Timeline for Harmonic Functions
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
9 events
when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Nov 26, 2012 at 5:30 | vote | accept | Mykie | ||
Nov 26, 2012 at 5:30 | |||||
Jun 10, 2010 at 16:14 | history | edited | Andrey Rekalo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
added 538 characters in body; added 20 characters in body
|
Jun 10, 2010 at 14:47 | comment | added | BS. | Your argument shows the result holds for any distributional $f$ (for instance a locally integrable $f$). | |
Jun 10, 2010 at 2:49 | comment | added | Andrey Rekalo | Yes, it's a good analogy. | |
Jun 10, 2010 at 2:16 | comment | added | Will Jagy | Excellent. Similar to the distinction between, say, Lipschitz and locally Lipschitz properties. | |
Jun 10, 2010 at 1:59 | comment | added | Andrey Rekalo | Will, if we can choose however small but the same $\delta>0$ for every $(x_0,y_0)\in {\rm supp} g$, then we may write the Taylor expansion and safely pass to the limit in the integral. In your example, the upper bound on $\delta$ goes to $0$ when $y_0\to 0$. And the limiting function is discontinuous precisely on the line $y_0=0$. | |
Jun 10, 2010 at 1:35 | comment | added | Andrey Rekalo | Will, I'm not sure the proof will work if the upper bound does not remain $>\epsilon>0$ for every $(x,y)$ in the support of $g$. The question is whether the passage to the limit $\delta\to 0$ in the integral can be justified in this case? | |
Jun 9, 2010 at 20:24 | history | edited | Andrey Rekalo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
deleted 10 characters in body
|
Jun 9, 2010 at 20:17 | history | answered | Andrey Rekalo | CC BY-SA 2.5 |