Abstract
We establish estimates for the Lebesgue parameters of the Chebyshev weak thresholding greedy algorithm in the case of general bases in Banach spaces. These generalize and slightly improve earlier results in Dilworth et al. (Rev Mat Complut 28(2):393–409, 2015), and are complemented with examples showing the optimality of the bounds. Our results also clarify certain bounds recently announced in Shao and Ye (J Inequal Appl 2018(1):102, 2018), and answer some questions left open in that paper.
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Let \(\mathbb {X}\) be a Banach space over \(\mathbb {K}= \mathbb {R}\) or \(\mathbb {C}\), let \(\mathbb {X}^*\) be its dual space, and consider a system \(\lbrace {\mathbf {e}}_n, {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}\rbrace _{n=1}^\infty \subset \mathbb {X}\times \mathbb {X}^*\) with the following properties:
-
(a)
\(0<\inf _n \lbrace \Vert {\mathbf {e}}_n\Vert , \Vert {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}\Vert \rbrace \le \sup _n\lbrace \Vert {\mathbf {e}}_n\Vert , \Vert {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}\Vert \rbrace <\infty \)
-
(b)
\({{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}({\mathbf {e}}_m) = \delta _{n,m}\), for all \(n,m\ge 1\)
-
(c)
\(\mathbb {X}= \overline{\text{ span }\,\lbrace {\mathbf {e}}_n : n\in \mathbb {N}\rbrace }\)
-
(d)
\(\mathbb {X}^* = \overline{\text{ span }\,\lbrace {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}: n\in \mathbb {N}\rbrace }^{w^*}\).
Under these conditions \(\mathscr {B}=\lbrace {\mathbf {e}}_n\rbrace _{n=1}^\infty \) is called a seminormalized Markushevich basis for \(\mathbb {X}\) (or M-basis for short), with dual system \(\lbrace {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}\rbrace _{n=1}^\infty \). Sometimes we shall consider the following special cases
-
(e)
\(\mathscr {B}\) is a Schauder basis if \(K_b:=\sup _N \Vert S_N\Vert <\infty \), where \(S_Nx:=\sum _{n=1}^N {\mathbf {e}}^*_n(x){\mathbf {e}}_n\) is the N-th partial sum operator
-
(f)
\(\mathscr {B}\) is a Cesàro basis if \(\sup _N \Vert F_N\Vert <\infty \), where \(F_N:= \frac{1}{N}\sum _{n=1}^N S_n\) is the N-th (C,1)-Cesàro operator. In this case we use the constant
$$\begin{aligned} \beta =\;\max \left\{ \sup _N\Vert F_N\Vert ,\,\sup _N\Vert I-F_N\Vert \right\} . \end{aligned}$$(1.1)
For the latter terminology, see e.g. [21, Def. III.11.1]. With every \(x\in \mathbb {X}\), we shall associate the formal series \(x\sim \sum _{n=1}^{\infty } {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x){\mathbf {e}}_n\), where a)-c) imply that \(\lim _{n}{{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x)=0\). As usual, we denote \(\mathrm{supp}x=\lbrace n\in \mathbb {N} : {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x)\ne 0\rbrace \).
We recall standard notions about (weak) greedy algorithms; see e.g. the texts [23, 25] for details and historical background. Fix \(t\in (0,1]\). We say that A is a t-greedy set for x of order m, denoted \(A\in G(x, m, t)\), if \(\vert A\vert =m\) and
A t-greedy operator of order m is any mapping \(\mathscr {G}_m^t: \mathbb {X}\rightarrow \mathbb {X}\) which at each \(x\in \mathbb {X}\) takes the form
We write \(\mathbb {G}_m^t\) for the set of all t-greedy operators of order m. The approximation scheme which assigns a sequence \(\{\mathscr {G}_m^t(x)\}_{m=1}^\infty \) to each vector \(x\in \mathbb {X}\) is called a Weak Thresholding Greedy Algorithm (WTGA), see [16, 24]. When \(t=1\) one just says Thresholding Greedy Algorithm (TGA), and drops the super-index t, that is \(\mathscr {G}_m^1 = \mathscr {G}_m\), etc.
It is standard to quantify the efficiency of these algorithms, among all possible m-term approximations, in terms of Lebesgue-type inequalities. That is, for each \(m=1, 2,\ldots \), we look for the smallest constant \({\mathbf {L}}_m^t\) such that
where
We call the number \({\mathbf {L}}_m^t\) the Lebesgue parameter associated with the WTGA, and we just write \({\mathbf {L}}_m\) when \(t=1\). We refer to [25, Chapter 3] for a survey on such inequalities, and to [1, 5, 6, 10, 12, 26] for recent results. It is known that \({\mathbf {L}}_m^t=O(1)\) holds for a fixed t if and only if it holds for all \(t\in (0,1]\), and if and only if \(\mathscr {B}\) is unconditional and democratic; see [15] and [23, Thm. 1.39]. In this special case \(\mathscr {B}\) is called a greedy basis.
In this paper we shall be interested in Chebyshev thresholding greedy algorithms. These were introduced by Dilworth et al. [8, §3], as an enhancement of the TGA. Here, we use the weak version considered in [10]. Namely, for fixed \(t\in (0,1]\) we say that \({\mathfrak {CG}}_m^t:\mathbb {X}\rightarrow \mathbb {X}\) is a Chebyshev t-greedy operator of order m if for every \(x\in \mathbb {X}\) there is a set \(A=A(x,{\mathfrak {CG}}_m^t)\in G(x, m, t)\) such that \(\mathrm{supp}{\mathfrak {CG}}_m^t(x)\subset A\) and moreover
Finally, we define the weak Chebyshevian Lebesgue parameter \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\) as the smallest constant such that
where \({\mathbb {G}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}},t}}\) is the collection of all Chebyshev t-greedy operators of order m. As before, when \(t=1\) we shall omit the index t, that is \(\mathbf {L}_m^{\mathrm{ch}}:=\mathbf {L}_m^{\mathrm{ch},1}\).
When \(\mathbf {L}_m^{\mathrm{ch}}=O(1)\) the system \(\mathscr {B}\) is called semi-greedy; see [8]. We remark that the first author recently established that a Schauder basis \(\mathscr {B}\) is semi-greedy if and only if is quasi-greedy and democratic; see [3].
In this paper we shall be interested in quantitative bounds of \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\) in terms of the quasi-greedy and democracy parameters of a general M-basis \(\mathscr {B}\). Earlier bounds were obtained by Dilworth et al. [10] when \(\mathscr {B}\) is a quasi-greedy basis, and very recently, some improvements were also announced by Shao and Ye [19, Theorem 3.5]. Unfortunately, various arguments in the last paper seem not to be correct, so one of our goals here is to give precise statements and proofs for the results in [19], and also settle some of the questions which are left open there.
To state our results, we recall the definitions of the involved parameters. Given a finite set \(A\subset \mathbb {N}\), we shall use the following standard notation for the indicator sums:
where \(\Upsilon \) is the set of all \(\varepsilon = \lbrace \varepsilon _n\rbrace _n\subset \mathbb {K}\) with \(\vert \varepsilon _n\vert =1\). Similarly, we write
The relevant parameters for this paper are the following:
-
Conditionality parameters:
$$\begin{aligned} k_m := \sup _{\vert A\vert \le m}\Vert P_A\Vert {\quad \text{ and }\quad }k_m^c=\sup _{\vert A\vert \le m}\Vert I-P_A\Vert . \end{aligned}$$ -
Quasi-greedy parameters:
$$\begin{aligned} g_m := \sup _{\mathscr {G}_k\in \mathbb {G}_k,\,k\le m}\,\Vert \mathscr {G}_k\Vert {\quad \text{ and }\quad }g_m^c := \sup _{\mathscr {G}_k\in \mathbb {G}_k,\,k\le m}\,\Vert I-\mathscr {G}_k\Vert . \end{aligned}$$Below we shall also use the variant
$$\begin{aligned} {\tilde{g}}_m:=\sup _{\begin{array}{c} \mathscr {G}'<\mathscr {G}\\ \mathscr {G}\in \mathbb {G}_k,\;k\le m \end{array}}\Vert \mathscr {G}-\mathscr {G}'\Vert , \end{aligned}$$where \(\mathscr {G}'<\mathscr {G}\) means that \(A(x,\mathscr {G}')\subset A(x,\mathscr {G})\) for all x; see [5].
