A Meaning of Gauss' mean value theorem?

Click For Summary
Gauss' mean value theorem states that the value of a function f(z0) at a point is equal to the average of the function around the circumference of any circle centered at z0. This average is calculated by integrating over the angle rather than the circumference, which is why the denominator is 2π instead of the circle's circumference. The integral of an analytic function f(z) over a circle results in 2πf(z), indicating that points not equal to z contribute minimally to the average. The concept of "average" here is similar to traditional averages but differs from the mean value theorem in a strict sense. Understanding this distinction clarifies the application of the theorem in complex analysis.
GGGGc
TL;DR
Why does Gauss mean value theorem means f(z
0) is equal to the average of f(z) around the rim of any circle in R centre at z0? The denominator is 2pi instead of 2pi * radius which is the circumference of the circle.
IMG_0081.png
 
Physics news on Phys.org
GGGGc said:
TL;DR Summary: Why does Gauss mean value theorem means f(z
0) is equal to the average of f(z) around the rim of any circle in R centre at z0? The denominator is 2pi instead of 2pi * radius which is the circumference of the circle.

View attachment 335776
The short answer is because we are integrating over the angle, not over the circumference.

The slightly longer answer is that we are concerned primarily with the integral over the phases of the complex numbers surrounding z, not so much with r which, as you may note, is irrelevant due to Cauchy's integral formula.

-Dan
 
topsquark said:
The short answer is because we are integrating over the angle, not over the circumference.

The slightly longer answer is that we are concerned primarily with the integral over the phases of the complex numbers surrounding z, not so much with r which, as you may note, is irrelevant due to Cauchy's integral formula.

-Dan
Thanks for replying. Does that mean the average of f(z) is equal to f(z)/2pi since we are integrating it from 0-2pi?
 
GGGGc said:
Thanks for replying. Does that mean the average of f(z) is equal to f(z)/2pi since we are integrating it from 0-2pi?
No, the integral of a function f(z) (analytic over a circle of radius a about the point z) over a circle in the complex plane of radius r (r < a) about the point z is ##2 \pi f(z)##. It is an "average" in the sense that we are looking at the sum over the values of a region and that the points in the region of integration that aren't equal to z are essentially meaningless, except for a constant normalizing factor of ##2 \pi##.

Putting it a different way, to find the average of a real function:
##\displaystyle \overline{f} = \dfrac{1}{b - a} \int_a^b f(x) \, dx##

and the "average" of a complex function:
##\displaystyle \overline{f}(z) = \dfrac{1}{2 \pi} \int f(z + r e^{i \theta}) \, d \theta##

There are similarities to an average, so you can actually call it that (hey, that's what the formula is called!) but it isn't quite the same as an average in the sense of the mean value theorem.

-Dan
 
topsquark said:
No, the integral of a function f(z) (analytic over a circle of radius a about the point z) over a circle in the complex plane of radius r (r < a) about the point z is ##2 \pi f(z)##. It is an "average" in the sense that we are looking at the sum over the values of a region and that the points in the region of integration that aren't equal to z are essentially meaningless, except for a constant normalizing factor of ##2 \pi##.

Putting it a different way, to find the average of a real function:
##\displaystyle \overline{f} = \dfrac{1}{b - a} \int_a^b f(x) \, dx##

and the "average" of a complex function:
##\displaystyle \overline{f}(z) = \dfrac{1}{2 \pi} \int f(z + r e^{i \theta}) \, d \theta##

There are similarities to an average, so you can actually call it that (hey, that's what the formula is called!) but it isn't quite the same as an average in the sense of the mean value theorem.

-Dan
Many thanks for the explanation! I understand now. Thank you 🙏🏻
 
Thread 'Problem with calculating projections of curl using rotation of contour'
Hello! I tried to calculate projections of curl using rotation of coordinate system but I encountered with following problem. Given: ##rot_xA=\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial y}-\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial z}=0## ##rot_yA=\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial x}=1## ##rot_zA=\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial y}=0## I rotated ##yz##-plane of this coordinate system by an angle ##45## degrees about ##x##-axis and used rotation matrix to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
14
Views
3K