2
$\begingroup$

Let $f\in C^\infty$ have bounded derivatives, i.e. $$ \sup_{x\in\mathbb{R}}|f^{(p)}(x)| = B_p < \infty$$ for every $p\ge 1$.

I would like to find a proof or a counterexample for the following conjecture:

For every such $f$ there exists $C_f>0$ such that $B_p \le (p+1)^{C_f p}$ for all $p\ge1$

That is, if all derivatives of a function are bounded, the bound cannot grow too quickly.

I am also curious about the converse statement

If $f$ is not constant and $\lim_{x\to\pm\infty}f(x)=0$, there exist $c_f, c_f'>0$ such that $B_p \ge c_f'p^{c_f p}$

That is, if all derivatives of a non-constant function are bounded, the bound cannot grow too slowly. Note that polynomials and sine functions are not counterexamples due to the requirements $f$ is not constant and $\lim_{x\to\pm\infty}f(x)=0$.

$\endgroup$
3
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ On $\mathbb R$ it's easy to build counterexamples, just use bumps with disjoint supports such that the $n$th bump refutes the bound for $p=n$ with $C_f=n$ (and the lower order derivatives are not spectacularly large, so that they still stay bounded overall). If you assume compact support, then I'm not completely sure off the top of my head if this type of counterexample still works, though it well might. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2017 at 0:39
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Can you give some more details on how to construct the bumps such that all derivatives stay bounded overall? I tried to scale a single bump and couldn't get it to work. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2017 at 0:56
  • $\begingroup$ You could start out with a function that is very large on a small set, but has small $L^1$ norm and integral zero, and make that the $n$th derivative of the $n$th bump. More specifically, make the $L^1$ norm so small that whatever the bounds on the first $n-1$ derivatives were so far, your $n$th bump will also stay below this with its first $n-1$ derivatives (more succinctly, a desire to make the $n$th derivative large in no way forces you to make any of the earlier derivatives large also). $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2017 at 1:02

1 Answer 1

3
$\begingroup$

The answer to the second question is also no. If $f$ is a Schwartz function, then $B_p\le C^p \| t^p\widehat{f}\|_{L^1}$, and this increases at most exponentially in $p$ if $\widehat{f}$ has compact support.


Let me also add some detail to what I said about the first part of your question in my comments above: We can build an $f=\sum f_n$, with $f_n$ supported near $x=n$, say, such that $|f^{(n)}(n)|\ge M_n\equiv (n+1)^{(n+1)n}$ (showing that $C_f=n$ doesn't work in your desired bound), but $f^{(j)}$ still stays bounded on $\mathbb R$ for each $j$.

To do this, take $f_n^{(n)}(x)= \pm M_n$, $\int f_n^{(n)}=0$, on a tiny symmetric interval $(n-\delta,n+\delta)$, or rather, take $f^{(n)}$ as a smooth version of this. The first property of $f_n$ is already built into this, and $f_n^{(j)}(x)$ for $j=0,1, \ldots , n-1$ can be kept as small as desired by taking $\delta>0$ sufficiently small, so if we keep those derivatives smaller than what we already had, then indeed $\|f^{(j)}\|_{\infty}\le \max_{0\le k\le j} \|f_k^{(j)}\|_{\infty}$ will be finite for each fixed $j$.

Finally, we now see that we can also produce a compactly supported counterexample in just the same way.

$\endgroup$
2
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Can you provide a reference/explanation for the inequality $B_p \le C^p \| t^p \widehat{f} \|_{L_1}$? $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2017 at 2:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @YairCarmon: Because $\widehat{f^{(p)}(t)}=(2\pi it)^p\widehat{f(t)}$, so $f^{(p)}(x) = \int (2\pi i t)^p \widehat{f(t)} e^{2\pi i tx}\, dt$. $\endgroup$ Commented Oct 7, 2017 at 2:44

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .