norms of products of sines
1 Introduction
A trigonometric polynomial of degree is an expression of the form
Using the identity , we can write a trigonometric polynomial of degree in the form
The trigonometric functions and , , are the building blocks for -periodic functions (cf. [6]). To formalize the idea of the size of a -periodic function and to formalize the idea of approximating -periodic functions using trigonometric polynomials, we introduce norms.
For and for a -periodic function , we define the norm of by
For a continuous -periodic function , we define the norm of by
If is a continuous -periodic function, then there is a sequence of trigonometric polynomials such that as [11, p. 54, Corollary 5.4].
The Dirichlet kernel is defined by
One can show [5, p. 71, Exercise 1.1] that
(On the other hand, it can quickly be seen that , and it follows immediately from Parseval’s identity that .)
Pólya and Szegő [8, Part VI] present various problems about trigonometric polynomials together with solutions to them. A result on norms of trigonometric polynomials that Pólya and Szegő present is for the sum . The local maxima and local minima of can be explicitly determined [8, p. 74, no. 23], and it can be shown that [8, p. 74, no. 25]
In [2, p. 532, Theorem 2], the author proves the following.
Theorem 1.
Let , let be the maximum value of
for , let , and let . We have
We compute that and .
When I was working on this problem, I first found simpler weaker estimates that apply to a larger class of products.
For , let be a positive integer, and let
In this paper we show that we can use simpler methods to obtain nontrivial upper and lower bounds on . The results are substantially weaker than Theorem 1, but hold for any sequence . As well, their proofs can be more readily understood. We present an asymptotic result showing that the norm of approaches as , for an integer. We present inequalities for the norms of trigonometric polynomials.
2 Upper and lower bounds
Hölder’s inequality is the first tool for which we reach when we want to bound the norm of a product.
Theorem 2.
For any sequence , we have
Proof.
Hölder’s inequality [7, p. 45, Theorem 2.3] (cf. [10, p. 151, Exercise 9.9]) states that if then
As , this implies that
For each ,
In the proof of Theorem 2, we saw that for any , we have
We showed that
We can check, by taking logarithms and using L’Hospital’s rule, that
Therefore, there is some such that for all we have
We also showed that
and hence there is some such that for all we have
If , then for all we have
It follows that for any positive integer , if for all then
In other words, if all the terms in the sequence are the same then the inequality given by Theorem 2 is sharp.
In the above theorem we gave an upper bound on , and in the following theorem we give a lower bound on .
Theorem 3.
For any sequence , we have
Proof.
Since is a convex function on , by Jensen’s inequality [7, p. 44, Theorem 2.2] we have for any nonnegative function with that
and the two sides are equal if and only if is constant almost everywhere (for continuous this is equivalent to being constant). Hence, as there is no sequence of positive integers such that is constant,
(3) |
The left-hand side of (3) is , and the the right-hand side is equal to
But for each ,
Hence (3) is
We calculate in the following way. (The earliest evaluation of this integral of which the author is aware is by Euler [4], who gives two derivations, the first using the Euler-Maclaurin summation formula, the power series expansion for , and the power series expansion of , and the second using the Fourier series of .) First,
We have
Therefore,
Because , we have
and so
Thus
Therefore we have
and thus
∎
In the above theorem we gave a lower bound for . In the following theorem we give another lower bound for , and we then construct examples where one lower bound is better than the other.
Theorem 4.
For any sequence , if
then
Proof.
If, for instance, , the above inequality is
which is worse than (i.e. less than) the inequality given by Theorem 3.
If , the inequality is
and applying Stirling’s approximation we get
which is also worse than the inequality given by Theorem 3.
But if , the inequality is
Taking logarithms and using L’Hospital’s rule, we get
Then using Stirling’s approximation we obtain
and since , this lower bound is better than (i.e. greater than) the lower bound in Theorem 3.
3 Mixing
This section talks about measure spaces and mixing. These topics take repeated exposure to become comfortable with, but Theorem 5 is a pretty result whose statement can be understood without understanding its proof. The notion of mixing is related to independent random variables, for which the expectation of their product is equal to the product of their expectations.
