1
$\begingroup$

I ask this question because of the apparent incoherence of the value of following integral: $$I=\int_{0}^{1} \int_{0}^{\infty} \left|\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} f(nx) e^{2 i \pi n y} \right|^2 dx dy$$

Where $f(x)$ is such that $\int_{0}^{\infty} f(x)dx=0$, with near zero $f(x)=ax+o(x)$ and $f(x)$ exponentially decreasing at infinity (so that we have absolute convergence of the sums).

First, let's check that the integral is well defined. For this we need to understand behavior of $\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} f(nx) e^{2 i \pi n y} $ for $x$ near zero (near infinity there is no question thanks to the hypothesis of $f(x)$ exponential decrease). By Poisson summation formula we have:

$$ 2\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} f(nx) e^{2 i \pi n y} =\frac{1}{x} \sum_{n=-\infty}^{\infty} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(|t|) e^{2 i \pi t \frac{n+y}{x}} dt$$

And using that $f(t)=at+o(t)$ near zero we deduce asymptotic of the Fourier transform of $f(|t|)$, so for $x$ near zero:

$$\int_{-\infty}^{\infty} f(|t|) e^{-2 i \pi \frac{t}{x}} dt = bx^2+o(x^2)$$

Using this result we deduce for $y$ fixed there exist a $c$ (depending on $y$) such that for $x$ near zero we have:

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} f(nx) e^{2 i \pi n y} = cx + o(x)$$

So the initial integral is well defined (as once we integrate on $x$ we can easily integrate on $y$, the integral on $x$ beeing continuous on $y$).

But if then we use Fubini to interchange the integrals we find:

$$I= \int_{0}^{\infty} \int_{0}^{1} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} f(nx) e^{2 i \pi n y} \overline{\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} f(nx) e^{2 i \pi n y}}dx dy$$

$$I= \int_{0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} f(nx) \overline{f(nx)}dx = \int_{0}^{\infty} \sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |f(nx)|^2 dx $$

Which is a non convergent integral as Poisson formula shows that for $x$ near zero :

$$\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} |f(nx)|^2 = \frac{1}{x} \int_{-\infty}^{\infty} |f(t)|^2 dt +o(\frac{1}{x}) $$

So on one side $I$ is defined on the other not, there is a mistake somewhere but where ?

Note: I already posted a question connected to this one with a different formulation.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Fubini only tells you anything if you have absolute convergence, so there seems to be no problem. $\endgroup$ – user1688 Oct 22 '17 at 12:34
  • $\begingroup$ If the initial integral $I$ is well defined it means there is absolute convergence, no ? Then when interchanging the integration the integral is not absolute convergent... Meaning one manipulation or one asumption is wrong... $\endgroup$ – Bertrand Oct 22 '17 at 12:45
  • $\begingroup$ I has understood this in the meantime, so I deleted my comment as you can see. $\endgroup$ – Paul-Benjamin Oct 22 '17 at 14:17
5
$\begingroup$

The problem is not with Fubini's theorem (or more precisely, Tonelli's theorem), which is valid for any non-negative function measurable in the product sigma algebra. The error instead lies in the claim "the integral on $x$ beeing [sic] continuous in $y$". In fact it appears that the integral blows up like $1/y$ as $y \to 0$. This is easier to see if one makes the change of variables $x = yt$, hence $$ \int_0^\infty |\sum_{n=1}^\infty f(nx) e^{2i \pi n y}|^2\ dx = \frac{1}{y} \int_0^\infty \left|ty \sum_{n=1}^\infty f(nt y) e^{2i \pi n t y / t}\right|^2\ \frac{dt}{t^2}.$$ Riemann integration gives the limit $$ \lim_{y \to 0^+} ty \sum_{n=1}^\infty f(nt y) e^{2i \pi n t y / t} = \int_0^\infty f(s) e^{2 \pi i s / t}\ ds$$ for any fixed $t$, hence by Fatou's lemma $$ \liminf_{y \to 0^+} y \int_0^\infty |\sum_{n=1}^\infty f(nx) e^{2i \pi n y}|^2\ dx \geq \int_0^\infty \left|\int_0^\infty f(s) e^{2 \pi i s / t}\ ds\right|^2 \frac{dt}{t^2}.$$ The RHS is strictly positive (it's also finite by a change of variables $u =1/t$ and Plancherel, though I won't use this), so $\int_0^\infty |\sum_{n=1}^\infty f(nx) e^{2i \pi n y}|^2\ dx$ blows up at least as fast as $1/y$. Indeed I suspect that this is the correct order of growth; one could presumably do some numerics (or a more refined version of the above analysis) to confirm this.

The above analysis also suggests that the contribution of the integrand is largest in the regime when $t = x/y$ is comparable to $1$, that is to say $x$ and $y$ are comparable in size. In contrast, the analysis you provided is only valid in the regime when $x$ is much smaller than $y$, which is why the bulk of the divergent integral was missed.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks I missed the point, as, if I am not mistaken, for $y=0$ the expression of $I$ is $\int_0^{\infty} |\sum_{n=1}^{\infty} f(xn)|^2 dx$ which is well defined. $\endgroup$ – Bertrand Oct 22 '17 at 14:32

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.