How Do We Get the Last Two Relations in the Mean Value Proposition Proof?

  • MHB
  • Thread starter evinda
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Relations
In summary, we discussed the proof of a proposition involving the mean value of a function over a sphere and its relationship to a partial differential equation. We also looked at the computation of the normal vector to the sphere and the use of the divergence theorem. Finally, we explored a formula involving the Laplacian operator and the mean value of a function.
  • #1
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
3,836
0
Hello! (Wave)

We set $L_k \equiv u_{tt}+\frac{k}{t}-\Delta u=0, k \in \mathbb{N}_0$.

I am looking at the proof of the following proposition:

We suppose that $g(x)$ is twice differentiable in $\mathbb{R}^n$. Then the mean value of $g(x)$ at the sphere with radius $t$ and center at $x$, which we symbolize with $M(t,x,g)$, is a solution of the problem
$L_{n-1} M=0, M(0,x,g)=g(x), M_t(0,x,g)=0$.

I am given the proof for $n=2$, but I have some questions.

For $n=2$ we have $M(t,x,g)=\frac{1}{2 \pi t} \int_{|x-\xi|=t} g(\xi) ds=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} g(x_1+t \cos{\phi}, x_2+ t \sin{\phi}) d{\phi}$.

Let $\xi_1=x_1+ t \cos{\phi}$ and $\xi_2=x_2+ t \sin{\phi}$.

We have:

$$\frac{\partial{M}}{\partial{t}}=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} (g_{\xi_1} \cos{\phi}+g_{\xi_2} \sin{\phi}) d{\phi}=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} \nabla_{\xi}g \cdot (\cos{\phi}, \sin{\phi}) d{\phi}=\frac{1}{2 \pi t} \int_{|x-\xi|=t} \nabla_{\xi}g \cdot \mathcal{v} ds=\frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_{|x-\xi| \leq t} \Delta_{\xi}gd{\xi}$$

Could you explain to me how we get the last two relations? (Thinking)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
The normal $\nu$ to the circle is the unit radial vector from the origin, so in coordinates it's $(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$. Also, on the circle, the arc length parameter $s$ satisfies $s = t\phi$, and so $ds = t\, d\phi$, or $d\phi = \frac{1}{t}\, ds$. This is why, altogether, you get

$$\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \nabla_\xi g\cdot(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)\, d\phi = \frac{1}{2\pi t}\int_{\lvert x - \xi\rvert = t} \nabla_\xi g \cdot \nu \, ds.$$

The last equation follows from the divergence theorem, since $\operatorname{div}(\nabla_\xi g) = \Delta_\xi g$.
 
  • #3
Euge said:
The normal $\nu$ to the circle is the unit radial vector from the origin, so in coordinates it's $(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$.

Could you explain further to me why the coordinates of $\nu$ are $(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$ ? (Thinking)
Euge said:
The last equation follows from the divergence theorem, since $\operatorname{div}(\nabla_\xi g) = \Delta_\xi g$.

I see... (Nod)
 
  • #4
Also, then it says the following:$$\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}} \int_{|x-\xi|\leq t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|<t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi} g ds$$

First of all, why don't we have :

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}} \int_{|x-\xi|\leq t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|\leq t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}$$

?

Secondly, how do we get the following equality?

$$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|<t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi} g ds$$

And... does it hold that $\Delta M= \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} (g_{\xi_1 \xi_1} \cos^2{\phi}+g_{\xi_2 \xi_2} \sin^2{\phi}) d{\phi}$ ? (Thinking)
 
  • #5
evinda said:
Could you explain further to me why the coordinates of $\nu$ are $(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$ ? (Thinking)

I made a slight error in my description of $\varphi$. What I meant to say is that for every point $\xi$ on your circle, $\nu(\xi)$ is the unit radial vector from the center of the circle (which is $x$) to $\xi$. Thus $\nu(\xi) = \frac{\xi - x}{\|\xi - x\|}$. Now $\xi = x + t(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$ for some $\phi$, and so $\nu(\xi) = \frac{t(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)}{t} = (\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$.
evinda said:
Also, then it says the following:$$\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}} \int_{|x-\xi|\leq t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|<t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi} g ds$$

First of all, why don't we have :

$$\frac{\partial}{\partial{t}} \int_{|x-\xi|\leq t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|\leq t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}$$

?

Your equation is correct, but so is the author's. Note the domain of integration in your integral differs from the domain of integration of the authors by a null set.
evinda said:
Secondly, how do we get the following equality?

$$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t}\int_{t<|x-\xi|<t+ \Delta t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}=\int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi} g ds$$
Switch to polar coordinates centered at $x$. At some point you'll compute the limits

$$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \int_t^{t+\Delta t} \nabla^2 g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 +r\sin \phi)\, r\, dr,$$

which evaluate to $\nabla^2 g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 + r\sin \phi)\,t$ by the fundamental theorem of calculus.
evinda said:
And... does it hold that $\Delta M= \frac{1}{2 \pi} \int_0^{2 \pi} (g_{\xi_1 \xi_1} \cos^2{\phi}+g_{\xi_2 \xi_2} \sin^2{\phi}) d{\phi}$ ? (Thinking)

How did you derive this formula?
 
  • #6
Euge said:
I made a slight error in my description of $\varphi$. What I meant to say is that for every point $\xi$ on your circle, $\nu(\xi)$ is the unit radial vector from the center of the circle (which is $x$) to $\xi$. Thus $\nu(\xi) = \frac{\xi - x}{\|\xi - x\|}$. Now $\xi = x + t(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$ for some $\phi$, and so $\nu(\xi) = \frac{t(\cos \phi, \sin \phi)}{t} = (\cos \phi, \sin \phi)$.

A ok... (Nod)
Euge said:
Your equation is correct, but so is the author's. Note the domain of integration in your integral differs from the domain of integration of the authors by a null set.

I see...
Euge said:
Switch to polar coordinates centered at $x$. At some point you'll compute the limits

$$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \int_t^{t+\Delta t} \nabla^2 g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 +r\sin \phi)\, r\, dr,$$

which evaluate to $\nabla^2 g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 + r\sin \phi)\,t$ by the fundamental theorem of calculus.

Switching to polar coordinates we get the limit $\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \int_{t<|r|<t+\Delta t} \Delta_{\xi} g r dr$, which is equal to that what you wrote , right?
Then from the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have that:

$$\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \int_t^{t+\Delta t} \Delta_{\xi} g r dr=\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \left[\Delta_{\xi}g(x_1+(t+\Delta t) \cos{\phi}, x_2+ (t+\Delta t)\sin{\phi})(t+\Delta t)-\Delta_{\xi}g(x_1+t \cos{\phi}, x_2+t \sin{\phi})t\right]$$

Right? How do we continue?
Euge said:
How did you derive this formula?

I don't remember how I got this.
Do we have:

$$\Delta M=\frac{1}{2 \pi t} \int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}$$

although $\xi$ appears at the limit of integration? (Thinking)
 
  • #7
evinda said:
Switching to polar coordinates we get the limit $\lim_{\Delta t \to 0} \frac{1}{\Delta t} \int_{t<|r|<t+\Delta t} \Delta_{\xi} g r dr$, which is equal to that what you wrote , right?
No. It should be

$$\lim_{\Delta t\to 0} \int_0^{2\pi} \int_t^{t + \Delta t} \nabla^2g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 + r\sin \phi)\, r\, dr\, d\phi$$
evinda said:
I don't remember how I got this.
Do we have:

$$\Delta M=\frac{1}{2 \pi t} \int_{|x-\xi|=t} \Delta_{\xi}g d{\xi}$$

although $\xi$ appears at the limit of integration? (Thinking)
The $d\xi$ should be $ds$. Otherwise, the formula is correct.
 
  • #8
Euge said:
No. It should be

$$\lim_{\Delta t\to 0} \int_0^{2\pi} \int_t^{t + \Delta t} \nabla^2g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 + r\sin \phi)\, r\, dr\, d\phi$$

Could you explain further to me how you got this?
Euge said:
The $d\xi$ should be $ds$. Otherwise, the formula is correct.

Having $ds$ instead of $d\xi$ , in respect to which variable do we integrate?
 
  • #9
evinda said:
Could you explain further to me how you got this?
The region $t < \lvert x - \xi \lvert < t + \Delta t$ is an annulus centered at $x =(x_1,x_2)$ with inner radius $t$ and outer radius $t + \Delta t$. So the radial variable $r$ ranges from $t$ to $t + \Delta t$ and the polar variable $\phi$ ranges from $0$ to $2\pi$. This leads to the double integral representation

$$\int_{t < \lvert x - \xi \rvert < t + \Delta t} \Delta_\xi g\, d\xi = \int_0^{2\pi}\int_t^{t + \Delta t} \nabla^2g(x_1 + r\cos \phi, x_2 + r\sin \phi) \,r\, dr\, d\phi$$
evinda said:
Having $ds$ instead of $d\xi$ , in respect to which variable do we integrate?
The integration is done with respect to arclength; the integral over the circle $\lvert x - \xi\rvert = t$ is a line integral. If you use $d\xi$ instead, the integral would be zero because the circle is a null set in the plane.
 

FAQ: How Do We Get the Last Two Relations in the Mean Value Proposition Proof?

How do we determine cause and effect in relationships?

In order to determine cause and effect in relationships, scientists typically use controlled experiments where they manipulate one variable (the independent variable) while keeping all other variables constant. The resulting changes in the dependent variable can then be attributed to the manipulated variable, helping to establish a cause and effect relationship.

What methods do scientists use to study relationships?

Scientists use a variety of methods to study relationships, depending on the specific research question and the type of relationship being studied. Some common methods include surveys, experiments, observational studies, and statistical analyses.

How do we measure the strength of a relationship?

The strength of a relationship is often measured using statistical techniques such as correlation coefficients or regression analyses. These methods can help determine the degree of association between two variables and whether the relationship is positive, negative, or neutral.

How do we account for other factors that may impact relationships?

In order to account for other factors that may influence relationships, scientists may use control groups, statistical controls, or other methods to isolate the effects of the variables they are interested in studying. Additionally, scientists may conduct multiple studies or meta-analyses to help determine the consistency and robustness of relationships across different contexts.

Can we generalize relationships to larger populations?

In order to generalize relationships to larger populations, scientists often use random sampling techniques to select a representative sample from the population of interest. This allows them to make inferences about the larger population based on the relationships observed in the sample. Additionally, scientists may conduct replication studies to test the generalizability of relationships across different samples and populations.

Similar threads

Replies
20
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
0
Views
921
Back
Top