Conversation started Nov 23, 2017 at 14:37.
Nov 23, 2017 14:37
A new tag has been created - apparently by Guy Fsone. It already has 8 questions.
1
Q: If $\Delta u(x,y)=0,\ \ \text{in}\ B,\ \ \ u(x,y)=\sin(x)\ \ \text{on}\ \partial B$ then compute $u(0,0)$

JamesI'm having trouble solving the following PDE problem. We're in the open unit ball in the plane, centered at the origin, $$B=\{(x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^{2},\ \ x^2+y^2<1\}$$ The following boundary problem is given $$\Delta u(x,y)=0,\ \ \text{in}\ B,\ \ \ u(x,y)=\sin(x)\ \ \text{on}\ \partial B$$ ...

1
Q: If $u$ is harmonic then $\frac{\partial}{\partial r}\int_{S_{r}}u(x,y)ds=0$

Diego FonsecaLet $u:\Omega\rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be an harmonic function (this is a smooth function) such that $$\Delta u =0 \quad \mathrm{ in }\quad \Omega,$$ where $\Omega\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{2}$ is an open set. Suppose that $0\in \Omega$ and $\rho>0$ such that $\mathcal{B}_{\rho}(0)\subset \Omega$, whe...

0
Q: Proving $u(x) = \frac{1}{\omega_n r^{n-1}}\int_{\partial B(x,r)} u\, d\sigma = \frac{n}{\omega_n r^n}\int_{B (x,r)} u\, dV$ for harmonic $u$

Alexander KuzminI'm having a bit of a problem proving the equality: $$u(x) = \frac{1}{\omega_n r^{n-1}}\int_{\partial B(x,r)} u\, d\sigma = \frac{n}{\omega_n r^n}\int_{B (x,r)} u\, dV$$ Which is the mean value theorem for Harmonic functions, where $\omega_n$ is the area of $S^n$ and $B(x,r)$ is the ball in $\...

4
Q: Mean value property of harmonic functions on manifolds

Joey ZouA well-known feature of harmonic functions on (domains of) $\mathbb{R}^n$ is the mean-value property: that is, if $\Delta u = 0$, then $$ u(x_0) = \frac{1}{\text{Vol}(\partial B_r(x_0))}\int_{\partial B_r(x_0)}{u\,dS} = \frac{1}{\text{Vol}(B_r(x_0))}\int_{B_r(x_0)}{u\,dV}. $$ Is the same true on ...

2
Q: Gradient of Harmonic Function

gaoxingeTheorem If $u\in C(\overline{B_R(x_0)})$ and is harmonic in $B_R(x_0)$, then $$|D^mu(x_0)|\leq\frac{n^m\exp(m-1)m!}{R^m}\max_\limits{\overline{B_R~(x_0)}}|u|$$ We can prove the theorem by induction, but I am stuck at the first step of the proof. When $m=1$, we have $$\triangledown u(x_0)=\frac{n...

0
Q: If $u$ is harmonic then it satisfies the mean value property

Si.0788Let $A \subset \mathbb{R}^2$ be open and connected and let $u \in C^2(A)$ be harmonic. Then $u$ satisfies $$u(x)=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi}u(x+r\hat n(\theta)) \, d\theta$$ I'm given the following proof: Let $x \in A$ and take $r>0$ so that $B_r(x) \subset A$ . Since $u$ is harmonic it satisfi...

2
Q: Proving the mean value property of harmonic functions using distributions?

Alan CA professor I talked to showed me a proof of the mean value property. (He actually showed it for functions solving the heat equation instead of Laplace's equation, but it seems like the argument is the same.) The proof involves distributions, which I am not very familiar with, so there is a step ...

1
Q: Proving the Mean-value theorem in Evans.

CookieFrom PDE Evans, 2nd edition, pages 25-26. THEOREM 2 (Mean Value Formulas for Laplace's equation). If $u \in C^2(U)$ is harmonic, then $$u(x)=\def\avint{\mathop{\,\rlap{-}\!\!\int}\nolimits} \avint_{\partial B(x,r)}u \, dS=\def\avint{\mathop{\,\rlap{-}\!\!\int}\nolimits} \avint_{B(x,r)} u \, d...

