Skip to main content
Became Hot Network Question
edited tags
Link
GH from MO
  • 105.2k
  • 8
  • 292
  • 398
formatting, added tag
Link
YCor
  • 63.9k
  • 5
  • 187
  • 286
Bracket size
Source Link
Daniele Tampieri
  • 6.4k
  • 7
  • 30
  • 45

Demeter in his book "Fourier Restriction, Decoupling, and Applications" (P287) used the following estimate:

\begin{equation} \sup_{0\leq n\leq q}|\sum_{m=0}^n e^{2\pi i\frac{a}{q}m^2}|\leq Cq^{\frac{1}{2}}, \end{equation}\begin{equation} \sup_{0\leq n\leq q}\bigg|\sum_{m=0}^n e^{2\pi i\frac{a}{q}m^2}\bigg|\leq Cq^{\frac{1}{2}}, \end{equation} where $a,q\in \mathbb{N}_+$ satisfy $(a,q)=1$ and $2\nmid q$.

The case $n=q$ can be calculated directly to be $q^{\frac{1}{2}}$. For general $n$, the usual Weyl's method will lead to an extra term $\log n$. Could you please explain how to get this estimate?

Demeter in his book "Fourier Restriction, Decoupling, and Applications" (P287) used the following estimate:

\begin{equation} \sup_{0\leq n\leq q}|\sum_{m=0}^n e^{2\pi i\frac{a}{q}m^2}|\leq Cq^{\frac{1}{2}}, \end{equation} where $a,q\in \mathbb{N}_+$ satisfy $(a,q)=1$ and $2\nmid q$.

The case $n=q$ can be calculated directly to be $q^{\frac{1}{2}}$. For general $n$, the usual Weyl's method will lead to an extra term $\log n$. Could you please explain how to get this estimate?

Demeter in his book "Fourier Restriction, Decoupling, and Applications" (P287) used the following estimate:

\begin{equation} \sup_{0\leq n\leq q}\bigg|\sum_{m=0}^n e^{2\pi i\frac{a}{q}m^2}\bigg|\leq Cq^{\frac{1}{2}}, \end{equation} where $a,q\in \mathbb{N}_+$ satisfy $(a,q)=1$ and $2\nmid q$.

The case $n=q$ can be calculated directly to be $q^{\frac{1}{2}}$. For general $n$, the usual Weyl's method will lead to an extra term $\log n$. Could you please explain how to get this estimate?

edited tags
Link
Alexey Ustinov
  • 12.3k
  • 7
  • 87
  • 119
Loading
Source Link
Loading