Continuity of Subharmonic Functions
Mansour Kalantar

TL;DR
This paper proves that the set of discontinuities of a subharmonic function is polar, establishing a key property of these functions in potential theory.
Contribution
It demonstrates that the discontinuities of subharmonic functions are contained in a polar set, a significant result in potential theory.
Findings
Discontinuities form a polar set
Subharmonic functions are continuous outside a polar set
The result advances understanding of subharmonic function regularity
Abstract
We prove that the set of points where a subharmonic function fails to be continuous is polar.
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsHolomorphic and Operator Theory · Geometry and complex manifolds · Advanced Topics in Algebra
CONTINUITY OF SUBHARMONIC FUNCTIONS
MANSOUR KALANTAR
Abstract.
We prove that the set of points where a subharmonic function fails to be continuous is polar.
1. Introduction
Let be a metric space and a real-valued function on . A classic theorem of topology, known as the semicontinuity lemma, states that if is upper semi-continuous, then the set of the points where is discontinuous is included in a countable union of closed nowhere dense sets (see for example K. Kuratowski [5] and B. Santiago [6]).
A natural question arises: Suppose that the function is defined on an open subset of an Euclidean space; does its set of discontinuity gets smaller, if furthermore the function is subharmonic? An anologue of Lusin’s theorem in potential theory states that for all arbitrary there exists an open subset of capacity less than on the complementary of which is continuous (See for example D. Armitage and S. Gardiner[1, Theorem 5.5.8]). We also know, by a theorem of Baire, that since subharmonic functions are pointwise limit of continuous functions, their discontinuity set is of the first Baire category (see O. Knill [4] and the references therein).
In this paper we first prove a basic potential theoretic result (Lemma 3.1) and then as its first application show that the set of points where a subharmonic function fails to be continuous is polar. Then we show that conversely, given any polar set, there exists a suharmonic function that is discontinuous at each point of this set. As a second application of the lemma we give a sort of ”converse” for the famous extend maximum (or Phragmèn-Lindelöf) principle.
2. Definitions and Preliminaries
In all this paper is a bounded open subset of with unless otherwise is stated.
We note and the closure and boundary of a set in , respectively. A function is called upper semi-continuous at if for all we can find an open neighborhood of such that
[TABLE]
for all . The function is called lower semi-continuous, if is upper semi-continuous. A function is continuous if it is lower and upper semi-continuous.
Definition 2.1**.**
The set of discontinuity of a function defined on is the set of points in at which fails to be continuous.
For reader’s convenience we summarize below the special cases of some results from the classical potential theory that we will be using. We recall definitions and results for our need in this paper, for the most general form the reader should refer to the given reference.
We recall that an upper semi-continuous function is called subharmonic, if and for all ball relatively compact in ,
[TABLE]
Let be the harmonic measure at . A set is called negligible for , if
[TABLE]
for all . Negligible sets can by characterized by the notion of thinness. A set is said to be thin at a point if is not a fine (with respect to the fine topology) limit point of The following theorem, used in the proof of Lemma 3.1, gives the relation between thinness and negligibility.
Theorem 2.2**.**
Let be a limit point of a set . The set is thin at if and only if there exists a subharmonic function on a neighborhood of such that
[TABLE]
See [1, Theorem 7.2.3].
Theorem 2.3**.**
- (i)
The set is negligible for .
- (ii)
If is a relatively open subset of which is negligible, then the set is polar.
See [1, Theorem 7.5.4] for part (i) and [1, Theorem 6.6.9-(i)] for part (ii).
3. The General Lemma
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let be a subharmonic function on an open neighborhood of . For , define to be the set of all such that Then the set
[TABLE]
is polar.
Proof.
We closely follow the proof of Lemma 3.2. in author’s paper [3]. The set is open, since is upper semi-continuous. We start by proving that is negligible for , i.e., its harmonic measure is zero:
[TABLE]
for all . To do so, it suffices to show that is thin at each point of , according to Theorem 2.3-(i). Let . It follows from the definitions of and that
[TABLE]
whereas
[TABLE]
Thus is thin at , according to Theorem 2.2 . By Theorem 2.3-(i) the set is negligible and (3.1) follows.
Next we proceed to prove that the set
[TABLE]
is closed in . To do so it is sufficient to show that the restriction of to , that we steel write , is continuous in the topological subspace . Since is already upper semi-continuous, we need to show that it is also lower semi-continuous in the mentioned topology. Let and suppose that is not lower semi-continuous at . Then, there exits such that for every open neighborhood of there exists satisfying
[TABLE]
which is absurd. Here, the first inequality is due to the fact that since is open, the boundary of is included to the set
[TABLE]
Thus the restriction of to is continuous and is closed in .
Finally, we have and it follows form the last paragraph that is open in . Thus is polar by Theorem 2.3-(ii) and the lemma follows.
∎
4. First Application : Continuity of Subharmonic Functions
Theorem 4.1**.**
Let be a subharmonic function on a neighborhood of . Then the set of discontinuity of is polar, i.e. there exists a polar set in such that the restriction of to is continuous.
Proof.
Let be the set of discontinuity of . Let be the subset of where is real-valued, and the subset of where . By definition is a polar set, and we just need to prove that so is .
We may assume non empty; otherwise there is nothing to prove. Take . Since is subharmonic everywhere, that means is not lower semi-continuous at . Thus there exists such that every open neighborhood of has a point where the value of is less than or equal to . Let be a sequence of elements of that approaches as and such that
[TABLE]
for all .
Let be a rational number such that
[TABLE]
We define to be the set of all such that . Thus it follows from the lemma that the set
[TABLE]
is a polar set. Now, it it easy to show that the point , defined in the last paragraph as an element of , belongs to . To see this, first we notice that by (4.1) and (4.2), we have and so is a sequence of elements of . Thus its limit belongs to the closure of , which means either to or to . But the first option is to be ruled out by (4.2); we conclude that is in the polar set .
Summing up, we have proved so far that each element in is contained in a polar set . Thus
[TABLE]
where designates the set of rational numbers, and so is polar. On the other hand, the set is polar by definition. Thus the set of discontinuity of is a polar set as a union of polar sets.
∎
4.1. The Converse Problem
Theorem 4.2**.**
Let be a subset of . The following are equivalent.
- (i)
* is polar,*
- (ii)
There is a function subharmonic on a neighborhood of such that
[TABLE]
- (iii)
There is a function subharmonic on a neighborhood of such that is the set of discontinuity of .
Proof.
The equivalence between (i) and (ii) is well known. For (i) (iii) just set
[TABLE]
and its converse follows from Lemma 3.1.
∎
Corollary 4.3**.**
Let be a subharmonic function on . If the set of discontinuity of is not polar, then .
Remark 4.4**.**
The set of discontinuity of a subharmonic function may very well by everywhere dense. For a function subharmonic on the unit ball of that is discontinuous at each point of a dense subset of , see Armitage and Gardiner [1, Example 3.3.2].
5. Second Application: A converse for extended maximum (or Phragmèn-Lindelöf) Principle
Recall that the extended maximum (or Phragmèn-Lindelöf) principle provides a ”negligible” set for the maximum principle of subharmonic functions. More exactly, suppose is a domain of and subharmoic and bounded above on such that for some and a polar set we have
[TABLE]
for all . Then either on , or on (for a more general statement and the proof see Hayman and Kennedy [2, Theorem 5.16])
The following is a sort of ”converse” for the above result. It follows immediately form Lemma 3.1.
Theorem 5.1**.**
Let be a subharmonic function on a neighborhood of . Suppose that there exists a set in the boundary of such that for all ,
[TABLE]
and for all
[TABLE]
Then the set
[TABLE]
is polar.
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1] Armitage D.M. and Gardiner S.J. Classical potential theory , Springer-Verlag , London , (2001).
- 2[2] Hayman. W.K and Kennedy. P.B. Subharmonic functions ,Vol. 1, London Mathematical Society Monographs, Academic Press, London. (1976)
- 3[3] Kalantar M. Family of subharmonic functions and separtarely subhamonic functions , ar Xiv:1605.09754 v 8 [math.CV] (2019).
- 4[4] Knill K. Fluctuation bounds for subharmonic functions , Internet, Harward university, C Ambridge, MA 02138 (2004).
- 5[5] Kuratowski K. Topology II. , Academic Pres-PWN-Polishi Sci. Publishers, Warszawa, (1968).
- 6[6] Santiago. B. The semicontinuity lemma (2012). Preprint:http://www.professores.uff.br/brunosantiago/wp-content/uploads/sites/17/2017/07/01.pdf
