Stability Properties of PSH Functions (Theorem # 3404)
Theorem
Let $n \geq 1$ be an integer and let $\Omega \subseteq \mathbb{C}^n$ be open. The space $\operatorname{PSH}(\Omega)$ of plurisubharmonic functions on $\Omega$ has the following stability properties.
1. **Pointwise maximum**: if $u_1, u_2 \in \operatorname{PSH}(\Omega)$, then $\max(u_1, u_2) \in \operatorname{PSH}(\Omega)$.
2. **Decreasing limits**: if $(u_j)_{j \geq 1} \subset \operatorname{PSH}(\Omega)$ is a pointwise decreasing sequence (i.e., $u_{j+1}(z) \leq u_{j}(z)$ for all $z \in \Omega$ and all $j$) and $u(z) := \lim_{j \to \infty} u_{j}(z)$ is not identically $-\infty$ on any connected component of $\Omega$, then $u \in \operatorname{PSH}(\Omega)$.
3. **Holomorphic pullback**: if $m \geq 1$ is an integer, $\Omega' \subseteq \mathbb{C}^m$ is open, $F \colon \Omega' \to \Omega$ is holomorphic, and $u \in \operatorname{PSH}(\Omega)$, then $u \circ F \in \operatorname{PSH}(\Omega')$.
4. **Convex composition**: if $u \in \operatorname{PSH}(\Omega)$ and $\chi \colon \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ is convex and non-decreasing (extended by $\chi(-\infty) := \lim_{t \to -\infty} \chi(t)$), then $\chi \circ u \in \operatorname{PSH}(\Omega)$.
Analysis
Complex Analysis
Discussion
Establishes that the class of plurisubharmonic functions is closed under taking maxima, non-negative linear combinations, and decreasing limits, confirming its role as a convexity cone.
Proof
[proofplan]
We prove four stability properties of plurisubharmonic (psh) functions: (1) the pointwise maximum of finitely many psh functions is psh, (2) a decreasing pointwise limit of psh functions is psh (or identically $-\infty$), (3) the composition $u \circ F$ with a holomorphic map $F$ is psh, and (4) the composition $\chi \circ u$ with a convex increasing function $\chi$ is psh. Each property is established by verifying the two defining conditions of plurisubharmonicity: upper semicontinuity and the sub-mean-value inequality along every complex line.
[/proofplan]
[step:Prove that the pointwise maximum of finitely many psh functions is psh]
Let $u_1, \dots, u_N: \Omega \to [-\infty, \infty)$ be plurisubharmonic. Define $u := \max(u_1, \dots, u_N)$.
**Upper semicontinuity.** For each $c \in \mathbb{R}$, the sublevel set $\{u < c\} = \bigcap_{j=1}^N \{u_j < c\}$ is an intersection of open sets (since each $u_j$ is upper semicontinuous), hence open. Therefore $u$ is upper semicontinuous.
**Sub-mean-value inequality along complex lines.** Fix $z \in \Omega$ and $w \in \mathbb{C}^n$. For any $\zeta_0 \in D := \{\zeta \in \mathbb{C} : z + \zeta w \in \Omega\}$ and $r > 0$ with $\overline{B}(\zeta_0, r) \subset D$, define $\varphi_j(\zeta) := u_j(z + \zeta w)$. Each $\varphi_j$ is subharmonic on $D$, so
\begin{align*}
\varphi_j(\zeta_0) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \varphi_j(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \max_{1 \leq k \leq N} \varphi_k(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)
\end{align*}
for each $j$, where the [second inequality](/theorems/2136) uses $\varphi_j \leq \max_k \varphi_k$ pointwise. Let $j_0$ be the index achieving $\max_j \varphi_j(\zeta_0) = \varphi_{j_0}(\zeta_0)$. Then
\begin{align*}
\max_j \varphi_j(\zeta_0) = \varphi_{j_0}(\zeta_0) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \max_k \varphi_k(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta),
\end{align*}
which is the sub-mean-value inequality for $\zeta \mapsto u(z + \zeta w)$.
[/step]
[step:Prove that a decreasing pointwise limit of psh functions is psh]
Let $(u_j)_{j \geq 1}$ be a sequence of psh functions on $\Omega$ with $u_1 \geq u_2 \geq \cdots$ pointwise, and define $u := \lim_{j \to \infty} u_j = \inf_j u_j$.
**Upper semicontinuity.** For each $c \in \mathbb{R}$, $\{u < c\} = \bigcup_{j=1}^\infty \{u_j < c\}$ (since $u_j \searrow u$ implies $u(z) < c$ iff $u_j(z) < c$ for some $j$). Each $\{u_j < c\}$ is open by upper semicontinuity of $u_j$, so $\{u < c\}$ is open, and $u$ is upper semicontinuous.
**Sub-mean-value inequality along complex lines.** Fix $z \in \Omega$, $w \in \mathbb{C}^n$, $\zeta_0 \in D$, and $r > 0$ with $\overline{B}(\zeta_0, r) \subset D$. Define $\varphi_j(\zeta) := u_j(z + \zeta w)$ and $\varphi(\zeta) := u(z + \zeta w)$. Each $\varphi_j$ is subharmonic, so
\begin{align*}
\varphi_j(\zeta_0) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \varphi_j(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
Since $\varphi_j \searrow \varphi$ pointwise, the sequence $(-\varphi_j)$ increases to $(-\varphi)$. Applying the [Monotone Convergence Theorem](/theorems/509) to the non-negative functions $\varphi_1(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}) - \varphi_j(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}) \nearrow \varphi_1(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}) - \varphi(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})$ (non-negative because $\varphi_j \leq \varphi_1$), with respect to the finite measure $\frac{1}{2\pi}d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)$ on $[0, 2\pi]$:
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \varphi_j(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta) \to \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \varphi(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)
\end{align*}
as $j \to \infty$. Passing to the limit on both sides of the sub-mean-value inequality for $\varphi_j$:
\begin{align*}
\varphi(\zeta_0) = \lim_{j \to \infty} \varphi_j(\zeta_0) \leq \lim_{j \to \infty} \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \varphi_j(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \varphi(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
[/step]
[step:Prove that the composition with a holomorphic map is psh]
Let $u: \Omega \to [-\infty, \infty)$ be psh and $F: \Omega' \to \Omega$ holomorphic, where $\Omega' \subset \mathbb{C}^m$ is open. Define $v := u \circ F: \Omega' \to [-\infty, \infty)$.
**Upper semicontinuity.** Since $F$ is holomorphic, it is continuous. For each $c \in \mathbb{R}$, $\{v < c\} = F^{-1}(\{u < c\})$. The set $\{u < c\}$ is open (by upper semicontinuity of $u$), and $F^{-1}$ preserves openness (by continuity of $F$), so $\{v < c\}$ is open. Therefore $v$ is upper semicontinuous.
**Sub-mean-value inequality along complex lines.** Fix $z' \in \Omega'$ and $w' \in \mathbb{C}^m$. Define the holomorphic map of one complex variable
\begin{align*}
h: D' &\to \Omega \\
\zeta &\mapsto F(z' + \zeta w'),
\end{align*}
where $D' = \{\zeta \in \mathbb{C} : z' + \zeta w' \in \Omega'\}$, and set $\psi := u \circ h: D' \to [-\infty, \infty)$. The map $h$ is holomorphic as the composition of $\zeta \mapsto z' + \zeta w'$ (affine, hence holomorphic) with $F$ (holomorphic by hypothesis). We must show $\psi$ is subharmonic on $D'$.
**Step (a): Approximate $u$ from above by smooth psh functions.** For each $j \geq 1$, define $\Omega_j := \{z \in \Omega : \operatorname{dist}(z, \partial\Omega) > 1/j\}$ and $u_j := u * \eta_{1/j}$ on $\Omega_j$, where $\eta_{1/j}$ is the standard mollifier. Each $u_j$ is smooth and psh on $\Omega_j$ (the sub-mean-value property passes through convolution with a non-negative radially symmetric kernel), and $u_j \searrow u$ pointwise as $j \to \infty$.
