MHB How Do We Get the Last Two Relations in the Mean Value Proposition Proof?

  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relations
Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around the proof of a mean value proposition for a twice differentiable function \( g(x) \) in \( \mathbb{R}^n \). Participants seek clarification on deriving specific relations in the proof, particularly how to transition from integrals over spheres to those over circles using the divergence theorem and polar coordinates. Key points include the correct interpretation of the normal vector to the circle and the distinction between integrating with respect to arclength versus area. The conversation also addresses the limits of integration and the implications of using \( d\xi \) instead of \( ds \) in the context of the annular region. Overall, the thread emphasizes the mathematical rigor required in understanding the mean value property and its proof.
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

We set $L_k \equiv u_{tt}+\frac{k}{t}-\Delta u=0, k \in \mathbb{N}_0$.

I am looking at the proof of the following proposition:

We suppose that $g(x)$ is twice differentiable in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then the mean value of $g(x)$ at the sphere with radius $t$ and center at $x$, which we symbolize with $M(t,x,g)$, is a solution of the problem
$L_{n-1} M=0, M(0,x,g)=g(x), M_t(0,x,g)=0$.

I am given the proof for $n=2$, but I have some questions.

For $n=2$ we have $M(t,x,g)=\frac{1}{2 \pi t} \int_{|x-\xi|=t} g(\xi) ds=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} g(x_1+t \cos{\phi}, x_2+ t \sin{\phi}) d{\phi}$.

Let $\xi_1=x_1+ t \cos{\phi}$ and $\xi_2=x_2+ t \sin{\phi}$.

We have:

$$\frac{\partial{M}}{\partial{t}}=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} (g_{\xi_1} \cos{\phi}+g_{\xi_2} \sin{\phi}) d{\phi}=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} \nabla_{\xi}g \cdot (\cos{\phi}, \sin{\phi}) d{\phi}=\frac{1}{2 \pi t} \int_{|x-\xi|=t} \nabla_{\xi}g \cdot \mathcal{v} ds=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{|x-\xi| \leq t} \Delta_{\xi}gd{\xi}$$

Could you explain to me how we get the last two relations? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The normal $\nu$ to the circle is the unit radial vector from the origin, so in coordinates it's $(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$. Also, on the circle, the arc length parameter $s$ satisfies $s = t\phi$, and so $ds = t\, d\phi$, or $d\phi = \frac{1}{t}\, ds$. This is why, altogether, you get

$$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \nabla_\xi g\cdot(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)\, d\phi = \frac{1}{2\pi t}\int_{\lvert x - \xi\rvert = t} \nabla_\xi g \cdot \nu \, ds.$$

The last equation follows from the divergence theorem, since $\operatorname{div}(\nabla_\xi g) = \Delta_\xi g$.
 
Euge said:
The normal $\nu$ to the circle is the unit radial vector from the origin, so in coordinates it's $(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$.

Could you explain further to me why the coordinates of $\nu$ are $(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$ ? (Thinking)
Euge said:
The last equation follows from the divergence theorem, since $\operatorname{div}(\nabla_\xi g) = \Delta_\xi g$.

I see... (Nod)
 
Also, then it says the following:$$\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}} \int_{|x-\xi|\leq t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|<t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi} g ds$$

First of all, why don't we have :

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}} \int_{|x-\xi|\leq t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|\leq t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}$$

?

Secondly, how do we get the following equality?

$$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|<t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi} g ds$$

And... does it hold that $\Delta M= \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} (g_{\xi_1 \xi_1} \cos^2{\phi}+g_{\xi_2 \xi_2} \sin^2{\phi}) d{\phi}$ ? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
Could you explain further to me why the coordinates of $\nu$ are $(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$ ? (Thinking)

I made a slight error in my description of $\varphi$. What I meant to say is that for every point $\xi$ on your circle, $\nu(\xi)$ is the unit radial vector from the center of the circle (which is $x$) to $\xi$. Thus $\nu(\xi) = \frac{\xi - x}{\|\xi - x\|}$. Now $\xi = x + t(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$ for some $\phi$, and so $\nu(\xi) = \frac{t(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)}{t} = (\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$.
evinda said:
Also, then it says the following:$$\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}} \int_{|x-\xi|\leq t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|<t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi} g ds$$

First of all, why don't we have :

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}} \int_{|x-\xi|\leq t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|\leq t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}$$

?

