Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

My question is about the van der Corput lemma for $$ \int_a^b e^{i t \phi(x)} \psi(x) dx $$ The version you find everywhere, e.g. on

http://www.tricki.org/article/The_van_der_Corput_lemma_for_oscillatory_integrals

requires $\psi$ to be absolutely continuous. However, what are weaker conditions on $\psi$ such that the lemma still holds?

I was able to prove it when $\psi$ is either of bounded variation or in the Wiener class (summable Fourier coefficients).

Now I found a paper

Boldrighini, Carlo and Pellegrinotti, Alessandro and Triolo, Livio, Convergence to stationary states for infinite harmonic systems, J. Stat. Phys., 30 (1983), 123-155

where the authors claim in Prop A.3 that continuity of $\psi$ is sufficient for the case k=2. The proof refers to a book by T. Kawata "Fourier Analysis in Probabity Theory" (Academic Press, New York, 1972) but in this book I could only find the case $\psi\equiv 1$.

share|improve this question
3  
What is the precise statement? Van der Corput's inequality as is found in your link reads $$\left\lvert \int_a^b e^{i t \phi(x)}\, \psi(x)\, dx \right\rvert \le \frac{C}{\sqrt{t}}\left( \lvert\psi(b)\rvert + \int_a^b\lvert \psi'(x)\rvert\, dx\right), $$ which cannot be interpreted literally if $\psi$ is not absolutely continuous. –  Giuseppe Negro Mar 16 at 16:19
    
Yes, I don't mean it literally: An estimate of the type $\frac{C}{\sqrt{t}}$, where $C$ depends on $\psi$. –  gerald Mar 16 at 19:02
1  
I might be wrong, but I think bounded variation is required on $\psi$ in order to have decay –  Piero D'Ancona Mar 16 at 20:49
    
Yes, I also feel that continuity alone is not sufficient. Clearly there cannot be a bound of the form $\frac{C_k \|f\|_\infty}{t^{1/k}}$ with $C_k$ independent on $f$ (just take $\psi=e^{-i t \phi}$). However note that the Wiener algebra contains functions which don't have bounded variation. –  gerald Mar 17 at 14:35

1 Answer 1

up vote 3 down vote accepted

Andreas Seeger pointed out that the fact that an estimate of the form $\frac{C_{k,\psi}}{t^{1/k}}$ implies an estimate of the form $\frac{C_k\|\psi\|_\infty}{t^{1/k}}$ via Banach-Steinhaus. Since the latter is wrong, so is the first and thus the claim from the paper.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.