This is a cross-post from Math.SE since the question got nothing (but upvotes) even after offering a decent bounty. If it is too trivial or in other ways not suited for this site, please let me know and I'll delete it.

In Muscalu, Schlag - Classical and Multilinear Harmonic Analysis (Cambridge Universitv Press 2013), page 299 there is a rather odd estimate for wich I cannot find any justification:

Functions used: $$\def\supp{\mathop{\rm supp}}\begin{align*} \psi & \in C_c^\infty(\mathbb R) \\ \supp \psi & \subset [-2,2] \\ \psi|_{[-1,1]} & \equiv 1 \\ \chi & \in C_c^\infty(\mathbb R) \\ \supp \chi & \subset [-1,1] \\ \chi(0) & = 1 \\ \psi(\mathbb R) = \chi(\mathbb R) & = [0,1]\\ z & \in\mathbb C\\ \tau & \in\mathbb R \end{align*}$$

The claim is that $$\begin{align*} \int_0^\infty \left| \frac{\mathrm d^N}{\mathrm dt^N} (t^z (1-\psi(t\tau)) \chi(t)) \right| \mathrm dt & \le C_N \int_0^\infty \left| \prod_{k=0}^{N-1} (z-k) t^{z - N} (1-\psi(t\tau)) \chi(t) \right| \\ & \qquad \qquad + \left| t^{z} (-\psi^{(N)}(t\tau) \tau^N) \chi(t) \right| \\ & \qquad \qquad + \left| t^{z} (1-\psi(t\tau)) \chi^{(N)}(t) \right| \mathrm dt \\ & = C_N \int_0^\infty \left| \prod_{k=0}^{N-1} (z-k) \right| t^{\Re z - N} (1-\psi(t\tau))\chi(t) \\ & \qquad \qquad + t^{\Re z} |\psi^{(N)}(t\tau)| \tau^N \chi(t) \\ & \qquad \qquad + t^{\Re z} (1-\psi(t\tau)) |\chi^{(N)}(t)| \mathrm dt \end{align*}$$

So basically that we can control $$\int |\partial^N (uvw)| \le C_N \int |\partial^N u vw| + |u \partial^N vw| + |uv\partial^N w|$$ Wich is certainly not true in general (chose $u=v=w=x$ and $N=3$, for example)

So how can we justify that estimate in this special case?

  • $\begingroup$ Are you sure your parentheses are as they should? The LHS has $t^z(1-\psi\chi)$ but the RHS suggests that you might want $t^z(1-\psi)\chi$. $\endgroup$ – Joonas Ilmavirta Aug 21 '14 at 14:45
  • $\begingroup$ @JoonasIlmavirta Actually not, thanks for noticing :) $\endgroup$ – AlexR Aug 21 '14 at 16:13
  • $\begingroup$ For $N=0$ and $z\in\mathbb R$ your statement reads $\int_0^1t^z|1-\psi(t\tau)||\chi(t)|dt\leq C_0\int_0^1t^z|\chi(t)|dt$. You can make $\psi|_{[4/3,5/3]}$ arbitrarily large and choose $\tau$ large to violate this for any $C_0$. Are there perhaps more assumptions (or errors in what I wrote)? $\endgroup$ – Joonas Ilmavirta Aug 21 '14 at 16:29
  • $\begingroup$ @JoonasIlmavirta Actually, I forgot to mention that $\chi(\mathbb R) = \psi(\mathbb R) = [0,1]$. Editing that in. Again, thanks for looking at the problem :) $\endgroup$ – AlexR Aug 22 '14 at 7:21

As stated, the inequality indeed fails. But the final estimate (11.27) in the book is essentially correct. From the product rule the derivative

$$ (\frac{d}{dt})^n (t^z (1 - \psi(t\tau)) \chi(t) $$

contains three types of terms:

  1. A term where all derivatives fall on the weight $t^z$. This gives the first term in your expansion.

  2. Terms, excluding the one above, where no derivatives hit $\psi$.

  3. Terms where some number of derivatives hit $\psi$.

The first term you estimate exactly as the authors do, which gives you

$$ \leq \int_{1/\tau}^\infty \prod (z-k) t^{\Re z - N}~\mathrm{d}t = \prod(z-k)\cdot \frac{1}{\Re z - N + 1} \cdot \tau^{N -1 -\Re z} $$

assuming, as they did, that $\Re z - N < -1$.

For the second types of terms, note that since $\chi$ is support on $[-1,1]$ this means that $|t^z| < 1$ on its support. So every single term of type two is estimated by

$$ \leq \sup_{k \in \{1, \ldots, N\}} \sup_{t \in [0,1]} | \chi^{(k)}(t) | $$

in the context of the estimates we will take this to just be a constant depending on $N$. So all terms of type two together is estimated by

$$ \leq C_N$$

We are left with terms of type three. Since a derivative hits $\psi$, the terms of type three are supported in the region $$ t \in [1/\tau, 2/\tau ] $$ which has width $1/\tau$. In this region $t \approx 1/\tau$. So a typical term can be controlled by

$$ \leq C\cdot \frac{1}{\tau} \cdot \prod(z-k) \cdot \frac{1}{\tau}^{\Re z - N_1} \cdot \tau^{1 + N_2} \cdot |\psi^{(1+N_2)}|_\infty \cdot |\chi^{(N_3)}|_\infty $$

where $1 + N_1 + N_2 + N_3 = N$. We can simplify a little bit putting the $L^\infty$ norms of derivative of $\psi$ and $\chi$ into a constant

$$ \leq C_N \prod_{k = 0}^{N_1 - 1}(z - k) \cdot \tau^{N_1 + N_2 - \Re z} $$

since we are interested in the $\tau \gg 1$ case

$$ \leq C_N \prod_{k = 0}^{N_1 - 1}(z-k) \cdot \tau^{N - 1 - \Re z} $$

So up to some factors of products of the form $z(z-1)\ldots (z-N_1)$ the estimate (11.27) is correct. Since I haven't read the rest of the chapters to see why the authors chose to keep track of the $z$ dependence, I don't know how much this changes the exposition.

  • $\begingroup$ Actually the authors need the power of $z$ in the estimate to be $N$, at least for the $N=2$ case. They later use that $$\int_0^\infty e^{-ix_n t} \chi(t) t^{z+k-1} \mathrm dt \le C_2 \frac{(1+|z+k-1|)^2}{\Re z + k} (1+|x_n|)^{-\Re z -k} \le C (1+|z|)^2 (1+|x_n|)^{-\Re z-k}$$ $\endgroup$ – AlexR Aug 23 '14 at 12:53
  • $\begingroup$ I have finally come around the estimate using your suggestion with a little more care put into the $z$ dependency. Since your answer gave me the necessary hint (to look at specific terms and try to estimate them uniformly), I accept it :) $\endgroup$ – AlexR Sep 11 '14 at 11:39
  • $\begingroup$ @AlexR: Why don't you post your complete answer below now that you have it? $\endgroup$ – Hans Jan 13 '18 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ @Hans It‘s been a while. I will look in my notes when I find the time. $\endgroup$ – AlexR Jan 15 '18 at 5:51

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.