I am asked to show that if $0 < \alpha < 1$, and if $f \in \Lambda^\alpha(\mathbb{T})$, then we have for $k\neq 0$, $$|\widehat{f}(k)| \leq \pi^\alpha \frac{\|f\|_{\Lambda^1}}{k^\alpha}$$

I applied some properties of inequalities and integrals, but must have gotten a bit carried away because my final bound ended up being far too big as you can see below.

Update: I am getting closer. I just don't know where the factor of $k^\alpha$ is coming from.

It has been advised that this theorem might be useful:

Theorem (Fejér): If $f\in L_p(\mathbb T^d)$, then $\|\sigma_n (f) - f\|_p \to 0$. (Here, $\sigma_n(f) = \frac1{n}\sum\limits_{j=0}^{n-1} D_j$).

Attempt #3:

$$ \begin{align*} |\widehat{f}(k)| &= \left|\frac1{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi f(t)e^{ikt}\mathrm dt\right|\\ &\leq \frac1{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi |f(t)|\cdot|e^{ikt}|\mathrm dt\\ &= \frac1{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi |f(t)|\mathrm dt\\ &= \frac1{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi |f(t+\pi) + f(t) - f(t+\pi)|\mathrm dt\\ &\leq \frac1{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi |f(t + \pi)| + |f(t +\pi) - f(t)|\mathrm dt\\ &= \frac{\pi^\alpha}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi \frac{|f(t + \pi)|}{\pi^\alpha} + \frac{|f(t +\pi) - f(t)|}{\pi^\alpha}\mathrm dt\\ &\leq \frac{\pi^\alpha}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi |f(t + \pi)| + \frac{|f(t +\pi) - f(t)|}{\pi^\alpha}\mathrm dt\\ &\leq \frac{\pi^\alpha}{2\pi}\int_{-\pi}^\pi \|f\|_{\Lambda^{\alpha}}\mathrm dt\\ &= \pi^\alpha \|f\|_{\Lambda^\alpha} \end{align*} $$

  • $\begingroup$ for $h>1$, the Lipschitz quotient is less than twice the $L^\infty$ bound. $\endgroup$ – robjohn Oct 1 '11 at 2:34
  • $\begingroup$ This is certainly true but I don't think it helps. But I think by the mean value theorem any high value of the Lipschitz quotient should also occur for small $h$ values (or as a limit as $h$ becomes small). This would be helpful because it would allow me to replace $||f||_{\infty}$ with $||f||_{\Lambda^{1}}$ in an inequality chain. $\endgroup$ – roo Oct 1 '11 at 4:23
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I'm afraid but what you've done is quite a stretch from your goal. Note that what you want to prove implies that $|\hat{f}(k)| \sim \frac{1}{k^\alpha} \to 0$ as $k \to \infty$, while with what you've done you only get that it is bounded. I guess that you have Fejér's theorem at hand (I know of no other method) and that you have seen how to do similar estimates for $C^k$-functions, for example, but I wanted to make sure before starting an answer involving facts you don't know. $\endgroup$ – t.b. Oct 4 '11 at 5:07
  • $\begingroup$ We have one theorem available in my notes which is credited to Fejer which I just edited into the question. As for performing estimates on $C^k$ functions, I'm not familiar with it. $\endgroup$ – roo Oct 4 '11 at 10:19
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Attempt #3 does not show any decay. Each derivative of smoothness of a function usually translates to a power of $\xi$ decay in the fourier transform (and vice versa). You are trying to show that this works for the fractional Lipschitz smoothness as well. $\endgroup$ – robjohn Oct 4 '11 at 15:28

For integer $k\ne0$ $$ c_k=\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}f(t)e^{-ikt}dt= -\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}f(t)e^{ik(t-\pi/k)}dt= -\frac{1}{2\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}f\left(t+\frac\pi k\right)e^{ikt}dt. $$ Taking one half of the sum of these expressions for $c_k$ we have $$ |c_k|=\frac{1}{4\pi}\left|\int_{0}^{2\pi}\left(f(t)-f\left(t+\frac\pi k\right)\right)e^{-ikt}dt\right|\leq\frac{1}{4\pi}\int_{0}^{2\pi}\left|f(t)-f\left(t+\frac\pi k\right)\right|dt\leq $$ $$ \frac{||f||_{\Lambda^{\alpha}}}{4\pi}\int_0^{2 \pi } \left|\frac{\pi }{k}\right|^{\alpha } \, dt= \frac{\pi^\alpha}{2|k|^\alpha}||f||_{\Lambda^{\alpha}}. $$

