Can Fourier Coefficient Bounds Under Hölder Conditions Be Improved?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the relationship between Fourier coefficients and Hölder conditions. It establishes that if a function f(x) satisfies a Hölder condition of order α, its Fourier coefficients decay at a rate of O(1/|n|^α). The function g(x), constructed as a series, also meets the Hölder condition but demonstrates that its Fourier coefficients decay exactly at this rate, indicating that no stronger condition can be applied. This comparison shows that the result from part (a) cannot be improved, as g(x) serves as a counterexample. Thus, the findings confirm the limitations of improvement under the given conditions.
Zaare
Messages
54
Reaction score
0
I need help with the last part of the following problem:

Let f(x) be a 2\pi-periodic and Riemann integrable on [-\pi,\pi].

(a) Assuming f(x) satisfies the Hölder condition of order \alpha
\left| {f\left( {x + h} \right) - f\left( x \right)} \right| \le C\left| h \right|^\alpha ,​
for some 0 < \alpha \le 1, some C > 0 and all x, h.
Show that
{\hat f\left( n \right)} \le O ( \frac {1} { \left| n \right| ^ \alpha} )​
where \hat f\left( n \right) is the Fourier koefficient.

(b) Proove that the above result cannot be improved by showing that the function
g\left( x \right) = \sum\limits_{k = 0}^\infty {2^{ - k\alpha } e^{i2^k x} }​
also with 0 < \alpha \le 1, satisfies
\left| {g\left( {x + h} \right) - g\left( x \right)} \right| \le C\left| h \right|^\alpha .​

I have done (a). And I was able to show that the sum satisfies the condition. What I don't understand is:
how can I use it to show that the result in (a) cannot be improved?
I thought that the sum can be iterpreted as the Fourier series of g(x), which would say that the Fourier coefficient of g(x) is 1/{n^\alpha}, where n=2^k. That is the resemblence I see between (a) and (b). But I don't know what to do with that.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, here's the way I reason:
In (a) I showed that the Fourier coefficient has an upper limit. Then in (b) I showed that a certain function satisfying the desired condition has a Fourier coefficient which is of the same size as the upper limit in (a). Then obviously the upper limit cannot be improved.
Is it this obvious, or am I forgetting something?
 



In order to show that the result in (a) cannot be improved, we need to show that the function g(x) given in (b) does not satisfy a stronger condition than the Hölder condition of order α. This means that the Fourier coefficients of g(x) cannot decay faster than O(1/n^α), as shown in (a).

As you correctly noted, g(x) can be interpreted as the Fourier series of itself, with the Fourier coefficients being 1/n^α where n = 2^k. This means that the sum given in (b) is actually the Fourier series of g(x), and we can use this to compare the Fourier coefficients of g(x) with those of f(x).

Since f(x) satisfies the Hölder condition of order α, we know that its Fourier coefficients decay at least as fast as O(1/n^α). However, for g(x), we can see that the Fourier coefficients decay exactly at the rate of 1/n^α. This means that the Hölder condition of order α is the strongest possible condition that g(x) can satisfy, and it cannot be improved upon.

In other words, g(x) is an example of a function that satisfies the Hölder condition of order α, but does not satisfy any stronger condition. Therefore, the result in (a) cannot be improved, as g(x) provides a counterexample to any potential stronger condition.
 
The book claims the answer is that all the magnitudes are the same because "the gravitational force on the penguin is the same". I'm having trouble understanding this. I thought the buoyant force was equal to the weight of the fluid displaced. Weight depends on mass which depends on density. Therefore, due to the differing densities the buoyant force will be different in each case? Is this incorrect?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
170
Views
8K
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K