**Step (b): Compute $\Delta_\zeta(u_j \circ h) \geq 0$.** Fix $\zeta_0 \in D'$ and $r > 0$ with $\overline{B}(\zeta_0, r) \subset D'$. For $j$ large enough that $h(\overline{B}(\zeta_0, r)) \subset \Omega_j$, the composition $u_j \circ h$ is $C^2$ on a neighbourhood of $\overline{B}(\zeta_0, r)$. Writing $h = (h_1, \dots, h_n)$ in components, each $h_a: D' \to \mathbb{C}$ holomorphic, the chain rule gives
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2(u_j \circ h)}{\partial\zeta\,\partial\bar{\zeta}}(\zeta) = \sum_{a,b=1}^n \frac{\partial^2 u_j}{\partial z_a\,\partial\bar{z}_b}(h(\zeta))\,h_a'(\zeta)\,\overline{h_b'(\zeta)},
\end{align*}
using $\frac{\partial h_a}{\partial\bar{\zeta}} = 0$ and $\frac{\partial\bar{h}_b}{\partial\zeta} = 0$ (holomorphicity of $h$). Therefore
\begin{align*}
\Delta_\zeta(u_j \circ h)(\zeta) = 4\sum_{a,b=1}^n \frac{\partial^2 u_j}{\partial z_a\,\partial\bar{z}_b}(h(\zeta))\,h_a'(\zeta)\,\overline{h_b'(\zeta)} = 4\,\mathcal{L}_{u_j}(h(\zeta))(h'(\zeta), \overline{h'(\zeta)}) \geq 0,
\end{align*}
where the inequality holds because $u_j$ is smooth and psh, so by the [Levi Form Criterion](/theorems/3403) its Levi form $\mathcal{L}_{u_j} \succeq 0$ everywhere. Since $\Delta_\zeta(u_j \circ h) \geq 0$, the function $u_j \circ h$ is subharmonic on its domain.
**Step (c): The sub-mean-value inequality for $u_j \circ h$.** Since $u_j \circ h$ is subharmonic:
\begin{align*}
u_j(h(\zeta_0)) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} u_j(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
**Step (d): Pass to the limit using property (2).** On the left, $u_j(h(\zeta_0)) \searrow u(h(\zeta_0))$. On the right, $u_j(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})) \searrow u(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))$ for each $\theta$. By the [Monotone Convergence Theorem](/theorems/509) applied to the non-negative functions $u_1(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})) - u_j(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})) \nearrow u_1(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})) - u(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))$ with respect to the finite measure $\frac{1}{2\pi}d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)$ on $[0, 2\pi]$:
\begin{align*}
\psi(\zeta_0) = u(h(\zeta_0)) = \lim_{j \to \infty} u_j(h(\zeta_0)) \leq \lim_{j \to \infty} \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} u_j(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \psi(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
Therefore $\psi = u \circ h$ is subharmonic on $D'$, confirming that $v = u \circ F$ is psh on $\Omega'$.
[guided]
We want to show that $v := u \circ F: \Omega' \to [-\infty, \infty)$ is plurisubharmonic, where $u: \Omega \to [-\infty, \infty)$ is psh and $F: \Omega' \to \Omega$ is holomorphic with $\Omega' \subset \mathbb{C}^m$ open. The essential point is that a holomorphic map $h: D' \to \Omega$ from a domain in $\mathbb{C}$ to $\mathbb{C}^n$ pulls back psh functions to subharmonic functions. Why does this work? The deep reason is that subharmonicity in one variable is characterised by the sub-mean-value inequality, and holomorphic maps preserve the relevant structure because their Jacobians interact well with the Levi form.
**Upper semicontinuity.** Since $F$ is holomorphic, it is continuous. For each $c \in \mathbb{R}$, $\{v < c\} = F^{-1}(\{u < c\})$. The set $\{u < c\}$ is open by upper semicontinuity of $u$, and the preimage $F^{-1}(\{u < c\})$ is open by continuity of $F$. Therefore $\{v < c\}$ is open for every $c \in \mathbb{R}$, which means $v$ is upper semicontinuous. Note that this argument uses only the continuity of $F$; the holomorphicity is consumed in the sub-mean-value step below.
**Sub-mean-value inequality along complex lines.** Fix $z' \in \Omega'$ and $w' \in \mathbb{C}^m$. We need to show that the one-variable function
\begin{align*}
\psi: D' &\to [-\infty, \infty) \\
\zeta &\mapsto u(F(z' + \zeta w'))
\end{align*}
is subharmonic on the open set $D' = \{\zeta \in \mathbb{C} : z' + \zeta w' \in \Omega'\}$. Define the holomorphic map of one complex variable
\begin{align*}
h: D' &\to \Omega \\
\zeta &\mapsto F(z' + \zeta w'),
\end{align*}
so that $\psi = u \circ h$. The map $h$ is holomorphic because it is the composition of $\zeta \mapsto z' + \zeta w'$ (an affine map $\mathbb{C} \to \mathbb{C}^m$, hence holomorphic) with $F: \Omega' \to \Omega$ (holomorphic by hypothesis).
Fix $\zeta_0 \in D'$ and $r > 0$ with $\overline{B}(\zeta_0, r) \subset D'$. Set $z_0 = h(\zeta_0) = F(z' + \zeta_0 w') \in \Omega$. We want to establish
\begin{align*}
\psi(\zeta_0) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \psi(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta),
\end{align*}
i.e., $u(h(\zeta_0)) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} u(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)$.
One natural attempt is to use the mean-value property of $h$ itself. Since $h$ is holomorphic, its real and imaginary parts are harmonic, so
\begin{align*}
h(\zeta_0) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
But this tells us about the mean of $h$, not the mean of $u \circ h$. Since $u$ is not linear, we cannot simply apply $u$ to both sides and preserve the equality. And since $h$ is not generally linear (it is holomorphic but may have nonzero higher-order terms), we cannot reduce $u \circ h$ to a restriction of $u$ along a single complex line. So a direct argument from the definition requires more care.
The clean resolution is a **smooth approximation argument**. Approximate $u$ from above by a decreasing sequence of smooth psh functions $u_j \searrow u$. This is possible by convolution with a standard mollifier: if $u$ is psh on $\Omega$, define $u_j := u * \eta_{1/j}$ on the set $\Omega_j := \{z \in \Omega : \operatorname{dist}(z, \partial\Omega) > 1/j\}$. The convolution $u * \eta_{1/j}$ is smooth and psh (the sub-mean-value property passes through the convolution), and $u_j \searrow u$ pointwise as $j \to \infty$ (since psh functions are upper semicontinuous, the mollification decreases to the function).
For each smooth $u_j$, the composition $u_j \circ h: D' \to \mathbb{R}$ is $C^2$ (since $u_j$ is smooth and $h$ is holomorphic, hence smooth). We can compute the Laplacian of $u_j \circ h$ directly by the chain rule. Writing $h = (h_1, \dots, h_n)$ in components, where each $h_a: D' \to \mathbb{C}$ is holomorphic:
\begin{align*}
\Delta_\zeta(u_j \circ h)(\zeta) = 4\frac{\partial^2(u_j \circ h)}{\partial\zeta\,\partial\bar{\zeta}}(\zeta) = 4\sum_{a,b=1}^n \frac{\partial^2 u_j}{\partial z_a\,\partial\bar{z}_b}(h(\zeta))\,h_a'(\zeta)\,\overline{h_b'(\zeta)}.