-
Super-democracy parameters:
$$\begin{aligned} \tilde{\mu }_m = \sup _{\underset{\vert \varepsilon \vert =\vert \eta \vert =1}{\vert A\vert =\vert B\vert \le m}}\dfrac{\Vert \mathbf{1}_{\varepsilon A}\Vert }{\Vert \mathbf{1}_{\eta B}\Vert }{\quad \text{ and }\quad }\tilde{\mu }_m^d=\sup _{\underset{\vert \varepsilon \vert =\vert \eta \vert =1}{\vert A\vert =\vert B\vert \le m, \; A\cap B=\emptyset }}\dfrac{\Vert \mathbf{1}_{\varepsilon A}\Vert }{\Vert \mathbf{1}_{\eta B}\Vert }. \end{aligned}$$ -
Quasi-greedy parameters for constant coefficients (see [5, (3.11)])
$$\begin{aligned} {\gamma }_m=\sup _{\underset{B\subset A,\;\vert A\vert \le m}{\vert \varepsilon \vert =1}}\dfrac{\Vert \mathbf{1}_{\varepsilon B}\Vert }{\Vert \mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }A}\Vert }. \end{aligned}$$
Note that \({\gamma }_m\le g_m\le {\tilde{g}}_m\le 2g_m\), but in general \({\gamma }_m\) may be much smaller than \(g_m\); see e.g. [5, §5.5]. Likewise, in §5 below we show that \({\tilde{\mu }}^d_m\) may be much smaller than \({\tilde{\mu }}_m\), except for Schauder bases, where both quantities turn out to be equivalent; see Theorem 5.2.
Our first result is a general upper bound, which improves and extends [19, Theorem 2.4].
Theorem 1.1
Let \(\mathscr {B}\) be an M-basis in \(\mathbb {X}\), and let \(\mathfrak {K}=\sup _{n,j}\Vert {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}\Vert \Vert {\mathbf {e}}_j\Vert \). Then,
Moreover, there exists a pair \((\mathbb {X},\mathscr {B})\) where the equality is attained for all m and t.
The second result is a slight generalization of [10, Theorem 4.1], and gives a correct version of [19, Theorem 3.5].
Theorem 1.2
Let \(\mathscr {B}\) be an M-basis in \(\mathbb {X}\). Then, for all \(m\ge 1\) and \(t\in (0,1]\),
Our next result concerns lower bounds for \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\), for which we need to introduce weaker versions of the democracy parameters with an additional separation condition. For two finite sets \(A,B\subset \mathbb {N}\) and \(c\ge 1\), the notation \(A>cB\) will stand for \(\min A >c\max B\).
-
Given an integer \(c\ge 2\), we define
$$\begin{aligned} \vartheta _{m,c} := \sup \left\{ \dfrac{\Vert \mathbf{1}_{\varepsilon A}\Vert }{\Vert \mathbf{1}_{\eta B}\Vert }{\,\,\,:\,\,\,}\vert \varepsilon \vert =\vert \eta \vert =1,\;|A|=|B|\le m\; \text{ with } A>cB \text{ or } B>cA \right\} . \end{aligned}$$(1.6)
Theorem 1.3
If \(\mathscr {B}\) is a Cesàro basis in \(\mathbb {X}\) with constant \(\beta \), then for every \(c\ge 2\)
We shall also establish, in Theorem 3.10 below, a similar lower bound valid for more general M-bases (not necessarily of Cesàro type), in terms of a new parameter \(\theta _m\) which is invariant under rearrangements of \(\mathscr {B}\).
Remark 1.4
One may compare the bounds for \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{\mathrm{ch}}\) above with those for \({\mathbf {L}}_m\) given in [5]
which illustrate a slightly better behavior of the Chebishev TGA. Observe that one also has the trivial inequalities
Indeed, \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\le {\mathbf {L}}_m^t\) is direct by definition, while \({\mathbf {L}}_m^t \le k_m^c {\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\) can be proved as follows: take \(x\in \mathbb {X}\) and let \(A=\mathrm{supp}\mathscr {G}^t_m(x)\). Pick a Chebyshev greedy operator \({\mathfrak {CG}}^t_m\) such that \(\mathrm{supp}{\mathfrak {CG}}^t_m (x)=A\). Then
so \({\mathbf {L}}_m^t\le k_m^c {\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\). Hence, when \(\mathscr {B}\) is unconditional then \({\mathbf {L}}_m^t \approx {\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\). However for all conditional quasi-greedy and democratic bases we have \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{\mathrm{ch}}=O(1)\), but \({\mathbf {L}}_m\rightarrow \infty \).
The paper is organized as follows. Section 2 is devoted to preliminary lemmas. In Sect. 3 we prove Theorems 1.1, 1.2 and 1.3, and also establish the more general lower bound in Theorem 3.10, giving various situations in which it applies. Section 4 is devoted to examples illustrating the optimality of the results; in particular, an optimal bound of \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{\mathrm{ch}}\) for the trigonometric system in \(L^1(\mathbb {T})\), settling a question left open in [19]. In Sect. 5 we investigate the equivalence between \({\tilde{\mu }}^d_m\) and \({\tilde{\mu }}_m\) and show Theorem 5.2. Finally, in Sect. 6 we study the convergence of \({\mathfrak {CG}}_m (x)\) and \(\mathscr {G}_m(x)\) to x, pointing out the role of a strong M-basis assumption for such results.
2 Preliminary results
We recall some basic concepts and results that will be used later in the paper; see [5, 8]. For each \({\alpha }>0\) we define the \({\alpha }\)-truncation of a scalar \(y\in \mathbb {K}\) as
We extend \(T_{\alpha }\) to an operator in \(\mathbb {X}\) by formally assigning \(T_{\alpha }(x)\sim \sum _{n=1}^\infty T_{\alpha }({{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x)){\mathbf {e}}_n\), that is
where \(\Lambda _{\alpha }(x)=\lbrace n : \vert {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x)\vert >{\alpha }\rbrace \) and \(\varepsilon =\lbrace \mathrm {sign }\,({{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x))\rbrace \). Of course, this operator is well defined since \(\Lambda _{\alpha }(x)\) is a finite set. In [5] we can find the following result:
Lemma 2.1
[5, Lemma 2.5] For all \({\alpha }>0\) and \(x\in \mathbb {X}\), we have
We also need a well known property from [8, 9], formulated as follows.
Lemma 2.2
[5, Lemma 2.3] If \(x\in \mathbb {X}\) and \(\varepsilon =\lbrace \mathrm {sign }\,({{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x))\rbrace \), then
The following version of (2.1), valid even if G is not greedy, improves [10, Lemma 2.2].
