Confusion about Nelson's proof of Liouville's theorem

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












Nelson's proof of Liouville's theorem (in the case $n=2$) is as follows:




Consider a bounded harmonic function on Euclidean space. Since
it is harmonic, its value at any point is its average over any sphere,
and hence over any ball, with the point as center. Given two points,
choose two balls with the given points as centers and of equal radius.
If the radius is large enough, the two balls will coincide except for an
arbitrarily small proportion of their volume. Since the function is
bounded, the averages of it over the two balls are arbitrarily close,
and so the function assumes the same value at any two points. Thus
a bounded harmonic function on Euclidean space is a constant.




I tried to formalize it.



Let $f:mathbbCtomathbbC$ be a holomorphic bounded function. If $z,winmathbbC$ we have that
beginalign*
|f(z)-f(w)| &= frac1pi r^2left|int_D(z,r)f(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdy - int_D(w,r)f(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdyright|\
&= frac1pi r^2left|int_Af(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdy - int_Bf(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdyright| \
&leq frac2pi r^2(sup |f|)int_A 1:mathrmdx:mathrmdy \
&= frac2pi r^2(sup |f|) left(2r^2cos^-1left(fracd2rright)-fracd2sqrt4r^2-d^2, right)
endalign*



where $d=|z-w|$. Observe what are $A$ and $B$ in the following drawing:

I would expect that the right hand side tends to $0$ when $rtoinfty$. However, that is not the case. How should I formalize Nelson's proof?










share|cite|improve this question





















  • I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 19:56










  • Perhaps you could explain how you computed $int_A 1,dx,dy$, because I agree with amsmath that the answer looks suspicious.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Sep 10 at 20:03














up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1












Nelson's proof of Liouville's theorem (in the case $n=2$) is as follows:




Consider a bounded harmonic function on Euclidean space. Since
it is harmonic, its value at any point is its average over any sphere,
and hence over any ball, with the point as center. Given two points,
choose two balls with the given points as centers and of equal radius.
If the radius is large enough, the two balls will coincide except for an
arbitrarily small proportion of their volume. Since the function is
bounded, the averages of it over the two balls are arbitrarily close,
and so the function assumes the same value at any two points. Thus
a bounded harmonic function on Euclidean space is a constant.




I tried to formalize it.



Let $f:mathbbCtomathbbC$ be a holomorphic bounded function. If $z,winmathbbC$ we have that
beginalign*
|f(z)-f(w)| &= frac1pi r^2left|int_D(z,r)f(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdy - int_D(w,r)f(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdyright|\
&= frac1pi r^2left|int_Af(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdy - int_Bf(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdyright| \
&leq frac2pi r^2(sup |f|)int_A 1:mathrmdx:mathrmdy \
&= frac2pi r^2(sup |f|) left(2r^2cos^-1left(fracd2rright)-fracd2sqrt4r^2-d^2, right)
endalign*



where $d=|z-w|$. Observe what are $A$ and $B$ in the following drawing:

I would expect that the right hand side tends to $0$ when $rtoinfty$. However, that is not the case. How should I formalize Nelson's proof?










share|cite|improve this question





















  • I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 19:56










  • Perhaps you could explain how you computed $int_A 1,dx,dy$, because I agree with amsmath that the answer looks suspicious.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Sep 10 at 20:03












up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
3
down vote

favorite
1






1





Nelson's proof of Liouville's theorem (in the case $n=2$) is as follows:




Consider a bounded harmonic function on Euclidean space. Since
it is harmonic, its value at any point is its average over any sphere,
and hence over any ball, with the point as center. Given two points,
choose two balls with the given points as centers and of equal radius.
If the radius is large enough, the two balls will coincide except for an
arbitrarily small proportion of their volume. Since the function is
bounded, the averages of it over the two balls are arbitrarily close,
and so the function assumes the same value at any two points. Thus
a bounded harmonic function on Euclidean space is a constant.




I tried to formalize it.



