Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

It easy to prove that no non-constant positive concave function exists (for example by integrating: $ u'' \leq 0 \to u' \leq c \to u \leq cx+c_2 $ and since $u>0$ , we obviously get a contradiction.

Can this result be generalized to $ \mathbb{R}^2 $ and the laplacian? Is there an easy way to see this? (i.e.- no non-constant positive real-valued function with non-positive laplacian exists)


share|cite|improve this question
You want that to be strictly concave. Otherwise $f(x)\equiv 1$ is positive and concave. ($c=0$) – tomasz Jul 2 '12 at 19:35
Also, you assume that the function is twice diferentiable. Not all concave functions are differentiable everywhere. – tomasz Jul 2 '12 at 19:37
Another implicit assumption is that the function is defined on $\mathbb{R}$. For example the function $f:(0,1)\to\mathbb{R},x\mapsto x(1-x)$ is both concave and positive. – celtschk Jul 2 '12 at 19:57
@celtschk: you meant concave. – copper.hat Jul 2 '12 at 19:59
But without demanding strictly concave, and by assuming that I don't want constant functions, my claim will be true? i.e.- concave, positive, and non-constant Thanks ! – joshua Jul 2 '12 at 20:12

There is no non-constant positive concave function on all of $\mathbb{R}$.

If $f$ is a concave function, then the difference ratio $$ \frac{f(x)-f(y)}{x-y} $$ is a non-increasing function of both $x$ and $y$.

Suppose there are $x$ and $y$ so that $f(x)<f(y)$ and let $M=\dfrac{f(x)-f(y)}{x-y}$.

If $x<y$, then $M>0$ and for all $z< x$, we have that $$ \frac{f(z)-f(y)}{z-y}\ge\frac{f(x)-f(y)}{x-y}=M\tag{1} $$ therefore, $$ f(z)\le f(y)+(z-y)M\tag{2} $$ and $(2)$ says that for all $z< y-\frac{f(y)}{M}$, we have $f(z)<0$.

If $x>y$, then $M<0$ and for all $z>x$, we have that $$ \frac{f(z)-f(y)}{z-y}\le\frac{f(x)-f(y)}{x-y}=M\tag{3} $$ therefore, $$ f(z)\le f(y)+(z-y)M\tag{4} $$ and $(4)$ says that for all $z>y-\frac{f(y)}{M}$, we have $f(z)<0$.

Thus no matter whether $x>y$ or $x<y$, we have that $f$ cannot stay positive.

Superharmonic Functions

A superharmonic function is one whose Laplacian is non-positive everywhere. I believe this is what you mean by "the Laplacian case".

Since the case of harmonic functions can be handled using Harnack's Inequality, let's consider the case of strictly superharmonic functions; that is, ones for which $\int_{\mathbb{R}^n}\Delta f(y)\,\mathrm{d}y\lt0$.

Let $B(r,x)=\{y\in\mathbb{R}^n:|y-x|\le r\}$. Then, by the Divergence Theorem, $$ \int_{B(r,x)}\Delta f(y)\,\mathrm{d}y=\int_{\partial B(r,x)}\nabla f(y)\cdot\vec{n}\,\mathrm{d}\sigma(y)\tag{5} $$ The right hand side of $(5)$ is the measure of $\partial B(r,x)$ times the rate of change of $m_f(r,x)$, the mean value of $f$ over $\partial B(r,x)$. The left hand side of $(5)$ is strictly negative past a certain $r_0$. Rewriting this, we get for $r\ge r_0$, $$ \omega_{n-1}r^{n-1}\frac{\partial m_f(r,x)}{\partial r}\le C\lt0\tag{6} $$ which leads to $$ \frac{\partial m_f(r,x)}{\partial r}\le\frac{C}{\omega_{n-1}r^{n-1}}\tag{7} $$ For $n\le2$, $(7)$ says that there can be no lower bound for $m_f(r,x)$, which means there can be no lower bound for $f$.

According to item $8)$ here, a superharmonic function on the whole of $\mathbb{R}^2$ that is bounded below is constant. However, the same is not true on $\mathbb{R}^n$ for $n\ge3$. This agrees with $(7)$.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks a lot! I'll update my assumptions... What about the laplacian case? Thanks ! – joshua Jul 2 '12 at 20:14
That's excatly what I mean ! Do you know of any possible way to prove this? Thanks ! – joshua Jul 3 '12 at 5:56
@joshua: I've added a bit which explains the claim made in item $8)$ here. – robjohn Jul 3 '12 at 18:05
Thanks a lot ! I'll read it depply on weekend ! Hope I'll figure it out ! Thanks Again! – joshua Jul 3 '12 at 19:28
OK. I have now read your answer, and I found several things difficult: First of all, can you please explain why does your final conclousion is only true for $n \leq 2 $ ? I can't figure this out. In addition, can you please explain again how did you deduce what you said about the RHS of (5) ? Have you got any idea about standard PDE methods of proving this? Something like denoting $ v^\epsilon = u + \epsilon log(\sqrt{x^2 + y^2} ) $ , where $u$ is a subharmonic function, and estaimating $\epsilon$ or something? Thanks again ! – joshua Jul 4 '12 at 20:00

Concavity (or convexity) is essentially a 'one dimensional' property in that you only need to consider behavior on a line. The ambient space is somewhat irrelevant (at least for concavity/convexity issues).

It is straightforward to establish that if $f$ is a concave real-valued function on a vector space, and bounded below, then $f$ is a constant. (In your question, the lower bound is $0$.)

To see this, suppose $f(x_1) > f(x_2)$, and consider the (concave) function $\phi(t) = f(t x_2+(1-t)x_1)$. Then taking $t>1$, by concavity, we have $$\phi(\frac{1}{t} t + (1-\frac{1}{t}) 0) \geq \frac{1}{t} \phi(t) + (1-\frac{1}{t}) \phi(0).$$ Multiplying across by $t$, and rearranging gives: $$\phi(0) + t (\phi(1)-\phi(0)) \geq \phi(t).$$ Since $\phi(1)-\phi(0) = f(x_2)-f(x_1) < 0$, and $t>1$ was arbitrary, we see that $\phi$ is unbounded below, which is a contradiction. Hence $f$ is a constant.

share|cite|improve this answer
Thanks ! But what about the Laplacian case? (i.e- I don't demand concavity, but non-positive laplacian) – joshua Jul 2 '12 at 20:13
But shouldn't the concavity condition only give that inequality for $0 < 1/t \le 1$, that is $t \ge 1$? Of course that doesn't invalidate the argument. – celtschk Jul 2 '12 at 20:14
Oops, thanks for catching that, I did mean $t>1$. – copper.hat Jul 2 '12 at 20:37

Let $u$ strictly concave and twice diferentiable in $\mathbb{R^{2}}$ então $v(x) = u(x,0)$ is strictly concave and twice diferentiable in $\mathbb{R}$. Hence assume negative value.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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