1
$\begingroup$

I have read an equality about Fourier transforms which I can not proof. It is as following: Let $u\in C_0(\mathbb{R}^n)$ and \begin{equation} g(x_1,x_2,...,x_{n-1}):=u(x_1,x_2,...,x_{n-1},0). \end{equation} Then \begin{equation} \hat{g}(x_1,...,x_{n-1})=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{\mathbb{R}}\hat{u}(x_1,...,x_{n-1},x_n)dx_n. \end{equation} (Here the Fourier transform is defined by $\hat{u}(t)=\int_{\mathbb{R}^n} u(x)e^{-it\cdot x}dx$.)

How to prove this?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm pretty sure you just need to use the definition of Fourier transform and possibly interchanging some order of integration. EDIT: and inversion formula as well by the looks of it ! $\endgroup$ – Chee Han Jun 22 '15 at 18:01
  • $\begingroup$ Does $C_0$ mean "vanishes at infinity" or "compact support"? If the first there's no reason to think $u$ and $g$ even have Fourier transforms (in the classical sense, as you define it). And regardless there's no reason to think the integral in the second display exists. We need hypotheses $\endgroup$ – David C. Ullrich Jun 22 '15 at 18:08
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidC.Ullrich It is defined for compact support, since it is used to prove trace properties in Sobolev spaces. $\endgroup$ – Peter Jun 22 '15 at 18:16
  • $\begingroup$ @CheeHan Yeah perhaps, i know there are some relationships and i've tried, but I can still not obtain those equalities mentioned above -.-! $\endgroup$ – Peter Jun 22 '15 at 18:18
  • $\begingroup$ Note that this is really a one-variable question: $x_1,\dots,x_{n-1}$ only enter the problem as parameters, so you are really just asking one to prove that $f(0)$ is the integral of the Fourier transform of $f$, multiplied by a (universal) normalization constant. $\endgroup$ – Ian Jun 22 '15 at 18:38
1
$\begingroup$

I'm going to assume $u$ is in the Schwarz space, so we don't have to worry about various technicalities. I'm going to take $n=2$ for convenience. And I'm going to assume the Littlewood convention $2\pi=1$, because everyone puts the $2\pi$'s in different places (feel free to edit this, inserting the $2\pi$'s as needed for your version of the Fourier transform).

Hmm. Using the same letter for the variable on both sides is bad; I'm going to write $\hat u(s,t)$, where $u=u(x,y)$.

Ok. Let $$\phi(s)=\int_\mathbb R\hat u(s,t)\,dt.$$ By the inversion theorem (for $n=1$) it's enough to show that $$\int_{\mathbb R}\phi(s)e^{ixs}\,ds=u(x,0).$$ But this is clear from the definitions and the inversion theorem (for $n=2$): $$\int_{\mathbb R}\phi(s)e^{ixs}\,ds=\int_{{\mathbb R}^2}\hat u(s,t)e^{i(x,0)\cdot(s,t)}\,dsdt=u(x,0).$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Nice proof! Thank you very much! $\endgroup$ – Peter Jun 22 '15 at 18:55

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.