1
$\begingroup$

Let $f$ be a non-negative function supported and integrable on the positive real axis, such that $$\int_0^\infty f(x+y)p(y) dy = c[p] f(x), $$ where $c[p]$ a number (functional) dependent on function $p$.

1)Suppose the above equation holds for every non-negative function $p$ supported and integrable on the positive real axis. Is $f(x) = a\exp(-kx)$ for some non-negative $k$ and $a$?

2) Suppose the above equation holds for some non-negative function $p$ supported and integrable on the positive real axis. I suppose $f(x)$ is not necessarily an exponential function. How can we characterize $f$.

I tried using Laplace transform but got stuck. Similarly I tried using Fourier transform with the coefficient on the upper half complex plane. The form I obtained is $$\tilde f(k) \tilde p(-k) = c[p]\tilde f(k).$$ How do I proceed from here? Perhaps I should take a completely different route?

$\endgroup$
1
$\begingroup$

EDIT

1)

It is clear that for the equation to have a solution $f$, we must have $c[\delta_{a + b}] = c[\delta_{a}]c[\delta_{b}]$ for all $a,b > 0$, where $\delta_a$ is the Dirac measure in $a$. This means that we must have $c[\delta_x] = e^{kx}$ for some $k$, so (if $c$ is linear) we have $c[p] = \int_0^\infty p(y) e^{ky} dy$. But then the equation implies that $$ \int_0^\infty f(x+y) p(y) dy = \int_0^\infty f(x) p(y) e^{ky} dy. $$ If this holds for all $p$, it does indeed follow that $f(x + y) = f(x)e^{ky}$, so $f(x) = f(0)e^{kx}$.

So the answer to 1) appears to be yes, and the sign of $k$ is determined by the integrability of $f$.

Equivalently, we can start directly from the integral representation of a linear functional

$$c[p] = \int_0^\infty g(y)p(y)dy, \,\text{for some integrable }g(y),$$

same as in the solution for 2) below, so

$$ \int_0^\infty f(x + y) p(y) dy = \int_0^\infty f(x)g(y) p(y) dy, $$ for all $p$. We have

$$f(x+y)=f(x)g(y)$$ which gives the exponential function solution for both $f$ and $g$.

2)

Certainly not a complete answer here, but let's assume that $c[p] = \int_0^\infty g(y)p(y) dy$ for some $g$. Then $$ \int_0^\infty f(x + y) p(y) dy = \int_0^\infty f(x)g(y) p(y) dy. $$ Now, it is only assumed that this holds for "some" $p$ --- if these happen to include for instance $\frac{1}{n}1_{(0,n)}$, this means that the average of $f$ over the interval $(x,x+n)$ equals $f(x)$ times the average of $g$ over $[0,n]$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Even under your added condition of $c[p]=1, \forall p$, constant $f$ is still an exponential function with the exponent coefficient $k=0$, which is covered by the conclusion of 1), and not, violating it as you claimed. Besides, I am concerned about a less stringent condition of $c$ being a functional dependent on $p$. $\endgroup$ – Hans Oct 17 '13 at 16:43
  • $\begingroup$ But maybe I'm misunderstanding your question (because I did not think of specifying $c$ as adding conditions, rather on the contrary). Do you intend to solve the equation for some given $c$, or for any $c$ (this was my initial interpretation), or find the $(c,f)$ that satisfies it? $\endgroup$ – svangen Oct 17 '13 at 17:02
  • $\begingroup$ The question says "where c[p] is a functional ...", so $c$ is A functional such that the first equation holds. The statement does not imply any functional $c$ would do. The statement does preclude the set of such $c$ being empty either. More directly, find $f$ such that there is some $c$ such that the first equation holds. Regarding your edited first comment, $c[\delta_z] = \exp(-kz)$ satisfies your condition $c[\delta_1]=c[\delta_{\frac{1}{2}}]$, or any similar condition. So it does not violate 1) and your conclusion does not hold. $\endgroup$ – Hans Oct 17 '13 at 17:24
  • $\begingroup$ Actually, your edited comment gives the proof for 1). $\endgroup$ – Hans Oct 17 '13 at 17:29
  • $\begingroup$ The point I was trying to make was simply that for most choices of $c$, the equation would not have any solution $f$ (which wasn't clear to me apriori the way you had formulated the question). But I think we agree now. Let me know if you want me to elaborate on some step of the argument in this edit. $\endgroup$ – svangen Oct 17 '13 at 17:33

Your Answer

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

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