Confusion about Nelson's proof of Liouville's theorem

Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
â 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.
â Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:03
add a comment |Â
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
up vote
3
down vote
favorite
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
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
complex-analysis
asked Sep 10 at 19:23
Gabriel Ribeiro
1,195421
1,195421
I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
â 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.
â Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:03
add a comment |Â
I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
â 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.
â Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:03
I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 19:56
I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
â 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.
â 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.
â Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:03
add a comment |Â
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 $int_A 1,dx,dy le int_-r^r d,dy = 2rd$.
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 $infty$.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:21
@amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
â Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:22
Nate, you are right, of course.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:27
I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:39
add a comment |Â
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 $r$.
add a comment |Â
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 $int_A 1,dx,dy le int_-r^r d,dy = 2rd$.
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 $infty$.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:21
@amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
â Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:22
Nate, you are right, of course.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:27
I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:39
add a comment |Â
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 $int_A 1,dx,dy le int_-r^r d,dy = 2rd$.
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 $infty$.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:21
@amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
â Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:22
Nate, you are right, of course.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:27
I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:39
add a comment |Â
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 $int_A 1,dx,dy le int_-r^r d,dy = 2rd$.
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 $int_A 1,dx,dy le int_-r^r d,dy = 2rd$.
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 $infty$.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:21
@amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
â Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:22
Nate, you are right, of course.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:27
I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:39
add a comment |Â
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 $infty$.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:21
@amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
â Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:22
Nate, you are right, of course.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:27
I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
â 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 $infty$.
â 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 $infty$.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:21
@amsmath: No, it doesn't! The area of such a parallelogram is exactly $2rd$ regardless of the slope.
â 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.
â Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:22
Nate, you are right, of course.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:27
Nate, you are right, of course.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:27
I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:39
I upvoted for your answer because I think it's better.
â amsmath
Sep 10 at 20:39
add a comment |Â
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 $r$.
add a comment |Â
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 $r$.
add a comment |Â
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 $r$.
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 $r$.
answered Sep 10 at 20:16
amsmath
2,685114
2,685114
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
I get that $|A| = mathcal O(r)$.
â 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.
â Nate Eldredge
Sep 10 at 20:03