You are Here: Home >< Maths

# Harmonic Functions (Complex Analysis)

Announcements Posted on
TSR's new app is coming! Sign up here to try it first >> 17-10-2016
1. I've been revising for 5 hours straight and for some reason a few little things have slipped me up:
Spoiler:
Show
How is it that both of these MVPs can be rewritten in the forms they are given? I have thought a direct change of variables but maybe I am being silly, I haven't been able to get them. They make sense intuitvely but I cannot seem to do it mathematically.. I am probably missing something very obvious.

EDIT: I just got the second MVP but still not the first one..

Another question:
Spoiler:
Show
what is the reason for taking the laplacian of the log of x?

The proof goes on and it makes sense from there on but I just have no idea why the laplacian of log of x was chosen.

Apologies if these seem like silly questions, there were things just skimmed over during lectures and I didn't think much of them at the time!

Thank you for any help
2. I am sort of guessing this:

Let where

So (using ) and the r will cancel out.

For the laplacian question: see what conditions are needed (hence log can be used).
3. (Original post by WannabeBeAST)
EDIT: I just got the second MVP but still not the first one..
The first is straightforward by noting that

Where is the scalar line element defined via and parameterises the curve s.t. are the suitable limits.

Another question:
Spoiler:
Show
what is the reason for taking the laplacian of the log of x?

The proof goes on and it makes sense from there on but I just have no idea why the laplacian of log of x was chosen.

Apologies if these seem like silly questions, there were things just skimmed over during lectures and I didn't think much of them at the time!

Thank you for any help
I think it may be unclear because the key identity is written in an unhelpful way. Moreso than the divergence theorem, the intuition behind the proof really relies on Green's second identity (which is a corollary): For suitable functions , we have (in the notation of your notes)

Looking at it from here and keeping in mind that you want to reduce to the first form of the mean value property, it's sensible to choose one of these to be - , say. This leaves us with the choice of and collapses our above identity to:

It's clear that if we force be harmonic on and constant on , the LHS and the second integral on the RHS both vanish, leaving us with:

Defining as the proof suggests allows us to then see that, if is constant on the two boundaries of the annulus individually, the desired result will follow.

Hence we require a solution to Laplace's equation with this set of Neumann boundary conditions. It turns out that i.e. is the simplest such solution and hence the choice for this proof.

## Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
1. this can't be left blank
2. this can't be left blank
3. this can't be left blank

6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

4. this can't be left empty
1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register

Updated: May 9, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Today on TSR

### How does exam reform affect you?

From GCSE to A level, it's all changing

Poll
Useful resources

### Maths Forum posting guidelines

Not sure where to post? Read here first

### How to use LaTex

Writing equations the easy way

### Study habits of A* students

Top tips from students who have already aced their exams