Zeros of Fourier-type integral











up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Suppose you have a function $f$ in $L^1$. Now let
$$
F_s(x) = int_0^x f(t)sin( s cdot t),mathrm dt
$$

According to the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma we can tell that
$$
lim_{sto infty}F_s(x) = 0
$$

(pointwise).



Can I use that fact in order to tell that for each fixed $x$ there is an infinite set $S_x$ of values of $s(x)$ such that $F_{s(x)}(x)=0$? And is there a (more or less) explicit way to exhibit that set $S_x$?



EDIT: Fixed notation










share|cite|improve this question

















This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from frog ending in 7 days.


Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.
















  • Why do you think it has some zeros $ne 0$ ? ($G(omega) = int_{-infty}^infty g(t) e^{i omega t}dt, g(t) = g(-t) in mathbb{R}, g in C^infty_c$ can have no real zeros, so that $G(omega) (sin( omega)+isin(pi omega))$ has only one real zero)
    – reuns
    Nov 7 at 20:59












  • I'm not sure to understand your comment correctly, but in your case you'll have $G(0) ne 0$ in general since $g$ is symmetric. I get $G(0) = 2 int_0^infty g(t),mathrm dt$. And why should $G$ have no other zeros?
    – frog
    Nov 8 at 8:21










  • Have you considered a function $f > 0$ that is strictly decreasing on $[0,infty)$?
    – DisintegratingByParts
    Nov 8 at 15:22










  • Yes, but I didn't find a counter-example so far. Is there something obvious I'm missing right now?
    – frog
    Nov 8 at 19:32















up vote
2
down vote

favorite












Suppose you have a function $f$ in $L^1$. Now let
$$
F_s(x) = int_0^x f(t)sin( s cdot t),mathrm dt
$$

According to the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma we can tell that
$$
lim_{sto infty}F_s(x) = 0
$$

(pointwise).



Can I use that fact in order to tell that for each fixed $x$ there is an infinite set $S_x$ of values of $s(x)$ such that $F_{s(x)}(x)=0$? And is there a (more or less) explicit way to exhibit that set $S_x$?



EDIT: Fixed notation










share|cite|improve this question

















This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from frog ending in 7 days.


Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.
















  • Why do you think it has some zeros $ne 0$ ? ($G(omega) = int_{-infty}^infty g(t) e^{i omega t}dt, g(t) = g(-t) in mathbb{R}, g in C^infty_c$ can have no real zeros, so that $G(omega) (sin( omega)+isin(pi omega))$ has only one real zero)
    – reuns
    Nov 7 at 20:59












  • I'm not sure to understand your comment correctly, but in your case you'll have $G(0) ne 0$ in general since $g$ is symmetric. I get $G(0) = 2 int_0^infty g(t),mathrm dt$. And why should $G$ have no other zeros?
    – frog
    Nov 8 at 8:21










  • Have you considered a function $f > 0$ that is strictly decreasing on $[0,infty)$?
    – DisintegratingByParts
    Nov 8 at 15:22










  • Yes, but I didn't find a counter-example so far. Is there something obvious I'm missing right now?
    – frog
    Nov 8 at 19:32













up vote
2
down vote

favorite









up vote
2
down vote

favorite











Suppose you have a function $f$ in $L^1$. Now let
$$
F_s(x) = int_0^x f(t)sin( s cdot t),mathrm dt
$$

According to the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma we can tell that
$$
lim_{sto infty}F_s(x) = 0
$$

(pointwise).



Can I use that fact in order to tell that for each fixed $x$ there is an infinite set $S_x$ of values of $s(x)$ such that $F_{s(x)}(x)=0$? And is there a (more or less) explicit way to exhibit that set $S_x$?



EDIT: Fixed notation










share|cite|improve this question















Suppose you have a function $f$ in $L^1$. Now let
$$
F_s(x) = int_0^x f(t)sin( s cdot t),mathrm dt
$$

According to the Riemann-Lebesgue lemma we can tell that
$$
lim_{sto infty}F_s(x) = 0
$$

(pointwise).



Can I use that fact in order to tell that for each fixed $x$ there is an infinite set $S_x$ of values of $s(x)$ such that $F_{s(x)}(x)=0$? And is there a (more or less) explicit way to exhibit that set $S_x$?



EDIT: Fixed notation







real-analysis fourier-analysis






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited yesterday

























asked Nov 7 at 14:13









frog

1,624513




1,624513






This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from frog ending in 7 days.


Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.








This question has an open bounty worth +50
reputation from frog ending in 7 days.


Looking for an answer drawing from credible and/or official sources.














