 |t1 | − (−|t2 |)
d(|t1 |, −|t2 |) =
1 − |t1 |(−|t2 |)
|t1 | + |t2 |
=
1 + |t1 ||t2 |
|t1 | + |t2 |
=
1 + |t1 ||t2 |

and so

2
(1 − |t1 |2 )(1 − |t2 |2 )

2 |t1 | + |t2 |
1 − d(|t1 |, −|t2 |) = 1 − = .
1 + |t1 ||t2 | (1 + |t1 ||t2 |)2

Comparing the previous line with (3) we see that

1 − d(t1 , t2 )2 ≥ 1 − d(|t1 |, −|t2 |)2

which implies

|t1 | + |t2 |
d(t1 , t2 ) ≤ d(|t1 |, −|t2 |) = .
1 + |t1 ||t2 |
This proves Theorem 2 and hence Theorem 1 as well.

Our next goal is to prove Lindelöf’s Inequality as stated previously, but first we derive one
more inequality concerning the metric d.

Claim: For all z, a ∈ ∆, the pseudo-hyperbolic metric d satisfies

d(|z|, |a|) ≤ d(z, a) ≤ d(|z|, −|a|).

Proof. We need only prove the first inequality since the second was verified in the proof of
Theorem 2. To this end, note that

|z| − |a| ||z| − |a||

d(|z|, |a|) = =
1 − |z||a| 1 − |z||a|

3
and so
||z| − |a||2
1 − d(|z|, |a|)2 = 1 −
(1 − |z||a|)2
(|z| − |a|)(|z̄| − |ā|)
=1−
(1 − |z||a|)2
(|z| − |a|)(|z| − |a|)
=1−
(1 − |z||a|)2
(1 − |z|2 )(1 − |a|2 )
= . (4)
(1 − |z||a|)2
But the above is less than or equal to 1 − d(z, a)2 . Indeed, consider the following:

(1 − |z|2 )(1 − |a|2 ) (1 − |z|2 )(1 − |a|2 )

1 − d(z, a)2 = 2
≤ = 1 − d(|z|, |a|)2 .
|1 − āz| (1 − |z||a|)2
The leftmost equality was derived in the proof of Theorem 2, and the inequality follows
since |1 − āz| ≥ ||1| − |az̄|| = |1 − |a||z||. Of course the rightmost equality is (4). From this
we conclude d(|z|, |a|) ≤ d(z, a) as desired.

Finally we are ready to derive Lindelöf’s inequality.

Theorem 3 (Lindelöf). If f : ∆ → ∆ is holomorphic then

|f (0)| − |z| |f (0)| + |z|
≤ |f (z)| ≤ for all z ∈ ∆.
1 − |f (0)||z| 1 + |f (0)||z|
Proof. We prove the rightmost inequality first. Let z ∈ ∆. By our claim above we know
that

d(|f (z)|, |f (0)|) ≤ d(f (z), f (0)) ≤ d(|z|, 0)

which by definition of d implies

|f (z)| − |f (0)|
≤ |z| (5)
1 − |f (z)||f (0)|
and so ||f (z)| − |f (0)|| ≤ |z|(1 − |f (z)||f (0)|). Thus

|f (z)| ≤ ||f (z)| − |f (0|| + |f (0)|

≤ |z|(1 − |f (z)||f (0)|) + |f (0)|.

4
Rearranging terms we find that |f (z)|(1 + |z||f (0)|) ≤ |f (0)| + |z| and so

|f (0)| + |z|
|f (z)| ≤
1 + |f (0)||z|
as desired. For the lower bound on |f (z)| observe that (5) implies

|f (0)| ≤ ||f (0)| − |f (z)|| + |f (z)|

≤ |z|(1 − |f (z)||f (0)|) + |f (z)|

and hence, again with some rearranging, |f (0)| + |z||f (z)||f (0)| ≤ |f (z)| + |z| and thus

|f (0)| − |z|
≤ |f (z)|.
1 − |f (0)||z|

We close with one observation, namely that on a qualifying exam one may be asked the
following:

Prove that for a holomorphic map f : ∆ → ∆

|f (0)| − |z| |f (0)| + |z|

≤ |f (z)| ≤ .
1 + |f (0)||z| 1 − |f (0)||z|

Note that this is not the same as Lindelöf’s inequality and is much easier to prove (in the
sense that one doesn’t need to invoke the pseudo-hyperbolic metric d).
z−a
Proof. Let a = f (0) and define F = ϕa ◦f where ϕa (z) = 1−āz for z ∈ ∆. Then F : ∆ → ∆
is holomorphic and satisfies F (0) = 0. Thus by Schwarz’s Lemma, |F (z)| ≤ |z| for all z in
the disc and since F (z) = ϕa (f (z)), this implies

f (z) − f (0)
≤ |z| (6)
1 − f (0)f (z)

where we have substituted f (0) for a. Thus we have

|f (z)| ≤ |f (z) − f (0)| + |f (0)|

≤ |z|(|1 − f (0)f (z)|) + |f (0)|
≤ |z|(1 + |f (0)||f (z)|) + |f (0)|

5
where the last line follows from the triangle inequality. The above is equivalent to

|f (0)| + |z|
|f (z)| ≤ .
1 − |z||f (0)|

Similarly by (6) we can also write

|f (0)| ≤ |f (z) − f (0)| + |f (z)|

≤ |z|(|1 − f (0)f (z)|) + |f (z)|
≤ |z|(1 + |f (0)||f (z)|) + |f (z)|,

thus |f (0)| + |z| ≤ |f (z)|(1 + |z||f (0)|) and so

|f (0)| − |z|
≤ |f (z)|.
1 + |f (0)||z|