Let $f:mathbbCtomathbbC$ be a holomorphic bounded function. If $z,winmathbbC$ we have that
beginalign*
|f(z)-f(w)| &= frac1pi r^2left|int_D(z,r)f(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdy - int_D(w,r)f(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdyright|\
&= frac1pi r^2left|int_Af(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdy - int_Bf(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdyright| \
&leq frac2pi r^2(sup |f|)int_A 1:mathrmdx:mathrmdy \
&= frac2pi r^2(sup |f|) left(2r^2cos^-1left(fracd2rright)-fracd2sqrt4r^2-d^2, right)
endalign*



where $d=|z-w|$. Observe what are $A$ and $B$ in the following drawing:

I would expect that the right hand side tends to $0$ when $rtoinfty$. However, that is not the case. How should I formalize Nelson's proof?










share|cite|improve this question













Nelson's proof of Liouville's theorem (in the case $n=2$) is as follows:




Consider a bounded harmonic function on Euclidean space. Since
it is harmonic, its value at any point is its average over any sphere,
and hence over any ball, with the point as center. Given two points,
choose two balls with the given points as centers and of equal radius.
If the radius is large enough, the two balls will coincide except for an
arbitrarily small proportion of their volume. Since the function is
bounded, the averages of it over the two balls are arbitrarily close,
and so the function assumes the same value at any two points. Thus
a bounded harmonic function on Euclidean space is a constant.




I tried to formalize it.



Let $f:mathbbCtomathbbC$ be a holomorphic bounded function. If $z,winmathbbC$ we have that
beginalign*
|f(z)-f(w)| &= frac1pi r^2left|int_D(z,r)f(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdy - int_D(w,r)f(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdyright|\
&= frac1pi r^2left|int_Af(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdy - int_Bf(x+iy):mathrmdx:mathrmdyright| \
&leq frac2pi r^2(sup |f|)int_A 1:mathrmdx:mathrmdy \
&= frac2pi r^2(sup |f|) left(2r^2cos^-1left(fracd2rright)-fracd2sqrt4r^2-d^2, right)
endalign*



where $d=|z-w|$. Observe what are $A$ and $B$ in the following drawing:

I would expect that the right hand side tends to $0$ when $rtoinfty$. However, that is not the case. How should I formalize Nelson's proof?







complex-analysis






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Sep 10 at 19:23









Gabriel Ribeiro

1,195421




1,195421











  • I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 19:56










  • Perhaps you could explain how you computed $int_A 1,dx,dy$, because I agree with amsmath that the answer looks suspicious.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Sep 10 at 20:03
















  • I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 19:56










  • Perhaps you could explain how you computed $int_A 1,dx,dy$, because I agree with amsmath that the answer looks suspicious.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Sep 10 at 20:03















I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
– amsmath
Sep 10 at 19:56




I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
– amsmath
Sep 10 at 19:56












Perhaps you could explain how you computed $int_A 1,dx,dy$, because I agree with amsmath that the answer looks suspicious.
– Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:03




Perhaps you could explain how you computed $int_A 1,dx,dy$, because I agree with amsmath that the answer looks suspicious.
– Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:03










2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote



accepted










Your computation of the area of $A$ doesn't look correct.



It would be easier to bound the integral as follows: the width of $A$ is never more than $d$, and its $y$-coordinates are bounded between $-r$ and $r$. Thus $int_A 1,dx,dy le int_-r^r d,dy = 2rd$.






share|cite|improve this answer




















  • I don't agree with this argumentation. Think of two parallel lines between the lines $y=-r$ and $y=r$ with "x-distance" $d$ whose slope is very small. Making the slope smaller and smaller, the area between the lines tends to $infty$.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 20:21











  • @amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Sep 10 at 20:22










  • Nate, you are right, of course.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 20:27










  • I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 20:39

















up vote
1
down vote













Ok, let's calculate the volume $|A|$ of $A$. WLOG I let $z=0$ and $w=d > 0$. Then
$$
fracA2 = int_d/2^r+dsqrtr^2-(x-d)^2,dx - int_d/2^rsqrtr^2-x^2,dx = int_-d/2^d/2sqrtr^2-x^2,dx.
$$
Substituting $x = rsin t$ gives
$$
fracA2 = r^2int_-arcsin(d/2r)^arcsin(d/2r)cos^2t,dt = fracr^22left[cos tsin t + tright]_-arcsin(d/2r)^arcsin(d/2r).
$$
As $cos(arcsin(x)) = sqrt1-x^2$,
$$
fracA2 = r^2left(fracd2rsqrt1-fracd^24r^2+arcsinfracd2rright),le,r^2left(frac d2r + arcsinfrac d2rright).
$$
Now, for small positive $x$ we have $arcsin xle 2x$, hence $|A|le 3dr$ for large $r$.






share|cite|improve this answer




















    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',
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: false,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    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%2f2912258%2fconfusion-about-nelsons-proof-of-liouvilles-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest






























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes








    up vote
    3
    down vote



    accepted










    Your computation of the area of $A$ doesn't look correct.



