Dear MHF members,
I have the following problem.
Problem. Letfor
,
wherewith
for all
.
Prove or disprove thatin
(inside of
) implies
in
.
Thanks for your interest.
bkarpuz
Dear MHF members,
I have the following problem.
Problem. Letfor
,
wherewith
for all
.
Prove or disprove thatin
(inside of
) implies
in
.
Thanks for your interest.
bkarpuz
Hi, I just gonna give some thoughts.
The regionis a wedge below
in the first quadrant.
The functionintegrates the function
along the line
.
It seems to me that the integrandcould take negative values as long as it overshoots fast enough close to the region
since you always have to integrate that part.
I think you can "build" such a function slice by slice (by
). You could take some function that starts at zero, assume negative values until
where it goes back to zero. Then it assumes large positive values from
to
. Find some way to make that
-dependent, and you should have a counter-example. You could take for example a
which period (and amplitude) varies with
for the lower part and a sharp
for the upper part.
I would think the result is true if. With the above construction, you see that we will always get into trouble close to the origin, i.e. we cannot find a function that will dive and overshoot fast enough for all
since the domain of the line integral becomes infinitely small.
I think the construction still holds if you impose.
It seems the-dependence is crucial here. In fact, if you are given the
-dependence of
, you can make everything positive around the origin, and then do the dive-and-overshoot business once you have enough space (at larger
).