3
$\begingroup$

Let $U \subset\mathbb{R}$$n$ be an arbitrary connected bounded open set, and let $f$ : $∂U$ $\rightarrow$ $\mathbb{R}$ be continuous, where $∂U$ denotes the set $\overline{U} - U$.

Are there necessary and sufficient conditions known for the existence of a continuous function $g$ : $\overline{U}$ $\rightarrow$ $\mathbb{R}$ that is harmonic on $U$ and such that $g \lvert ∂U$ = $f$, covering all possible cases?

(For example, what if $n = 2$ and $∂U$ is nonrectifiable? What if $∂U$ is not a manifold?)

Edit: In any case, can someone point me to something written about the state of the art for this question?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not an authority on this, but already in 2D there are difficulties when the boundary has "cuspidal" singularities, as in the region just below the union of two tangent/osculating disks. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 19 at 19:43
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! I will modify the question to reflect my intention of focusing on connected open sets. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 19 at 19:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm sorry, I wasn't clear: connected (bounded...) regions with very narrow approaches to some points on the boundary are (or at least "used to be") a difficult case. Not about connectivity, but, yeah, sure, avoid quibbles... :) $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 19 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ I hope someone will state definitively whether there exist any counterexamples at all, because as of this writing I have learned only that there are "difficulties". A pointer to the literature on this question would be welcome. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 20 at 2:44
  • $\begingroup$ Please use a high-level tag like "ca.classical-analysis-and-odes". I added this tag now. Regarding high-level tags, see meta.mathoverflow.net/q/1075 $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22 at 14:38

1 Answer 1

12
$\begingroup$

There is a necessary and sufficient condition. It is called regularity. There is a simple criterion due to Wiener which tells you when a boundary point $x_0$ is regular, for $n\geq 3$ it says
$$\sum\frac{C(E_m)}{q^{m(n-2)}}=\infty,$$ where $$ E_m=E\cap\{ x:|x-x_0|\in[q^{m+1},q^m)\},$$ where $E$ is the boundary of the domain, $q\in(0,1)$, and $C$ is the Newton capacity. This has to be modified when $n=2$: $$\sum\frac{m}{\log(2/c(E_m))}=\infty,$$ where $c(E)$ is the logarithmic capacity.

Regularity means that all boundary points are regular.

In the plane, there is also a simple sufficient condition (usually easier to verify than the general Wiener criterion): a point $z$ is regular if it belongs to a continuum $K$ which is a subset of the boundary. This implies that the Dirichlet problem is always solvable for a simply connected bounded region in the plane.

Remark: a continuum is a compact connected set containing at least 2 points. (All such sets in $\Bbb R^n$ have the same power, which is called the "power of continuum". The simplest example of discontinuum of the power of continuum is a Cantor set).

References

Naum S. Landkof, Foundations of modern potential theory. Berlin-Heidelberg-New York: Springer-Verlag, pp. X+424 (1972), MR0350027, Zbl 0253.31001. Wikipedia lists few other books.

For $n=2$, the standard reference is

Thomas Ransford, Potential theory in the complex plane, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. x+232 (1995), MR1334766, Zbl 0828.31001.

$\endgroup$
9
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you, Alexandre! This is very interesting, and I've now ordered the Landkof book. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 21 at 14:06
  • $\begingroup$ But in the plane, doesn't every boundary point belong to a continuum that is a subset of the boundary: the boundary ∂U itself? Or what am I missing? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22 at 1:27
  • $\begingroup$ The boundary is not always a continuum: it can be a Cantor like set. Landkof's book is freely available online. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 22 at 13:24
  • $\begingroup$ Apologies for my last comment; my head was stuck thinking of a simply connected open set. $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 23 at 23:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks. How about $q$? Is it an arbitrary number less than 1, or something else? $\endgroup$ Commented Jun 25 at 16:27

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.