Liouville's theorem for harmonic functions












2












$begingroup$


I was reading the proof of Liouville's theorem for harmonic functions (in $mathbb{R}^n$) in Wikipedia, but I could not understand where do they use in that proof the assumption that $f$ is bounded.



The proof -



enter image description here



Taken from - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_function










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    I was reading the proof of Liouville's theorem for harmonic functions (in $mathbb{R}^n$) in Wikipedia, but I could not understand where do they use in that proof the assumption that $f$ is bounded.



    The proof -



    enter image description here



    Taken from - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_function










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      I was reading the proof of Liouville's theorem for harmonic functions (in $mathbb{R}^n$) in Wikipedia, but I could not understand where do they use in that proof the assumption that $f$ is bounded.



      The proof -



      enter image description here



      Taken from - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_function










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      I was reading the proof of Liouville's theorem for harmonic functions (in $mathbb{R}^n$) in Wikipedia, but I could not understand where do they use in that proof the assumption that $f$ is bounded.



      The proof -



      enter image description here



      Taken from - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_function







      calculus integration multivariable-calculus harmonic-functions






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Jan 5 at 15:45









      ChikChakChikChak

      757418




      757418






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          Jose's answer gives details of Nelson's original reasoning, but they aren't quite the same as the details in the proof on Wikipedia.



          The crucial point in the latter is that we assume, without loss of generality, that $f$ is a nonnegative function (we can assume this because we assumed $f$ is bounded from above or below). Then nonnegativity is used in the first displayed inequality to say that an integral over $B_r(y)$ must be at least as large as the integral over $B_R(x)$, since the latter is a subset of the former.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$





















            2












            $begingroup$

            The boundeness of $f$ is used in the proof of the fact that, given two points $x$ and $y$, the average value of $f$ on a large disk centered at $x$ and the average value of $f$ on a large disk (with the same radius) centered at $y$ will go to the same value as the radius goes to $infty$. When that happens, the symmetric difference of the two discs gets smaller and smaller in proportion to their intersection. Since $f$ is bounded, the average of the function on one disc is then essentially the average of the function on their intersection. Therefore, as the radius goes to infinity, the average over either disc goes to the same number.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$













            • $begingroup$
              So you're saying that the average value goes to a certain value as the radius goes to $infty$ but the average value on a ball centered at $x$ is in fact fixed $f(x)$, and this average property comes from the fact that $f$ is Harmonic, no boundedness is involved. So I don't get you.
              $endgroup$
              – mouthetics
              Jan 5 at 16:54








            • 1




              $begingroup$
              @mouthetics Boundedness is involved when you want to say that the value at $x$ is "essentially" the average over the intersection of the discs (more specifically, that the average over the intersection tends to $f(x)$)
              $endgroup$
              – Wojowu
              Jan 5 at 18:12











            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062845%2fliouvilles-theorem-for-harmonic-functions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3












            $begingroup$

            Jose's answer gives details of Nelson's original reasoning, but they aren't quite the same as the details in the proof on Wikipedia.



            The crucial point in the latter is that we assume, without loss of generality, that $f$ is a nonnegative function (we can assume this because we assumed $f$ is bounded from above or below). Then nonnegativity is used in the first displayed inequality to say that an integral over $B_r(y)$ must be at least as large as the integral over $B_R(x)$, since the latter is a subset of the former.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$


















              3












              $begingroup$

              Jose's answer gives details of Nelson's original reasoning, but they aren't quite the same as the details in the proof on Wikipedia.



              The crucial point in the latter is that we assume, without loss of generality, that $f$ is a nonnegative function (we can assume this because we assumed $f$ is bounded from above or below). Then nonnegativity is used in the first displayed inequality to say that an integral over $B_r(y)$ must be at least as large as the integral over $B_R(x)$, since the latter is a subset of the former.






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$
















                3












                3








                3





                $begingroup$

                Jose's answer gives details of Nelson's original reasoning, but they aren't quite the same as the details in the proof on Wikipedia.



                The crucial point in the latter is that we assume, without loss of generality, that $f$ is a nonnegative function (we can assume this because we assumed $f$ is bounded from above or below). Then nonnegativity is used in the first displayed inequality to say that an integral over $B_r(y)$ must be at least as large as the integral over $B_R(x)$, since the latter is a subset of the former.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$



                Jose's answer gives details of Nelson's original reasoning, but they aren't quite the same as the details in the proof on Wikipedia.



                The crucial point in the latter is that we assume, without loss of generality, that $f$ is a nonnegative function (we can assume this because we assumed $f$ is bounded from above or below). Then nonnegativity is used in the first displayed inequality to say that an integral over $B_r(y)$ must be at least as large as the integral over $B_R(x)$, since the latter is a subset of the former.







