1
$\begingroup$

Considering a function $f$ exponentially decreasing at infinity, is the following function $\mathbb{Q}$ periodic ?

$$F(x)= \sum\limits_{q =1}^{\infty} \; \sum\limits_{n =1}^{\infty} \; \sum\limits_{\underset{(p,q)=1} {p=1}}^{q-1} f(n) \; e^{2 i \pi n (x+ \frac{p}{q}) }$$

First of all, the existence of the sum does not seem obvious. Then the fact that adding a rational to $x$ (it will change the order of summation) does not change the sum is absolutely not obvious (See example in my previous post: On construction of a $\mathbb{Q}$ periodic function with Fourier series, as above, a potential $\mathbb{Q}$ periodic function was proposed, unfortunately it did not work)

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This sum will diverge for the vast majority of choices of $f$. $\endgroup$ May 13, 2016 at 17:12
  • $\begingroup$ May I ask why? For example for $f(n)= e^{-n}$ ? $\endgroup$
    – Bertrand
    May 13, 2016 at 18:34

1 Answer 1

5
$\begingroup$

Your sum diverges for most $x\in\mathbb{R}$. The innermost sum is $$\sum\limits_{\underset{(p,q)=1} {p=1}}^{q-1} f(n) \; e^{2 i \pi n (x+ \frac{p}{q}) } = f(n)e^{2 i \pi nx}\sum\limits_{\underset{(p,q)=1} {p=1}}^{q-1}e^{2 i \pi n\frac{p}{q} } = f(n)e^{2 i \pi nx}\sum_{d\mid (n,q)}d\mu\left(\frac{q}{d}\right),$$ by the well-known formula for Ramanujan's sum. If $q$ is prime, then this simplifies to $$ f(n)e^{2 i \pi nx} \left(-1+q\cdot 1_{q\mid n}\right),$$ where $1_{q\mid n}$ is $1$ or $0$ depending on $q\mid n$ or $q\nmid n$. At any rate, for $q$ prime, the $n$-sum equals (upon writing $n=qm$ when $q\mid n$) $$ -\sum_{n=1}^\infty f(n)e^{2 i \pi nx} + q\sum_{m=1}^\infty f(qm)e^{2 i \pi qmx}.$$ If your original sum converges, then this expression tends to zero as $q\to\infty$. However, the second sum itself tends to zero as $q\to\infty$ by the exponential decay of $f$, so the first sum (which is independent of $q$) is zero: $$ \sum_{n=1}^\infty f(n)e^{2 i \pi nx} = 0. $$ So this is a necessary condition for the convergence of your sum. Unless $f$ is identically zero, this condition fails for a typical $x\in\mathbb{R}$.

BTW if an infinite sum of continuous functions converges uniformly, then the sum is also continuous. In addition, any continuous $\mathbb{Q}$-periodic function is constant.

Added. Two comments. First, Ramanujan's formula for the quoted special case is very simple, it simply says that the sum of $q$-th roots of unity equals zero. Second, as Robert Israel remarked, the necessary condition on $x$ only holds for finitely many values modulo $1$.

$\endgroup$
4
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ If $f$ is exponentially decreasing, $\widehat{f}(z) = \sum_{n=1}^\infty f(n) e^{2i\pi n z}$ is analytic in a neighbourhood of the real line, and in particular (unless $f$ is identically $0$) its zeros form a discrete set. $\endgroup$ May 13, 2016 at 20:25
  • $\begingroup$ @RobertIsrael: You are absolutely right, thank you! $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    May 13, 2016 at 20:26
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ In fact, even a measurable ${\mathbb Q}$-periodic function will be constant almost everywhere (this follows for instance from the Lebesgue differentiation theorem). So, short of using a construction based on the axiom of choice, it is not possible to come up with an explicit non-trivial ${\mathbb Q}$-periodic function. $\endgroup$
    – Terry Tao
    May 13, 2016 at 22:04
  • $\begingroup$ @TerryTao: Thank you for this comment! $\endgroup$
    – GH from MO
    May 13, 2016 at 22:22

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

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