A Harmonic Function is Zero on an open portion of the boundary, help

Click For Summary
A harmonic function that is zero on an open portion of the boundary, with a zero normal derivative and continuous differentiability, must be zero everywhere in the region. The original poster is struggling to prove this and has found previous attempts, including one involving the Cauchy-Kovalevskaya theorem, to be unhelpful. A user humorously suggested Gronwall's inequality but later clarified that it was irrelevant to the problem. The discussion highlights the difficulty of the problem and the need for a solid solution. The thread remains open for further assistance and clarification on the topic.
lackrange
Messages
19
Reaction score
0
A harmonic function in a region is zero on an open portion of the boundary, and its normal derivative is also zero on the same part, and it is continuously differentiable on the boundary. I have to show that the function is zero everywhere, but I have no idea how. I have tried this for hours and hours, and haven't come up with anything useful. The best answer I've had so far involves the Cauchy Kovelevskaya theorem, but that was shown to be flawed. Can anyone help? This is very difficult..

I'm pretty sure this implies the gradient is zero on the boundary, is there anything I can possible do with that?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi lackrange,

This is actually a pretty easy corollary to Gronwall's inequality. Just play around with parameters β as shown on the wikipedia page
 
Actually I'm just trolling, I think Gronwall's inequality is completely irrelevant to this problem but it has a really cool name. This post came up after a google search on the day before my takehome midterm was due, and I assumed you were writing the same takehome as me since that question was on the test. I didn't think it was fair that you were asking people on the internet to solve your takehome midterm for you so I posted that reply as as joke.

... This didn't turn out as funny as I expected since I thought you'd reply asking me what the hell Gronwall's inequality has anything to do with this and then I'd tell you that it was all a joke. So I'm sorry if this caused any confusion to anyone, mods feel free to delete these two posts.
 
Do you guys know the solution finally?
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K