Lemma 2.3
Let \(x\in \mathbb {X}\) and \(\varepsilon =\lbrace \mathrm {sign }\,({{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x))\rbrace \). For every set finite \(A\subset \mathbb {N}\), if \({\alpha }=\min _{n\in A}|{\mathbf {e}}^*_n(x)|\), then
where \(\Lambda _{\alpha }(x)=\lbrace n : \vert {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x)\vert >{\alpha }\rbrace \).
Proof
Call \(G=A\cup {\Lambda }_{\alpha }(x)\), and notice that it is a greedy set for x. Then,
using (2.1) in the last step.
Remark 2.4
The following is a variant of (2.2) with a different constant
A similar proof as the one in Lemma 2.3 can be seen in [4, Proposition 2.5].
Finally, we need the following elementary result, which follows directly from the convexity of the norm; see e.g [25, p. 108] (or [5, Lemma 2.7] if \(\mathbb {K}=\mathbb {C}\)).
Lemma 2.5
For all finite sets \(A\subset \mathbb {N}\) and scalars \(a_n\in \mathbb {K}\) it holds
3 Proof of the main results
3.1 Proof of Theorem 1.1
Let \(x\in \mathbb {X}\) and \({\mathfrak {CG}}^t_m\in {\mathbb {G}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}},t}}\) be a fixed Chebyshev t-greedy operator. Let \(A=A(x,{\mathfrak {CG}}^t_m)\in G(x,m,t)\). Pick any \(z=\sum _{n\in B}b_n{\mathbf {e}}_n\) such that \(\vert B\vert = m\). By definition of the Chebyshev operators,
On the one hand, using (1.2),
On the other hand, using the inequality (3.9) of [5],
Hence, \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\le 1+\left( 1+\frac{1}{t}\right) \mathfrak {K}m\). Finally, the fact that the equality in (1.4) can be attained is witnessed by Examples 4.1 and 4.2 below.
3.2 Proof of Theorem 1.2
The scheme of the proof follows the lines in [8, Theorem 3.2] and [10, Theorem 4.1], with some additional simplifications introduced in [5].
Given \(x\in \mathbb {X}\) and \({\mathfrak {CG}}^t_m\in {\mathbb {G}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}},t}}\), let \(A= A(x,{\mathfrak {CG}}^t_m)\in G(x,m,t)\). Pick any \(z=\sum _{n\in B}b_n{\mathbf {e}}_n\) such that \(\vert B\vert = m\). By definition of the Chebyshev operators,
We make the selection of p suggested in [8]. Namely, if \({\alpha }=\max _{n\notin A}|{\mathbf {e}}^*_n(x)|\), we let
It is easily verified that
Since \({\Lambda }_{\alpha }(x-z)=\{n{\,\,\,:\,\,\,}|{\mathbf {e}}^*_n(x-z)|>{\alpha }\}\subset A\cup B\), then Lemma 2.1 gives
Next we treat the first term in (3.2). Observe that \(\max _{n\in B{\setminus } A}\vert {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x-T_\alpha (x-z))\vert \le 2\alpha \), so Lemma 2.5 gives
At this point we have two possible approaches. Let \(\eta _n=\mathrm {sign }\,[e^*_n(x-z)]\). In the first approach we pick a greedy set \({\Gamma }\in G(x-z,|A{\setminus } B|,1)\), and control (3.4) by
using Lemma 2.2 in the last step. In the second approach, we argue as follows
using in the last step Lemma 2.3 and the fact that, if \({\delta }=\min _{A{\setminus } B}|{\mathbf {e}}^*_n(x-z)|\), then the set \((A{\setminus } B)\cup \{n{\,\,\,:\,\,\,}|{\mathbf {e}}^*_n(x-z)|>{\delta }\}\subset A\cup B\) and hence has cardinality \(\le 2m\).
We can now combine the estimates displayed in (3.1)–(3.6) and obtain
which after taking the infimum over all z establishes Theorem 1.2. \(\square \)
Remark 3.1
In [19, Theorem 3.5] a stronger inequality is stated (for \(t=1\)), namely
The proof, however, seems to contain a gap, and a missing factor \(k_m^c\) should also appear in the last summand. Nevertheless, it is still fair to ask whether the inequality (3.7) asserted in [19] may be true with a different proof.
Remark 3.2
Using Remark 2.4 in place of Lemma 2.3 in (3.6) above leads to an alternative and slightly simpler estimate
However, this would not be as efficient as (1.5) when \(\mathscr {B}\) is quasi-greedy and conditional.
Remark 3.3
When \(\mathscr {B}\) is quasi-greedy with constant \(\mathbf {q}=\sup _m g_m<\infty \), then Theorem 1.2 implies the following
This is a slight improvement with respect to [10, Theorem 4.1].
3.3 Proof of Theorem 1.3
Recall that \(S_N=\sum _{n=1}^N {\mathbf {e}}^*_n(\cdot ){\mathbf {e}}_n\) and
For \(M>N\) we define the operators (of de la Vallée-Poussin type)
In particular, observe that, for \(\beta \) as in (1.1) we have
We next prove that, if \(c\ge 2\), then for all \(A,B\subset \mathbb {N}\) such that \(B>cA\) with \(|A|=|B|\le m\) it holds
Pick any set \(C>B\) such that \(|B\cup C|=m\), and let
Then \(B\cup C\in G(x,m,t)\), and hence there is a Chebyshev t-greedy operator so that
for some scalars \(a_n\in \mathbb {K}\). Clearly,
using \(z=\mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }A}+t\mathbf{1}_C\) an m-term approximant. On the other hand, let \(N=\max A\). Since \(\min B\cup C> cN\), then (3.9) yields
Therefore, (3.10) implies that
We have therefore proved (3.11).
We next show that when \(|A|=|B|\le m\) satisfy \(A>cB\) then
This together with (3.11) is enough to establish Theorem 1.3. We shall actually show a slightly stronger result:
Lemma 3.4
Let \(|A|=|B|\le m\) and let \(y\in \mathbb {X}\) be such that \(|y|_\infty :=\sup _n|{\mathbf {e}}^*_n(y)|\le 1\) and . Then
Observe that the case \(y=0\) in (3.13) yields (3.12). We now show (3.13). Pick a large integer \({\lambda }>1\) and a set \(C>{\lambda }A\) such that \(|B\cup C|=m\). Let
As before, \(B\cup C\in G(x,m,t)\), and hence for some Chebyshev t-greedy operator we have
for suitable scalars \(a_n\in \mathbb {K}\). Choosing \(\mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }A}+t\mathbf{1}_C\) as m-term approximant of x we see that
On the other hand, calling and \(L=\max A\) we have
Thus,
Therefore we obtain
which letting \({\lambda }\rightarrow \infty \) yields (3.13). This completes the proof of Lemma 3.4, and hence of Theorem 1.3.
Remark 3.5
When \(\mathscr {B}\) is a Schauder basis, a similar proof gives the following lower bound, which is also obtained in [19, Theorem 2.2]
The statement for Cesàro bases, however, will be needed for the applications in §4.3.
3.4 Lower bounds for general M-bases
Observe that
We consider a new parameter
We remark that, unlike \(\vartheta _{m,c}\), the parameter \(\vartheta _m\) depends on \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) but not on the reorderings of the system. We shall give a lower bound for \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\) in terms of \(\vartheta _m\) in a less restrictive situation than the Cesàro basis assumption on \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \).
Given \(\rho \ge 1\), we say that \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) is \(\rho \)-admissible if the following holds: for each finite set \(A\subset \mathbb {N}\), there exists \(n_0=n_0(A)> \max A\)such that, for all sets B with \(\min B\ge n_0\)and \(|B|\le |A|\),
Observe that (3.15) implies that
This condition is clearly satisfied by all Schauder and Cesàro bases (with \(\rho =K_b\) or \(\rho >\beta \)), but we shall see below that it also holds in more general situations.
