Normal derivative at boundary Laplace's equation half plane

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Poisson integral formula for a holomorphic function u(x,y) defined in the half-plane, specifically addressing the boundary condition u(x,0) = f(x). The formula for u(x,y) is given as u(x,y) = ∫_{-\infty}^{\infty} (y f(t)) / ((t-x)² + y²) dt. The main inquiries involve proving the boundary condition and determining the normal derivative ∂u/∂y at y=0. The discussion highlights the complexities of taking limits as y approaches 0 from below.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of holomorphic functions
  • Familiarity with Laplace's equation
  • Knowledge of the Poisson integral formula
  • Concepts of boundary value problems (BVP)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of the Poisson integral formula
  • Learn about boundary value problems in complex analysis
  • Explore techniques for taking limits in calculus, particularly in complex variables
  • Investigate the properties of holomorphic functions in the context of the upper half-plane
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students studying complex analysis, particularly those focusing on boundary value problems and the application of the Poisson integral formula.

nickthequick
Messages
39
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Given a holomorphic function u(x,y) defined in the half plane (x\in (-\infty,\infty), y\in (-\infty,0)), with boundary value u(x,0) = f(x), the solution to this equation (known as the Poisson integral formula) is

u(x,y) = \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} \frac{y\ f(t) }{(t-x)^2 +y^2} \ dt.


I have two questions. First, how does one prove

u(x,0) = f(x),

and related, but what I'm more interested in, how do I find

\left.\frac{\partial u(x,y) }{\partial y}\right|_{y=0}


The subtleties on how take these limits (namely y\to 0; \ y<0) appropriately is very much beyond me. Any suggestions/references on how to answer this would be very appreciated.

Thanks!

Nick
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm sorry you are not generating any responses at the moment. Is there any additional information you can share with us? Any new findings?
 
I'm not entirely sure about your first question. You defined the upper half-plane problem to have the BV of f(x). I don't think you would need to prove that, because that is just a definition in the problem. Correct me if I'm wrong.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K