Let $$f(x,y)=\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}\backslash\{0\}}\frac{1}{n}e^{2\pi i(xn+yn^2)} $$ Is it true that $\|f\|_{L^{\infty}(\mathbb{R}^2)}<\infty$? i.e. is $f$ essentially bounded?

  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I presume you want to leave out $n=0$. $\endgroup$ – Robert Israel Jun 17 '15 at 6:43
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. I edited the question. $\endgroup$ – Tony B Jun 17 '15 at 15:10
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Michael Renardy: but why is this enough? OP wants to be essentially bounded but you give counterexample for zero set measure.\\ Also for me question does not make sense: Dony, I assume you are asking whether the function $f(x,y)=\limsup_{N \to \infty}|\sum_{|j|\leq N, j\neq 0} \frac{e^{i(xn+yn^{2})}}{n}|$ is essentially bounded. $\endgroup$ – Paata Ivanishvili Jun 17 '15 at 18:15
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Actually, for the case $y=0$ the sum is essentially bounded: $f(x,0) = (1-2x)\pi i$ for $0 < x < 1$ (a "sawtooth wave") $\endgroup$ – Robert Israel Jun 18 '15 at 4:20
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Why not? The set of $(x,y)$ such that the series fails to converge is measurable and its intersection with every line $y = constant$ has measure $0$, therefore that set has $2$-dimensional measure $0$. $\endgroup$ – Robert Israel Jul 7 '15 at 0:50

The answer is yes. Fix $x,y$, and write $e(\alpha) := e^{2\pi i \alpha}$.

Using a Littlewood-Paley partition of unity and the triangle inequality, we may bound

$$ |f(x,y)| \leq \sum_N a_N$$ where $N$ ranges over powers of two, $$ a_N := \left|\sum_{n \in {\bf Z} \backslash 0} \psi( \frac{n}{N}) \frac{1}{n} e(x n + yn^2)\right|, $$ and $\psi$ is a suitable even bump function supported on (say) $\pm [1/4,4]$. (Actually, if one wished, one could replace the smooth cutoff $\psi(\frac{n}{N})$ here by a restriction $N \leq |n| < 2N$, and the arguments below would all go through essentially unchanged.) By the triangle inequality, we have $a_N = O(1)$ uniformly in $N$.

Fix $0 < \delta \leq 1$. We will show that there are only $O( \log \frac{1}{\delta} )$ values of $N$ for which $a_N \geq \delta$, which on taking $\delta=2^{-k}$ for natural numbers $k$ and summing gives the desired bound $\sum_N a_N = \sum_{k=1}^\infty O(k 2^{-k}) = O(1)$.

By discarding all the small $N$, we may assume that $N \geq C \delta^{-C}$ for a large absolute constant $C$.

Suppose that $a_N \geq \delta$, then by summation by parts we have $|\sum_{n \in I} e( xn + yn^2 )| \gg \delta N$ for some interval $I$ in $[-10N,10N]$. Applying Weyl sum estimates (see e.g. Exercise 16 of my blog notes) and taking common denominators this implies that there are rational numbers $a/q, b/q$ with $q = O( \delta^{-O(1)})$ such that $|x - a/q| \ll\delta^{-O(1)} / N$ and $|y-b/q| \ll \delta^{-O(1)} / N^2$ (we allow $a,b,q$ to have common factors). As we are assuming $N \geq C \delta^{-C}$ for a large $C$, this forces the rationals $a/q, b/q$ to be depend only on $\delta$ and not on $N$ (since two distinct rationals $a/q,a'/q'$ with $q,q' = O(\delta^{-O(1)})$ will be separated from each other by too far of a distance).

We now have

$$ N |x-a/q| + N^2 |y-b/q| \ll \delta^{-O(1)}.$$

Suppose that in fact we had

$$ N |x-a/q| + N^2 |y-b/q| \leq C^{-1} \delta^C$$

for a large absolute constant $C$. Then we can approximate $e(xn+yn^2)$ by $e((an+bn^2)/q)$ with acceptable error and conclude that $$ \left|\sum_n \psi(\frac{n}{N}) \frac{1}{n} e( (an+bn^2)/q )\right| \gg \delta N.$$ As the function $e( (an+bn^2)/q )$ is periodic with period $q = O( \delta^{-O(1)})$, which is much smaller than $N$, one split into arithmetic progressions mod $q$ and approximate Riemann sums by Riemann integrals (crudely upper bounding the mean of $e((an+bn^2)/q)$ in magnitude by $1$) and obtain $$ \left|\int_{\bf R} \psi(\frac{t}{N}) \frac{1}{t}\ dt\right| \gg \delta N.$$ But the integrand is odd and so the integral vanishes, a contradiction.

Thus we have $$ \delta^{O(1)} \ll N |x-a/q| + N^2 |y-b/q| \ll \delta^{-O(1)}$$ and so (since $a,b,q$ do not depend on $N$) there are only $O(\log \frac{1}{\delta})$ powers of two $N$ for which $a_N \geq \delta$, as claimed.

| cite | improve this answer | |

Prof. Tao's answer is excellent. I also found two research papers answering the question so I list them below as complementary reference:

  1. G.I.Arkhipov and K.I.Oskolkov, On a special trigonometric series and its applications, 1989 Math. USSR Sb. 62 145 Link to the article: http://iopscience.iop.org/0025-5734/62/1/A10 See Theorem 1.

  2. E.S.Stein and S.Wainger, Discrete analogues of singular Radon transform, Bulletin of AMS 1990 Link to the article: http://www.ams.org/journals/bull/1990-23-02/S0273-0979-1990-15973-7/S0273-0979-1990-15973-7.pdf See the Lemma in Section 6

The key of their results is that the upper bound depends only on the degree (not the coefficients, i.e. $x$ and $y$ in the question) of the polynomial.

| cite | improve this answer | |

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.