3
$\begingroup$

Consider the following convolution

$$ f(x)=(k * g)(x)=\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}k(t)g(x-t) \,{\rm d} t $$

where $g>0$, and $k$ is the "tent" function

$$ k(t) = (1 - |t|)\chi_{[-1,1]}(t) $$

where $\chi$ is the characteristic function. Is this transform invertible? That is, can I write $g$ in terms of $f$? If not, is it at least injective?


My attempt: Define $T(g) := k * g$. By the convolution theorem, \begin{equation} \widehat{T(g)}(\omega) = \widehat{k * g}(\omega) = \hat{k}(\omega)\hat{g}(\omega). \end{equation} where the hat represents the Fourier transform. A direct calculation shows \begin{equation} \hat{k}(\omega) = \left(\frac{\sin(\omega/2)}{\omega/2}\right)^2, \end{equation} which vanishes whenever $\omega = 2\pi n$ for any nonzero integer $n$.

Non-invertibility: If we attempt to recover $g$ from $f = k * g$ by \begin{equation} \hat{g}(\omega) = \frac{\hat{f}(\omega)}{\hat{k}(\omega)}, \end{equation} we require $\hat{k}(\omega) \neq 0$ for all $\omega$. However, since $\hat{k}(\omega) = 0$ at infinitely many points, we cannot divide by $\hat{k}(\omega)$ globally. Hence $T$ is not invertible.

Non-injectivity: If $T(g) = 0$, then \begin{equation} \hat{k}(\omega)\hat{g}(\omega) = 0 \quad \text{for all } \omega. \end{equation} Since $\hat{k}(\omega) = 0$ on $\{\omega = 2\pi n \mid n \neq 0\}$, any $\hat{g}$ supported in those zeros will satisfy $\hat{k}\hat{g} = 0$ yet $g \not\equiv 0$. Thus $T(g) = 0$ does not imply $g = 0$, so $T$ is not injective. I am wondering whether this is true, or whether it holds in the $g>0$ case. Any ideas?

$\endgroup$
2
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Just an advice: problems of this kind are known in the literature under the locution "deconvolution problems". You may find something useful by just googling the term "deconvolution". $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5 at 10:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you! If you have any reference on how to tackle a specific problem like mine it would be great. $\endgroup$ Commented Feb 5 at 11:37

2 Answers 2

5
$\begingroup$

First of all, to have this question make sense you need to specify what space of functions you're dealing with. I'll assume you're working in $L^2(\mathbb R)$.

The fact that $\hat{k}(\omega) = 0$ at some points does not make $T$ non-injective, because members of $L^2$ are only equivalence classes of functions under equality almost everywhere: single points, or even sets of measure $0$, don't matter. A member of $L^2$ that is $0$ except at points $\omega = 2 \pi n$ is $0$, and its inverse Fourier transform is $0$. So $T$ (as an operator on $L^2$) is injective. On the other hand, it is not surjective: e.g. in order to have $\hat{k} \hat{g}$ be bounded away from $0$ in a neighbourhood of $2 \pi n$, $\hat{g}$ must have a singularity at $2 \pi n$ that is not square-integrable.

$\endgroup$
1
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks! Indeed $L^2$ is a reasonably assumption. Could the same proof for injectivity be extended in this case? $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 17 at 17:47
0
$\begingroup$

The short answer is no. Consider a $1$-period function $g$ on $\mathbb R$, you have $\chi_{[-1/2,1/2]}\ast g(x)=\int_0^1g$ is a constant function. Meanwhile $k=\chi_{[-1/2,1/2]}\ast\chi_{[-1/2,1/2]}$.

However consider your another question this is not the end of the world, as you can strengthen the assumption to be $k_t\ast g=0$ for all $t>0$.

$\endgroup$

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.