Proposition 3.6
Let \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n,{\mathbf {e}}^*_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) be an M-basis such that \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) is \(\rho \)-admissible. Then
Proof
Fix \(A\subset \mathbb {N}\) such that \(|A|\le m\). Choose C disjoint with A such that \(|A\cup C|=m\). Let \(n_0=n_0(A\cup C)\) be as in the above definition, so that \(n_0\) is larger than \(\max A\cup C\). Pick any B with \(\min B\ge n_0\) and \(|B|=|A|\), and any \({\varepsilon },\eta \in \Upsilon \). Let \(x=t\mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }A}+t \mathbf{1}_C+\mathbf{1}_{\eta B}\). Then \(A\cup C\in G(x,m,t)\), and there is a Chebyshev t-greedy operator with \({\mathfrak {CG}}^t_m(x)\) supported in \(A\cup C\). Thus,
On the other hand, using the property in (3.16) one obtains
Thus,
We now assume additionally that \(\min B\ge n_0+m\), and pick \(D\subset [n_0,n_0+m-1]\) such that \(|B|+|D|=m\). Let \(y=\mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }A}+t\mathbf{1}_{\eta B}+t\mathbf{1}_D\). Then \(B\cup D\in G(y,m,t)\) and a similar reasoning gives
Thus,
and taking the supremum over all \(|B|=|A|\) with \(B\ge (n_0+m)A\) and all \({\varepsilon },\eta \in \Upsilon \), we see that
Finally, a supremum over all \(|A|\le m\) leads to (3.17).
We now give some general conditions in \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n,{\mathbf {e}}^*_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) and \(\mathbb {X}\) under which \(\rho \)-admissibility holds. We recall a few standard definitions; see e.g. [13]. We use the notation \([{\mathbf {e}}_n]_{n\in A}={\overline{\text{ span }\,}}\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n\in A}\), for \(A\subset \mathbb {N}\). A sequence \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) is weakly null if
Given a subset \(Y\subset \mathbb {X}^*\), we shall say that \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) is Y-null if
Given \(\kappa \in (0,1]\), we say that a set \(Y\subset \mathbb {X}^*\) is \(\kappa \)-norming whenever
We finally introduce a new abstract definition.
Definition 3.7
We say that a biorthogonal system \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n,{\mathbf {e}}^*_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \subset \mathbb {X}\times \mathbb {X}^*\) satisfies the property \({\mathscr {P}(\kappa )}\), for some \(0<\kappa \le 1\), if the sequence \(\{\Vert {\mathbf {e}}^*_n\Vert \,{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \subset \mathbb {X}\) is Y-null, for some subset \(Y \subset \mathbb {X}^*\) which is \(\kappa \)-norming.
We remark that in every separable Banach space \(\mathbb {X}\) there exists an M-basis \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n,{\mathbf {e}}^*_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) with the property \(\mathscr {P}(1)\); see e.g. [21, Theorem III.8.5].Footnote 1 Other examples are given in Remark 3.9 below.
Proposition 3.8
Let \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n,{\mathbf {e}}^*_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) be a biorthogonal system in \(\mathbb {X}\times \mathbb {X}^*\) with the property \({\mathscr {P}(\kappa )}\). Then \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) is \(\rho \)-admissible for every \(\rho >1/\kappa \).
Proof
Let \(Y\subset \mathbb {X}^*\) be the \(\kappa \)-norming set from Definition 3.7. Consider a finite set \(A\subset \mathbb {N}\) with say \(\vert A \vert = m\) and denote
Given \(\varepsilon >0\), one can find a finite set \(S \subset Y \cap \{x^*\in \mathbb {X}^*{\,\,\,:\,\,\,}\Vert x^*\Vert =1\}\) so that
Indeed, it suffices to verify the above inequality for e of norm 1. Pick an \(\varepsilon \kappa /2\)-net \((z_k)_{k=1}^N\) in the unit sphere of E. For any k find a norm one \(z_k^* \in Y\) so that \(|z_k^*(z_k)| > (1-\varepsilon /2) \kappa \). We claim that \(S = \{z_k^* : 1 \le k \le N\}\) has the desired properties. To see this, pick a norm one \(e \in E\), and find k with \(\Vert e - z_k\Vert \le \varepsilon \kappa /2\). Then
Next, since the sequence \(\{\Vert {\mathbf {e}}^*_n\Vert \,{\mathbf {e}}_n\}\) is Y-null, for each \(\delta >0\) we can find an integer \(n_0> \max A\) so that
Pick any B of cardinality m with \(\min B\ge n_0\), and let
For \(f = \sum _{n \in B} {\mathbf {e}}^*_n(f) {\mathbf {e}}_n \in G\), we have
We claim that
To show this, we fix \({\gamma }>0\) (to be chosen later), and assume first that \(\Vert f\Vert \ge (1+{\gamma })\Vert e\Vert \). Then,
Next assume that \(\Vert f\Vert <(1+{\gamma })\Vert e\Vert \), then using (3.18) and (3.19) we obtain that
We now choose \({\gamma }\) so that \({\gamma }=(1-\varepsilon - \delta (1+\gamma ))\kappa \), that is,
which shows the claim in (3.20). Now, given \(\rho >1/\kappa \), we may pick \({\delta }={\varepsilon }\) sufficiently small so that the above number \({\gamma }>1/\rho \). Then, (3.20) becomes
for all B with \(\min B\ge n_0\) and \(|B|=|A|=m\). Thus, \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) is \(\rho \)-admissible.
Remark 3.9
We give some more examples where property \({\mathscr {P}(\kappa )}\) holds.
-
(1)
If the sequence \(\{\Vert {\mathbf {e}}^*_n\Vert \,{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) is weakly null then \(\mathscr {P}(1)\) holds (since \(Y = \mathbb {X}^*\) is always 1-norming).
-
(2)
If \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) is a Schauder basis then \({\mathscr {P}(\kappa )}\) holds with \(\kappa =1/K_b\); see [20, Theorems I.3.1 and I.12.2].
-
(3)
Let \(\mathbb {X}=C(K)\), where K is a compact Hausdorff set, and let \(\mu \) be a Radon probability measure in K with \(\mathrm{supp}\mu =K\). Let \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) be a complete system in \(\mathbb {X}\) which is orthonormal with respect to \(\mu \) and uniformly bounded, that is,
$$\begin{aligned} \int _K {\mathbf {e}}_n {\overline{{\mathbf {e}}_m}} \, d\mu = {\delta }_{n,m}{\quad \text{ and }\quad }\sup _n\Vert {\mathbf {e}}_n\Vert _\infty <\infty . \end{aligned}$$Then \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) has the property \(\mathscr {P}(1)\) in \(\mathbb {X}=C(K)\). Indeed, the sequence \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) is \(L_1(\mu )\)-null in \(\mathbb {X}\), while \(Y=L_1(\mu )\) is 1-norming in \(\mathbb {X}\) (since the natural embedding of C(K) into \(L_\infty (\mu )\) is isometric). Specific examples are the trigonometric system in C[0, 1] (in the real or complex case), as well as certain polygonal versions of the Walsh system [7, 17, 27], or any reorderings of them (which may cease to be Cesàro bases).
-
(4)
As a dual of the previous, if \(\mathbb {X}=L^1(\mu )\) then every system \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) as in (3) is weakly null, and hence case (1) applies.