  • Why do you think it has some zeros $ne 0$ ? ($G(omega) = int_{-infty}^infty g(t) e^{i omega t}dt, g(t) = g(-t) in mathbb{R}, g in C^infty_c$ can have no real zeros, so that $G(omega) (sin( omega)+isin(pi omega))$ has only one real zero)
    – reuns
    Nov 7 at 20:59












  • I'm not sure to understand your comment correctly, but in your case you'll have $G(0) ne 0$ in general since $g$ is symmetric. I get $G(0) = 2 int_0^infty g(t),mathrm dt$. And why should $G$ have no other zeros?
    – frog
    Nov 8 at 8:21










  • Have you considered a function $f > 0$ that is strictly decreasing on $[0,infty)$?
    – DisintegratingByParts
    Nov 8 at 15:22










  • Yes, but I didn't find a counter-example so far. Is there something obvious I'm missing right now?
    – frog
    Nov 8 at 19:32


















  • Why do you think it has some zeros $ne 0$ ? ($G(omega) = int_{-infty}^infty g(t) e^{i omega t}dt, g(t) = g(-t) in mathbb{R}, g in C^infty_c$ can have no real zeros, so that $G(omega) (sin( omega)+isin(pi omega))$ has only one real zero)
    – reuns
    Nov 7 at 20:59












  • I'm not sure to understand your comment correctly, but in your case you'll have $G(0) ne 0$ in general since $g$ is symmetric. I get $G(0) = 2 int_0^infty g(t),mathrm dt$. And why should $G$ have no other zeros?
    – frog
    Nov 8 at 8:21










  • Have you considered a function $f > 0$ that is strictly decreasing on $[0,infty)$?
    – DisintegratingByParts
    Nov 8 at 15:22










  • Yes, but I didn't find a counter-example so far. Is there something obvious I'm missing right now?
    – frog
    Nov 8 at 19:32
















Why do you think it has some zeros $ne 0$ ? ($G(omega) = int_{-infty}^infty g(t) e^{i omega t}dt, g(t) = g(-t) in mathbb{R}, g in C^infty_c$ can have no real zeros, so that $G(omega) (sin( omega)+isin(pi omega))$ has only one real zero)
– reuns
Nov 7 at 20:59






Why do you think it has some zeros $ne 0$ ? ($G(omega) = int_{-infty}^infty g(t) e^{i omega t}dt, g(t) = g(-t) in mathbb{R}, g in C^infty_c$ can have no real zeros, so that $G(omega) (sin( omega)+isin(pi omega))$ has only one real zero)
– reuns
Nov 7 at 20:59














I'm not sure to understand your comment correctly, but in your case you'll have $G(0) ne 0$ in general since $g$ is symmetric. I get $G(0) = 2 int_0^infty g(t),mathrm dt$. And why should $G$ have no other zeros?
– frog
Nov 8 at 8:21




I'm not sure to understand your comment correctly, but in your case you'll have $G(0) ne 0$ in general since $g$ is symmetric. I get $G(0) = 2 int_0^infty g(t),mathrm dt$. And why should $G$ have no other zeros?
– frog
Nov 8 at 8:21












Have you considered a function $f > 0$ that is strictly decreasing on $[0,infty)$?
– DisintegratingByParts
Nov 8 at 15:22




Have you considered a function $f > 0$ that is strictly decreasing on $[0,infty)$?
– DisintegratingByParts
Nov 8 at 15:22












Yes, but I didn't find a counter-example so far. Is there something obvious I'm missing right now?
– frog
Nov 8 at 19:32




Yes, but I didn't find a counter-example so far. Is there something obvious I'm missing right now?
– frog
Nov 8 at 19:32










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










It seems that your conjecture is false.
If $f$ is a positive, decreasing function then $F_s(x)>0$ for all $x>0$:
begin{align*}
F_s(x)
&= int_0^x f(t) sin(st) mathrm dt
= int_{t=0}^x left( f(x)-int_{u=t}^x mathrm df(u) right) sin(st) mathrm dt \
&= f(x)int_{t=0}^x sin(st) mathrm dt + int_{u=0}^x left( int_{t=0}^u sin(st) mathrm dt right) big(-mathrm df(u)big) \
&= f(x)frac{1-cos(sx)}{s} + int_{u=0}^x left( frac{1-cos(su)}{s}right) big(-mathrm df(u)big)
>0.
end{align*}



A concrete example: if $f(t)=e^{-t}$ then
$$
F_s(x)
= left[ frac{-e^{-t}big(scos(sx)+sin(sx)big)}{1+s^2} right]_0^x
= frac{1-e^{-s}big(scos(sx)+sin(sx)big)}{1+s^2}>0.
$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Great, thank you. Do you have an idea for a proof (or a counterexample) in case $x$ is a zero of $f$? Is it then true that $F_s(x)$ has zeros $s$?
    – frog
    1 hour ago











Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});

function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});


}
});














 

draft saved


draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2988573%2fzeros-of-fourier-type-integral%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote



accepted










It seems that your conjecture is false.
If $f$ is a positive, decreasing function then $F_s(x)>0$ for all $x>0$:
begin{align*}
F_s(x)
&= int_0^x f(t) sin(st) mathrm dt
= int_{t=0}^x left( f(x)-int_{u=t}^x mathrm df(u) right) sin(st) mathrm dt \
&= f(x)int_{t=0}^x sin(st) mathrm dt + int_{u=0}^x left( int_{t=0}^u sin(st) mathrm dt right) big(-mathrm df(u)big) \
&= f(x)frac{1-cos(sx)}{s} + int_{u=0}^x left( frac{1-cos(su)}{s}right) big(-mathrm df(u)big)
>0.
end{align*}



