Recall that in many Fourier Analysis texts, given a function $\Psi$ such that $\hat{\Psi}\in\mathcal{D}(\mathbb R^d)$, $\hat\Psi\ge0$ is supported in an annulus, and $\sum_{j\in\mathbb Z}\hat\Psi(2^j\xi)=1$ for all $\xi\ne0$, we can define the Littlewood-Paley operator $$\Delta_j(f) := \left(\hat\Psi(2^{-j}\xi)\hat{f}(\xi)\right)^\vee$$ for $f\in\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^d)$. Furthermore, if we set $$\hat\Phi(\xi)=1-\sum_{j\ge0}\Psi(2^{-j}\xi)$$ then we can define $$\dot S_j(f):=\left(\hat\Phi(2^{-j}\xi)\hat f(\xi)\right)^\vee$$ and using this, we define $\mathscr{S}'_h(\mathbb R^d)$ to be the space of tempered distributions $u$ such that $\lim\limits_{j\to-\infty}\dot S_j(u)=0$ in $\mathscr{S}'(\mathbb R^d)$.

Now, clearly the space $\mathscr{P}$ of polynomials in $\mathscr{S}'$ intersects trivially with $\mathscr{S}_h'$, but is $\mathscr{S}_h'$ in fact a complementary subspace for $\mathscr P$? It would suffice to show that the limit $T(u):=\lim\limits_{j\to-\infty}\dot S_j(u)$ exists for any $u\in\mathscr{S}'$, since $T(u)\in\mathscr P$ and $T^2=T$ wherever $T$ is defined, which would make $T$ into a projection. However, I have only managed to show that $T(u)$ is defined when $\operatorname{ord}u=0$, i.e. when $u$ is locally a measure. But is $\mathscr{S}'_h$ even a complementary subspace, and if so, how do we show that?

  • $\begingroup$ $pv(1/x)$ doesn't have such a decomposition $\endgroup$ – reuns Jan 15 '20 at 5:06

(This is rather late, but I'll answer the question anyways.) No, it is not true that $\mathscr S_h'$ and $\mathscr P$ are (topological) complements in $\mathscr S'$ (in fact, they are not even linear complements). Suppose it were the case that every tempered distribution $f$ admitted a (unique) decomposition of the form $f= g+P$ for some $g \in \mathscr S_h'$ and some $P \in \mathscr P$. Fix a Schwartz function $\varphi$ with $\varphi(0) \neq 0$. Then, for any $f \in \mathscr S'$, $$ \langle f, \dot S_j \varphi \rangle = \langle \dot S_j g , \varphi \rangle + \langle \dot S_j P, \varphi \rangle \to 0 + \langle P, \varphi \rangle $$ as $j \to - \infty$. This implies that the sequence $( \dot S_j \varphi)_{j \leq 0}$ is Cauchy for $\sigma(\mathscr S, \mathscr S')$. Now, $\mathscr S$ is a semi-Montel space (much more is true, but this is enough for our purposes), so $\sigma(\mathscr S, \mathscr S')$ is quasi-complete (hence sequentially complete), and $\sigma(\mathscr S, \mathscr S')$ convergent sequences also converge in the usual Fréchet topology on $\mathscr S$. As the Fourier transform is a linear homeomorphism on $\mathscr S$ (with its Fréchet topology), we see that the sequence $(\hat \Phi(2^{-j} \cdot) \hat \varphi)_{j \leq 0}$ converges in $\mathscr S$ as $j \to - \infty$. But, $$ \partial_1 ( \hat \Phi(2^{-j} \cdot) \hat \varphi ) = 2^{-j} (\partial_1 \hat \Phi)(2^{-j} \cdot) \hat \varphi + \hat \Phi(2^{-j} \cdot) \partial_1 \hat \varphi.$$ The second term remains bounded in $L^{\infty}$ as $j \to - \infty$. Take some $x_0$ such that $\partial_1 \hat \Phi(x_0) \neq 0$. Then, $$ |2^{-j} \partial_1 \hat \Phi(x_0) \hat \varphi(2^j x_0) | \to \infty$$ as $j \to - \infty$, resulting in a contradiction.


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.