The tag with the same name was discussed before on meta and rejected:
-4
Q: Tag proposal: mean-value-theorem

SawarnikA search result for Mean Value Theorem gives us 2715 results, and results on the page are like ones I think we can include in the tag. The theorem is an important result in calculus, and questions relating to its applications, proofs. I think it would be useful if could have the tag, as it can gr...

Looking at the above question, it seems that the above tag is not for the mean value theorem from calculus, but for the mean value property of harmonic functions.
Using this query, it seems that the tag of this name has been created and removed before.
0
Q: Should we have aag for mean value property of harmonic functions?

Martin SleziakA tag named mean-value-theorem has been created recently. A tag with the same name was discussed before on meta and rejected: Tag proposal: mean-value-theorem. However, looking at the questions where the tag-creator added this tag, it seems that the intention was to created a tag for the mean val...

Nov 23, 2017 14:53
@GuyFsone I see that you have created a new tag named (mean-value-theorem). I wanted to let you know that I made a post on meta about the new tag: Should we have a tag for mean value property of harmonic functions?Martin Sleziak 12 secs ago
I have considered posting in the tag management thread instead, but since the tag started growing relatively quickly, I thought that a separate question might be better, to get a bit more attention to the issue. Sorry for posting two tag-related questions in relatively quick succession and thus hogging a bit more space on meta from other posts. (BTW I have also pinged the tag-creator to let them know about this question.) — Martin Sleziak 20 secs ago
Is there a meaning difference between ''mean-value-property'' and mean value theorem.? I think it is same contain. but the appellation differ from authors to another. we can use both appellation as well for me it is ok — Guy Fsone 34 secs ago
At least we know from the above comment that the tag-creator knows about the question on meta.
Now I noticed that a previous instance of this tag was mentioned also here in this chat room: chat.stackexchange.com/transcript/3740/2014/9/21
 
2 hours later…
Nov 23, 2017 16:57
@MartinSleziak The tag (exceptions) has been removed from that question. (So it should be completely away during next 24 hours.)
This seems quite reasonable to do - the tag-name is rather vague, I doubt such tag could be really useful.
 
28 hours later…
Nov 24, 2017 20:55
A new tag was created by Guy Fsone. This time with tag-excerpt and tag-wiki.
2
Q: On rearrangement of level set: $\{f>t\}^* = \{f^*>t\}\,\,\text{?}$

Guy FsoneLet $A$ be a subset of $\mathbb{R}^n$ then the rearrangement of $A$ denoted by $A^*$ is the ball $B(0,r)$ having the same volume as $A$ i.e if $|A| =|B(0,r)|$ with respect to Lebesgue measure then $$A^*= B(0,r)$$ Let $f$ be a function from $\mathbb{R}^n$ to $\mathbb{R}$. Then its symmetric de...

1
Q: Symmetric-decreasing rearrangement of a function

KlausI'm studying section 3.3 of Analysis by Lieb and Loss, about symmetric-decreasing rearrangement of functions. Let $A\subset \mathbb{R}^n$ a Borel set of finite Lebesgue measure. They define $A^*$ to be the ball centered at 0 with the same measure that $A$. The symmetric-decreasing re...

2
Q: rearrangement is non-expansive

SamI found this statement about rearrangement from analysis Lieb and Loss in chapter 3. Suppose f, g are nonnegative functions in $L^2(\Bbb{R^n})$, then $||f^*-g^*||_2 \le||f-g||_2$ Where $f^*$ is the symmetric- decreasing rearrangement of $f$. $f^*(x):=\int_0^{\infty} \chi_{\{|f|>t\}^*}(x)dt$. ...

2
Q: Increasing rearrangement and Hardy-Littlewood inequality

PacciuDon't know how many of you guys are familiar with the theory of rearrangements, but I have a question for you about it. As you can see in Leoni (or in Lieb & Loss), the decreasing and the increasing rearrangement of a measurable function $u:\Omega \to [0,\infty[$ ($\Omega \subseteq \mathbb{R}^N...

2
Q: Measure-preserving map between a function and its symmetric rearrangement

MikeLet $f \, \colon \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow[0, \infty)$ be a function such that the sets $ \{ y \: \colon f(y) > \lambda \}$ are of finite Lebesgue-measure, for every $\lambda \geq 0$. Then, we can define the spherically symmetric and decreasing rearrangement $f^* \, \colon \mathbb{R}^d \rightarrow...