A concrete example: if $f(t)=e^{-t}$ then
$$
F_s(x)
= left[ frac{-e^{-t}big(scos(sx)+sin(sx)big)}{1+s^2} right]_0^x
= frac{1-e^{-s}big(scos(sx)+sin(sx)big)}{1+s^2}>0.
$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Great, thank you. Do you have an idea for a proof (or a counterexample) in case $x$ is a zero of $f$? Is it then true that $F_s(x)$ has zeros $s$?
    – frog
    1 hour ago















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










It seems that your conjecture is false.
If $f$ is a positive, decreasing function then $F_s(x)>0$ for all $x>0$:
begin{align*}
F_s(x)
&= int_0^x f(t) sin(st) mathrm dt
= int_{t=0}^x left( f(x)-int_{u=t}^x mathrm df(u) right) sin(st) mathrm dt \
&= f(x)int_{t=0}^x sin(st) mathrm dt + int_{u=0}^x left( int_{t=0}^u sin(st) mathrm dt right) big(-mathrm df(u)big) \
&= f(x)frac{1-cos(sx)}{s} + int_{u=0}^x left( frac{1-cos(su)}{s}right) big(-mathrm df(u)big)
>0.
end{align*}



A concrete example: if $f(t)=e^{-t}$ then
$$
F_s(x)
= left[ frac{-e^{-t}big(scos(sx)+sin(sx)big)}{1+s^2} right]_0^x
= frac{1-e^{-s}big(scos(sx)+sin(sx)big)}{1+s^2}>0.
$$






share|cite|improve this answer





















  • Great, thank you. Do you have an idea for a proof (or a counterexample) in case $x$ is a zero of $f$? Is it then true that $F_s(x)$ has zeros $s$?
    – frog
    1 hour ago













up vote
4
down vote



accepted







up vote
4
down vote



accepted






It seems that your conjecture is false.
If $f$ is a positive, decreasing function then $F_s(x)>0$ for all $x>0$:
begin{align*}
F_s(x)
&= int_0^x f(t) sin(st) mathrm dt
= int_{t=0}^x left( f(x)-int_{u=t}^x mathrm df(u) right) sin(st) mathrm dt \
&= f(x)int_{t=0}^x sin(st) mathrm dt + int_{u=0}^x left( int_{t=0}^u sin(st) mathrm dt right) big(-mathrm df(u)big) \
&= f(x)frac{1-cos(sx)}{s} + int_{u=0}^x left( frac{1-cos(su)}{s}right) big(-mathrm df(u)big)
>0.
end{align*}



A concrete example: if $f(t)=e^{-t}$ then
$$
F_s(x)
= left[ frac{-e^{-t}big(scos(sx)+sin(sx)big)}{1+s^2} right]_0^x
= frac{1-e^{-s}big(scos(sx)+sin(sx)big)}{1+s^2}>0.
$$






share|cite|improve this answer












It seems that your conjecture is false.
If $f$ is a positive, decreasing function then $F_s(x)>0$ for all $x>0$:
begin{align*}
F_s(x)
&= int_0^x f(t) sin(st) mathrm dt
= int_{t=0}^x left( f(x)-int_{u=t}^x mathrm df(u) right) sin(st) mathrm dt \
&= f(x)int_{t=0}^x sin(st) mathrm dt + int_{u=0}^x left( int_{t=0}^u sin(st) mathrm dt right) big(-mathrm df(u)big) \
&= f(x)frac{1-cos(sx)}{s} + int_{u=0}^x left( frac{1-cos(su)}{s}right) big(-mathrm df(u)big)
>0.
end{align*}



A concrete example: if $f(t)=e^{-t}$ then
$$
F_s(x)
= left[ frac{-e^{-t}big(scos(sx)+sin(sx)big)}{1+s^2} right]_0^x
= frac{1-e^{-s}big(scos(sx)+sin(sx)big)}{1+s^2}>0.
$$







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered 3 hours ago









user141614

12k925




12k925












  • Great, thank you. Do you have an idea for a proof (or a counterexample) in case $x$ is a zero of $f$? Is it then true that $F_s(x)$ has zeros $s$?
    – frog
    1 hour ago


















  • Great, thank you. Do you have an idea for a proof (or a counterexample) in case $x$ is a zero of $f$? Is it then true that $F_s(x)$ has zeros $s$?
    – frog
    1 hour ago
















Great, thank you. Do you have an idea for a proof (or a counterexample) in case $x$ is a zero of $f$? Is it then true that $F_s(x)$ has zeros $s$?
– frog
1 hour ago




Great, thank you. Do you have an idea for a proof (or a counterexample) in case $x$ is a zero of $f$? Is it then true that $F_s(x)$ has zeros $s$?
– frog
1 hour ago


















 

draft saved


draft discarded



















































 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2988573%2fzeros-of-fourier-type-integral%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

Bundesstraße 106

Verónica Boquete

Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten