A theorem about identically zero potential function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around a theorem related to potential functions in the plane, specifically addressing the conditions under which a potential function that is zero along a curve and has a zero normal derivative along that curve is also zero throughout the entire plane. The scope includes theoretical considerations and potential proofs or references related to this theorem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a theorem stating that if a potential function is zero along a curve and has a zero normal derivative along that curve, then it must be zero everywhere in the plane.
  • Another participant questions the generality of the theorem, asking if it holds for any curve and whether the potential function is analytic.
  • A different participant provides a counterexample using the function f(x,y)=e^(-1/x), arguing that it meets the conditions of being zero along a curve and having a zero normal derivative, yet is not identically zero.
  • One participant references Riemann's theory of functions, suggesting that analyticity might be an implicit assumption in the theorem and questions if this assumption would validate the theorem.
  • Another participant explains that the potential function's Laplacian being zero implies it is analytic, and discusses the implications of having a zero derivative along a curve, concluding that this would suggest the function is zero everywhere.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity of the theorem, with some supporting it under certain conditions (such as analyticity) while others provide counterexamples that challenge its universality. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the theorem's applicability and the necessary conditions for its validity.

Contextual Notes

There is uncertainty regarding the assumptions about the curve and the nature of the potential function (analytic vs. non-analytic). The implications of the Laplacian condition and the relationship between potential functions and complex analysis are also not fully settled.

QuArK21343
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
I found this theorem in my book on optics which I cannot prove: if f is a potential function in the plane, which is zero along a curve and such that the normal derivative to the curve is itself zero at any point along the curve, then f is zero in the whole plane. Can you give me a reference on this result or briefly explain how is it so?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think there are details missing. One of the following might possibly fix your statement.

Is it true for any curve?

Is f an analytic function between complex numbers? Double check the buildup to the author's statement, details may be hiding.
 
I feel the statement as it is is false.

If we take f(x,y)=e^(-1/x),
then f(0,y)=0.
The normal derivative is ∂f/∂y(0,y)=0.
But f(x,y) is not identically zero.

But this function is not analytic from the view point of complex analysis, and the condition of analyticity may correct the statement.
 
Here is the full passage:

"A well-known theorem in riemann's theory of functions says that if a two-dimensional potential v vanishes together with its normal derivative along a finite curve segment s, then v vanishes identically in the whole plane."

Analyticity is not stated, but maybe it is given for granted. In this case, would the theorem be true?
 
It sounds like you are talking about a function whose Laplacian is 0:
$$ \frac{\partial^2v}{\partial x ^2}+\frac{\partial^2v}{\partial y ^2}=0.$$
This would explain why you are calling it a potential function. So yes, because of that, v is analytic. But what's more important is that there exists another conjugate harmonic function u such that f(z) = u(x,y)+iv(x,y) is complex analytic. Your hypotheses imply that along the curve, f'(z) =0. But f'(z) is complex analytic, and such functions can only have isolated zeros unless they are zero everywhere. Therefore, being zero over a whole curve implies f'(z) is zero everywhere. Which implies that f(z) is constant which implies that f(z) is zero which implies that v is zero everywhere.
 
Thank you, Vargo!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
5K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K