-
(5)
If \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n,{\mathbf {e}}^*_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) is an M-basis such that
$$\begin{aligned} {\varvec{\varphi }}(m) := \sup _{|A|\le m} \left\| \sum _{n\in A} {\mathbf {e}}_n \right\| \,=\,{\mathbf {o}}(m), \quad \mathrm{as}\quad m\rightarrow \infty , \end{aligned}$$then \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) is weakly null (and in particular, \(\mathscr {P}(1)\) holds). Indeed, first note that also \( {{{\tilde{\varvec{\varphi }}}}}(m) = \sup \lbrace \Vert \mathbf{1}_{\eta A} \Vert : \vert A \vert \le m,\;|\eta |=1 \rbrace ={\mathbf {o}}(m)\). Assume that the system is not weakly null. Then there exist a norm one \(x^* \in \mathbb {X}^*\) and \(\varepsilon _0 > 0\) so that the set \(A=\{ n \in \mathbb {N} : \vert x^*({\mathbf {e}}_n) \vert \ge \varepsilon _0 \} \) is infinite. For every \(m\ge 1\), pick a set \(F \subset A\) with \(|F| = m\) and let \(\eta _n=\mathrm{sign}[ x^*({\mathbf {e}}_n)]\); then
$$\begin{aligned} {{{\tilde{\varvec{\varphi }}}}}(m) \ge \Vert \mathbf{1}_{{\overline{\eta }}F} \Vert \ge \left| x^*\left( \sum _{n \in F} {\overline{\eta _n}}{\mathbf {e}}_n\right) \right| =\sum _{n\in F}|x^*({\mathbf {e}}_n) | \ge m\varepsilon _0 , \end{aligned}$$contradicting our assumption.
Finally, as a consequence of Propositions 3.6 and 3.8 one obtains
Theorem 3.10
Let \(\{{\mathbf {e}}_n,{\mathbf {e}}^*_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) be a seminormalized M-basis with the property \({\mathscr {P}(\kappa )}\). Then, if \(\vartheta _m\) is as in (3.14), we have
4 Examples
The first two examples are variants of those in [5, §5.1] and [6, §8.1].
4.1 Example 4.1: the summing basis
Let \(\mathbb {X}\) be the closure of the set of all finite sequences \(\mathbf {a}=(a_n)_n\in c_{00}\) with the norm
The canonical system \(\mathscr {B}=\lbrace {\mathbf {e}}_n\rbrace _{n=1}^\infty \) is a Schauder basis in \(\mathbb {X}\) with \(K_b=1\) and \(\Vert {\mathbf {e}}_n\Vert = 1\) for all n. Also, \(\Vert \mathbf {e}_1^*\Vert = 1\), \(\Vert {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}\Vert = 2\) if \(n\ge 2\), so \(\mathfrak {K}=2\) in Theorem 1.1; see [5, §5.1]. We now show that, for this example of \((\mathbb {X},\mathscr {B})\), the bound of Theorem 1.1 is sharp. As in [5, §5.1], we consider the element:
where we have m blocks of \(\left( \frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{t},\frac{1}{2}\right) \) and m blocks of \((-\,1,1)\). Picking \(A=\lbrace n : x_n=-\,1\rbrace \) as a t-greedy set of x, we see that
On the other hand,
Hence, \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\ge 1+2(1+\frac{1}{t})m\) and we conclude that \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}= 1+2(1+\frac{1}{t})m\) by Theorem 1.1. As a consequence, observe that in this case \({\mathfrak {CG}}^t_m(x)=0\).
Remark 4.1
The above example strengthens [19, Theorem 2.4], where the authors are only able to show that \(1+4m\le {\mathbf {L}}_m^{\mathrm{ch}}\le 1+6m\).
4.2 Example 4.2: the difference basis
Let \(\lbrace {\mathbf {e}}_n\rbrace _{n=1}^\infty \) be the canonical basis in \(\ell ^1(\mathbb {N})\) and define the elements
The new system \(\mathscr {B}= \lbrace y_n\rbrace _{n=1}^\infty \) is called the difference basis of \(\ell ^1\). We recall some basic properties used in [6, §8.1]. If \((b_n)_n\in c_{00}\) then
Also, \(\mathscr {B}\) is a monotone basis with \(\Vert y_1\Vert = 1\), \(\Vert y_n\Vert = 2\) if \(n\ge 2\), and \(\Vert y_n^*\Vert = 1\) for all \(n\ge 1\) (in fact, the dual system corresponds to the summing basis). So, \(\mathfrak {K}=2\) and Theorem 1.1 gives \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\le 1+2(1+\frac{1}{t})m\) for all \(t\in (0,1]\). To show the equality we consider the vector \(x=\sum _nb_n y_n\) with coefficients \((b_n)\) given by
where the block \(\Big (1,1,\frac{-\,1}{t},1\Big )\) is repeated m times. If we take \(\Gamma =\lbrace 2,6,\ldots ,4m-2\rbrace \) as a t-greedy set for x of cardinality m, then
Hence, in this case we also have \({\mathfrak {CG}}^t_m(x)=0\). On the other hand
This shows that \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}= 1+2(1+\frac{1}{t})m\).
4.3 Example 4.3: the trigonometric system in \(L^p(\mathbb {T})\)
Consider \(\mathscr {B}=\{e^{i nx}\}_{n\in \mathbb {Z}}\) in \(L^p(\mathbb {T})\) for \(1\le p<\infty \), and in \(C(\mathbb {T})\) if \(p=\infty \). In [22], Temlyakov showed that
for some \(c_p>0\) and all \(1\le p\le \infty \). Adapting his argument, Shao and Ye have recently established, in [19, Theorem 2.1], that for \(1<p\le \infty \) it also holds
The case \(p=1\) is left as an open question, and only the estimate \(\frac{\sqrt{m}}{\ln (m)}\lesssim {\mathbf {L}}_m^{\mathrm{ch}}\lesssim \sqrt{m}\) is given; see [19, (2.24)]. Moreover, the proof of the case \(p=\infty \) seems to contain some gaps and may not be complete.
Here, we shall give a short proof ensuring the validity of (4.1) in the full range \(1\le p\le \infty \), with a reasoning similar to [5, §5.4]. More precisely, we shall prove the following.
Proposition 4.2
Let \(1\le p\le \infty \). Then there exists \(c_p>0\) such that
We remark that in the cases \(p=1\) and \(p=\infty \) the trigonometric system is not a Schauder basis, but it is a Cesàro basis.Footnote 2 So we may use the lower bounds in Theorem 1.3, namely
-
Case \(1<p\le 2\). Assume that \(m=2\ell +1\) or \(2\ell +2\) (that is, \(\ell =\lfloor \frac{m-1}{2}\rfloor \)). We choose \(B=\{-\,\ell ,\ldots ,\ell \}\), so that \(\mathbf{1}_B=D_\ell \) is the \(\ell \)th Dirichlet kernel, and hence
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert \mathbf{1}_B\Vert _p=\Vert D_\ell \Vert _{L^p(\mathbb {T})}\approx m^{1-\frac{1}{p}}. \end{aligned}$$Next we take a lacunary set \(A=\lbrace 2^j : j_0\le j\le j_0+2\ell \rbrace \), so that
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert \mathbf{1}_A\Vert _p\approx \sqrt{m}, \end{aligned}$$(4.4)and where \(j_0\) is chosen such that \(2^{j_0}\ge m\), and hence \(A>2B\). Then, (4.3) implies
$$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\ge \,{c_p}\;t^{-1}\frac{m^{1/2}}{m^{1-\frac{1}{p}}}\,=\,c_p\,t^{-1}\, m^{\left| \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{2}\right| }. \end{aligned}$$ -
Case \(2\le p<\infty \). The same proof works in this case, just reversing the roles of A and B.
