Functions of Complex Variables

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a problem from complex analysis concerning functions of complex variables, specifically focusing on the properties of the real and imaginary parts of analytic functions and their relationship to Laplace's equation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of the Cauchy-Riemann relations and the conditions for local extrema in the context of analytic functions. There is an examination of the conditions under which maximum or minimum points can occur, with some questioning the completeness of the arguments presented.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights and questioning assumptions. Some suggest alternative approaches, while others express uncertainty about the implications of certain mathematical conditions. There is no explicit consensus, but various lines of reasoning are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the constraints of the problem, including the implications of the Laplacian and the behavior of gradients in relation to maxima and minima. The discussion reflects an ongoing exploration of the mathematical framework without reaching a definitive conclusion.

alchemistoff
Messages
7
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


{Q 6.2.2 from Arfken "Mathematical Methods for Physicists"}
Having shown that the real part [tex]u(x,y)[/tex] and imaginary part [tex]v(x,y)[/tex] of an analytic function [tex]w(z)[/tex] each satisfy Laplace's equation, show that [tex]u(x,y)[/tex] and [tex]v(x,y)[/tex] cannot have either a maximum or a minimum in the interior of any region in which [tex]w(z)[/tex] is analytic. (They can have saddle points)

Homework Equations


Cauchy-Riemann (CR) relations for analyticity of the function [tex]u_x=v_y[/tex] and [tex]u_y=-v_x[/tex] where subscript stands for partial differentiation with respect to that variable.

[tex]\nabla^2u=0[/tex] and [tex]\nabla^2v=0[/tex] (it follows from CR relations and proves that analytic function satisfies Laplace's equation)

The Attempt at a Solution



The local minimum/maximum points are to satisfy [tex]u_x=0[/tex] and [tex]u_y=0[/tex]
and
[tex]M=u_{xx}u_{yy}-(u_{xy})^2>0[/tex]

[tex]\nabla^2u=u_{xx}+u_{yy}=0\therefore u_{xx}=-u_{yy}[/tex]

[tex]M=-u_{yy}^2-u_{xy}^2\leq0[/tex]

...and it looks like totally wrong direction...
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i think you proved it, for a function of two variables to have a min or max
[tex] -u_{yy}^2-u_{xy}^2 > 0[/tex]

but for a saddle point
[tex] -u_{yy}^2-u_{xy}^2 < 0[/tex]
since the square of two real numbers is always positive, the condition will give only a number <= 0.
if it is = 0 you cannot conclude anything
if it is <0 it is a saddle point

so u(x,y) and v(x,y) cannot have either a maximum or a minimum in the interior of any region in which w(z) is analytic.
 
Wait, the square of a real number is non-negative, so haven't you completely ignored the case where you can have a saddle point or a local extremum?
 
Precisely, the fact that [tex]M[/tex] can be zero doesn't allow proof to be completed. The only way to complete it is to show that for points where [tex]u_x=0[/tex] and [tex]u_y=0[/tex] [tex]M[/tex] cannot be zero.

or there is probably different approach which I cannot see...
 
Well, what does Gauss's divergence theorem yield for the integral of the Laplacian of U over a small area containing a hypothetical maximum/minimum of U?
 
From Gaussian theorem we have

[tex]\int _V\nabla^2 u \, dV=\int_S \nabla u \cdot n\, dS[/tex]
[tex]0=\int_S \nabla u \cdot n\, dS[/tex]​

I intuitively see that zero flux of [tex]\nabla u[/tex] implies that [tex]u[/tex] cannot have minimum or maximum but do not fully grasp it.

If it is to be true, then in the enclosed region where [tex]u[/tex] is minimum/maximum [tex]\nabla u[/tex] must be all negative/positive but cannot see why this is true.
 
You have to make your intuition more explicit. Intuitively we see a maximum that looks like a mountain top, so we see a gradient that points away from the mountain top. You then have to think about how to translate that to pure math. What is clear is that you cannot see this effect when expanding U to first order around the maximum, you have to go to second order.

So, you can make the following plan. Let's try to use the fact that U is analytic. U has a series expansion and you can write U around its maximum as a quadratic plus an error term. This will capture the above picture correctly. If you now use Gauss' theorem and substitute in the flux term involving nabla U the second order expansion plus error term, you should be able to prove that the flux term has to be strictly positive if U has a maximum or strictly negative if U has a minimum.
 
Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K