  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Wow. I would never have thought to do that. Is this a common technique? I'm trying to see what should have suggested this. I suppose that the $(\frac{\pi}{k})^{\alpha}$ should have tipped me off that I would need to somehow obtain $|f(x) - f(y)|$ in my expression, where $|x - y| = \frac{\pi}{k}$. I will be honest in my homework and make it clear that someone showed me this trick. Thank you. $\endgroup$ – roo Oct 4 '11 at 14:14
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @Kyle Yes, it's a common technique in the theory of trigonometric series for estimating moduli of continuity. See, for example, in Zygmund, Trigonometric Series, vol.1, ch.2, $\S4$, ebookee.org/Trigonometric-Series-Vol-1_212310.html $\endgroup$ – Andrew Oct 4 '11 at 14:49

As I mentioned in my comment, we want to use the smoothness of $f$ to get a decay in $\hat{f}$. To make use of the smoothness of $f$ (which is given as a bound on $\Delta_s f$), consider the Fourier Transform of $\Delta_s f(t)=f(t+s)-f(t)$: $$ \hat{f}(k)(e^{2\pi iks}-1)=\int_{\mathbb{T}}(f(t+s)-f(t))\;e^{-2\pi ikt}\;\mathrm{d}t\tag{1} $$ Therefore, we have $$ \begin{align} |\hat{f}(k)||e^{2\pi iks}-1| &\le\int_{\mathbb{T}}|f(t+s)-f(t)|\;\mathrm{d}t\\ &\le |s|^\alpha\|f\|_{\Lambda(\alpha)}\tag{2} \end{align} $$ Since $|e^{2\pi iks}-1|=|2\sin(\pi ks)|\ge|4ks|$ for $|ks|\le\frac{1}{2}$, we get $$ |\hat{f}(k)|\le \frac{|s|^{\alpha-1}}{|4k|}\|f\|_{\Lambda(\alpha)}\tag{3} $$ If we choose $s=\frac{1}{2k}$ (so that $|ks|\le\frac{1}{2}$), $(3)$ becomes $$ |\hat{f}(k)|\le \frac{1}{2^{\alpha+1}|k|^\alpha}\|f\|_{\Lambda(\alpha)}\tag{4} $$ I think the difference in constant is due to our use of different normalizations of the Fourier Transform. Since this is homework, I will let you convert.

More Motivation: In a comment, I mentioned that one dervative of smoothness in $f$ yields one power of $k$ in the decay of $\hat{f}$. This is usually accomplished using integration by parts to show that $$ \int_\mathbb{T}f^{\;\prime}(t)\;e^{-2\pi ikt}\;\mathrm{d}t=2\pi ik\int_\mathbb{T}f(t)\;e^{-2\pi ikt}\;\mathrm{d}t\tag{5} $$ Unfortunately, we can't take derivatives, but as we see above $$ \int_\mathbb{T}\Delta_sf(t)\;e^{-2\pi ikt}\;\mathrm{d}t=(e^{2\pi iks}-1)\int_\mathbb{T}f(t)\;e^{-2\pi ikt}\;\mathrm{d}t\tag{6} $$ which can be used the same way.

  • $\begingroup$ I confess I don't follow what you are doing in the first half of your answer. I wouldn't worry too much though, as the question has been answered already. As for the second part, yes we definitely proved this in class. $\endgroup$ – roo Oct 4 '11 at 17:31
  • $\begingroup$ @Kyle: From the sound of your comments to Andrew, you are still somewhat uncertain about what is going on. I would like to help make you more certain. Equation $(1)$ is simply equation $(6)$. That transfers the smoothness of $f$ to the decay of $\hat{f}$. Equation $(2)$ simply quantifies the Lipschitz condition. As you mentioned, we are interested in the Lipschitz condition for small shifts, and $|e^{2\pi iks}-1|\sim 2\pi ks$ for small $ks$. Therefore, we divide the left of $(2)$ by $|e^{2\pi iks}-1|$ and the right by $4ks$ to get $(3)$. $\endgroup$ – robjohn Oct 4 '11 at 18:51
  • $\begingroup$ @Kyle: Equation $(3)$ is true for any $s\le\frac{1}{2k}$, but the smaller we make $s$, the worse the estimate is ($\alpha-1<0$), so we choose as large an $s$ as we can, i.e. $\frac{1}{2k}$. That gives us $(4)$. $\endgroup$ – robjohn Oct 4 '11 at 18:52
  • $\begingroup$ To be totally honest, I do understand the steps in Andrew's answer. I just don't understand the approach behind choosing them yet. I will have to spend some time thinking about it still. I may have to read your explanation more carefully before I follow the steps precisely. Thanks for your help. $\endgroup$ – roo Oct 4 '11 at 20:41
  • $\begingroup$ @ robjohn: I dont know why I didn't understand this earlier. I just read it now and it is very clear. Thanks for this alternative approach. (Spending Thanksgiving weekend with family is clearly a good brain refresher. :) Hope yours is going well. Cheers!) $\endgroup$ – roo Oct 9 '11 at 17:59

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.