    It would be easier to bound the integral as follows: the width of $A$ is never more than $d$, and its $y$-coordinates are bounded between $-r$ and $r$. Thus $int_A 1,dx,dy le int_-r^r d,dy = 2rd$.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • I don't agree with this argumentation. Think of two parallel lines between the lines $y=-r$ and $y=r$ with "x-distance" $d$ whose slope is very small. Making the slope smaller and smaller, the area between the lines tends to $infty$.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:21











    • @amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
      – Nate Eldredge
      Sep 10 at 20:22










    • Nate, you are right, of course.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:27










    • I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:39














    up vote
    3
    down vote



    accepted










    Your computation of the area of $A$ doesn't look correct.



    It would be easier to bound the integral as follows: the width of $A$ is never more than $d$, and its $y$-coordinates are bounded between $-r$ and $r$. Thus $int_A 1,dx,dy le int_-r^r d,dy = 2rd$.






    share|cite|improve this answer




















    • I don't agree with this argumentation. Think of two parallel lines between the lines $y=-r$ and $y=r$ with "x-distance" $d$ whose slope is very small. Making the slope smaller and smaller, the area between the lines tends to $infty$.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:21











    • @amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
      – Nate Eldredge
      Sep 10 at 20:22










    • Nate, you are right, of course.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:27










    • I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:39












    up vote
    3
    down vote



    accepted







    up vote
    3
    down vote



    accepted






    Your computation of the area of $A$ doesn't look correct.



    It would be easier to bound the integral as follows: the width of $A$ is never more than $d$, and its $y$-coordinates are bounded between $-r$ and $r$. Thus $int_A 1,dx,dy le int_-r^r d,dy = 2rd$.






    share|cite|improve this answer












    Your computation of the area of $A$ doesn't look correct.



    It would be easier to bound the integral as follows: the width of $A$ is never more than $d$, and its $y$-coordinates are bounded between $-r$ and $r$. Thus $int_A 1,dx,dy le int_-r^r d,dy = 2rd$.







    share|cite|improve this answer












    share|cite|improve this answer



    share|cite|improve this answer










    answered Sep 10 at 20:16









    Nate Eldredge

    60.1k577163




    60.1k577163











    • I don't agree with this argumentation. Think of two parallel lines between the lines $y=-r$ and $y=r$ with "x-distance" $d$ whose slope is very small. Making the slope smaller and smaller, the area between the lines tends to $infty$.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:21











    • @amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
      – Nate Eldredge
      Sep 10 at 20:22










    • Nate, you are right, of course.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:27










    • I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:39
















    • I don't agree with this argumentation. Think of two parallel lines between the lines $y=-r$ and $y=r$ with "x-distance" $d$ whose slope is very small. Making the slope smaller and smaller, the area between the lines tends to $infty$.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:21











    • @amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
      – Nate Eldredge
      Sep 10 at 20:22










    • Nate, you are right, of course.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:27










    • I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
      – amsmath
      Sep 10 at 20:39















    I don't agree with this argumentation. Think of two parallel lines between the lines $y=-r$ and $y=r$ with "x-distance" $d$ whose slope is very small. Making the slope smaller and smaller, the area between the lines tends to $infty$.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 20:21





    I don't agree with this argumentation. Think of two parallel lines between the lines $y=-r$ and $y=r$ with "x-distance" $d$ whose slope is very small. Making the slope smaller and smaller, the area between the lines tends to $infty$.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 20:21













    @amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Sep 10 at 20:22




    @amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
    – Nate Eldredge
    Sep 10 at 20:22












    Nate, you are right, of course.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 20:27




    Nate, you are right, of course.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 20:27