3
Q: Distribution function and decreasing rearrangement

maxLet $(X,dx)$ a measure space and $f\in L^p(X,\mathbb{C})$; let's define its distribution function $$F(\alpha)=meas(\{x\in X||f(x)|>\alpha\})$$ and the decreasing rearrangement $$\alpha_k=\inf\{\alpha>0|F(\alpha)<2^k\}$$ I have to prove the following $$\sum_{k:\alpha_k>\alpha}2^k\leq 2 F(\alpha)$$...

2
Q: Spherical rearrangement

Gio712Let $u\colon\Omega\subset\mathbb{R}^N\to\mathbb{R}$ be a non negative measurable function, and $\Omega$ open and bounded. Consider $u^*$ the spherical rearrangement $$ u^*(x)=\sup\{t\geq0 : \mu\{x: u(x)\geq t \} > \omega_N |x|^N\} $$ where $\mu$ is the Lebesgue measure in $\mathbb{R}^N$, $w_N=\...

0
Q: Decreasing rearrangement of trigonometric function

user111978If $f(x)=|\arctan(x)|$, how does one constructively prove that its decreasing rearrangement is given by the constant function $f^\star(y)=\pi/2$ defined on $[0,\infty)$? The decreasing rearrangement of a function $f$ is defined as $$f^\star(x)=\inf\{u:|\{t:f(t)>y\}|\leq x\}$$

4
Q: nondecreasing rearrangement is equimeasurable

TimTwo functions $f(x)$ and $g(x)$ are called equimeasurable if $m(\{x:f(x)>t\})=m(\{x:g(x)>t\})$. Nondecreasing rearrangement of a function $f(x)$ is defined as $$f^*(\tau)=\inf\{t\in \mathbb{R}^1:m(\{x:f(x)>t\}\leq\tau\}.$$ Prove that $f^*(\tau)$ and $f(x)$ are equimeasurable.

 
11 hours later…
Nov 25, 2017 08:18
1
Q: Dihedral notation dilemma

Stephen MeskinThere seem to be two notations for a dihedral group of order $2n$. $$D_n\quad and \quad D_{2n}$$ Both have logical rationales, the underlying cycle (or polygon) for one and the order of the group for the other. The Wikipedia article on dihedral groups claims the first is used in geometric context...

 
4 hours later…
Nov 25, 2017 12:12
0
A: Tag management 2017

bartoPluralize division-ring.

 
2 hours later…
Nov 25, 2017 13:59
There's also division-algebras. We may consider merging something into noncommutative-algebra, though I don't think that's necessary. — barto 2 hours ago
 
3 hours later…
Nov 25, 2017 17:27
@quid I wonder whether it might be reasonable to rename to or whether we should wait a bit more whether there will be more feedback in the related post on meta.
5
A: Riemann-Stieltjes Integral tag

Toby BartelsI put this in a comment, and @Martin Sleziak suggested that I make it an answer, it here it is again (with better formatting): There is also such a thing as a Lebesgue–Stieltjes integral[^1], and one might want to ask in general about Stieltjesization (if I may say that) about any notion of inte...

The question is now already older than 14 days, so it is no longer in community bulletin. So probably it is getting less views now than before. (Which is why I think that most likely not much is going to be added to that discussion.)
Of course, the renaming/merging would need moderators - it cannot be done by regular users. (Of course, it is possible to remove all existing instances of the tag and add to all of them the new tag.)
Although I see you have your hands full elsewhere - just a reminder of this older post, where you also joined the discussion in comments.
@MartinSleziak yes, I think it is reasonable. The questions is how to proceed exactly. The creator of the tag will get a badge down the road. I am not sure anybody cares, but in case someone does I do not want to be seen as having grabbed that badge via creating the tag and merging. That is to say, I'd have a preference that somebody else creates the tag. I'll then be happy to merge.
Tag creation privileges comes with 1000 rep points.
So of the people involved in that discussion, Toby Bartels is out of the question.
I think that the original R-S tag was created by John Ma. He already has taxonomist badge.
And even without checking, I think both you an me already have taxonomist badge, so neither of us can gain a new badge in this way.
@quid If you really think the badge could be an issue here, you can suggest to gt6989b that they might create tag.
In a sense, they might deserve it for bringing the tag up on meta.
Personally, I am not really sure to which extent this really is an issue.
I see:
I think we'll rename to just stieltjes-integeral. If you care for a taxonmist badge, you could create it somewhere and I'll merge. If not I'll jsut proceed to do it. — quid ♦ 43 secs ago
@MartinSleziak done. I agree it is not that important. But more minor things created drama.
Nov 25, 2017 17:42
Ok, so basically nothing more to do about this, until there is some response for the OP.
Thanks for the quick response!
@MartinSleziak yes, except if they don't reply in which case we must not forget to still do it.
You are welcome. Thanks for the reminder.
 
