The Question. Suppose $0 < \alpha < \beta$ are fixed, and $a_n$ is an arbitrary sequence of real numbers. Is it known how to bound from below \begin{equation*} \int_0^{T} \Big| \sum_{\alpha T < n < \beta T} a_n n^{-it} \Big|^2 dt? \end{equation*}

What I know. The mean value theorem for Dirichlet polynomials will tell us \begin{equation*} \int_0^{T} \Big| \sum_{n \leq N} a_n n^{-it} \Big|^2 dt = (T + O(N)) \sum_{n \leq N} |a_n|^2, \end{equation*} and the implied constant is absolute. This takes care of $\beta$ small enough.

If $\beta$ is large, and $\alpha$ is small, then one can use the method of Rudnick and Soundararajan (http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0601498), as follows. By Cauchy-Schwarz, \begin{equation*} \Big|\int_0^{T} \Big(\sum_{n \leq N} a_n n^{-it} \Big) \Big(\sum_{m \leq M} a_m m^{it} \Big) dt \Big|^2 \leq \int_0^{T} \Big| \sum_{n \leq N} a_n n^{-it} \Big|^2 dt \int_0^{T} \Big| \sum_{n \leq M} a_n n^{-it} \Big|^2 dt. \end{equation*} Choosing $M$ small enough, say $M \leq \varepsilon T$, allows the computation of the left hand side above (the diagonal terms dominate). The mean value theorem for Dirichlet polynomials treats the sum over $m \leq M$ on the right hand side. Rearranging, one gets a lower bound \begin{equation*} \int_0^{T} \Big| \sum_{n \leq N} a_n n^{-it} \Big|^2 dt \gg T \sum_{n \leq \varepsilon T} |a_n|^2. \end{equation*} However, if $a_n = 0$ for $n \leq \varepsilon T$, then this method breaks down.


There may be no such bound if $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are suitably large. For example, using the first derivative test (see e.g. Titchmarsh Chapter 4) one can see that if $T\le t\le 2T$ then $$ \sum_{10T\le n \le 20T} n^{it} = O(1). $$ Therefore $$ \int_T^{2T} \Big| \sum_{10T \le n\le 20 T} n^{it} \Big|^2 dt \ll T $$ whereas one might have initially expected a diagonal contribution of size $T^2$.

(If you're really interested in the interval $[0,T]$ rather than the dyadic $[T,2T]$ then twist the above example by $\chi_{-4}$ say. )

  • $\begingroup$ Thanks this is helpful. I still wonder what kind of lower bound is true, even if it is smaller than what one might expect looking only at the diagonal terms. $\endgroup$ – Matt Young Oct 25 '14 at 14:21
  • $\begingroup$ It's a bit unclear to me what you're looking for. For example, consider a smoothed version (smooth the sum over $n$) of the example (and use Poisson summation). Seems to me that can be very small for all $T\le t\le 2T$. $\endgroup$ – Lucia Oct 25 '14 at 15:27
  • $\begingroup$ I think your example indicates that to get a reasonable lower bound one needs to require cancellation in $\sum_n a_n a_{n+h} $ for nonzero $h$. This clarifies the situation. $\endgroup$ – Matt Young Oct 25 '14 at 18:39
  • $\begingroup$ I search on Google that (the paper matwbn.icm.edu.pl/ksiazki/aa/aa84/aa8426.pdf by Goldston and Gonek) in the truncated interval $[\alpha T,\beta T]$ the asymptotic (Theorem 1) was obtained under the restrictions (6),(7),(8). This shows that the low bound is closely related to the propeties of the real sequences $a_n.$ I also feel that when $M\le\epsilon T $, "the diagonal terms dominate" may be inaccuate. $\endgroup$ – H.Flip Oct 26 '14 at 4:11
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks for the reference @H.Flip, it confirms my remark that it is necessary to control the corellations $\sum_n a_n a_{n+h}$ to get a lower bound. Why do you say you don't think the diagonal terms dominate when $M \leq \varepsilon T$? With a smoothing factor in $T$, both $m$ and $n$ must be close to each other. $\endgroup$ – Matt Young Oct 29 '14 at 13:37

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.