    I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 20:39




    I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
    – amsmath
    Sep 10 at 20:39










    up vote
    1
    down vote













    Ok, let's calculate the volume $|A|$ of $A$. WLOG I let $z=0$ and $w=d > 0$. Then
    $$
    fracA2 = int_d/2^r+dsqrtr^2-(x-d)^2,dx - int_d/2^rsqrtr^2-x^2,dx = int_-d/2^d/2sqrtr^2-x^2,dx.
    $$
    Substituting $x = rsin t$ gives
    $$
    fracA2 = r^2int_-arcsin(d/2r)^arcsin(d/2r)cos^2t,dt = fracr^22left[cos tsin t + tright]_-arcsin(d/2r)^arcsin(d/2r).
    $$
    As $cos(arcsin(x)) = sqrt1-x^2$,
    $$
    fracA2 = r^2left(fracd2rsqrt1-fracd^24r^2+arcsinfracd2rright),le,r^2left(frac d2r + arcsinfrac d2rright).
    $$
    Now, for small positive $x$ we have $arcsin xle 2x$, hence $|A|le 3dr$ for large $r$.






    share|cite|improve this answer
























      up vote
      1
      down vote













      Ok, let's calculate the volume $|A|$ of $A$. WLOG I let $z=0$ and $w=d > 0$. Then
      $$
      fracA2 = int_d/2^r+dsqrtr^2-(x-d)^2,dx - int_d/2^rsqrtr^2-x^2,dx = int_-d/2^d/2sqrtr^2-x^2,dx.
      $$
      Substituting $x = rsin t$ gives
      $$
      fracA2 = r^2int_-arcsin(d/2r)^arcsin(d/2r)cos^2t,dt = fracr^22left[cos tsin t + tright]_-arcsin(d/2r)^arcsin(d/2r).
      $$
      As $cos(arcsin(x)) = sqrt1-x^2$,
      $$
      fracA2 = r^2left(fracd2rsqrt1-fracd^24r^2+arcsinfracd2rright),le,r^2left(frac d2r + arcsinfrac d2rright).
      $$
      Now, for small positive $x$ we have $arcsin xle 2x$, hence $|A|le 3dr$ for large $r$.






      share|cite|improve this answer






















        up vote
        1
        down vote










        up vote
        1
        down vote









        Ok, let's calculate the volume $|A|$ of $A$. WLOG I let $z=0$ and $w=d > 0$. Then
        $$
        fracA2 = int_d/2^r+dsqrtr^2-(x-d)^2,dx - int_d/2^rsqrtr^2-x^2,dx = int_-d/2^d/2sqrtr^2-x^2,dx.
        $$
        Substituting $x = rsin t$ gives
        $$
        fracA2 = r^2int_-arcsin(d/2r)^arcsin(d/2r)cos^2t,dt = fracr^22left[cos tsin t + tright]_-arcsin(d/2r)^arcsin(d/2r).
        $$
        As $cos(arcsin(x)) = sqrt1-x^2$,
        $$
        fracA2 = r^2left(fracd2rsqrt1-fracd^24r^2+arcsinfracd2rright),le,r^2left(frac d2r + arcsinfrac d2rright).
        $$
        Now, for small positive $x$ we have $arcsin xle 2x$, hence $|A|le 3dr$ for large $r$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        Ok, let's calculate the volume $|A|$ of $A$. WLOG I let $z=0$ and $w=d > 0$. Then
        $$
        fracA2 = int_d/2^r+dsqrtr^2-(x-d)^2,dx - int_d/2^rsqrtr^2-x^2,dx = int_-d/2^d/2sqrtr^2-x^2,dx.
        $$
        Substituting $x = rsin t$ gives
        $$
        fracA2 = r^2int_-arcsin(d/2r)^arcsin(d/2r)cos^2t,dt = fracr^22left[cos tsin t + tright]_-arcsin(d/2r)^arcsin(d/2r).
        $$
        As $cos(arcsin(x)) = sqrt1-x^2$,
        $$
        fracA2 = r^2left(fracd2rsqrt1-fracd^24r^2+arcsinfracd2rright),le,r^2left(frac d2r + arcsinfrac d2rright).
        $$
        Now, for small positive $x$ we have $arcsin xle 2x$, hence $|A|le 3dr$ for large $r$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered Sep 10 at 20:16









        amsmath

        2,685114




        2,685114



























             

            draft saved


            draft discarded















































             


            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2912258%2fconfusion-about-nelsons-proof-of-liouvilles-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest













































































            這個網誌中的熱門文章

            tkz-euclide: tkzDrawCircle[R] not working

            How to combine Bézier curves to a surface?

            1st Magritte Awards