MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Given a finite measure $\mu$ on the real line $\mathbb R$, one definition of its Hilbert transform is $(H\mu)(y) =\frac{1}{\pi}(PV)\int \frac{d\mu(x)}{x-y}$ which is known to exist almost everywhere on $\mathbb R$. Another way is to define the Borel transform ${\mathcal H}(z) = \frac{1}{\pi}\int\frac{d\mu(x)}{x-z}$ for $z\in \mathbb C\setminus \mathbb R$, and then take the limit of $\Re({\mathcal H}\mu)(x+iy)$ as $y\downarrow 0$, such limit existing almost everywhere. In the case that $\mu$ is absolutely continuous it is stated $explicitly$ in the literature that these agree (almost everywhere), and it is $implicit$ in the use of the term `Hilbert transform' in the literature that the two definitions agree (almost everywhere) for general finite $\mu$. Does anyone know where one can find explicit proof(s)? (Proofs for the $L^p$ case are easy to find.)

share|cite|improve this question
Split $\mu$ into a smooth density measure $\mu_1$, a small absolutely continuous measure $\mu_2$ and a singular measure $\mu_3$. Since the definitions agree on $\mu_1$, it is enough to check that the difference is small on $\mu_2$ and $\mu_3$ outside a small measure set. But it is dominated by the (restricted to $r\le r_0$) Hardy-Littlewood maximal function, which is small outside a set of small measure (due to small total mass for $\mu_2$ and due to being supported on a zero measure set for $\mu_3$). In short: just take the classical $L^1$ proof and modify it a tiny bit. – fedja Mar 25 '11 at 12:45
@Rick: Could you explain why $H(\mu)$ is well defined for arbitrary finite measure $\mu$? – Syang Chen Mar 27 '11 at 9:04
@Xianghong: this is precisely Rick's question, and fedja's comment sketches why this works. – Yemon Choi Mar 27 '11 at 19:09
Hi Rick. I've taken the liberty of adding a "reference-request" tag to your question, since I got the impression that you were looking as much for a place where these facts are written down, as for a sketch of why they are true. – Yemon Choi Mar 30 '11 at 23:16

The Hilbert transform of $\mu$ is the inverse Fourier transform of the product $$ -i\hat\mu(\xi){\pi \text{sign}\xi}, $$ using the definition $\hat u(\xi)=\int e^{-2i\pi x\cdot \xi} u(x) dx$ so that the inverse Fourier transform is $u(x)=\int e^{2i\pi x\cdot \xi} \hat u(\xi) d\xi$. This product makes sense since $\hat\mu\in L^\infty$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Showing that the two definitions agree almost everywhere is easy! Using the truncated transform $$ \mathcal{H}\_\epsilon\mu(x)=\frac1\pi\int_{\lvert y-x\rvert > \epsilon}\frac{d\mu(y)}{x-y} $$ then, by definition, $\mathcal{H}\mu(x)=\lim_{\epsilon\to0}\mathcal{H}\_\epsilon\mu(x)$ for all $x$ at which the limit exists. Convolve the identity $$ \Re\left(\frac{1}{x+ih}\right)=\frac{x}{x^2+h^2}=\int_0^11_{\left\lbrace\lvert x\rvert > h\sqrt{t/(1-t)}\right\rbrace}\frac1x\\,dt $$ with $\frac1\pi d\mu$ to obtain, $$ \Re\left(\mathcal{H}\mu\right)(x+ih)=\int_0^1\mathcal{H}_{h\sqrt{t/(1-t)}}\mu(x)\\,dt. $$ The integrand on the right hand side tends to $\mathcal{H}\mu(x)$ as $h\to0$, whenever this is defined, so bounded convergence gives $\Re(\mathcal{H}\mu)(x+ih)\to\mathcal{H}\mu(x)$.

The question also asks how to show that $\mathcal{H}\mu$ is defined almost everywhere. I don't have a reference for this, but the standard proof can be modified without too much difficulty. The maximal operator $\mathcal{H}^*\mu(x)\equiv\sup_{\epsilon > 0}\lvert\mathcal{H}_\epsilon\mu(x)\rvert$ is weak (1,1) continuous, $$ \left\lvert\left\lbrace x\colon\mathcal{H}^*\mu(x) > \lambda\right\rbrace\right\rvert\le C\lVert\mu\rVert/\lambda, $$ for all $\lambda > 0$ and a fixed constant $C$ (I'm using $\lvert\cdot\rvert$ to denote the Lebesgue measure). I'm working from the notes Interpolation, Maximal Operators, and the Hilbert Transform, by Michael Wong (Theorem 8.7). These notes look at the case where $\mu$ is absolutely continuous, but the proof carries across to the general case with no big changes.

By weak continuity, if there exists measures $\mu_n$ with $\lVert\mu-\mu_n\rVert\to0$ such that $\mathcal{H}\mu_n$ all exist almost everywhere, then $\mathcal{H}\mu$ exists almost everywhere. If $\mu$ is absolutely continuous with differentiable density, then $\mathcal{H}\mu$ exists everywhere in the standard way. As the differentiable functions are dense in $L^1$, this extends to all absolutely continuous measures. Only the case for singular measures $\mu$ remain. So, there exists a measurable $S\subseteq\mathbb{R}$ with zero Lebesgue measure with $\mu(S^c)=0$. Then we can choose compact sets $K_n\subseteq S$ with $\mu(S\setminus K_n)\to0$. Note that the measures $\mu_n\equiv 1_{K_n}\cdot\mu$ are supported on the compact sets $K_n$ and $\lVert\mu-\mu_n\rVert\to0$. It follows that $\mathcal{H}\mu_n(x)$ is defined everywhere outside of $K_n$ (in fact, $\mathcal{H}\_\epsilon\mu_n(x)$ is a constant function of $\epsilon$ for $\epsilon$ small enough that $B_\epsilon(x)\cap K_n=\emptyset$). So, $\mathcal{H}\mu_n$ is defined almost everywhere and, hence, so is $\mathcal{H}\mu$.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.