1
$\begingroup$

Let $\Omega$ be a bounded domain in $\mathbb{R}^3$ and $f_1,f_2 \in C^2(\bar{\Omega})$. Suppose

$\int_{\Omega}(f_2-f_1)\varphi \, dx=0$ and $\int_{\Omega}(f_2 \Delta^{-1} f_2- f_1 \Delta^{-1} f_1)\varphi \, dx =0$

for all harmonic functions $\varphi$, where $\Delta^{-1}f=\int_{\Omega}f(y)\Phi(x-y) \, dy$ and $\Phi$ is the fundamental solution of the Laplacian. Is $f_1=f_2$?

$\endgroup$
3
  • $\begingroup$ @AmirSagiv As far as I can tell, this is not about (harmonic-analysis). The tag (harmonic-functions) seems more suitable here, at least to me. (I guess that if this is not correct, more experienced users will correct me.) $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3, 2017 at 8:17
  • $\begingroup$ @MartinSleziak I was not aware of the harmonic-functions tag, and it is very relevant. Why not both? $\endgroup$
    – Amir Sagiv
    Commented Sep 3, 2017 at 8:18
  • $\begingroup$ @AmirSagiv Re: Why not both? I will not pretend to know much about harmonic analysis, but to me this question seems unrelated to this area. (Of course I might be wrong.) I would suggest that we continue this discussion in chat - if needed - so that we do not leave here many comments which are related only to the choice of tag and not to the actual question. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 3, 2017 at 8:22

1 Answer 1

4
$\begingroup$

Assume without loss of generality that $0\in \Omega$.

Let $f_1, f_2$ be radial, with support contained in $\Omega$.

By the mean value property of harmonic functions, you have

$$ \int f_2 \varphi ~\mathrm{d}x = 4\pi \varphi(0) \int_0^{\infty} r^2 f_2(r) ~\mathrm{d}r = \varphi(0) \int f_2(r) ~\mathrm{d}x. $$

Now let $f_1, f_2$ be arbitrary non-trivial radial functions such that $\int f_1 ~\mathrm{d}x = \int f_2 ~\mathrm{d}x= 0$.

As $\Delta^{-1} f_1$ and $\Delta^{-1}f_2$ are also radial, we have that $$\int f_1 \Delta^{-1} f_1 \varphi ~\mathrm{d}x = \varphi(0) \int f_1 \Delta^{-1} f_1 ~\mathrm{d}x$$ whenever $\varphi$ is harmonic. So then by replacing $f_1 \mapsto \lambda_1 f_1$ and $f_2 \mapsto \lambda_2 f_2$ we can certainly arrange for

$$ \int (\lambda_1)^2 f_1 \Delta^{-1} f_1 - (\lambda_2)^2 f_2 \Delta^{-2} f_2 ~\mathrm{d}x = 0 $$

and so as long as our seeds $f_1$ and $f_2$ have, for example, unequal supports, we arrive at a counterexample.


In the comments below the OP asked for examples where $f_1$ and $f_2$ are signed. Hopefully the computations below are (more or less) correct:

Roughly speaking, let $1 > r > \rho$ be fixed numbers. The idea is to let $f_1$ be the sum of the surface measure of the sphere of radius 1 with $a_\rho$ times the surface measure of the sphere of radius $\rho$, while $f_2$ is $a_r$ times the surface measure of the sphere of radius $r$. Then the first condition requires

$$ 1 + a_\rho \rho^2 = a_r r^2 $$

For the surface measure of a sphere of radius $\rho$, $\Delta^{-1}$ can be computed to be the function equaling $C |x|^{-1} \rho^2$ for some universal constant $C$. So you would have that the condition on $f_1 \Delta^{-1} f_1$ to give rise to the condition

$$ 1 + a_\rho^2 \rho + 2 a_\rho \rho^2 = a_r^2 r $$

$$ \implies 1 + a_\rho^2 \rho + 2 a_\rho \rho^2 = r^{-3} (1 + 2 a_\rho \rho^2 + a_\rho^2 \rho^4) $$

$$ \implies 1 - r^3 + 2 a_\rho \rho^2 (1 - r^3) + a_\rho^2 \rho (\rho^3 - r^3) = 0$$

Since $1 > r > \rho$ this last equation has a positive root $a_\rho$, which then gives a positive solution $a_r$.

To move from measures to functions: instead of using surface measures use $C^\infty_c$ functions highly concentrated near the corresponding surfaces. The computations would be slightly less explicit but the relationships between the coefficients $a_r, a_\rho$ would still hold up to a (small) perturbation, and you still can find a counterexample.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks Willie. We need both integrals to be zero. Since $\int f_1dx=\int f_2dx$, doesn't the first condition force $\lambda_1=\lambda_2$? In your construction, both integrals don't vanish at the same time. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2, 2017 at 1:21
  • $\begingroup$ @MathStudent Note $\int f_1dx=\int f_2dx=0$, so $\int \lambda_1f_1dx=\int \lambda_2f_2dx=0$. $\endgroup$
    – Fan Zheng
    Commented Sep 2, 2017 at 1:24
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong It doesn't matter, anyway. $\endgroup$
    – Fan Zheng
    Commented Sep 2, 2017 at 1:25
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong You are right. But I forgot to mention that both $f_1$ and $f_2$ are positive functions. Do you think there would still be a counterexample? $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2, 2017 at 3:25
  • $\begingroup$ @MathStudent: I think so. See the sketch of an argument I just included. (Instead of the surface measure, you can take a uniformly-dense thin shell in which case the computations can also be done exactly.) If I didn't make a stupid mistake in the computation, the argument should be stable under small perturbations and in particularly also allow you strictly positive (on some bounded domain $\Omega$) examples. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2, 2017 at 4:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .