Fourier inversion Lemma (Lars Hörmander)
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I always like to have more than one proof for the same theorem. The other day I was browsing through my copy of Lars Hörmander's book on PDE (volume 1).
When proving the fourier inversion formula (on $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R}^n)$) he makes use of the following lemma:
If $T colon mathcal{S}(mathbb R^n) to mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$ is a linear map such that:
$$TD_j phi = D_j T phi$$ and
$$Tx_j phi = x_j T phi$$ for all $j in { 1 , ldots n}$ and $phi in mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$. Then $T phi = c phi$, for some constant $c$.
In the proof of this lemma he shows that if $phi (y)=0$, for some $yin mathbb R^n$ then $phi$ can be written in the following form:
$$phi(x) = sum_{j=1}^n {(x_j -y_j)phi_j(x)}quad mbox{with } phi_j in mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$$
(this is not the problem - as he gives a good hint as to how to construct the $phi_j$'s).
He goes on showing that:
$$T phi(x) = sum_{j=1}^n(x_j-y_j)Tphi_j(x)=0 quad mbox{ if } x=y.$$
(this is also really simple - but now comes the tricky part).
He goes on to conclude that there exist some function $c(x)$ such that $Tphi(x) = c(x) phi(x)$, and that $c$ is independent of $phi$. I simply can't see how he arrives at that fact.
fourier-analysis
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I always like to have more than one proof for the same theorem. The other day I was browsing through my copy of Lars Hörmander's book on PDE (volume 1).
When proving the fourier inversion formula (on $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R}^n)$) he makes use of the following lemma:
If $T colon mathcal{S}(mathbb R^n) to mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$ is a linear map such that:
$$TD_j phi = D_j T phi$$ and
$$Tx_j phi = x_j T phi$$ for all $j in { 1 , ldots n}$ and $phi in mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$. Then $T phi = c phi$, for some constant $c$.
In the proof of this lemma he shows that if $phi (y)=0$, for some $yin mathbb R^n$ then $phi$ can be written in the following form:
$$phi(x) = sum_{j=1}^n {(x_j -y_j)phi_j(x)}quad mbox{with } phi_j in mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$$
(this is not the problem - as he gives a good hint as to how to construct the $phi_j$'s).
He goes on showing that:
$$T phi(x) = sum_{j=1}^n(x_j-y_j)Tphi_j(x)=0 quad mbox{ if } x=y.$$
(this is also really simple - but now comes the tricky part).
He goes on to conclude that there exist some function $c(x)$ such that $Tphi(x) = c(x) phi(x)$, and that $c$ is independent of $phi$. I simply can't see how he arrives at that fact.
fourier-analysis
Here is a line of thought that I've done: If $phi(y)=0$ then we can prove (from the argument above) that $Tphi(y)=0$, but since $T colon mathcal S (mathbb R^n) to mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$ then we have that $T^mphi(y) =0$ for all $m in mathbb N$. I still have no idea if this is useful or not.
– Martin
Apr 29 '15 at 5:54
2
Just define $c(x)$ by this equation. To see that it's independent of $varphi$, observe that $(Tvarphi)(x)$ only depends on $varphi(x)$, not on the function as a whole (consider the difference of two functions that take the same value at $x$ to see this). So $c(t)varphi(t)$ for a given $t$ can be obtained by applying $T$ to $varphi(t)f(x-t)$, where $f$ is a fixed function with $f(0)=1$.
– Christian Remling
May 16 '15 at 4:32
this is just a muse, but the $c(i)$ might be a concept parallel to this one: If $v_1,..,v_n$ is a basis, and $alpha_i,..,alpha(n)$ a set of scalars, ${alpha_i.v_i}$ is also a basis
– JonMark Perry
May 22 '15 at 4:19
This is a comment on the other post, the one you just deleted - can't comment there. You deleted it too fast! If you undelete it (and let me know you've done so) you'll get a big chuckle out of the answer I'd like to post - it's much simpler than we thought, no Baire category needed...
– David C. Ullrich
Jul 16 '16 at 13:31
It's undeleted :o)
– Martin
Jul 17 '16 at 6:05
add a comment |
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
up vote
4
down vote
favorite
I always like to have more than one proof for the same theorem. The other day I was browsing through my copy of Lars Hörmander's book on PDE (volume 1).
When proving the fourier inversion formula (on $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R}^n)$) he makes use of the following lemma:
If $T colon mathcal{S}(mathbb R^n) to mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$ is a linear map such that:
$$TD_j phi = D_j T phi$$ and
$$Tx_j phi = x_j T phi$$ for all $j in { 1 , ldots n}$ and $phi in mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$. Then $T phi = c phi$, for some constant $c$.
In the proof of this lemma he shows that if $phi (y)=0$, for some $yin mathbb R^n$ then $phi$ can be written in the following form:
$$phi(x) = sum_{j=1}^n {(x_j -y_j)phi_j(x)}quad mbox{with } phi_j in mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$$
(this is not the problem - as he gives a good hint as to how to construct the $phi_j$'s).
He goes on showing that:
$$T phi(x) = sum_{j=1}^n(x_j-y_j)Tphi_j(x)=0 quad mbox{ if } x=y.$$
(this is also really simple - but now comes the tricky part).
He goes on to conclude that there exist some function $c(x)$ such that $Tphi(x) = c(x) phi(x)$, and that $c$ is independent of $phi$. I simply can't see how he arrives at that fact.
fourier-analysis
I always like to have more than one proof for the same theorem. The other day I was browsing through my copy of Lars Hörmander's book on PDE (volume 1).
When proving the fourier inversion formula (on $mathcal{S}(mathbb{R}^n)$) he makes use of the following lemma:
If $T colon mathcal{S}(mathbb R^n) to mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$ is a linear map such that:
$$TD_j phi = D_j T phi$$ and
$$Tx_j phi = x_j T phi$$ for all $j in { 1 , ldots n}$ and $phi in mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$. Then $T phi = c phi$, for some constant $c$.
In the proof of this lemma he shows that if $phi (y)=0$, for some $yin mathbb R^n$ then $phi$ can be written in the following form:
$$phi(x) = sum_{j=1}^n {(x_j -y_j)phi_j(x)}quad mbox{with } phi_j in mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$$
(this is not the problem - as he gives a good hint as to how to construct the $phi_j$'s).
He goes on showing that:
$$T phi(x) = sum_{j=1}^n(x_j-y_j)Tphi_j(x)=0 quad mbox{ if } x=y.$$
(this is also really simple - but now comes the tricky part).
He goes on to conclude that there exist some function $c(x)$ such that $Tphi(x) = c(x) phi(x)$, and that $c$ is independent of $phi$. I simply can't see how he arrives at that fact.
fourier-analysis
fourier-analysis
asked Apr 28 '15 at 19:10
Martin
1,7441412
1,7441412
Here is a line of thought that I've done: If $phi(y)=0$ then we can prove (from the argument above) that $Tphi(y)=0$, but since $T colon mathcal S (mathbb R^n) to mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$ then we have that $T^mphi(y) =0$ for all $m in mathbb N$. I still have no idea if this is useful or not.
– Martin
Apr 29 '15 at 5:54
2
Just define $c(x)$ by this equation. To see that it's independent of $varphi$, observe that $(Tvarphi)(x)$ only depends on $varphi(x)$, not on the function as a whole (consider the difference of two functions that take the same value at $x$ to see this). So $c(t)varphi(t)$ for a given $t$ can be obtained by applying $T$ to $varphi(t)f(x-t)$, where $f$ is a fixed function with $f(0)=1$.
– Christian Remling
May 16 '15 at 4:32
this is just a muse, but the $c(i)$ might be a concept parallel to this one: If $v_1,..,v_n$ is a basis, and $alpha_i,..,alpha(n)$ a set of scalars, ${alpha_i.v_i}$ is also a basis
– JonMark Perry
May 22 '15 at 4:19
This is a comment on the other post, the one you just deleted - can't comment there. You deleted it too fast! If you undelete it (and let me know you've done so) you'll get a big chuckle out of the answer I'd like to post - it's much simpler than we thought, no Baire category needed...
– David C. Ullrich
Jul 16 '16 at 13:31
It's undeleted :o)
– Martin
Jul 17 '16 at 6:05
add a comment |
Here is a line of thought that I've done: If $phi(y)=0$ then we can prove (from the argument above) that $Tphi(y)=0$, but since $T colon mathcal S (mathbb R^n) to mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$ then we have that $T^mphi(y) =0$ for all $m in mathbb N$. I still have no idea if this is useful or not.
– Martin
Apr 29 '15 at 5:54
2
Just define $c(x)$ by this equation. To see that it's independent of $varphi$, observe that $(Tvarphi)(x)$ only depends on $varphi(x)$, not on the function as a whole (consider the difference of two functions that take the same value at $x$ to see this). So $c(t)varphi(t)$ for a given $t$ can be obtained by applying $T$ to $varphi(t)f(x-t)$, where $f$ is a fixed function with $f(0)=1$.
– Christian Remling
May 16 '15 at 4:32
this is just a muse, but the $c(i)$ might be a concept parallel to this one: If $v_1,..,v_n$ is a basis, and $alpha_i,..,alpha(n)$ a set of scalars, ${alpha_i.v_i}$ is also a basis
– JonMark Perry
May 22 '15 at 4:19
This is a comment on the other post, the one you just deleted - can't comment there. You deleted it too fast! If you undelete it (and let me know you've done so) you'll get a big chuckle out of the answer I'd like to post - it's much simpler than we thought, no Baire category needed...
– David C. Ullrich
Jul 16 '16 at 13:31
It's undeleted :o)
– Martin
Jul 17 '16 at 6:05
Here is a line of thought that I've done: If $phi(y)=0$ then we can prove (from the argument above) that $Tphi(y)=0$, but since $T colon mathcal S (mathbb R^n) to mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$ then we have that $T^mphi(y) =0$ for all $m in mathbb N$. I still have no idea if this is useful or not.
– Martin
Apr 29 '15 at 5:54
Here is a line of thought that I've done: If $phi(y)=0$ then we can prove (from the argument above) that $Tphi(y)=0$, but since $T colon mathcal S (mathbb R^n) to mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$ then we have that $T^mphi(y) =0$ for all $m in mathbb N$. I still have no idea if this is useful or not.
– Martin
Apr 29 '15 at 5:54
2
2
Just define $c(x)$ by this equation. To see that it's independent of $varphi$, observe that $(Tvarphi)(x)$ only depends on $varphi(x)$, not on the function as a whole (consider the difference of two functions that take the same value at $x$ to see this). So $c(t)varphi(t)$ for a given $t$ can be obtained by applying $T$ to $varphi(t)f(x-t)$, where $f$ is a fixed function with $f(0)=1$.
– Christian Remling
May 16 '15 at 4:32
Just define $c(x)$ by this equation. To see that it's independent of $varphi$, observe that $(Tvarphi)(x)$ only depends on $varphi(x)$, not on the function as a whole (consider the difference of two functions that take the same value at $x$ to see this). So $c(t)varphi(t)$ for a given $t$ can be obtained by applying $T$ to $varphi(t)f(x-t)$, where $f$ is a fixed function with $f(0)=1$.
– Christian Remling
May 16 '15 at 4:32
this is just a muse, but the $c(i)$ might be a concept parallel to this one: If $v_1,..,v_n$ is a basis, and $alpha_i,..,alpha(n)$ a set of scalars, ${alpha_i.v_i}$ is also a basis
– JonMark Perry
May 22 '15 at 4:19
this is just a muse, but the $c(i)$ might be a concept parallel to this one: If $v_1,..,v_n$ is a basis, and $alpha_i,..,alpha(n)$ a set of scalars, ${alpha_i.v_i}$ is also a basis
– JonMark Perry
May 22 '15 at 4:19
This is a comment on the other post, the one you just deleted - can't comment there. You deleted it too fast! If you undelete it (and let me know you've done so) you'll get a big chuckle out of the answer I'd like to post - it's much simpler than we thought, no Baire category needed...
– David C. Ullrich
Jul 16 '16 at 13:31
This is a comment on the other post, the one you just deleted - can't comment there. You deleted it too fast! If you undelete it (and let me know you've done so) you'll get a big chuckle out of the answer I'd like to post - it's much simpler than we thought, no Baire category needed...
– David C. Ullrich
Jul 16 '16 at 13:31
It's undeleted :o)
– Martin
Jul 17 '16 at 6:05
It's undeleted :o)
– Martin
Jul 17 '16 at 6:05
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
So here's an answer to my own question. Just in case it would be of interest for someone else.
Firstly take $phi in mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$ such that $phi >0$. Now we may define $c$ by:
begin{equation}
c(x) = frac{(Tphi)(x)}{phi(x) }
end{equation}
Then naturally we have that $Tphi = cphi$, for this particular choice of $phi$.
Now take an arbitrary $psi in mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$, and some fixed point $y in mathbb R^n$. Define a function $fin mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$ by:
begin{equation}
f(x) = psi(x)phi(y)-phi(x)psi(y).
end{equation}
Note that $f(y)=0$. Thus we know that $(Tf)(y)=0$. On the other hand we have that:
begin{align}
(Tf)(x)&=phi(y)(Tpsi)(x)-psi(y)(Tphi)(x) quad Rightarrow\
(Tf)(y)&=phi(y)(Tpsi)(y)-psi(y)(Tphi)(y).
end{align}
Hence for the fixed point $y$ we have that $0=phi(y)(Tpsi)(y)-psi(y)(Tphi)(y)$, which imply that:
begin{equation}
(Tpsi)(y)=psi(y) frac{(Tphi)(y)}{phi(y)} = c(y)psi(y).
end{equation}
Since both $psi$ and $y$ where arbitrarily chosen we have the desired result.
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
So here's an answer to my own question. Just in case it would be of interest for someone else.
Firstly take $phi in mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$ such that $phi >0$. Now we may define $c$ by:
begin{equation}
c(x) = frac{(Tphi)(x)}{phi(x) }
end{equation}
Then naturally we have that $Tphi = cphi$, for this particular choice of $phi$.
Now take an arbitrary $psi in mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$, and some fixed point $y in mathbb R^n$. Define a function $fin mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$ by:
begin{equation}
f(x) = psi(x)phi(y)-phi(x)psi(y).
end{equation}
Note that $f(y)=0$. Thus we know that $(Tf)(y)=0$. On the other hand we have that:
begin{align}
(Tf)(x)&=phi(y)(Tpsi)(x)-psi(y)(Tphi)(x) quad Rightarrow\
(Tf)(y)&=phi(y)(Tpsi)(y)-psi(y)(Tphi)(y).
end{align}
Hence for the fixed point $y$ we have that $0=phi(y)(Tpsi)(y)-psi(y)(Tphi)(y)$, which imply that:
begin{equation}
(Tpsi)(y)=psi(y) frac{(Tphi)(y)}{phi(y)} = c(y)psi(y).
end{equation}
Since both $psi$ and $y$ where arbitrarily chosen we have the desired result.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
So here's an answer to my own question. Just in case it would be of interest for someone else.
Firstly take $phi in mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$ such that $phi >0$. Now we may define $c$ by:
begin{equation}
c(x) = frac{(Tphi)(x)}{phi(x) }
end{equation}
Then naturally we have that $Tphi = cphi$, for this particular choice of $phi$.
Now take an arbitrary $psi in mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$, and some fixed point $y in mathbb R^n$. Define a function $fin mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$ by:
begin{equation}
f(x) = psi(x)phi(y)-phi(x)psi(y).
end{equation}
Note that $f(y)=0$. Thus we know that $(Tf)(y)=0$. On the other hand we have that:
begin{align}
(Tf)(x)&=phi(y)(Tpsi)(x)-psi(y)(Tphi)(x) quad Rightarrow\
(Tf)(y)&=phi(y)(Tpsi)(y)-psi(y)(Tphi)(y).
end{align}
Hence for the fixed point $y$ we have that $0=phi(y)(Tpsi)(y)-psi(y)(Tphi)(y)$, which imply that:
begin{equation}
(Tpsi)(y)=psi(y) frac{(Tphi)(y)}{phi(y)} = c(y)psi(y).
end{equation}
Since both $psi$ and $y$ where arbitrarily chosen we have the desired result.
add a comment |
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
up vote
0
down vote
accepted
So here's an answer to my own question. Just in case it would be of interest for someone else.
