Hello everyone !

In Fourier Analysis, Self-Adjointness by Reed and Simon (Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics, Vol. 2), Theorem IX.14 tells us that (I'll take dimension 1 for simplicity) :

if $T$ is a tempered distribution on $\mathbb R$ such that :

  • $\hat T$ has an analytic continuation to $|\Im z| < a$ for some $a > 0$
  • on each slice $\mathbb R + i\eta$ with $|\eta| < a$, $\hat T$ is integrable
  • for each $0 < b < a$, the supremum of the integrals on the slices $\mathbb R + i\eta$ with $|\eta| < b$ is finite

then $T$ is a bounded continuous function and for any $0 < b < a$, there exists $C_b \geq 0$ s.t. $$|T(x)| \leq > C_b e^{-b|x|}$$

I was wondering : what can effectively make $C_b$ explode as $b \to a$ ? For instance, if we look at $\hat T(\xi) = \frac{1}{1+\xi^2}$, we have exactly the three hypotheses with $a=1$, and nothing more, but $T(x) = e^{-|x|}$ has exponential decay with exponent exactly $1$, i.e. we can take $b=a=1$.

I've tried several other computations and can never get a $C_b$ exploding as $b \to a$.

I'm not really an expert in the proofs of such result because I'm not familiar enough with Paley-Wiener theory, so excuse me if the answer is obvious.

The motivation, in a very unclear nutshell : I'm solving some linear elliptic PDE in a strip (by partial Fourier transform) with some strange boundary condition on the upper boundary part, and I want to show that exponential decay of the datum on this boundary yields the same exponential decay for the solution. I have other ways to prove it so this is not really important, but I'm interested in digging this way of seeing it.

But interestingly, in my other proof I need some assumption on the $0$-order coefficient of my operator : if I take $-\Delta + A$, for instance, I need $A > r^2$ where $r$ is the exponent in the exponential decay of the datum. Since none of this appear in the theorem above, I guess that either my proof is non optimal, or there are indeed ways s.t. $C_b$ explodes as $b\to a$. And I tend to trust more Reed & Simon than myself, so...

Thank you very much,


EDIT : Oh ! I was wrong when I wrote that we had nothing more. Indeed, in my example, the supremum of the integrals on the slices is finite for all $|\eta| < 1$, since it is $\pi$ independantly from $\eta$. So no need to put a $b$, and I guess this is the reason... I also found a $L^2$ version of the theorem (which is the same as theorem IX.13 in Reed & Simon) in Krantz, Parks, A primer in real analytic functions that has no $b$ in their assumption and in their result, so the proof might be adapted...


Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.