Accessible proof of Carleson's $L^2$ theorem
$begingroup$
Lennart Carleson proved Luzin's conjecture that the Fourier series of each $fin L^2(0,2pi)$ converges almost everywhere. Also, Richard Hunt extended the result to $L^p$ ($p>1$).
Some time ago I tried to read Carleson's paper, but I would say it is fairly hard to assimilate.
Is there an easier proof? Can someone point out of the core or give an outline?
What did Hunt do? Can someone give an outline of that proof?
fourier-analysis fourier-series
asked Nov 27 '10 at 21:40
AD.AD.
8,73383161
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Lennart Carleson proved Luzin's conjecture that the Fourier series of each $fin L^2(0,2pi)$ converges almost everywhere. Also, Richard Hunt extended the result to $L^p$ ($p>1$).
Some time ago I tried to read Carleson's paper, but I would say it is fairly hard to assimilate.
Is there an easier proof? Can someone point out of the core or give an outline?
What did Hunt do? Can someone give an outline of that proof?
fourier-analysis fourier-series
asked Nov 27 '10 at 21:40
AD.AD.
8,73383161
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
+1, I seem to be not the only one that finds it hard to digest those proofs.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:42
1
$begingroup$
@AD: Btw, I think the (partial) proof in Grafakos' Modern Fourier Analysis (chapter 11) is reasonably readable.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:52
1
$begingroup$
@Jonas T: I have a feeling that it is not just you and me who find this difficult.
$endgroup$
– AD.
Nov 28 '10 at 3:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Lennart Carleson proved Luzin's conjecture that the Fourier series of each $fin L^2(0,2pi)$ converges almost everywhere. Also, Richard Hunt extended the result to $L^p$ ($p>1$).
Some time ago I tried to read Carleson's paper, but I would say it is fairly hard to assimilate.
Is there an easier proof? Can someone point out of the core or give an outline?
What did Hunt do? Can someone give an outline of that proof?
fourier-analysis fourier-series
asked Nov 27 '10 at 21:40
AD.AD.
8,73383161
$endgroup$
Lennart Carleson proved Luzin's conjecture that the Fourier series of each $fin L^2(0,2pi)$ converges almost everywhere. Also, Richard Hunt extended the result to $L^p$ ($p>1$).
Some time ago I tried to read Carleson's paper, but I would say it is fairly hard to assimilate.
Is there an easier proof? Can someone point out of the core or give an outline?
What did Hunt do? Can someone give an outline of that proof?
fourier-analysis fourier-series
fourier-analysis fourier-series
asked Nov 27 '10 at 21:40
AD.AD.
8,73383161
asked Nov 27 '10 at 21:40
AD.AD.
8,73383161
asked Nov 27 '10 at 21:40
AD.AD.
8,73383161
asked Nov 27 '10 at 21:40
AD.AD.
8,73383161
asked Nov 27 '10 at 21:40
AD.AD.
8,73383161
8,73383161
$begingroup$
+1, I seem to be not the only one that finds it hard to digest those proofs.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:42
1
$begingroup$
@AD: Btw, I think the (partial) proof in Grafakos' Modern Fourier Analysis (chapter 11) is reasonably readable.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:52
1
$begingroup$
@Jonas T: I have a feeling that it is not just you and me who find this difficult.
$endgroup$
– AD.
Nov 28 '10 at 3:36
add a comment |
$begingroup$
+1, I seem to be not the only one that finds it hard to digest those proofs.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:42
1
$begingroup$
@AD: Btw, I think the (partial) proof in Grafakos' Modern Fourier Analysis (chapter 11) is reasonably readable.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:52
1
$begingroup$
@Jonas T: I have a feeling that it is not just you and me who find this difficult.
$endgroup$
– AD.
Nov 28 '10 at 3:36
$begingroup$
+1, I seem to be not the only one that finds it hard to digest those proofs.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:42
$begingroup$
+1, I seem to be not the only one that finds it hard to digest those proofs.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:42
1
1
$begingroup$
@AD: Btw, I think the (partial) proof in Grafakos' Modern Fourier Analysis (chapter 11) is reasonably readable.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:52
$begingroup$
@AD: Btw, I think the (partial) proof in Grafakos' Modern Fourier Analysis (chapter 11) is reasonably readable.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:52
1
1
$begingroup$
@Jonas T: I have a feeling that it is not just you and me who find this difficult.
$endgroup$
– AD.
Nov 28 '10 at 3:36
$begingroup$
@Jonas T: I have a feeling that it is not just you and me who find this difficult.
$endgroup$
– AD.
Nov 28 '10 at 3:36
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A few years after Carleson's proof Fefferman came up with a shorter proof of the $L^2$ and $L^p$ results. Later, in the context of their work in multilinear harmonic analysis Lacey and Thiele came up with a quite short and easy to understand proof for the $L^2$ theorem which is to some extent a descendant of Fefferman's proof. It's only 10 pages long and can be found in
Lacey, Michael; Thiele, Christoph (2000), "A proof of boundedness of the Carleson operator", Mathematical Research Letters 7 (4): 361–370.
(By the way, this paper has an amusing Mathscinet review which begins with "This is one of the greatest papers written in Fourier analysis.")
They also wrote an expository article describing this and a number of related results:
Lacey, Michael T. (2004), "Carleson's theorem: proof, complements, variations", Publicacions Matemàtiques 48 (2): 251–307
They also put an expanded version of this last paper on the arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0307008v4
answered Nov 28 '10 at 0:52
ZarraxZarrax
35.4k250103
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
For the lazy, here is the first paper, and here is an alternate link for the second paper from Lacey's own webpage.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Nov 28 '10 at 15:47
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I suggest this book:
"Pointwise Convergence of Fourier Series", by Juan Arias de Reyna.
DOI: 10.1007/b83346
I think the book is very well written and its exposition is very nice. Unfortunately it does not cover Hunt's proof.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 12:16
HumedHumed
747
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
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%2f12126%2faccessible-proof-of-carlesons-l2-theorem%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
A few years after Carleson's proof Fefferman came up with a shorter proof of the $L^2$ and $L^p$ results. Later, in the context of their work in multilinear harmonic analysis Lacey and Thiele came up with a quite short and easy to understand proof for the $L^2$ theorem which is to some extent a descendant of Fefferman's proof. It's only 10 pages long and can be found in
Lacey, Michael; Thiele, Christoph (2000), "A proof of boundedness of the Carleson operator", Mathematical Research Letters 7 (4): 361–370.
(By the way, this paper has an amusing Mathscinet review which begins with "This is one of the greatest papers written in Fourier analysis.")
They also wrote an expository article describing this and a number of related results:
Lacey, Michael T. (2004), "Carleson's theorem: proof, complements, variations", Publicacions Matemàtiques 48 (2): 251–307
They also put an expanded version of this last paper on the arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0307008v4
answered Nov 28 '10 at 0:52
ZarraxZarrax
35.4k250103
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
For the lazy, here is the first paper, and here is an alternate link for the second paper from Lacey's own webpage.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Nov 28 '10 at 15:47
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A few years after Carleson's proof Fefferman came up with a shorter proof of the $L^2$ and $L^p$ results. Later, in the context of their work in multilinear harmonic analysis Lacey and Thiele came up with a quite short and easy to understand proof for the $L^2$ theorem which is to some extent a descendant of Fefferman's proof. It's only 10 pages long and can be found in
Lacey, Michael; Thiele, Christoph (2000), "A proof of boundedness of the Carleson operator", Mathematical Research Letters 7 (4): 361–370.
(By the way, this paper has an amusing Mathscinet review which begins with "This is one of the greatest papers written in Fourier analysis.")
They also wrote an expository article describing this and a number of related results:
Lacey, Michael T. (2004), "Carleson's theorem: proof, complements, variations", Publicacions Matemàtiques 48 (2): 251–307
They also put an expanded version of this last paper on the arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0307008v4
answered Nov 28 '10 at 0:52
ZarraxZarrax
35.4k250103
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
For the lazy, here is the first paper, and here is an alternate link for the second paper from Lacey's own webpage.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Nov 28 '10 at 15:47
add a comment |
$begingroup$
A few years after Carleson's proof Fefferman came up with a shorter proof of the $L^2$ and $L^p$ results. Later, in the context of their work in multilinear harmonic analysis Lacey and Thiele came up with a quite short and easy to understand proof for the $L^2$ theorem which is to some extent a descendant of Fefferman's proof. It's only 10 pages long and can be found in
Lacey, Michael; Thiele, Christoph (2000), "A proof of boundedness of the Carleson operator", Mathematical Research Letters 7 (4): 361–370.
(By the way, this paper has an amusing Mathscinet review which begins with "This is one of the greatest papers written in Fourier analysis.")
They also wrote an expository article describing this and a number of related results:
Lacey, Michael T. (2004), "Carleson's theorem: proof, complements, variations", Publicacions Matemàtiques 48 (2): 251–307
They also put an expanded version of this last paper on the arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0307008v4
answered Nov 28 '10 at 0:52
ZarraxZarrax
35.4k250103
$endgroup$
A few years after Carleson's proof Fefferman came up with a shorter proof of the $L^2$ and $L^p$ results. Later, in the context of their work in multilinear harmonic analysis Lacey and Thiele came up with a quite short and easy to understand proof for the $L^2$ theorem which is to some extent a descendant of Fefferman's proof. It's only 10 pages long and can be found in
Lacey, Michael; Thiele, Christoph (2000), "A proof of boundedness of the Carleson operator", Mathematical Research Letters 7 (4): 361–370.
(By the way, this paper has an amusing Mathscinet review which begins with "This is one of the greatest papers written in Fourier analysis.")
They also wrote an expository article describing this and a number of related results:
Lacey, Michael T. (2004), "Carleson's theorem: proof, complements, variations", Publicacions Matemàtiques 48 (2): 251–307
They also put an expanded version of this last paper on the arxiv http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0307008v4
answered Nov 28 '10 at 0:52
ZarraxZarrax
35.4k250103
answered Nov 28 '10 at 0:52
ZarraxZarrax
35.4k250103
answered Nov 28 '10 at 0:52
ZarraxZarrax
35.4k250103
answered Nov 28 '10 at 0:52
ZarraxZarrax
35.4k250103
35.4k250103
1
$begingroup$
For the lazy, here is the first paper, and here is an alternate link for the second paper from Lacey's own webpage.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Nov 28 '10 at 15:47
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
For the lazy, here is the first paper, and here is an alternate link for the second paper from Lacey's own webpage.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Nov 28 '10 at 15:47
1
1
$begingroup$
For the lazy, here is the first paper, and here is an alternate link for the second paper from Lacey's own webpage.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Nov 28 '10 at 15:47
$begingroup$
For the lazy, here is the first paper, and here is an alternate link for the second paper from Lacey's own webpage.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is not a mathematician
Nov 28 '10 at 15:47
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I suggest this book:
"Pointwise Convergence of Fourier Series", by Juan Arias de Reyna.
DOI: 10.1007/b83346
I think the book is very well written and its exposition is very nice. Unfortunately it does not cover Hunt's proof.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 12:16
HumedHumed
747
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I suggest this book:
"Pointwise Convergence of Fourier Series", by Juan Arias de Reyna.
DOI: 10.1007/b83346
I think the book is very well written and its exposition is very nice. Unfortunately it does not cover Hunt's proof.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 12:16
HumedHumed
747
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I suggest this book:
"Pointwise Convergence of Fourier Series", by Juan Arias de Reyna.
DOI: 10.1007/b83346
I think the book is very well written and its exposition is very nice. Unfortunately it does not cover Hunt's proof.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 12:16
HumedHumed
747
$endgroup$
I suggest this book:
"Pointwise Convergence of Fourier Series", by Juan Arias de Reyna.
DOI: 10.1007/b83346
I think the book is very well written and its exposition is very nice. Unfortunately it does not cover Hunt's proof.
answered Dec 23 '18 at 12:16
HumedHumed
747
answered Dec 23 '18 at 12:16
HumedHumed
747
answered Dec 23 '18 at 12:16
HumedHumed
747
answered Dec 23 '18 at 12:16
HumedHumed
747
747
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.
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%2f12126%2faccessible-proof-of-carlesons-l2-theorem%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
$begingroup$
+1, I seem to be not the only one that finds it hard to digest those proofs.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:42
1
$begingroup$
@AD: Btw, I think the (partial) proof in Grafakos' Modern Fourier Analysis (chapter 11) is reasonably readable.
$endgroup$
– Jonas Teuwen
Nov 27 '10 at 21:52
1
$begingroup$
@Jonas T: I have a feeling that it is not just you and me who find this difficult.
$endgroup$
– AD.
Nov 28 '10 at 3:36