Firstly take $phi in mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$ such that $phi >0$. Now we may define $c$ by:
begin{equation}
c(x) = frac{(Tphi)(x)}{phi(x) }
end{equation}
Then naturally we have that $Tphi = cphi$, for this particular choice of $phi$.
Now take an arbitrary $psi in mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$, and some fixed point $y in mathbb R^n$. Define a function $fin mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$ by:
begin{equation}
f(x) = psi(x)phi(y)-phi(x)psi(y).
end{equation}
Note that $f(y)=0$. Thus we know that $(Tf)(y)=0$. On the other hand we have that:
begin{align}
(Tf)(x)&=phi(y)(Tpsi)(x)-psi(y)(Tphi)(x) quad Rightarrow\
(Tf)(y)&=phi(y)(Tpsi)(y)-psi(y)(Tphi)(y).
end{align}
Hence for the fixed point $y$ we have that $0=phi(y)(Tpsi)(y)-psi(y)(Tphi)(y)$, which imply that:
begin{equation}
(Tpsi)(y)=psi(y) frac{(Tphi)(y)}{phi(y)} = c(y)psi(y).
end{equation}
Since both $psi$ and $y$ where arbitrarily chosen we have the desired result.
So here's an answer to my own question. Just in case it would be of interest for someone else.
Firstly take $phi in mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$ such that $phi >0$. Now we may define $c$ by:
begin{equation}
c(x) = frac{(Tphi)(x)}{phi(x) }
end{equation}
Then naturally we have that $Tphi = cphi$, for this particular choice of $phi$.
Now take an arbitrary $psi in mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$, and some fixed point $y in mathbb R^n$. Define a function $fin mathcal S(mathbb R^n)$ by:
begin{equation}
f(x) = psi(x)phi(y)-phi(x)psi(y).
end{equation}
Note that $f(y)=0$. Thus we know that $(Tf)(y)=0$. On the other hand we have that:
begin{align}
(Tf)(x)&=phi(y)(Tpsi)(x)-psi(y)(Tphi)(x) quad Rightarrow\
(Tf)(y)&=phi(y)(Tpsi)(y)-psi(y)(Tphi)(y).
end{align}
Hence for the fixed point $y$ we have that $0=phi(y)(Tpsi)(y)-psi(y)(Tphi)(y)$, which imply that:
begin{equation}
(Tpsi)(y)=psi(y) frac{(Tphi)(y)}{phi(y)} = c(y)psi(y).
end{equation}
Since both $psi$ and $y$ where arbitrarily chosen we have the desired result.
answered Dec 1 at 20:00
Martin
1,7441412
1,7441412
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f1256389%2ffourier-inversion-lemma-lars-h%25c3%25b6rmander%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Here is a line of thought that I've done: If $phi(y)=0$ then we can prove (from the argument above) that $Tphi(y)=0$, but since $T colon mathcal S (mathbb R^n) to mathcal S (mathbb R^n)$ then we have that $T^mphi(y) =0$ for all $m in mathbb N$. I still have no idea if this is useful or not.
– Martin
Apr 29 '15 at 5:54
2
Just define $c(x)$ by this equation. To see that it's independent of $varphi$, observe that $(Tvarphi)(x)$ only depends on $varphi(x)$, not on the function as a whole (consider the difference of two functions that take the same value at $x$ to see this). So $c(t)varphi(t)$ for a given $t$ can be obtained by applying $T$ to $varphi(t)f(x-t)$, where $f$ is a fixed function with $f(0)=1$.
– Christian Remling
May 16 '15 at 4:32
this is just a muse, but the $c(i)$ might be a concept parallel to this one: If $v_1,..,v_n$ is a basis, and $alpha_i,..,alpha(n)$ a set of scalars, ${alpha_i.v_i}$ is also a basis
– JonMark Perry
May 22 '15 at 4:19
This is a comment on the other post, the one you just deleted - can't comment there. You deleted it too fast! If you undelete it (and let me know you've done so) you'll get a big chuckle out of the answer I'd like to post - it's much simpler than we thought, no Baire category needed...
– David C. Ullrich
Jul 16 '16 at 13:31
It's undeleted :o)
– Martin
Jul 17 '16 at 6:05