5
$\begingroup$

I know that $F_2:L^2 \rightarrow L^2$ is of course unitary, whereas $F_1:L^1 \rightarrow C_0$ is injective but not surjective. This can be seen by looking at the dual map.

Riesz-Thorin gives us that there is also $F_p: L^p \rightarrow L^q$ for $p \in (1,2).$ Here, the dual map trick does not work, so this transform has a chance of being surjective. Since every $f \in L^q$ is also in $S'$ we can also define a promising candidate $F_{S'}^{-1}(f).$ Unfortunatly, this does not really tell me whether this $F_{S'}^{-1}(f) \in L^p$ again.

This raises the question whether $F_p$ is actually surjective or not?

Comment on the discussion below: Thanks to everybody participating in the disccusion. Actually this question came to my mind while I was thinking about this problem from PDEs, which would have an easy solution in this case. I have to admit that the fact that $L^p$ is not isomorphic to $L^q$ is indeed something I know, but I have never actually used it, as I am not primarily active in analysis. Probably I should give my questions more thought in the future.Sorry for any inconvenience my question caused.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ $F_p$ is injective, and $L_p$ is not isomorphic to $L_q$ unless $p=q=2$, so the answer is no. $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi May 12 '16 at 19:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I think it is better to add it in the Original post. $\endgroup$ – Amir Sagiv May 12 '16 at 19:52
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ The fact cited by @YemonChoi, that $L_p$ and $L_q$ are not isomorphic, is true but not obvious: see mathoverflow.net/questions/79713/lp-mathbbr-vs-lq-mathbbr for more details. But I think this should be posted as an answer! $\endgroup$ – Nate Eldredge May 12 '16 at 20:04
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ More explicitly, there are purely singular measures whose FT is in $L^p$ for a given $p>2$ (and you can even get pointwise decay with a power rate). These can be constructed using Riesz products, for example. $\endgroup$ – Christian Remling May 12 '16 at 21:02
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @ChristianRemling Well, MO is for people to get answers to things which are easy to those with the right knowledge but not so obvious to people in a different area, right? I mean, all my questions about finite group theory and group characters are the kinds of thing that algebraists might learn in "graduate education" but which I simply didn't $\endgroup$ – Yemon Choi May 12 '16 at 21:38
6
$\begingroup$

If $1\leq p<2$ then $\mathscr{F}: L^p \to L^{p'}$ is not surjective. I had this as a homework problem a week back.

The reason is the bounded inverse theorem: $\mathscr{F}: L^p \to L^{p'}$ is injective, (by fourier inversion on the dense subspace of schwarz functions). If the map were surjective then there would be an inverse that would be continuous, since $\mathscr{F}$ is an open map under this assumption.

Thus we just need to prove that there is no bounded inverse: For $f \in \mathscr{S}$, there is no constant $c$ such that $ ||f||_{p} \leq c ||\hat f||_{p'}$ for $f \in \mathscr{S}$ with the constant only depending on $p$.

This is easy: The function $f_\lambda=e^{-\pi i \lambda x^2-\pi x^2}$ satisfies $||f_\lambda||_p=c$ independent of $\lambda$, whereas $||\hat f_\lambda||_{p'} \leq c \lambda^{1/p'-1/2}$. But there is no constant such that $c \leq \lambda^{1/p'-1/2} $ for all $\lambda >0$. Therefore the fourier transform is not surjective from $L^p \to L^{p'}$ for $1\leq p<2$

$\endgroup$

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.