Talk:Subharmonic function
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C|1=
{{WikiProject Mathematics}}
}}
A comment
The following comment was left in the article proper by {{user|Szilard.revesz}}:
{{quote|
For definition of subharmonic functions on Riemannian manifolds, the defining inequalities between the subharmonic function $f$ and the harmonic function $f_1$ should be the reverse, in accordance with the definition given above 8and in accordance with the heuristical content of the name SUBharmonic).}}
I'm not sure what he means precisely, possibly due to notational confusion. RayTalk 19:23, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
Is this true?
One stated that for a holomorphic function the function is a subharmonic function. I think I have a counterexample, since this is only valid for functions which do not have a local maximum in .
Let and , a closed disk centered at 0 with radius a half, then
, if
Am I wrong? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.212.22.34 (talk) 15:41, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
:I think you confused and in your counterexample. If you interpret , (as one is supposed to do), the inequality really holds. Vigfus (talk) 20:23, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
::But in the section Examples it is also stated, that for an analytic function the function is a subharmonic function. This is definitely not true. Consider for example the identity function on . Then , which is negative in general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.152.55.74 (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
Maximum Principle(with modulus) for harmonic functions.
Let's suppose that is a harmonic function non-constant,and is an open simply connected set.I want to prove that there is not with .We observe this equality is equivalent to .Since is subharmonic,we find a contradiction with the maximum principle for subharmonic functions.
¿Is it correct?