\end{align*}
Why does this formula hold? By the chain rule, $\frac{\partial}{\partial\zeta}(u_j \circ h) = \sum_a \frac{\partial u_j}{\partial z_a}(h(\zeta))\,h_a'(\zeta)$, using the fact that $h$ is holomorphic so $\frac{\partial h_a}{\partial\bar{\zeta}} = 0$ and $\frac{\partial\bar{h}_b}{\partial\zeta} = 0$. Differentiating again with respect to $\bar{\zeta}$:
\begin{align*}
\frac{\partial^2(u_j \circ h)}{\partial\zeta\,\partial\bar{\zeta}}(\zeta) = \sum_{a,b=1}^n \frac{\partial^2 u_j}{\partial z_a\,\partial\bar{z}_b}(h(\zeta))\,h_a'(\zeta)\,\overline{h_b'(\zeta)}.
\end{align*}
The right-hand side is exactly the Levi form of $u_j$ evaluated on the tangent vector $h'(\zeta) = (h_1'(\zeta), \dots, h_n'(\zeta)) \in \mathbb{C}^n$:
\begin{align*}
\Delta_\zeta(u_j \circ h)(\zeta) = 4\,\mathcal{L}_{u_j}(h(\zeta))(h'(\zeta), \overline{h'(\zeta)}) \geq 0,
\end{align*}
where the inequality uses the [Levi Form Criterion](/theorems/3403): since $u_j$ is smooth and psh, its Levi form $\mathcal{L}_{u_j}(z)(\xi, \bar{\xi}) = \sum_{a,b} \frac{\partial^2 u_j}{\partial z_a\,\partial\bar{z}_b}(z)\,\xi_a\,\bar{\xi}_b$ is positive semidefinite at every point $z$, and evaluating it on the vector $\xi = h'(\zeta)$ gives a non-negative result. The fact that $\Delta_\zeta(u_j \circ h) \geq 0$ means $u_j \circ h$ is subharmonic on $D'$ for each $j$.
Since $u_j \circ h$ is subharmonic, the sub-mean-value inequality holds:
\begin{align*}
u_j(h(\zeta_0)) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} u_j(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
Now we pass to the limit $j \to \infty$. On the left, $u_j(h(\zeta_0)) \searrow u(h(\zeta_0))$. On the right, $u_j(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})) \searrow u(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))$ for each $\theta$. By the [Monotone Convergence Theorem](/theorems/509) applied to the non-negative functions $u_1(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})) - u_j(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})) \nearrow u_1(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})) - u(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))$ with respect to the finite measure $\frac{1}{2\pi}d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)$ on $[0, 2\pi]$, we obtain
\begin{align*}
\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} u_j(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta) \to \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} u(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
Passing to the limit in the sub-mean-value inequality for $u_j \circ h$:
\begin{align*}
\psi(\zeta_0) = u(h(\zeta_0)) = \lim_{j \to \infty} u_j(h(\zeta_0)) \leq \lim_{j \to \infty} \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} u_j(h(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta) = \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \psi(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
This confirms that $\psi = u \circ h$ is subharmonic on $D'$, and therefore $v = u \circ F$ is psh on $\Omega'$.
This smooth approximation argument is the cleanest route because it avoids the need for a direct proof of the sub-mean-value inequality for the composition $u \circ h$ when $u$ is merely upper semicontinuous. The Levi form computation reveals the geometric reason: the holomorphic map $h$ transforms the one-dimensional Laplacian into a non-negative expression precisely because the Levi form of a psh function is positive semidefinite.
[/guided]
[/step]
[step:Prove that the composition with a convex increasing function is psh]
Let $u: \Omega \to [-\infty, \infty)$ be psh and $\chi: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ be convex and increasing (we extend $\chi$ to $[-\infty, \infty)$ by $\chi(-\infty) := \lim_{t \to -\infty}\chi(t)$, which exists in $[-\infty, \infty)$ since $\chi$ is increasing). Define $v := \chi \circ u: \Omega \to [-\infty, \infty)$.
