Let $f \in L^2 \cap L^1$ on the Real line, and define $f^{(n)}$ to be the $n$-fold convolution $f \circ f ... \circ f $.

I want to show that $||\hat{f} ||_{\infty} = \lim _ {n \rightarrow \infty} (||f^{(n)}||_1)^{1/n}$, using the tools of Fourier analysis on $L_1$ and $L_2$.

And actually I'm only stuck on the fact that the RHS $\le$ LHS. A formal proof would be something like this, but I'm stuck on technicalities:

\begin{align}\lim_n (\|f^{(n)}\|_1)^{1/n} &= \lim_n [\int f^{(n)} \overline{\exp{ (i \arg f^{(n)})}}]^{1/n} = \lim_n \left\langle f^{(n)}, \exp{ (i \arg f^{(n)})}\right\rangle ^{1/n}\\ & = \lim_n \left\langle\widehat{f^{(n)}}, \widehat{\exp{ (i \arg f^{(n)})}}\right\rangle^{1/n} = \lim_n \left\langle{\hat{f}^n}, \widehat{\exp{ (i \arg f^{(n)})}}\right\rangle^{1/n} \\ & = \lim_n \left[\int \hat{f}^n \overline{\widehat{\exp{ (i \arg f^{(n)})}}}\right]^{1/n} \le \lim_n \left[\| \hat{f} \|^n _\infty\int \overline{\widehat{\exp{ (i \arg f^{(n)})}}}\right]^{1/n} \le \|\hat{f}\|_\infty \end{align}

Trouble is, $\exp{ (i \arg f^{(n)})}$ is not integrable since its magnitude is always 1. I have tried to do an approach where I insert $g_k$ where $g_k$ is a compact smooth "hill" function which becomes wider and wider and limits to $1$, and this allows me to arrive at

\begin{align} \lim_n (||f^n||_1)^{1/n} &= \lim_n \lim_k [\int f^{(n)} \overline{g_k \exp{ (i \arg f^{(n)})}}]^{1/n} \\ &\le \lim_n \lim_k \left[\| \hat{f} \|^n _\infty\int \overline{\widehat{g_k \exp{ (i \arg f^{(n)})}}}\right]^{1/n}\\ & \le \| \hat{f} \|_\infty \lim_n \lim_k \int \overline{\widehat{g_k \exp{ (i \arg f^{(n)})}}}]^{1/n} \end{align}

But I can't actually take the limit $k$ because then the term will go to infinity. I thought of making $k$ a function of $n$ but then I couldn't show that this doesn't change the limit.

This strategy is taken from an analogous proof on the periodic circle with discrete Fourier transform, and I would like to see if it can be fixed somehow (because this was the hint given by the text).

  • $\begingroup$ the fact that $\|\hat{f}\|_\infty = \lim_n (\|\hat{f}^n\|_2^2)^{1/2n} =\lim_n (\|f^{(n)}\|_2^2)^{1/2n}$ is probably useful (and hill function is called a bump function) $\endgroup$
    – reuns
    Jun 26, 2016 at 23:28
  • $\begingroup$ You may want to look at this answer: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1495646/… $\endgroup$
    – abnry
    Jun 27, 2016 at 0:25
  • $\begingroup$ It seems like the above link only work for finite measure spaces? $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Jun 27, 2016 at 0:52
  • $\begingroup$ Almost duplicate of this question: math.stackexchange.com/questions/1664286/… (and see my answer there perhaps) $\endgroup$
    – user138530
    Jul 3, 2016 at 20:31
  • $\begingroup$ Yes if we restrict to the circle I think the proof will come out fine. Is there a way to reduce to that case from the real line? $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Jul 4, 2016 at 0:07

1 Answer 1


@Romain and @Glitch pointed errors or gaps in an answer I posted some time ago. As @David points out, the result is true, even without the assumption the $f \in L^2(\mathbb{R})$. I cannot fix my proof, hence I am deleting it.

If someone adds a proof later on, I will completely remove my post.

  • $\begingroup$ How do you justify $\int \int |f^{(n-1)}(x)| |f(y-x)| dy dx = \int \int |f^{(n-1)}(x)| \; |f(y)|^{ } dy dx$ $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Aug 2, 2016 at 1:27
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I have even seen triple integrals :) $\endgroup$
    – Mark
    Aug 2, 2016 at 16:13
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Certainly it's true for $f\in L^1$. This is just the Spectral Radius Formula from Banach algebras, plus the fact that the Fourier transform gives all the complex homomorphisms of $L^1$. $\endgroup$ Aug 2, 2016 at 17:27
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think there might be a mistake: a prior, you don't know that $\|{f}\|_{2/3}$ is finite, hence these estimates could be meaningless... $\endgroup$
    – Romain S
    Mar 29, 2021 at 23:46
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Romain Thanks for pointing to the mistake. In addition to your objection, Young's inequality applies to $p,q,r \ge 1$, thus $q=2/3$ is non-sense$|. I replaced the original argument with one that borrows from a possible proof of the Spectral Radious Formula. $\endgroup$ Mar 30, 2021 at 5:23

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.