Your equation is correct, but so is the author's. Note the domain of integration in your integral differs from the domain of integration of the authors by a null set.
evinda said:
Secondly, how do we get the following equality?

$$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|<t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi} g ds$$
Switch to polar coordinates centered at $x$. At some point you'll compute the limits

$$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \int_t^{t+\Delta t} \nabla^2 g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 +r\sin \phi)\, r\, dr,$$

which evaluate to $\nabla^2 g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 + r\sin \phi)\,t$ by the fundamental theorem of calculus.
evinda said:
And... does it hold that $\Delta M= \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} (g_{\xi_1 \xi_1} \cos^2{\phi}+g_{\xi_2 \xi_2} \sin^2{\phi}) d{\phi}$ ? (Thinking)

How did you derive this formula?
 
Euge said:
I made a slight error in my description of $\varphi$. What I meant to say is that for every point $\xi$ on your circle, $\nu(\xi)$ is the unit radial vector from the center of the circle (which is $x$) to $\xi$. Thus $\nu(\xi) = \frac{\xi - x}{\|\xi - x\|}$. Now $\xi = x + t(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$ for some $\phi$, and so $\nu(\xi) = \frac{t(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)}{t} = (\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$.

A ok... (Nod)
Euge said:
Your equation is correct, but so is the author's. Note the domain of integration in your integral differs from the domain of integration of the authors by a null set.

I see...
Euge said:
Switch to polar coordinates centered at $x$. At some point you'll compute the limits

$$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \int_t^{t+\Delta t} \nabla^2 g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 +r\sin \phi)\, r\, dr,$$

which evaluate to $\nabla^2 g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 + r\sin \phi)\,t$ by the fundamental theorem of calculus.

Switching to polar coordinates we get the limit $\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \int_{t<|r|<t+\Delta t} \Delta_{\xi} g r dr$, which is equal to that what you wrote , right?
Then from the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have that:

$$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \int_t^{t+\Delta t} \Delta_{\xi} g r dr=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \left[\Delta_{\xi}g(x_1+(t+\Delta t) \cos{\phi}, x_2+ (t+\Delta t)\sin{\phi})(t+\Delta t)-\Delta_{\xi}g(x_1+t \cos{\phi}, x_2+t \sin{\phi})t\right]$$

Right? How do we continue?
Euge said:
How did you derive this formula?

I don't remember how I got this.
Do we have:

$$\Delta M=\frac{1}{2 \pi t} \int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}$$

although $\xi$ appears at the limit of integration? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
Switching to polar coordinates we get the limit $\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \int_{t<|r|<t+\Delta t} \Delta_{\xi} g r dr$, which is equal to that what you wrote , right?
No. It should be

$$\lim_{\Delta t\to 0} \int_0^{2\pi} \int_t^{t + \Delta t} \nabla^2g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 + r\sin \phi)\, r\, dr\, d\phi$$
evinda said:
I don't remember how I got this.
Do we have:

$$\Delta M=\frac{1}{2 \pi t} \int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}$$

although $\xi$ appears at the limit of integration? (Thinking)
The $d\xi$ should be $ds$. Otherwise, the formula is correct.
 
Euge said:
No. It should be

$$\lim_{\Delta t\to 0} \int_0^{2\pi} \int_t^{t + \Delta t} \nabla^2g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 + r\sin \phi)\, r\, dr\, d\phi$$

Could you explain further to me how you got this?
Euge said:
The $d\xi$ should be $ds$. Otherwise, the formula is correct.

Having $ds$ instead of $d\xi$ , in respect to which variable do we integrate?
 
evinda said:
Could you explain further to me how you got this?
The region $t < \lvert x - \xi \lvert < t + \Delta t$ is an annulus centered at $x =(x_1,x_2)$ with inner radius $t$ and outer radius $t + \Delta t$. So the radial variable $r$ ranges from $t$ to $t + \Delta t$ and the polar variable $\phi$ ranges from $0$ to $2\pi$. This leads to the double integral representation

$$\int_{t < \lvert x - \xi \rvert < t + \Delta t} \Delta_\xi g\, d\xi = \int_0^{2\pi}\int_t^{t + \Delta t} \nabla^2g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 + r\sin \phi) \,r\, dr\, d\phi$$
evinda said:
Having $ds$ instead of $d\xi$ , in respect to which variable do we integrate?
The integration is done with respect to arclength; the integral over the circle $\lvert x - \xi\rvert = t$ is a line integral. If you use $d\xi$ instead, the integral would be zero because the circle is a null set in the plane.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
Replies
17
Views
6K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K