**Upper semicontinuity.** Since $\chi$ is convex on $\mathbb{R}$, it is continuous on $\mathbb{R}$. Combined with the convention $\chi(-\infty) = \lim_{t \to -\infty}\chi(t)$, the function $\chi$ is upper semicontinuous on $[-\infty, \infty)$. The composition of an upper semicontinuous function with an increasing upper semicontinuous function is upper semicontinuous: for each $c \in \mathbb{R}$, $\{v < c\} = \{\chi(u) < c\} = \{u < \chi^{-1}(c)\}$ (interpreting $\chi^{-1}$ appropriately as a generalised inverse), which is open.
**Sub-mean-value inequality along complex lines.** Fix $z \in \Omega$ and $w \in \mathbb{C}^n$. Define $\varphi(\zeta) := u(z + \zeta w)$, which is subharmonic on $D$. The sub-mean-value inequality for $\varphi$ gives
\begin{align*}
\varphi(\zeta_0) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \varphi(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
Since $\chi$ is increasing:
\begin{align*}
\chi(\varphi(\zeta_0)) \leq \chi\!\left(\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \varphi(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)\right).
\end{align*}
Since $\chi$ is convex, by [Jensen's inequality](/theorems/1977) applied to the probability measure $\frac{1}{2\pi}d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)$ on $[0, 2\pi]$:
\begin{align*}
\chi\!\left(\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \varphi(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta)\right) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} \chi(\varphi(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta}))\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta).
\end{align*}
Combining:
\begin{align*}
(\chi \circ \varphi)(\zeta_0) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int_0^{2\pi} (\chi \circ \varphi)(\zeta_0 + re^{i\theta})\,d\mathcal{L}^1(\theta),
\end{align*}
which is the sub-mean-value inequality for $\chi \circ \varphi(\zeta) = \chi(u(z + \zeta w)) = v(z + \zeta w)$.
[guided]
The two ingredients are the monotonicity of $\chi$ (to pass from $\varphi(\zeta_0) \leq \text{mean}$ to $\chi(\varphi(\zeta_0)) \leq \chi(\text{mean})$) and the convexity of $\chi$ (to apply [Jensen's inequality](/theorems/9) and push $\chi$ inside the integral).
Why do we need $\chi$ to be increasing, not just convex? Because the sub-mean-value inequality $\varphi(\zeta_0) \leq \frac{1}{2\pi}\int\varphi$ goes in the direction $\leq$. Applying a decreasing function would reverse this inequality, and we would get $\chi(\varphi(\zeta_0)) \geq \chi(\text{mean})$, which is the wrong direction.
Why do we need $\chi$ to be convex, not just increasing? Because we need to interchange $\chi$ with the integral. An increasing function that is not convex would give
\begin{align*}
\chi(\varphi(\zeta_0)) \leq \chi\!\left(\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\varphi\right),
\end{align*}
but without convexity we have no way to bound $\chi(\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\varphi)$ by $\frac{1}{2\pi}\int\chi(\varphi)$. [Jensen's inequality](/theorems/1977) is exactly the tool that provides this bound, and it requires convexity.
The application of [Jensen's inequality](/theorems/9) requires that $\varphi$ be integrable with respect to the probability measure $\frac{1}{2\pi}d\mathcal{L}^1$ on $[0, 2\pi]$. This holds because $\varphi$ is upper semicontinuous on the compact circle $\{|\zeta - \zeta_0| = r\}$, hence bounded above, and the integral $\int\varphi$ is well-defined in $[-\infty, \infty)$ (subharmonic functions are integrable over circles whenever they are not identically $-\infty$).
[/guided]
[/step]
Explore Further
Curvature Commutator on Top Holomorphic Degree
analysis
De Rham Cohomology of Spheres
analysis
Path-Independence of the Hilbert Integral
analysis
Local Potential Theorem for Kähler Forms
analysis
Basic Weighted Commutator Identity
analysis
Nadel Coherence Theorem
analysis
Bertini Smoothness Theorem
analysis
Error Correction Principle for the $\bar\partial$ Equation
analysis