1
$\begingroup$

The following set

$$ \left\{ \psi_n(x) \right\}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}} = \left\{ \frac{1}{\sqrt{T}}e^{i2\pi \frac{n}{T} x} \right\}_{n \in \mathbb{Z}} $$

Is a complete set in $\mathcal{L}^2(\left[ -T/2 + x_0,T/2 + x_0 \right])$ for all $x_0$, and it is a generalization of the fourier basis in $[-\pi,\pi]$, obtained by raparametrizaton. The set of spherical harmonics

$$ \left\{Y_{l,m}(\theta,\phi)\right\}_{l,m} = \left\{f_{lm}P_l^m(\cos\theta)e^{im\phi} \right\}_{l,m} $$

is also complete in $\mathcal{L}^2(\left[0,2\pi \right]\times\left[0,\pi\right])$ as far as I know. I wonder if there's any reparametrization of that would make the same set complete in different region, just like the one above.

Is it possible?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ A linear transform of the variables $(\theta, \phi)$ would make $\{Y_{l,m}\}$ complete on any compact, rectangular region of $\mathbb{R} \times \mathbb{R}$. Are you wanting something more complicated that this? $\endgroup$ Feb 22 '18 at 16:44
  • $\begingroup$ No, linear transform I think it's fine, could you write a sketch of the proof? So I can work out the details by myself. I assume though any bijection could work fine for completeness. $\endgroup$ Feb 22 '18 at 16:46
1
$\begingroup$

Suppose you want $\{Y_{l,m}(\theta,\phi)\}_{l,m}$ to be complete in $\mathcal{L}^2\left([a,b]\times[c,d]\right)$ for $[a,b]\times[c,d] \subset \mathbb{R}^2$, instead of just on $[0,2\pi] \times[0,\pi]$. Let $x,y:\mathbb{R} \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ be linear functions so that $x(a) = 0$, $x(b) = 2\pi$, $y(c) = 0$, and $y(d) = \pi$. Then the family of functions $\widetilde{Y}_{l,m}(u,v) = Y_{l,m}(x(u), y(v))$ is the family you want.

One should say something about square integrability here. I'll confine myself to the observation that the Jacobian of the transform between $u,v$ coordinates and $\theta, \phi$ coordinates is constant. To argue completeness, observe that any function in $u,v$ coordinates has an image along $x,y$ in $\theta, \phi$ coordinates.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ We are considering as dot product in this case $$\int_\Omega f(\theta,\phi)g^*(\theta,\phi) d\Omega$$, hence it is strictly dependent from the measure $d\Omega$ (solid angle). By a changing the parameterization shouldn't the measure change as well? I don't think orthonormality would be preserved otherwise. $\endgroup$ Feb 23 '18 at 15:14
  • $\begingroup$ The measure changes, but we can easily determine the change since the Jacobian is constant. So we rescale all $Y$ by $1/\sqrt{J}$, where $J$ is the Jacobian, and we recover orthonormality. $\endgroup$ Feb 23 '18 at 15:31
  • $\begingroup$ But we would preserve orthogonality, right? $\endgroup$ Feb 23 '18 at 16:58
  • $\begingroup$ @user8469759 : Yes. (That's the ...normality.) Also, when you multiplicatively scale zero, you still get zero. $\endgroup$ Feb 24 '18 at 0:50

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.