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Jan 5 at 16:13









                WojowuWojowu

                17.4k22666




                17.4k22666























                    2












                    $begingroup$

                    The boundeness of $f$ is used in the proof of the fact that, given two points $x$ and $y$, the average value of $f$ on a large disk centered at $x$ and the average value of $f$ on a large disk (with the same radius) centered at $y$ will go to the same value as the radius goes to $infty$. When that happens, the symmetric difference of the two discs gets smaller and smaller in proportion to their intersection. Since $f$ is bounded, the average of the function on one disc is then essentially the average of the function on their intersection. Therefore, as the radius goes to infinity, the average over either disc goes to the same number.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$













                    • $begingroup$
                      So you're saying that the average value goes to a certain value as the radius goes to $infty$ but the average value on a ball centered at $x$ is in fact fixed $f(x)$, and this average property comes from the fact that $f$ is Harmonic, no boundedness is involved. So I don't get you.
                      $endgroup$
                      – mouthetics
                      Jan 5 at 16:54








                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      @mouthetics Boundedness is involved when you want to say that the value at $x$ is "essentially" the average over the intersection of the discs (more specifically, that the average over the intersection tends to $f(x)$)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Wojowu
                      Jan 5 at 18:12
















                    2












                    $begingroup$

                    The boundeness of $f$ is used in the proof of the fact that, given two points $x$ and $y$, the average value of $f$ on a large disk centered at $x$ and the average value of $f$ on a large disk (with the same radius) centered at $y$ will go to the same value as the radius goes to $infty$. When that happens, the symmetric difference of the two discs gets smaller and smaller in proportion to their intersection. Since $f$ is bounded, the average of the function on one disc is then essentially the average of the function on their intersection. Therefore, as the radius goes to infinity, the average over either disc goes to the same number.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$













                    • $begingroup$
                      So you're saying that the average value goes to a certain value as the radius goes to $infty$ but the average value on a ball centered at $x$ is in fact fixed $f(x)$, and this average property comes from the fact that $f$ is Harmonic, no boundedness is involved. So I don't get you.
                      $endgroup$
                      – mouthetics
                      Jan 5 at 16:54








                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      @mouthetics Boundedness is involved when you want to say that the value at $x$ is "essentially" the average over the intersection of the discs (more specifically, that the average over the intersection tends to $f(x)$)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Wojowu
                      Jan 5 at 18:12














                    2












                    2








                    2





                    $begingroup$

                    The boundeness of $f$ is used in the proof of the fact that, given two points $x$ and $y$, the average value of $f$ on a large disk centered at $x$ and the average value of $f$ on a large disk (with the same radius) centered at $y$ will go to the same value as the radius goes to $infty$. When that happens, the symmetric difference of the two discs gets smaller and smaller in proportion to their intersection. Since $f$ is bounded, the average of the function on one disc is then essentially the average of the function on their intersection. Therefore, as the radius goes to infinity, the average over either disc goes to the same number.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    The boundeness of $f$ is used in the proof of the fact that, given two points $x$ and $y$, the average value of $f$ on a large disk centered at $x$ and the average value of $f$ on a large disk (with the same radius) centered at $y$ will go to the same value as the radius goes to $infty$. When that happens, the symmetric difference of the two discs gets smaller and smaller in proportion to their intersection. Since $f$ is bounded, the average of the function on one disc is then essentially the average of the function on their intersection. Therefore, as the radius goes to infinity, the average over either disc goes to the same number.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Jan 5 at 16:03









                    José Carlos SantosJosé Carlos Santos

                    156k22125227




                    156k22125227












                    • $begingroup$
                      So you're saying that the average value goes to a certain value as the radius goes to $infty$ but the average value on a ball centered at $x$ is in fact fixed $f(x)$, and this average property comes from the fact that $f$ is Harmonic, no boundedness is involved. So I don't get you.
                      $endgroup$
                      – mouthetics
                      Jan 5 at 16:54








                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      @mouthetics Boundedness is involved when you want to say that the value at $x$ is "essentially" the average over the intersection of the discs (more specifically, that the average over the intersection tends to $f(x)$)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Wojowu
                      Jan 5 at 18:12


















                    • $begingroup$
                      So you're saying that the average value goes to a certain value as the radius goes to $infty$ but the average value on a ball centered at $x$ is in fact fixed $f(x)$, and this average property comes from the fact that $f$ is Harmonic, no boundedness is involved. So I don't get you.
                      $endgroup$
                      – mouthetics
                      Jan 5 at 16:54








                    • 1




                      $begingroup$
                      @mouthetics Boundedness is involved when you want to say that the value at $x$ is "essentially" the average over the intersection of the discs (more specifically, that the average over the intersection tends to $f(x)$)
                      $endgroup$
                      – Wojowu
                      Jan 5 at 18:12
















                    $begingroup$
                    So you're saying that the average value goes to a certain value as the radius goes to $infty$ but the average value on a ball centered at $x$ is in fact fixed $f(x)$, and this average property comes from the fact that $f$ is Harmonic, no boundedness is involved. So I don't get you.
                    $endgroup$
                    – mouthetics
                    Jan 5 at 16:54






                    $begingroup$
                    So you're saying that the average value goes to a certain value as the radius goes to $infty$ but the average value on a ball centered at $x$ is in fact fixed $f(x)$, and this average property comes from the fact that $f$ is Harmonic, no boundedness is involved. So I don't get you.
                    $endgroup$
                    – mouthetics
                    Jan 5 at 16:54






                    1




                    1




                    $begingroup$
                    @mouthetics Boundedness is involved when you want to say that the value at $x$ is "essentially" the average over the intersection of the discs (more specifically, that the average over the intersection tends to $f(x)$)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Wojowu
                    Jan 5 at 18:12




                    $begingroup$
                    @mouthetics Boundedness is involved when you want to say that the value at $x$ is "essentially" the average over the intersection of the discs (more specifically, that the average over the intersection tends to $f(x)$)
                    $endgroup$
                    – Wojowu
                    Jan 5 at 18:12


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3062845%2fliouvilles-theorem-for-harmonic-functions%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    Popular posts from this blog

                    MongoDB - Not Authorized To Execute Command

                    in spring boot 2.1 many test slices are not allowed anymore due to multiple @BootstrapWith

                    How to fix TextFormField cause rebuild widget in Flutter