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

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Relations
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the mean value proposition in the context of twice differentiable functions in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Participants are exploring the derivation of specific relations involving the mean value of a function over a sphere and its derivatives, particularly focusing on the case when $n=2$. The scope includes mathematical reasoning and technical explanations related to differential equations and integrals.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant defines the operator $L_k$ and presents the mean value proposition, seeking clarification on the derivation of certain relations.
  • Another participant explains the relationship between the normal vector to the circle and its coordinates, asserting that the coordinates are $(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$ based on geometric reasoning.
  • There is a question regarding the limits of integration and the use of the divergence theorem to relate integrals of derivatives of $g$.
  • Participants discuss the implications of switching to polar coordinates and how it affects the evaluation of limits in integrals.
  • There is a query about the correctness of a proposed formula for $\Delta M$ and the appropriate variable of integration in the context of line integrals versus area integrals.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about the derivation of a specific formula and seeks further clarification on the integration process involved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on certain mathematical steps and the correctness of specific formulations. There is no consensus on the derivation of some relations, and multiple interpretations of the integration process are presented.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the domains of integration in various integrals differ, which may affect the validity of certain equations. The discussion also highlights the need for careful consideration of the limits and variables involved in the integrals.

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