-
Case \(p=\infty \). We replace the lacunary set by a Rudin-Shapiro polynomial of the form
$$\begin{aligned} R(x)=e^{iNx}\,\sum _{n=0}^{2^L-1}{\varepsilon }_n e^{inx},\quad \text{ with } \;{\varepsilon }_n\in \{\pm \,1\}, \end{aligned}$$where L is such that \(2^L\le m<2^{L+1}\); see e.g. [14, p. 33]. Then, \(R=\mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }B}\) with \(B=N+\{0,1,\ldots ,2^L-1\}\) and
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert \mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }B}\Vert _\infty =\Vert R\Vert _{L^\infty (\mathbb {T})}\approx \sqrt{m}. \end{aligned}$$If we pick \(N\ge 2\cdot 2^L\), then \(B>2A\) with \(A=\{\pm \,1,\ldots ,\pm \, (2^L-1)\}\). Finally,
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert \mathbf{1}_A\Vert _\infty =\Vert D_{2^L-1}-1\Vert _{L^\infty (\mathbb {T})} \approx \, m. \end{aligned}$$So, (4.3) implies the desired bound.
-
Case \(p=1\). We use the lower bound in Lemma 3.4, namely
$$\begin{aligned} {\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\,\ge \, c_1'\;t^{-1}\;\frac{\Vert \mathbf{1}_A\Vert }{\Vert \mathbf{1}_B+y\Vert }, \end{aligned}$$(4.5)for all \(|A|=|B|\le m\) and all y such that and \(\sup _n|{\mathbf {e}}^*_n(y)|\le 1\). As before, let \(m=2\ell +1\) or \(2\ell +2\), and choose the same sets A and B as in the case \(1<p\le 2\). Next choose y so that the vector
$$\begin{aligned} V_\ell =\mathbf{1}_B+y \end{aligned}$$is a de la Vallée-Poussin kernel as in [14, p. 15]. Then, the Fourier coeffients \({\mathbf {e}}^*_n(y)\) have modulus \(\le 1\) and are supported in \(\{n{\,\,\,:\,\,\,}\ell <|n|\le 2\ell +1\}\), so the condition holds if \(2^{j_0}\ge 2m+1\). Finally,
$$\begin{aligned} \Vert \mathbf{1}_B+y\Vert _1=\Vert V_\ell \Vert _{L^1(\mathbb {T})}\le 3, \end{aligned}$$so the bound \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\gtrsim t^{-1}\sqrt{m}\) follows from (4.5).
Remark 4.3
Using the trivial upper bound \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\le {\mathbf {L}}_m^t\lesssim t^{-1} m^{|\frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{2}|}\), we conclude that \({\mathbf {L}}_m^{{\mathrm{ch}}, t}\approx t^{-1}m^{\vert \frac{1}{p}-\frac{1}{2}\vert }\) for all \(1\le p\le \infty \).
5 Comparison between \({\tilde{\mu }}_m\) and \({\tilde{\mu }}^d_m\)
In this section we compare the democracy constants \({\tilde{\mu }}_m\) and \({\tilde{\mu }}^d_m\) defined in §1 above. Let us first note that
and
where \(\kappa =1\) or 2 depending if \(\mathbb {K}=\mathbb {R}\) or \(\mathbb {C}\). Indeed, the left inequality in (5.1) is immediate by definition, and the right one follows from
for any \(|A|=|B|\le m\) and any C disjoint with \(A\cup B\) with \(|C|=|A|=|B|\). Concerning the right inequality in (5.2), we use that if \(|A|=|B|\le m\) then
using in the last step [5, Lemma 3.3]. From (5.2) we see that \({\tilde{\mu }}_m\approx {\tilde{\mu }}_m^d\) when \(\mathscr {B}\) is quasi-greedy for constant coefficients.
In the next subsection we shall show that \({\tilde{\mu }}_m\approx {\tilde{\mu }}^d_m\) for all Schauder bases, a result which seems new in the literature.
5.1 Equivalence for Schauder bases
We begin with a simple observation.
Lemma 5.1
Proof
Let \(|{\varepsilon }|=|\eta |=1\) and \(|B| \le |A| \le m\) with \(A\cap B=\emptyset \). We must show that \(\Vert \mathbf{1}_{\eta B}\Vert /\Vert \mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }A}\Vert \le {\tilde{\mu }}^d_m\). Pick any set C disjoint with \(A\cup B\) such that \(|B|+|C| = |A|\). We now use the elementary inequality
with \(x=\mathbf{1}_{\eta B}\) and \(y=\mathbf{1}_C\). Let \(\eta '\in \Upsilon \) be such that \(\eta '|_B = \eta |_B\) and \(\eta '|_C=\pm 1\), according to the sign that reaches the maximum in (5.4). Then \(\Vert \mathbf{1}_{\eta B}\Vert \le \Vert \mathbf{1}_{\eta '(B\cup C)}\Vert \le {\tilde{\mu }}^d_m\Vert \mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }A}\Vert \), and the result follows.
Theorem 5.2
If \(K_b\) is the basis constant and \(\varkappa =\sup _{n}\Vert {{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}\Vert \Vert {\mathbf {e}}_n\Vert \), then
Proof
Let \(|A|=|B|\le m\), and \(|{\varepsilon }|=|\eta |=1\). Then
Lemma 5.1 implies \(I\le {\tilde{\mu }}_m^d\). We now bound II. Pick an integer \(n_0\) such that \(A_1=\{n\in A{\,\,\,:\,\,\,}n\le n_0\}\) and \(A_2=A{\setminus } A_1\) satisfy
Then
using in the second line the basis constant bound for the denominator. Since \(|B\cap A_1|\le |A_1|\le |A_2|\), we see that
On the other hand, picking any number \(n_1\in B\cap A_2\), and using \(\Vert {\mathbf {e}}^*_{n_1}\Vert \Vert \mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }A}\Vert \ge |{\mathbf {e}}^*_{n_1}(\mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }A})|=1\), we see that
the last bound due to \(|B\cap A_2{\setminus }\{n_1\}|\le |A_2|-1\le |A_1|\) and Lemma 5.1. Putting together the previous bounds easily leads to (5.5).
Remark 5.3
A similar argument shows the equivalence of the standard (unsigned) democracy parameters
Indeed, in this case, the analog of (5.3) takes the weaker form
Then, (5.7) and the same proof we gave for Theorem 5.2 (with \(\eta ={\varepsilon }\equiv 1\)) leads to
5.2 An example where \({\tilde{\mu }}_m\) grows faster than \({\tilde{\mu }}^d_m\)
The following example also seems to be new in the literature. As in (5.6), we denote by \(\mu _m\), \(\mu ^d_m\) the democracy parameters corresponding to constant signs.
Theorem 5.4
There exists a Banach space \(\mathbb {X}\) with an M-basis \(\mathscr {B}\) such that
Proof
Let \(N_0=1\), and define recursively \(N_k=2^{2^{N_{k-1}}}\), and \(N_k'=N_1+\cdots +N_{k-1}\). Consider the blocks of integers
and denote the tail blocks by \(T_k=\cup _{j\ge k+1} S_{j}\). Finally, let
We define a real Banach space \(\mathbb {X}\) as the closure of \(c_{00}\) with the norm
where the weights \({\alpha }_k\) and \(\beta _k\) are chosen as follows:
Observe that
Claim 1
\(\quad \displaystyle {\tilde{\mu }}_{N_k}\ge \mu _{N_k}\ge \frac{N_k/2}{(\log _2 N_k)\sqrt{\log _2\log _2 N_k}}\), for all \(k\ge 1\).
Proof
Pick any \(A\subset S_k\cup S_{k+1}\) such that \(|A|=N_k\) and \(|A\cap S_k|=|A\cap S_{k+1}|=N_k/2\). Then
Next, pick \(B=S_k\), so that \(|B|=|A|=N_k\) and
Then \(\mu _{N_k}\ge \Vert \mathbf{1}_A\Vert /\Vert \mathbf{1}_B\Vert \ge \frac{N_k/2}{(\log _2 N_k)\sqrt{\log _2\log _2 N_k}}\).
Claim 2
\(\quad \displaystyle \mu ^d_{N_k}\le {\tilde{\mu }}^d_{N_k}\le \sqrt{N_k}\), for all \(k\ge 2\).
Proof
Let A, B be any pair of disjoint sets with \(|A|=|B|\le N_k\), and let \(|{\varepsilon }|=|\eta |=1\). If \(|A|=|B|\le \sqrt{N_k}\), then the trivial bounds \(\Vert \mathbf{1}_{{\varepsilon }A}\Vert \le |A|\) and \(\Vert \mathbf{1}_{\eta B}\Vert \ge 1\) give
So, it remains to consider the cases \(\sqrt{N_k}<|A|=|B|\le N_k\). We split A into three parts
Then, we have the following upper bound
due to the elementary inequalities
-
\(\sup _{n<k} {\alpha }_n|A_-|\le |A_-|\le N'_k\)
-
\(\sup _{n>k}{\alpha }_n N_k={\alpha }_{k+1} N_k=N_k2^{-N_k}\le 1\)
-
\(\sup _{n<k}\beta _nN_n=\sqrt{N_{k-1}}\le N_{k-1}\le N'_k\)
-
\(\sup _{n\ge k}\beta _n|A|=\beta _k|A|\).
Moreover, since \(\beta _k|A|\le \min \{\beta _kN_k=\sqrt{N_k},\;{\alpha }_k|A|\;\}\), we derive
We now give a lower bound for \(\Vert \mathbf{1}_{\eta B}\Vert \). The key estimate will rely on the following
Lemma 5.5
Let \(B_0=B\cap S_k\) and \(B^c_0=S_k{\setminus } B_0\). Then
Proof
If \(|B_0| \le N_k/2\), then we may select any \(\sigma \in \mathfrak {N}_k\) such that \(\sigma |_{B_0} = \eta \) (which is possible since \(\vert B_0^c \vert \ge \vert B_0 \vert \)), which gives
Assume now that \(\vert B_0 \vert > N_k/2\). Pick any \(S \subset B_0\) with \(\vert S \vert = \vert B_0^c \vert = N_k - \vert B_0 \vert \). Choose \(\nu \in \lbrace -1,1\rbrace ^{B_0^c}\) so that \(\sum _{i \in S} \eta _i + \sum _{i \in B_0^c} \nu _i = 0\). Choose \(\tau \in \lbrace -1,1\rbrace ^{B_0 \backslash S}\) so that \(\sum _{i \in B_0 \backslash S} \tau _i = 0\). Replacing \(\tau \) by \(-\tau \), if necessary, we may assume that \(\sum _{i\in B_0{\setminus } S}\tau _i\eta _i\ge 0\). Finally, define \(\sigma \in \mathfrak {N}_k\) by setting
Then,
\(\square \)
From the lemma and the definition of the norm we see that
We shall finally combine the estimates in (5.9) and (5.11) to establish Claim 2. We distinguish two cases
Case 1: \(\min \{|B_0|,|B^c_0|\}=|B^c_0|\). Then, since \(A_0\subset B^c_0\), we see that
and therefore the first estimate in (5.9) gives
Case 2: \(\min \{|B_0|,|B^c_0|\}=|B_0|\). Then, (5.11) reduces to
since \(|B_-|\le N'_k\le \sqrt{N_k}/2\le |B|/2\), if \(k\ge 2\). Also, the second bound in (5.9) reads
since \(N'_k\le \sqrt{N_k}/\log _2 N_k={\alpha }_k\sqrt{N_k}\le {\alpha }_k|A|\), if \(k\ge 2\). Thus
This establishes Claim 2.
From Claims 1 and 2 we now deduce that
and therefore
\(\square \)
6 Norm convergence of \({\mathfrak {CG}}^t_m x\) and \(\mathscr {G}_m^t x\)
In this section we search for conditions on \(\mathscr {B}=\{{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n=1}^\infty \) under which it holds
In [19, Theorem 1.1] this convergence is asserted for every basis in \(\mathbb {X}\). Here we investigate whether (6.1) may be true for a general M-basis, as defined in §1.
The solution to this question requires the notion of strong M-basis; see [21, Def 8.4]. We say that \(\mathscr {B}\) is a strong M-basis if additionally to the conditions (a)–(d) in §1 it also holds
Clearly, all Schauder or Cesàro bases (in some ordering) are strong M-bases; see e.g. [18] for further examples. However, there exist M-bases which are not strong M-bases, see e.g. [21, p. 244], or [11]Footnote 3 for seminormalized examples in Hilbert spaces.
Lemma 6.1
If \(\mathscr {B}\) is an M-basis which is not a strong M-basis, then there exists an \(x_0\in \mathbb {X}\) such that, for all Chebyshev greedy operators \({\mathfrak {CG}}_m\),
Proof
If \(\mathscr {B}\) is not a strong M-basis there exists some set \(A\subset \mathbb {N}\) (necessarily infinite) and some \(x_0\in \mathbb {X}\) with \(\mathrm{supp}x_0\subset A\) such that
Since \(\mathrm{supp}{\mathfrak {CG}}_mx_0\) is always a subset of A, this implies (6.3).
Remark 6.2
The above reasoning also implies that \(\liminf _{m}\Vert x_0-\mathscr {G}_mx_0\Vert >0\), for all greedy operators \(\mathscr {G}_m\). In particular, if there exists a not strong M-basis with the quasi-greedy condition
it will not occur that \(\mathscr {G}_mx\) converges to x for all \(x\in \mathbb {X}\). This observation suggests that in the characterization of quasi-greedy biorthogonal systems given in [28, Theorem 1] one may need to assume that \(\mathscr {B}\) is a strong M-basis, or else clarify if this property could be a consequence of (6.4).Footnote 4
Here we show that under the strong M-basis assumption, the conclusions of [19, Theorem 1.1] (and also of “\(3\Rightarrow 1\)” in [28, Theorem 1]) hold.
Proposition 6.3
If \(\mathscr {B}\) is a strong M-basis then, for all Chebyshev t-greedy operators \({\mathfrak {CG}}^t_m\),
If additionally \(C_q<\infty \), then for all t-greedy operators \(\mathscr {G}^t_m\),
Proof
Given \(x\in \mathbb {X}\) and \({\varepsilon }>0\), by (6.2) there exists \(z=\sum _{n\in B}b_n{\mathbf {e}}_n\) such that \(\Vert x-z\Vert <{\varepsilon }\), for some finite set \(B\subset \mathrm{supp}x\). Let \({\alpha }=\min _{n\in B}|{\mathbf {e}}^*_n(x)|\) and
Since \({\alpha }>0\), this is a finite greedy set for x which contains B. Moreover, we claim that
Indeed, if this was not the case there would exist \(n_0\in {{\bar{\Lambda }}}_{{\alpha }}{\setminus } A\), and since A is a t-greedy set for x, then \(\min _{n\in A}|{{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x)|\ge t|{\mathbf {e}}^*_{n_0}(x)|\ge t{\alpha }\). So, \(A\subset {{\bar{\Lambda }}}_{t{\alpha }}\), which is a contradiction since \(m=|A|>|{{\bar{\Lambda }}}_{t{\alpha }}|\). Therefore, (6.7) holds and hence
This establishes (6.5).
