Astron. Astrophys. 348, 38-42 (1999)
Appendix A: completeness of
In this appendix we will verify explicitly that the set of
functions defined in Eq. (15) is complete, in the sense that Eqs. (3)
and (4) can be recovered. For the purpose, we will apply the Fourier
theorem (Brezis 1987). In the following, we will assume that
is a smooth vector field (we
stress that this condition is needed only for the proof provided
below; the method remains applicable to more general cases).
Let us consider a solution of the form (6). Then, because of the
orthonormality condition (13), we have
, so that
![[EQUATION]](img98.gif)
Now we observe that the previous equation holds for any
: then it holds also for any linear
combination of
. Thus
![[EQUATION]](img100.gif)
In the last step we have integrated by parts
( is the unit vector orthogonal to
the boundary of
).
We now use this equation to show that the chosen set of functions,
described by Eq. (15), is complete , while, e.g., a similar set
made of sine functions would not be complete. By the nature of the
chosen set of functions we already know that we can properly represent
any smooth function f. Using this property, we want to show
that the two terms and
entering in the r.h.s. of Eq. (A2)
vanish on and on
respectively.
For the purpose, we observe that if cosines are used as set of
functions, we can "build" any function f provided that the
function has periodic derivatives on the boundary. In particular, if
is an arbitrary open subset of
, there is a function f that
is positive on A and vanishes on
. Now suppose per absurdum
that the solution obtained from the direct method does not satisfy
Eq. (3), so that, e.g., on a point
. Then, for the sign persistence
theorem, this quantity must be strictly positive in a neighborhood
A of . However, if we take a
function f which is positive on A and vanishes
elsewhere, the rhs of Eq. (A2) will be positive, while the lhs
vanishes, which is contradictory. This proves that Eq. (3) is verified
by cosines.
In a similar manner, now that we have "disposed of" the first term,
we observe that using cosines we can build a function f that
vanishes everywhere on the boundary of
except for a neighborhood. In other
words, given an open subset of the
boundary , there is a function
f that is positive on B and vanishes on
. Note that this property would not
be satisfied if the set of functions
were based on sines. Using a proof similar to the one given above, we
obtain that must vanish, thus
leading to Eq. (4).
One might worry that, on the boundary, the chosen set of functions
of Eq. (15) has zero derivative in the direction of
, i.e.
. This might suggest that the
boundary condition (4) cannot be reproduced. In reality, although this
is true pointwise , this does not affect the convergence in
that is relevant for our problem
(see Eqs. (7) and (12)). This important point is best illustrated by
the following example.
Suppose that we measure a constant field
on a square field
of side
. The obvious solution for
in this case is
. Suppose now that we try to use a
set of functions made of sines. Then the corresponding coefficients
would be proportional to the
integrals . Hence, every coefficient
vanishes. This proves that a set
based on sines is not complete (condition (12) is not satisfied
or, equivalently, a curl-free vector field
leads to a vanishing mass map). On
the other hand, if we use the set (15), the coefficients
do not vanish and the corresponding
mass distribution is given by
![[EQUATION]](img117.gif)
This function can be shown to reduce to
.
© European Southern Observatory (ESO) 1999
Online publication: July 16, 1999
helpdesk.link@springer.de  |