4
$\begingroup$

Let $\varphi:\mathbb{R}^n \to [0,\infty)$ be compactly supported and $C^{\infty}$. Define $k_s(x) = |x|^{-\alpha}$ for $x \in \mathbb{R}^n$, where $0 < \alpha < n$. I know that, as tempered distributions,
$$ \mathcal{F}(k_\alpha) = k_{n-\alpha} $$ and $$ \mathcal{F}(\varphi \ast k_\alpha) = \mathcal{F}(\varphi)\mathcal{F}(k_\alpha). $$ Here $\mathcal{F}$ denotes the Fourier transform.

Question Is the following true? If yes, how can it be proved? \begin{align*} \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} | \mathcal{F}(\varphi \ast k_\alpha) |^2 dx = \int_{\mathbb{R}^n} | \mathcal{F}(\varphi)\mathcal{F}(k_\alpha) |^2 dx \end{align*}

In my application, we can assume $2(\alpha-n) > -n$ so that the integral on the right is is finite, in case that helps.

$\endgroup$
6
  • $\begingroup$ The obstruction is that $|x|^{-s}$ is not in $L^2(\mathbb R^n)$, nor in $L^1(\mathbb R^n)$, for any $n$ or $s\in\mathbb R$... So, for example, $2(\alpha-n)<-n$ only assures good behavior at $\infty$, but not at $0$. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 19:50
  • $\begingroup$ @paulgarrett Sorry, I had the inequality the wrong way. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 19:54
  • $\begingroup$ But I fear that there is no inequality that can guarantee local integrability at both $0$ and $\infty$... $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 19:56
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @paulgarrett Perhaps you could correct me. For $|x| \leq 1$, we use $|\mathcal{F}(\varphi) \mathcal{F}(k_{\alpha}) |^2 \leq C |k_{n-\alpha}|^2 = C|x|^{2(\alpha - n)}$. For $|x| \geq 1$, we use $|\mathcal{F}(\varphi) \mathcal{F}(k_{\alpha}) |^2 \leq |\mathcal{F}(\varphi) k_{n-\alpha} |^2 \leq |\mathcal{F}(\varphi)|^2$. Doesn't that work? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 20:10
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Oop: while shoveling snow to clear my head (!), I realized that you're right: all you need is local integrability at $0$, and the multiplication by the FT of a test function (or Schwartz) is sufficient at $\infty$. I guess it's also good to note that for distributions given by locally integrable functions "pointwise multiplication" makes sense (and agrees with the multiplication of tempered distributions by moderate-growth smooth functions, etc). $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 6, 2018 at 21:13

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
3
$\begingroup$

The real question here is to show that $F(\varphi*u)=F(\varphi)\cdot F(u)$, as $L^2$ functions, for Schwartz functions $\varphi$ and suitable tempered distributions $u$, where $F(\varphi)\cdot F(u)$ is pointwise multiplication. For the latter to make sense, we need to have a prior condition on $u$ so that (for example) $F(u)$ is a locally integrable function, so has pointwise values a.e., and is completely described by those values (as opposed to Dirac $\delta$, for example). It suffices to have $u$ be in some Sobolev space, for example (all of which are inside the space of tempered distributions, and have locally $L^2$ Fourier transforms).

Then there is the question of a good definition/characterization of $\varphi*u$ for Schwartz functions and tempered distributions. One characterization is that it is a tempered distribution such that, for every Schwartz function $\psi$, $(\varphi*u)(\psi)=u(\varphi*\psi)$. For this to make sense, we need to know that $\varphi*\psi$ is Schwartz, which is indeed the case, by a variety of arguments.

Then, ignoring some signs (which disappear in the end), $$ F(\varphi*u)(\psi) \;=\; (\varphi*u)(F\psi) \;=\; u(\varphi*F\psi) \;=\; u(F(F\varphi\cdot \psi)) \;=\; (Fu)(F\varphi\cdot \psi) \;=\; (F\varphi\cdot Fu)(\psi) $$ by the usual characterization of multiplication of tempered distributions by Schwartz functions. This is the desired identity.

$\endgroup$
4
  • $\begingroup$ I wonder if you can help me understand something a bit more. Your answer is really helpful. Now I definitely see that $F(\varphi \ast u) = F(\varphi) \cdot F(u)$ as tempered distributions, and that (with some condition on $u$), the RHS is an $L^2$ function. However, I don't see that this proves $F(\varphi \ast u)$ is an $L^2$ function. It shows that there exists an $L^2$ function $g$ such that $F(\varphi \ast u) = g$ as tempered distributions. With this in mind, I think the integral $\int |F(\varphi \ast u)|^2 dx$ I have written in the question does not really make sense. What do you think? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 11, 2018 at 16:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Well, in one sense perhaps $F(\varphi * u)$ has not been proven to "be" an $L^2$ function, but in another sense we have proven that the distribution is given by integration-against-an-$L^2$-function. Since all the operations on distributions are (by design) compatible extensions of the corresponding operations on (integrate-against-) functions, operationally that distribution "is" an $L^2$ function. That is, it behaves in every respect like (integration-against-) an $L^2$ function. This is the criterion for equality of distributions... Is this addressing the issue? $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 11, 2018 at 16:08
  • $\begingroup$ Absolutely. What you wrote was exactly my understanding, I just wanted to confirm it. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 11, 2018 at 16:14
  • $\begingroup$ :) .............. $\endgroup$ Commented Mar 11, 2018 at 16:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Start asking to get answers

Find the answer to your question by asking.

Ask question

Explore related questions

See similar questions with these tags.