4
$\begingroup$

In Proposition 5.3.11 of Bratteli-Robinson Vol II the Paley-Wiener Theorem is stated as follows:

Excerpt from Bratteli-Robinson

Is this the correct statement? Aren't $f$ and $\hat{f}$ mixed up? I know the following version of this theorem (see for example Hörmander Vol I, Theorem 7.3.1):

If f is in $C_0^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ with support in $[-R,R]$, then $\hat{f}$ can be extended to an entire analytic Funktion satisfying that for all $n\in\mathbb{N}$ exist constants $c_n$ such that $\lvert \hat{f}(z)\lvert\leq c_n\frac{e^{R\lvert\Im{z}\lvert}}{(1+\lvert z\lvert)^n}$. Conversely an entire analytic function $\hat{f}$ satisfying this inequality for all $n$ is the Fourier transform of some $F$ in $C_0^\infty(\mathbb{R})$ with support in $[-R,R]$.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think they're saying the same thing since $f^\vee(z) = \hat{f}(-z)$. $\endgroup$ – Suugaku Jun 2 '13 at 14:43
  • $\begingroup$ @Suugaku But one is the Fourier transform, the other the inverse transform. Why are they the same? $\endgroup$ – awllower Jun 2 '13 at 14:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @awllower I'm saying it doesn't matter whether it says FT or IFT since the properties do not rely on whether $z$ or $-z$ is used. The answer below sums this up. $\endgroup$ – Suugaku Jun 2 '13 at 21:30
  • $\begingroup$ @Suugaku Thanks for telling me. $\endgroup$ – awllower Jun 3 '13 at 0:57
2
$\begingroup$

All the involved properties (P) are invariant with respect to $z\mapsto -z$. Hence to be the Fourier transform of a function satisfying (P) is the same as to be the inverse Fourier transform of a function satisfying (P).

$\endgroup$

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.