12
$\begingroup$

DON'T BE AFRAID FROM THE +500 BOUNTY: it doesn't matter that I KNOW this problem is really hard, I put it only because I need to solve the problem really URGENTLY!

Let $n\ge2$; given a kernel $k\in\mathcal{C}^1(\Bbb R^n\setminus\{0\})$ such that

$$|\nabla k(x)|\le|x|^{-n-1}\;\;\; \mbox{for} \;\;x\neq0 \tag{1}$$ $$\int_{|x|=r}k(x)\,d\sigma_n(x)=0\;\;\;\;\;\forall r>0 \tag{2}$$

then I must prove that $$ |k(x)|\le C|x|^{-n}\;\;\;\;\mbox{for}\;\;x\neq 0. $$

Is this still true if the gradient condition $(1)$ is replaced with $$ |k(x+h)-k(x)|\le\frac{|h|^{\alpha}}{|x|^{n+\alpha}}\;\;\;\;\mbox{for}\;\;|h|<\frac12|x| \tag{3} $$ where $0<\alpha\le 1$?

I tried to work with the convolution operator $A_Kf:=K*f$ and taking its Fourier transform to get some information, but I'm totally lost, I don't really know where to start

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I hope my edit of the title reflects your intention... $\endgroup$ – paul garrett Apr 9 '16 at 0:09
  • $\begingroup$ @paulgarrett: yes, thanks! However nobody answering, and I'm still stuck $\endgroup$ – Joe Apr 9 '16 at 2:18
  • $\begingroup$ I am not very sure but I guess I have seen it in Stein's singular integral before. $\endgroup$ – Ben Apr 10 '16 at 8:12
5
+500
$\begingroup$

Assume the gradient condition. For any function $f : \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}$, define $f_\varepsilon$ by $f_\varepsilon(x) = \varepsilon^{-n} f(x/\varepsilon)$. Note $$ \int_{S^{n-1}} k_\varepsilon(x) d\sigma_{n-1}(x) = \int_{[\lvert x \rvert = \varepsilon^{-1}]} k(x) d\sigma_{n-1}(x) = 0 \quad \forall \varepsilon > 0 $$ and $$ \lvert (\nabla k_\varepsilon)(x) \rvert = \lvert \varepsilon^{-n-1} (\nabla k)(x/\varepsilon) \rvert \leq 1 \quad \forall x \in S^{n-1}. $$ Now for any $x,y \in S^{n-1}$, we can find a path along a great circle of $S^{n-1}$ connecting $x$ and $y$ of length $\leq \pi$. So by the fundamental theorem of calculus, $$ \lvert k_\varepsilon(x) - k_\varepsilon(y) \rvert \leq \pi \sup_{z \in S^{n-1}} \lvert (\nabla k_\varepsilon)(z) \rvert \leq \pi \quad \forall x,y \in S^{n-1}. $$ But if $\lvert k_\varepsilon(x) \rvert > 2 \pi$ for any $x \in S^{n-1}$, then $k_\varepsilon$ is positive on $S^{n-1}$, and so cannot have mean value $0$. Thus $\lvert k_\varepsilon(x) \rvert \leq 2 \pi$ for all $x \in S^{n-1}$. We have $$ \lvert k(x) \rvert = \lvert x \rvert^{-n} \lvert k_{\lvert x \rvert^{-1}}(x/\lvert x \rvert)\rvert \leq 2\pi \lvert x \rvert^{-n} $$ as desired.

Now assume the $\alpha$ condition. Observe how the $\alpha$ bound reacts to $k_\varepsilon$: $$ \lvert k_\varepsilon(x + h) - k_\varepsilon(x) \rvert \leq {\lvert h \rvert^\alpha} \quad \forall x \in S^{n-1}, \forall \lvert h \rvert \leq 2^{-1}. $$ Now for any two points $x,y \in S^{n-1}$, connect them by $k$ additions of some $h_1, \ldots, h_k$ with $\lvert h_j \rvert < 1/2$ with $x + \sum_{i=1}^j h_i \in S^{n-1}$ and $x + \sum_{i=1}^k h_i = y$ for all $1 \leq j \leq k$, where $k$ does not depend on $x$ and $y$. Splitting up with the triangle inequality shows that $\lvert k_\varepsilon(x) - k_\varepsilon(y) \rvert$ is bounded independently of $x, y \in S^{n-1}$. The rest of the proof is the same as in the gradient case.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ It occurs to me that the mechanism here is a Poincare inequality: mean value $0$ allows the derivative to bound the $\sup$ norm. $\endgroup$ – Eric Thoma Apr 11 '16 at 20:10
  • $\begingroup$ many thanks. I'm trying to understand if I ever could get this $\endgroup$ – Joe Apr 12 '16 at 0:41
6
$\begingroup$

I'm only writing a small addition to Eric's nice proof as an answer because it's too big for a comment. I think the following may be a little simpler: Suppose $|x|=r.$ Because $rS$ is connected and the integral of $k$ over $rS$ is $0,$ there exists $x_0\in rS$ such that $k(x_0) = 0.$ Now any two points on $rS$ can be connected by a smooth path in $rS$ of length $\le \pi r.$ So let $\gamma :[0,1]\to rS$ be such a path connecting $x_0$ with $x,$ with $\gamma (0) = x_0, \gamma (1)=x.$ Define $g(t) = k(\gamma(t)).$ Then

$$k(x) = g(1)-g(0) = \int_0^1 g'(t) \, dt = \int_0^1 \nabla k(\gamma(t)) \cdot \gamma'(t) \, dt.$$

Take absolute values to see

$$|k(x)| \le r^{-n-1} \int_0^1 |\gamma'(t)|\,dt \le r^{-n-1} \pi r = \pi r^{-n}.$$

$\endgroup$

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.