1
$\begingroup$

Hi everyone: Let $ \Omega $ be a bounded open set of $ \mathbb{R}^{N} $, $ N\geq2 $, and $ F\subset \Omega $ with empty interior. Suppose there exists a superharmonic function $ u $ on $ \Omega\setminus F $ such that $$ \lim_{x\rightarrow y}u(x)=+\infty $$ for all $ y\in F $. Now, we define $ w(x) $ to be equal to $ u(x) $ for $ x\in \Omega\setminus F $, and $ +\infty $ for $ x\in F $. Is $ w $ a superharmonic function on $ \Omega $?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

First you have to assume that $F$ has measure zero, since a superharmonic function is locally integrable.

Under this assumption, setting $u=\infty$ on $F$ results in a superharmonic function. To see this, note that by the limit assumption $$\lim_{x\to y}u(x)=\infty$$ for all $y\in F$, the resulting function is still lower semi-continuous.

Also, the mean value property $$u(x)\geq \frac{1}{|B(x,r)|} \int_{B(x,r)} u$$ remains valid if $F$ has measure zero.

These imply that $u$ is superharmonic.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for your answer. All I know is that the harmonic measure of $F$ with respect to $\Omega\setminus F$ is zero. But Inerrability is not a part of the definition of a superharmonic function. $\endgroup$ – M. Rahmat Nov 26 '16 at 20:55
  • $\begingroup$ You are right, it is not part of the definition but it follows from the mean value property. The proof is essentially a connectedness argument that uses the fact that superharmonic functions attain a minimum on compact sets. $\endgroup$ – Dimitrios Nt Nov 26 '16 at 21:08
  • $\begingroup$ I agree with what you have proved: if $F$ is a null set, then for sure $u$ is superharmonic. What I want to make sure is this: is it possible that $F$ have only empty interior without $u$ being superharmonic? $\endgroup$ – M. Rahmat Nov 26 '16 at 21:36
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Rahmat: The answer to your question in comment is no. If $F$ has positive measure than it has positive capacity. And a superharmonic function can be infinite only on a set of zero capacity. $\endgroup$ – Alexandre Eremenko Nov 26 '16 at 21:39
  • $\begingroup$ I was just thinking that the continuity of the function near $F$ makes it impossible that the measure of $F$ be positive. $\endgroup$ – M. Rahmat Nov 26 '16 at 23:08

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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