14 hours later…
Nov 26, 2017 07:44
@MartinSleziak The tag, IIRC, was created by gt6989b when they raised the question on meta.
Nov 26, 2017 07:54
@JohnMa I should probably have checked that more thoroughly when I wrote who I think is the tag creator.
Nov 26, 2017 08:41
@JohnMa Thanks for posting an answer to the question about mean-value tag.
As I mentioned in a comment, I am also more in favor of removing the tag. (And if it should stay, I definitely think that having two tags is preferable to having this under single tag.)
Still I will probably wait a bit to see whether there is more feedback from others and think a bit about the new tag before I vote on your answer.
0
A: Should we have a tag for the mean value property of harmonic functions?

John MaI suggest not to have this tag. The mean value property is probably the most characteristic property of harmonic function. Indeed a $C^2$ function is harmonic iff it satisfies the mean value property. Thus if a question is related to mean value property, almost sure the OP will tag "harmonic fu...

> The only situation I can think of is that student are asked to show the mean value property for holomorphic function.
Since the argument seems to be that the questions about this already have (harmonic-functions) tag, I will add that there are some questions about mean value property without this tag. They can be found, for example, among questions from complex analysis and perhaps also questions about PDEs. — Martin Sleziak 3 mins ago
There indeed are questions of the type you mention. For example, in the first search you can see: Mean-value property for holomorphic functions. (I guess probably at least the tag holomorphic-functions could/should be added there - currently the only one is complex-analysis.)
I would probably wait a bit longer before posting the answer (since in general I find it difficult to convince other why something is useless), but I saw several more questions tagged as "mean value theorem" today so I want to finish that discussion quick. Obviously something has to be done to "mean value theorem".
Yes, I have noticed that new questions are added. Probably I should also include that it seems that they are added organically - not by the tag creator but by other users who are asking questions.
It seems that here the tag was added by Guy Fsone:
2
Q: Mean value theorem for vector valued multivariable function

AnupamIn the general situation of $f:S\to \mathbb R^m$ where $S\subset \mathbb R^n$. There is a form of the mean value theorem: $a\cdot (f(y)-f(x))=a\cdot (f'(z)(y-x))$ which requires a vector $a$ and dot products. In Tom Apostol's Mathematical Analysis (Second Edition), page No. 355, I found that aft...

And all occurrences after that were by other users:
0
Q: Proof - form of mean value theorem for vector valued function

hanselCan someone show me the proof of this form of the mean value theorem for vector valued functions? Let $f:R^n \rightarrow R^n$ be a function of class $C^1$ and $a,b\in R^n$, than there exists some $d\in R^n : a<d<b$ such that $(b-a)\cdot (f(b)-f(a))=(b-a)\cdot (f'(d)(b-a)) $ where $\cdot$ is a ...

1
Q: Relationship between the roots of derivatives and their functions

William StoneGiven that $f$ is differentiable on $\mathbb{R}$, I know that "between the zeroes of $f$, there is a zero of $f'$. But given that $f'$ has $k$ roots, then is it true that $f$ has at most $k+1$ roots.

0
Q: Show that if $0 < α < β < \frac π2$, there is $θ$ such that $α < θ < β$ and $\frac{\cos β−\cos α}{\sin α−\sin β} = \tan θ$

user507009Using transformation formula, we get $\tan\left(\frac{\alpha+\beta}2\right)$. Don't know how to proceed further. Thanks in advance.

Nov 26, 2017 08:57
That's the problem, mixing mean value theorem to mean value property for no reason.
 
Conversation ended Nov 26, 2017 at 8:57.