I need some help for showing the following result: Let $\varphi\in C^\infty(\mathbb R^n)$. Then $\varphi\in \mathcal{S}(\mathbb R^n)$ if and only if for all $\alpha\in\mathbb N^n$ and $N\geq 0$ there is a constant $C_{\alpha, N}$ such that $$|\partial^\alpha \varphi(x)|\leq \frac{C_{\alpha, N}}{(1+|x|)^N}.$$

For me:

$C^\infty_c(\mathbb R^n)$ is the set of all $\varphi:\mathbb R^n\rightarrow \mathbb C$ of class $C^\infty$.

$\mathcal{S}(\mathbb R^n)$ is the Schwartz space defined as the class of all $C^\infty$ functions $\varphi:\mathbb R^n\rightarrow \mathbb C$ such that $$\sup_{x\in\mathbb R^n}|x^\beta \partial^\alpha \varphi(x)|<\infty,$$ for all multi-indices $\alpha, \beta\in\mathbb N^n$.

I proved the implication $(\Rightarrow)$ as follows: Given $\alpha, \beta\in\mathbb N^n$, $$|x^\beta \partial^\alpha \varphi(x)|=|x^\beta||\partial^\alpha \varphi(x)|\leq |x|^{|\beta|}|\partial^\alpha \varphi(x)|\leq (1+|x|)^{|\beta|}\frac{C_{\alpha, |\beta|}}{(1+|x|)^{|\beta|}}=C_{\alpha, |\beta|},$$ hence $\displaystyle\sup_{x\in\mathbb R^n}|x^\beta \partial^\alpha \varphi(x)|<\infty$, i.e., $\varphi\in\mathcal{S}(\mathbb R^n)$.

The main problem is the converse. I conjecture the proof must be made by contradiction but I wasn't managed to do it..

Any help with be great..Thanks

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The title is quite uninformative, don't you think? $\endgroup$ – Mariano Suárez-Álvarez Jul 19 '13 at 20:03
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Should that be "Let $\varphi\in C^\infty(\mathbb R^n)$"? $\endgroup$ – Rasmus Jul 19 '13 at 20:09
  • $\begingroup$ @Rasmus might be $C_0^\infty = C_{c(ompact)}^\infty$ too, idk about what exactly is the requirement here. However, the definition doesnt make sense here. $\mathcal{S}$ is defined as the set of all fast-falling functions. The functions that have compact support fulfill this property trivially? $\endgroup$ – CBenni Jul 19 '13 at 20:37
  • $\begingroup$ @Rasmus I agree that must be $C^\infty(\mathbb R^n)$.. $\endgroup$ – PtF Jul 19 '13 at 20:50

If $\varphi\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n)$, then $x^{\alpha}\partial^{\beta}\varphi$ and $P(x)Q(\partial)\varphi$ are in $\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n)$, for all polynomials $P$, $Q$ and multi-indices $\alpha$, $\beta$. Then, selecting any polynomial $P=P(x) $ of degree $k$ and $Q(\partial)=\partial^{\beta}$ we can write

$$|P(x)\partial^{\beta}\varphi(x)|\leq constant_{k,\beta}; $$

taking $P(x)=(1+x^2_1+\dots+x^2_n)^k$ we arrive at the thesis.

  • $\begingroup$ thanks for the help I'll try to write that.. $\endgroup$ – PtF Jul 19 '13 at 20:52
  • $\begingroup$ how can I bound the term $(1+x^2_1+\ldots+x_n^2)^N$? The problem is that $N$ is not a natural number hence I can't use the multinomial theorem as I did below.. $\endgroup$ – PtF Jul 20 '13 at 17:46
  • $\begingroup$ You do not bound it; you divide both sides of the inequality by the polynomial P(x) because it is non zero (this is the reason of the "+1" and the squares) and non negative (so the inequality does not change). Little trick ;) $\endgroup$ – Avitus Jul 20 '13 at 17:54
  • $\begingroup$ It is a good trick @Avitus but how will you make the constant depend on $N$ without bounding $P(x)$? $\endgroup$ – PtF Jul 20 '13 at 19:03
  • $\begingroup$ In Folland's book on real analysis he says this $N$ is natural, now I don't know.. $\endgroup$ – PtF Jul 20 '13 at 21:56

Using @Avitus idea I wrote the following proof for the converse:

On the other hand, given $\alpha=(\alpha_1, \ldots, \alpha_n)\in\mathbb N^n$, $$|(1+\sum_{i=1}^nx_i^2)^N\partial^\alpha \varphi(x)|=|(1+\sum_{i=1}^nx_i^2)^N||\partial^\alpha\varphi(x)|.$$ But by the multinomial theorem, $$(1+\sum_{i=1}^nx_i^2)^N=\sum_{|(\beta_0, \beta)|=N}\frac{N!}{\beta_0!\beta!}x^{2\beta}, \beta_0\in\mathbb N.$$ Notice both $\beta_0$ and $\beta$ depend on $N$. Hence, $$|(1+\sum_{i=1}^nx_i^2)^N\partial^\alpha \varphi(x)|\leq \sum_{|(\beta_0, \beta)|=N}\frac{N!}{\beta_0!\beta!}|x^{2\beta}\partial^\alpha \varphi(x)|\leq \sum_{|(\beta_0, \beta)|=N}\frac{N!}{\beta_0!\beta!}\sup_{x\in\mathbb R^n}|x^{2\beta}\partial^\alpha \varphi(x)|=C_{\alpha, N}.$$ The result follows noting that $$(1+|x|)^N\leq (1+\sum_{i=1}^nx_i^2)^N.$$

The above argument works well if $N\in\mathbb Z^+$ otherwise we can't use the multinomial theorem..

  • $\begingroup$ Well I made an awful mistake, I can't use the multinomial theorem because $N$ is not natural..I will try to fix that.. $\endgroup$ – PtF Jul 20 '13 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ are you sure that $(1+|x|)^N \leq (1+|x|^2)^N$? $\endgroup$ – Jorge.Squared May 31 '17 at 12:07
  • $\begingroup$ That holds for $|x|≥1$ the other case must be treated separately. $\endgroup$ – PtF Jun 1 '17 at 11:08
  • $\begingroup$ For $0 \leq |x| < 1$ the inequality $(1+|x|)^{N} \leq (1 + |x|^2)^{N}$ simply isn't true. But in the proof of your proposition, why do you work with $(1+ |x|^2)^N$ instead of taking $(1+|x|)^{N}$ right at the beginning? This should be enough, shouldN't it $\endgroup$ – Jorge.Squared Jun 1 '17 at 11:50
  • $\begingroup$ Yes, it is not true but it won't be a problem. Because the definition I had was using $(1+|x|)^N$ but it is equivalent after all since $(1+|x|)^N$ and $(1+|x|^2)^N$ are comparable.. $\endgroup$ – PtF Jun 1 '17 at 13:38

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.