10
$\begingroup$

Assume $\{a_k\}_{k\ge1}$ is a real sequence such that $u(x) = \sum_{k\ge 1}a_k\sin(kx)$ is a smooth function, and for every $x \in [-\pi, \pi]$ $$\left(\sum_{k\ge 1}\frac{a_k}{k}\sin(kx)\right)\left(\sum_{k\ge1}a_k\cdot k\cos(kx)\right) = \left(\sum_{k\ge1}a_k\sin(kx)\right)\left(\sum_{k\ge1}a_k\cos(kx)\right).$$ What can we say about $\{a_k\}$? Can we show that there exists at most one term of $a_k$ that is nonzero? Note that if we set $w(x) = -\sum_{k\ge 1}\frac{a_k}{k}\sin(kx)$, we have the relation $u_xw = uw_x$ and $w_x = Hu$. Here $H$ denotes the standard Hilbert transform.

$\endgroup$
  • 6
    $\begingroup$ Yes, this says that $fg'=gf'$ (defining $f,g$ as the two series with the sines), so $(f/g)'=0$ and thus also $a_k/k=ca_k$, so $a_k=0$ for $k>1$. (There are probably other ways of doing it too.) $\endgroup$ – Christian Remling Feb 13 at 4:32
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thanks for your comment, Christian. This is the first intuition to this question, but the problem is that $g$ may have strange zero sets even the function is smooth. The fraction $f/g$ is not always defined. So we cannot use this to prove the argument rigorously. $\endgroup$ – Cohen Lu Feb 13 at 4:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I think we need to be careful about whether $f/g$ is defined. For example, let $f = x\exp(-\frac{1}{x^2})$. Define the function $g$ as $g = f$when $x\ge 0$, $g = -f$ when $x < 0$. One can check that both $f$ and $g$ are smooth and $f'g = fg'$. But $f/g$ is not a constant in this situation. The problem is that $x = 0$ is a zero point of infinite order. Thus if $g$ has weird zero set, $f/g$ may have strange behaviour. $\endgroup$ – Cohen Lu Feb 13 at 6:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Yes, you are right, if both $f$ and $g$ are analytic, then everything should be ok. The question is what happens if we only assume smoothness of $f$ and $g$. I think I should modify the question to make it more clear. $\endgroup$ – Cohen Lu Feb 14 at 3:18
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ This ($f,g$ smooth, but not more) seems an interesting question. I guess (assuming the statement is true) one would have to use that $f,g$ are not just any two functions, but $Hf=g'$, with $H$ denoting the Hilbert transform . I have no clear idea how to proceed though $\endgroup$ – Christian Remling Feb 14 at 18:54
0
$\begingroup$

In order to perform the division which is needed to prove $f_{tt} Hf=f_tHf_t \Rightarrow f_t=\lambda Hf$ one can use first Plemelij and write as usual $f=F^+-F^-$. Extend $f$ as a $0$-homogeneous function to $\Bbb C^\ast$. The function $F^\varepsilon (z)=F^+(\frac{z}{1+\varepsilon})-F^-(\frac{z}{1-\varepsilon})$ is holomorphic in the anulus $L_\varepsilon=\{1-\varepsilon<|z|<1+\varepsilon\}$ and
$|F^\varepsilon-f|\leq C \varepsilon$ in $L_\varepsilon$. Angular derivation $D_t$ and Hilbert transform $H$ commute with the operator $f\mapsto F^\varepsilon$ and are continuous in the natural topologies. We have $|F^\varepsilon_{tt}\cdot HF^\varepsilon-F^\varepsilon_t\cdot HF^\varepsilon_t|\leq C\varepsilon$. Topologize meromorphic functions in $L_\varepsilon$ as maps to the Riemann sphere. We have $|D_t(\frac{F^\varepsilon_t}{HF^\varepsilon})|\leq C \varepsilon$. This gives $F^\varepsilon_t-\lambda HF^\varepsilon =O(\varepsilon)$.

$\endgroup$

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.