Fourier transform of f \in C_c^\infty(R^n)

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that if both a function \( f \) and its Fourier transform \( \hat{f} \) belong to \( C_c^\infty(R^n) \), then \( f \) must be identically zero. The user suggests utilizing the Fourier inversion theorem to demonstrate that \( f \) agrees almost everywhere with its continuous counterpart, but expresses uncertainty in the approach. An alternative proof is presented, which involves the properties of entire functions and the uniform convergence of Riemann sums for functions in \( C_0^\infty \), concluding that the Fourier transform cannot have compact support.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Fourier transforms and their properties
  • Familiarity with the space \( C_c^\infty(R^n) \)
  • Knowledge of entire functions and their characteristics
  • Basic concepts of uniform convergence and compact support
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Fourier transforms in \( C_c^\infty \) spaces
  • Explore the implications of the Fourier inversion theorem in detail
  • Investigate the relationship between entire functions and compact support
  • Learn about uniform convergence and its role in analysis
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, particularly those focused on functional analysis, Fourier analysis, and anyone interested in the properties of smooth functions and their transforms.

chub
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
I have noticed that this result is hinted at in several books, but am having trouble proving it:

[tex]f, \hat{f} \in C_c^\infty(R^n) \Rightarrow f \equiv 0.[/tex]

in other words, if both f and its Fourier transform
are smooth, compactly supported functions on n-dimensional euclidean space
then f is identically zero.

any advice? i thought of using the Fourier inversion theorem, which tells me that f agrees almost everywhere (Lebesgue) with the continuous function
[tex]f_0 = (\hat{f})\check{} = (\check{f})\hat{}[/tex]
and then showing that one (or both) of those are zero; continuity of f would then take care of the "almost everywhere" part. but I'm not really sure what to do.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok here is one proof I found (g in C0): since exp(-i k x) is entire, the reimann sums approximating F[g] are entire. The reimann sums must converge uniformly on compact sets since g is in C0, so F[g] is entire. Since entire functions don't have compact support, F[g] can't have compact support.

I don't really like that proof very much.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K