MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Are there analogues to conformal mapping in 3 dimensions?

I have a specific example I am trying to solve.. Laplace's equation in 3D with slightly complicated rectilinear boundaries. (Think of solving a harmonic function over a 3D boundary which is a cube but with a sub-cube "bitten" out of one corner.)

Laplace's equation is still valid under conformal transformations, so for example in 2D I could take a square domain with a subsquare bitten out of a corner, and apply an inverse tranformation like some of these and solve the equation in a simple square domain.

Are there similar conformal-like transformations in 3D? Perhaps they wouldn't be called conformal maps, but maybe something exists which would work similarly for my 3D Laplace equations.

share|cite|improve this question
Well, there are conformal map in higher dimensions (defined by saying that they preserve angles). However, they are quite a bit less flexible than in 2d; see my answer to the following question :… – Andy Putman Jan 16 '11 at 4:54
Can I requestion "complicated" rather than "complex" in the second paragraph? The word "complex" has all sorts of technical meaning. – Theo Johnson-Freyd Jan 16 '11 at 8:12
Theo, you're right.. done! – MathGeek Jan 16 '11 at 8:46
Andy, yes, those affine transforms aren't useful for this. So the question stands.. are there other transforms that DO work in 3D for the Laplace equation? Or is that really EQUIVALENT to a conformal map, meaning that only affine transforms have that characteristic in 3D? – MathGeek Jan 16 '11 at 8:48
@MathGeek: note that higher-dimensional conformal maps are not all affine, they are slightly more general than that (restriction of Möbius transform on the sphere), but this does not help for your original question. – Benoît Kloeckner Sep 3 '11 at 6:53

I don't know if this is relevant for your question...

In, the author introduces a notion of "weak conformal map" for 3-dimensional domains, and proves a Riemann mapping theorem for those kinds of maps.

Definition: given two open subsets $U,V\subset \mathbb R^3$, a smooth map $f:U\to V$ is called weak conformal if, at every $x\in U$, the three eigenvalues of $P_x:\mathbb R^3\to \mathbb R^3$ are in geometric progression. Here, the positive operator $P_x$ is the one coming from the polar decomposition of the tangent map $T_xf:T_x \mathbb R^3 = \mathbb R^3\to T_{f(x)} \mathbb R^3 = \mathbb R^3$.

share|cite|improve this answer

(If I understand the question correctly) there is a theorem by Liouville stating that starting from dimension 3 the only conformal transformations are the (analogs of) the Möbius ones - composites of reflections in hyperspheres and hyperplanes. It is e. g. in Wikipedia. (Separate Wikipedia entry)

There are more general quasiconformal maps, maybe they are useful here, this I don't know.

PS Just notices that this has been already said in comments to the OP actually, so I probably do not deserve these upvotes...

share|cite|improve this answer

Your problem is a 'classic' of evaluation of numerical methods. I presume the analytic answer is know. Of course the 3D conformal mapping of your problem exist. Notably, solving the Laplacian problem of potential! :\ I used the concept to map very complex bodies in an sphere. (For fun). Of course of the same topology. I recommend to you "Calculation of potential flow about arbitrary bodies" Hess & Smith (1969?) and Kellogg "foundation of potential theory" (1929) (if you have a lot of time!). Remember. If you follow the conditions for a Laplacian fluid you can find (I do not how analytically) a mapping. it's a very beautiful problem. The natural answer exist and it mock us. A classic mathematical problem like "It shows that if you can transform a duck and an orange the problem has a solution and you have found it". Now. Again a SQUARE domain? What is the joke?

Maybe you could try a somewhat different problem. To transform a cylinder inside other in a sphere inside other sphere. Now, you have a 2D problem. Singularity even exist (I assume you want to try some numerical procedure) and the problem can be mapped. If your problem is to evaluate a gridded domain method (like FD, FV or FE). maybe you can try an integral method. Of course. There is a problem in the singular point but if aren't nonlinearities the method is powerful.

Sorry for my very bad English. Here is 3.30am and I just have finish my drink. And. I'm not a mathematician. Only an unemployed aircraft mechanic.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.