Let be a measure space with probability measure . Following [9, p. 21, Definition 3.6], we say that a measure preserving map is -fold mixing if for all we have
(4) |
If for each the map is -fold mixing, we say that is mixing of all orders.
Let be Lebesgue measure on . Let be an integer, and define by ; , where is the greatest integer . is mixing of all orders. This can be proved by first showing that the dynamical system is isomorphic to a Bernoulli shift (cf. [3, p. 17, Example 2.8]). This implies that if the Bernoulli shift is -fold mixing then is -fold mixing. One then shows that a Bernoulli shift is mixing of all orders [3, p. 53, Exercise 2.7.9]. Using that is mixing of all orders gets us the following result.
Theorem 5.
Let be an integer. For each we have
Proof.
In other words, if for we set , then for each we have
It would be overwhelming for a reader without experience in ergodic theory to work out the details of the reasoning that we indicated above Theorem 5 for why is mixing of all orders. In the following we explain a more understandable derivation of the case of Theorem 5. For a measure space with probability measure , we say that a measure preserving transformation is mixing (in other words, -fold mixing), if for all we have
Stein and Shakarchi [12, p. 305] prove that (for ) is mixing, and their argument works to show that is mixing for an integer. Hence, taking , we get
4 Sequences of powers
If , then
Thus . Define . Bell, Borwein and Richmond [1] estimate when is a power of or is quadratic in . They prove that if , with an integer, then there exists a constant such that for all sufficiently large . The product can be written as a sum,
for . We have
But
Hence
It follows that
As , the above lower bound on is better than the one given by Theorem 3.
References
- [1] (1998) Growth of the product . Acta Arith. 86 (2), pp. 155–170. External Links: ISSN 0065-1036, MathReview (Mihail N. Kolountzakis) Cited by: §4.
- [2] (2013) Estimates for the norms of products of sines and cosines. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 405 (2), pp. 530–545. External Links: ISSN 0022-247X, Document, Link Cited by: §1.
- [3] (2010) Ergodic theory: with a view towards number theory. Graduate Texts in Mathematics, Vol. 259, Springer. Cited by: §3.
- [4] (1770) De summis serierum numeros Bernoullianos involventium. Novi Commentarii Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae 14, pp. 129–167. Note: E393, Opera omnia I.15, pp. 91–130 Cited by: §2.
- [5] (2004) An introduction to harmonic analysis. third edition, Cambridge Mathematical Library, Cambridge University Press. Cited by: §1.
- [6] (1993) Mathematical building blocks. Math. Mag. 66 (1), pp. 3–13. External Links: ISSN 0025-570X, Document, Link, MathReview (B. Artmann) Cited by: §1.
- [7] (2001) Analysis. second edition, Graduate Studies in Mathematics, Vol. 14, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI. Cited by: §2, §2.
- [8] (1976) Problems and theorems in analysis, volume II. Die Grundlehren der mathematischen Wissenschaften, Vol. 216, Springer. Note: Translated from the German by C. E. Billigheimer Cited by: §1.
- [9] Ya. G. Sinai (Ed.) (2000) Dynamical systems, ergodic theory and applications. second edition, Encyclopaedia of Mathematical Sciences, Vol. 100, Springer. Cited by: §3.
- [10] (2004) The Cauchy-Schwarz master class: an introduction to the art of mathematical inequalities. MAA Problem Books Series, Cambridge University Press. Cited by: §2.
- [11] (2003) Fourier analysis: an introduction. Princeton Lectures in Analysis, Vol. I, Princeton University Press. Cited by: §1.
- [12] (2005) Real analysis: measure theory, integration, and Hilbert spaces. Princeton Lectures in Analysis, Vol. III, Princeton University Press. Cited by: §3.
- [13] (1996) Proof without words: Jordan’s inequality , . Math. Mag. 69 (2), pp. 126. Cited by: §2.