This post is not short. However I'm sure that a guy who good handle these concepts, could read and answer in five minutes. I only want to write my attempt, in order to understand where I'm wrong.

Let $\Omega\in\Bbb C$ be a domain; $\varphi:\Omega\to[-\infty,+\infty[$ upper semicontinous (i.e. $\varphi(z_0)\ge\limsup_{z\to z_0}\varphi(z)\;\;\forall z_0\in\Omega$).

I need to show, given $\bar\Delta_{z_0,r}\Subset\Omega$ (the unitary disk of radius $r$) that $$ \varphi(z_0)\le\frac1{2\pi r}\int_{\partial\Delta_{z_0,r}}\varphi(s)\;ds $$ implies $$ \varphi(z_0)\le\frac i{2\pi r^2}\int_{\Delta_{z_0,r}}\varphi(z,\bar z)\;dz\wedge d\bar z\;\;. $$

Now what everybody would do is to rewrite the first inequality as

$$ (2\pi t)\varphi(z_0)\le\int_{\partial\Delta_{z_0,t}}\varphi(s)\;ds $$ and then integrate over $]0,r]$ wrt the variable $t$.

In this way LHS become easily $\pi r^2\varphi(z_0)$.

My problem is with RHS. Roughly I'd write $$ \int_0^r\int_{\partial\Delta_{z_0,t}}\varphi(s)\,ds\,dt =\int_{\Delta_{z_0,r}}\varphi(z)\,dz $$

but I'm not sure it has some sense. So I started form the other side, and this is what I got: \begin{align*} \int_{\Delta_{z_0,r}}\varphi(z,\bar z)\;dz\wedge d\bar z &=-2i\int_{\Delta_{z_0,r}}\varphi(x,y)\,dx\wedge dy\\ &=-2i\int_{\Delta_{z_0,r}}\varphi(x,y)\,dx\wedge dy \end{align*}

this could be seen in two ways: writing $dz\wedge d\bar z=(dx+idy)\wedge(dx-idy)=-2i(dx\wedge dy)$ or changing variable via the isomorphism $\beta:\Bbb R^2\stackrel{\simeq}{\to}\Bbb C$ defined by $(x,y)\mapsto(x+iy,x-iy)$.

What we have, then, is the integral of a $2$-form on a $2$-parametric manifold. So I consider now $$ \alpha:]0,r[\times[0,2\pi[\longrightarrow\Delta_{z_0,r}\setminus\{z_0\} $$ defined by $$ (t,\theta)\longmapsto (\Re z_0+t\cos\theta,\Im z_0+t\sin\theta) $$

from which we have $$ -2i\int_{\Delta_{z_0,r}}\varphi(x,y)\,dx\wedge dy=\\ =-2i\int_{]0,r[\times[0,2\pi[}\varphi (\Re z_0+t\cos\theta,\Im z_0+t\sin\theta) \underbrace{[\partial_t\alpha_1\partial_{\theta}\alpha_2-\partial_t\alpha_2\partial_{\theta}\alpha_1]}_{=\partial\alpha_1\wedge\partial\alpha_2(\partial_t\alpha,\partial_{\theta}\alpha)=t}\,dt\,d\theta\\ =-2i\int_0^rt\underbrace{\int_0^{2\pi}\varphi (\Re z_0+t\cos\theta,\Im z_0+t\sin\theta)\,d\theta}_{=:A(t)}\,dt $$

And till here it seems (to me!) to have made no mistakes.

Now I thought I could work on $A(t)$. Using $\beta^{-1}$ I got $$ A(t)=\frac i2\int_0^{2\pi}\varphi(z_0+te^{i\theta})\,d\theta $$ The problem comes now: how to proceed? I would change variable to this last integral $s=z_0+te^{i\theta}$: in this way it's ALMOST (and almost in Mathematics means wrong) equal to the wanted integral, except for a $ie^{i\operatorname{arg}(s)}$ or something similar (I erased it from my notebook).

Where am I wrong? How can I conclude?

Many thanks!

  • $\begingroup$ "a complex function can be integrated over a path, not over a surface" Why? What prohibits us from integrating a complex function, like $f(z)=e^z$ over some region, like the unit disk or a square? It's the usual integral with respect to a measure, the measure being two-dimensional Lebesgue. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Feb 1 '15 at 22:19
  • $\begingroup$ You're right, thanks. However the identity which preceeds this sentence doesn't convince me. $\endgroup$ – Joe Feb 1 '15 at 22:21
  • $\begingroup$ You could write $\int_0^r\int_{\partial\Delta_{z_0,t}}\varphi(s)\,ds\,dt=\int_{\Delta_{z_0,t}} \varphi(z)\,d \text{ "some symbol for 2d Lebesgue measure"}$, and it would be correct. Integration in polar coordinates is an instance of Fubini's theorem; its legitimacy is justified by measure theory, not by complex analysis. $\endgroup$ – user147263 Feb 1 '15 at 22:23
  • $\begingroup$ Ok, but how can this agree with the integral of a $2$-form I wrote at the beginning? $\endgroup$ – Joe Feb 1 '15 at 22:25
  • $\begingroup$ I haven't read all this, but note that the inequality you wish to prove needs to be fixed. On the RHS, you probably need a factor of $i/2$, to give the usual area integral. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Feb 1 '15 at 23:06