We now prove (6.6). As above, let \(z=\sum _{n\in B}b_n{\mathbf {e}}_n\) with \(B\subset \mathrm{supp}x\) and \(\Vert x-z\Vert <{\varepsilon }\). Performing if necessary a small perturbation in the \(b_n\)’s, we may assume that \(b_n\not ={{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x)\) for all \(n\in B\). Let now
Consider the sets
which for all \(t\in (0,1]\) are greedy sets for both x and \(x-z\), and contain B. We claim that,
The assertion \({{\bar{\Lambda }}}_{{\alpha }}\subset A\) is proved exactly as in (6.7). Next, we must show that
This is clear if \(n\in A{{\setminus }} B\) since \({{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x-z)={{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x)\), and \(A\in G(x,m,t)\). On the other hand, if \(n\in B\), then \(|{{\mathbf {e}}^*_n}(x-z)|\ge {\alpha }_2\ge {\alpha }\ge \max _{k\in A^c}|{\mathbf {e}}^*_k(x)|\), the last inequality due to \({{\bar{\Lambda }}}_{\alpha }\subset A\). Thus (6.8) holds true, and therefore
for some \(\bar{\mathscr {G}}^t_m\in \mathbb {G}^t_m\). Thus,
and the result follows from \(\sup _{m}\Vert \bar{\mathscr {G}}^t_m\Vert \le (1+4C_q/t)C_q\), by [10, Lemma 2.1].
Notes
The M-basis constructed in [21] satisfies that \(Y=[{\mathbf {e}}^*_n]_{n\in \mathbb {N}}\) is 1-norming and \(\sup _{n\in \mathbb {N}}\Vert {\mathbf {e}}_n\Vert \,\Vert {\mathbf {e}}^*_n\Vert <\infty \). But the latter easily implies that \(\{\Vert {\mathbf {e}}^*_n\Vert \,{\mathbf {e}}_n\}_{n\ge 1}\) is Y-null.
We equip \(\mathscr {B}\) with its natural ordering \(\{1,e^{ix}, e^{-ix}, e^{2ix}, e^{-2ix}, \ldots \}\).
We thank V. Kadets for kindly providing this reference.
References
Albiac, F., Ansorena, J.L.: Characterization of 1-almost greedy bases. Rev. Mat. Complut. 30(1), 13–24 (2017)
Albiac, F., Ansorena, J.L., Berná, P., Wojtaszczyk, P.: Greedy approximation for biorthogonal systems in quasi-Banach spaces (preprint) (2019). arXiv:1903.11651
Berná, P.M.: Equivalence between almost-greedy and semi-greedy bases. J. Math. Anal. Appl. 417, 218–225 (2019)
Berná, P.M., Blasco, Ó.: Characterization of greedy bases in Banach spaces. J. Approx. Theory 215, 28–39 (2017)
Berná, P.M., Blasco, Ó., Garrigós, G.: Lebesgue inequalities for the greedy algorithm in general bases. Rev. Mat. Complut. 30, 369–392 (2017)
Berná, P.M., Blasco, Ó., Garrigós, G., Hernández, E., Oikhberg, T.: Embeddings and Lebesgue-type inequalities for the greedy algorithm in Banach spaces. Constr. Approx. 48(3), 415–451 (2018)
Ciesielski, Z.: A bounded orthonormal system of polygonals. Stud. Math. 31, 339–346 (1968)
Dilworth, S.J., Kalton, N.J., Kutzarova, D.: On the existence of almost greedy bases in Banach spaces. Stud. Math. 159(1), 67–101 (2003)
Dilworth, S.J., Kalton, N.J., Kutzarova, D., Temlyakov, V.N.: The thresholding greedy algorithm, greedy bases, and duality. Constr. Approx. 19, 575–597 (2003)
Dilworth, S.J., Kutzarova, D., Oikhberg, T.: Lebesgue constants for the weak greedy algorithm. Rev. Mat. Complut. 28(2), 393–409 (2015)
Dovbysh, L.N., Nikolskii, N.K., Sudakov, V.N.: How good can a nonhereditary family be? J. Sov. Math. 34(6), 2050–2060 (1986)
Garrigós, G., Hernández, E., Oikhberg, T.: Lebesgue-type inequalities for quasi-greedy bases. Constr. Approx. 38(3), 447–470 (2013)
Hajek, P., Montesinos Santalucía, V., Vanderwerff, J., Zizler, V.: Biorthogonal Systems in Banach Spaces. Springer, Berlin (2008)
Katznelson, Y.: An Introduction to Harmonic Analysis, 2nd edn. Dover Publ Inc., New York (1976)
Konyagin, S.V., Temlyakov, V.N.: A remark on greedy approximation in Banach spaces. East. J. Approx. 5, 365–379 (1999)
Konyagin, S.V., Temlyakov, V.N.: Greedy approximation with regard to bases and general minimal systems. Serdica Math. J. 28, 305–328 (2002)
Ropela, S.: Properties of bounded orthogonal spline bases. In: Approximation Theory (Papers, VIth Semester, Stefan Banach International Mathematics Center, Warsaw, 1975), vol. 4, Banach Center Publ., Warsaw, pp. 197–205 (1979)
Ruckle, W.H.: On the classification of biorthogonal sequences. Can. J. Math. 26, 721–733 (1974)
Shao, C., Ye, P.: Lebesgue constants for Chebyshev thresholding greedy algorithms. J. Inequal. Appl. 2018(1), 102 (2018)
Singer, I.: Bases in Banach Spaces I. Springer, Berlin (1970)
Singer, I.: Bases in Banach Spaces II. Springer, Berlin (1981)
Temlyakov, V.N.: Greedy algorithm and n-term trigonometric approximation. Const. Approx. 14, 569–587 (1998)
Temlyakov, V.N.: Greedy Approximation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2011)
Temlyakov, V.N.: The best m-term approximation and greedy algorithms. Adv. Comput. 8, 249–265 (1998)
Temlyakov, V.N.: Sparse approximation with bases. In: Tikhonov, S. (ed.) Advanced Courses in Mathematics. Springer, Berlin (2015)
Temlyakov, V.N., Yang, M., Ye, P.: Lebesgue-type inequalities for greedy approximation with respect to quasi-greedy bases. East J. Approx. 17, 127–138 (2011)
Weisz, F.: On the Fejér means of bounded Ciesielski systems. Stud. Math. 146(3), 227–243 (2001)
Wojtaszczyk, P.: Greedy algorithm for general biorthogonal systems. J. Approx. Theory 107, 293–314 (2000)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The research of the authors P. M. Berná, G. Garrigós and E. Hernández are partially supported by the Grants MTM-2016-76566-P (MINECO, Spain) and 19368/PI/14 (Fundación Séneca, Región de Murcia, Spain). Also, P. M. Berná was supported by a Ph.D fellowship of the program “Ayudas para contratos predoctorales para la formación de doctores 2017” (MINECO, Spain). Ó. Blasco is supported by Grant MTM-2014-53009-P (MINECO, Spain). G. Garrigós partially supported by Grant MTM2017-83262-C2-2-P (Spain). E. Hernández has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie Grant Agreement No. 777822.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Berná, P.M., Blasco, Ó., Garrigós, G. et al. Lebesgue inequalities for Chebyshev thresholding greedy algorithms. Rev Mat Complut 33, 695–722 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13163-019-00328-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s13163-019-00328-9
Keywords
- Thresholding Chebyshev greedy algorithm
- Thresholding greedy algorithm
- Quasi-greedy basis
- Semi-greedy bases