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? $\endgroup$ 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 $\int \lambda_1f_1dx=\int \lambda_2f_2dx=0$. $\endgroup$ Commented Sep 2, 2017 at 1:24
  • $\begingroup$ @WillieWong It doesn't matter, anyway. $\endgroup$ 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.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.