You didn't quite edit correctly. The $i/2$ belongs in the inequality $$\varphi(z_0)\le \frac1{2\pi} \frac i2\int_{D(z_0,r)} \varphi(z)dz\wedge d\bar z.$$ Although I'm a huge fan of using $dz$ and $d\bar z$, I think it's easier just to use a polar coordinates double integral on this problem.

Given that $$\varphi(z_0)\le \frac1{2\pi r}\int_{\partial D(z_0,r)} \varphi (s)ds = \frac1{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}\varphi(z_0+re^{i\theta})d\theta$$ for all $0\le r\le R$, we proceed as follows: \begin{align*} \frac{R^2}2\varphi(z_0) &= \int_0^R \varphi(z_0) r\,dr \le \frac1{2\pi}\int_0^R\left(\int_0^{2\pi}\varphi(z_0+re^{i\theta})d\theta\right)r\,dr \\ &= \frac1{2\pi}\int_{D(z_0,R)} \varphi(z) r\,drd\theta = \frac1{2\pi}\frac i2\int_{D(z_0,R)} \varphi(z)\,dz\wedge d\bar z. \end{align*} This gives $\varphi(z_0) \le \displaystyle{\frac 1{\pi R^2}\frac i2\int_{D(z_0,R)} \varphi(z)\,dz\wedge d\bar z}$, as requested.

  • $\begingroup$ First of all: THANK YOU! Second: can you please explain the last integral equality? Why should I have $\int_{D(z_0,R)}\varphi(z)rdrd\theta=\frac i2\int_{D(z_0,R)}\varphi(z)dz\wedge d\bar z$? $\endgroup$ – Joe Feb 2 '15 at 0:45
  • $\begingroup$ Because $r\,dr\wedge d\theta=dx\wedge dy =\dfrac i2 dz\wedge d\bar z$. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Feb 2 '15 at 0:46
  • $\begingroup$ (I'm at first sights to differential forms, sorry) but in the penultimate integral you wrote $drd\theta$, not $dr\wedge d\theta$. Why? How does this work? $\endgroup$ – Joe Feb 2 '15 at 0:48
  • $\begingroup$ You need to learn the definitions. Once orientations are correct, $\int_R f dx\wedge dy = \int_R f\,dx\,dy$. $\endgroup$ – Ted Shifrin Feb 2 '15 at 0:51
  • $\begingroup$ I studied that the first integral you just wrote is the integral of a 2-differential form (on a parametric manifold of dimension 2) but the second should be the usual Lebesgue integral. I'm studying hard these first tools about differential forms but I can't see the link between these two objects. $\endgroup$ – Joe Feb 2 '15 at 1:00

I can rewrite $A(t)$ as $$ \int_0^{2\pi}\varphi(z_0+te^{i\theta})\,d\theta $$ WITHOUT adding $-2i$ or $i/2$ factors (which are the $\Bbb R^2\longleftrightarrow\Bbb C$ passage) because I didn't change variable, I simply rewrote $(\Re z_0+t\cos\theta,\Im z_0+t\sin\theta)$ in another way.

In this way I came to $$ -2i\int_0^rt\int_0^{2\pi}\varphi(z_0+te^{i\theta})\,d\theta\,dt\;\;. $$ Now we change variable $s=z_0+te^{i\theta}$ from which $ds=|ite^{i\theta}|d\theta=td\theta$ (because $s$ is the element of arc). Thus the last integral is equal to $$ -2i\int_0^r\int_{\partial\Delta_{z_0,t}}\varphi(s)\,ds\,dt\;. $$ Hence \begin{align*} \frac{1}{-2i}\int_{\Delta_{z_0,r}}\varphi(z,\bar z)dz\wedge d\bar z &=\int_0^r\int_{\partial\Delta_{z_0,t}}\varphi(s)\,ds\,dt\\ &\ge\int_0^r\varphi(z_0)2\pi t\,dt\\ &=\pi\varphi(z_0)r^2 \end{align*}

which concludes this little "odissey".

Thanks to all, once again I learned something new. I'm going to bed, here it's 5am.


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.