Abstract
We prove \(\ell ^p\)-improving estimates for the averaging operator along the discrete paraboloid in the sharp range of p in all dimensions \(n\ge 2\).
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction and Notation
In [7] the authors study averaging operators along a discrete moment curve. More precisely, they consider
and prove (see [7, Theorem 1.14]) for \(n\ge 3\) and \(2-\frac{2}{n^2+n+1}<p\le 2\) the \(\ell ^p\)-improving estimate
The range of p in their theorem is not sharp. Testing the above estimate with standard examples, similar to those we use in the proof of the necessity part of Theorem 1.1 below, suggests that the optimal range should be \(2-\frac{2}{n^2+n}\le p\le 2\).
In this paper we use the circle method to prove the optimal bounds for the averaging operator along a discrete paraboloid. In particular, our main result, Theorem 1.1, gives a sharp estimate (except for an \(N^\epsilon \) term at the endpoint) for the averages along the discrete moment curve in dimension \(n=2\) (in that case the moment curve and the parabola coincide).
We remark that the \(\ell ^p\)-improving estimates in the discrete setting have been studied extensively in the recent years, see e.g. [1, 5,6,7,8,9,10].
To state our result we need to define first the discrete paraboloid
For \(f:{\mathbb {Z}}^n\rightarrow {\mathbb {C}}\) we consider the averaging operator
The main theorem of the paper reads as follows.
Theorem 1.1
(\(\ell ^p\) improving for the paraboloid) Let \(\frac{n+3}{n+1}<p\le 2\). The following bound holds
Moreover, the above result is essentially sharp in two ways. First, the exponent \(-(n+1)(\frac{2}{p}-1)\) cannot be improved when p is in our range. Second, the above inequality is false if \(p\notin [\frac{n+3}{n+1},2]\).
The operator norm bound in this theorem should be compared with the trivial estimate, for \(1\le p\le \infty \)
This is due to the uniform integrability of the kernel \(\frac{1}{N^{n-1}}K_N^{\mathbb {P}}\), with
Interpolating (1.1) with the trivial bounds
and
shows that the estimate
holds for all \((\frac{1}{p},\frac{1}{q})\) inside the triangle in Fig. 1.
It is also worth observing that \(\Vert A^{\mathbb {P}}_N \Vert _{\ell ^p({\mathbb {Z}}^n)\mapsto \ell ^{q}({\mathbb {Z}}^n)}=\infty \) if \(q<p\). Indeed, if not, then for each \(f\in \ell ^p({\mathbb {Z}}^n)\) and \(\mathbf{h} \in {\mathbb {Z}}^n\), writing \(f_\mathbf{h} (x)=f(x)+f(x+\mathbf{h} )\) we have
This would in turn force the existence for each \(\epsilon >0\) of some \(f\in \ell ^p({\mathbb {Z}}^n)\) (not the zero function) and \(\mathbf{h} \) such that
leading to a contradiction.
Our proof of Theorem 1.1 relies on obtaining suitable estimates for the corresponding Fourier multiplier. For this purpose we use the Hardy-Littlewood circle method and estimates for the exponential sums from [2].
In Sect. 2 we first prove a version of Theorem 1.1 which covers also the endpoint \(p=\frac{n+3}{n+1}\), however with the \(\epsilon \)-loss in the power of N.
Theorem 1.2
Let \(\frac{n+3}{n+1}\le p\le 2\). For any \(\epsilon >0\) the following bound holds
In Sect. 3 we adopt Bourgain’s argument from [2] to remove the \(N^\epsilon \) factor from the estimate in Theorem 1.2 at the expense of moving away from the endpoint. The interesting question about the validity of (1.1) for \(p=\frac{n+3}{n+1}\) remains open.
There are similarities between the \(l^p\) improving problem considered here and the discrete restriction estimate for the paraboloid, first considered in the landmark paper [2]. This restriction problem is about proving sharp estimates of the form
for \(1\le p\le 2\). Partial progress on this problem has been made in [2] by combining the circle method with \(L^1\rightarrow L^\infty \) and \(L^2\rightarrow L^2\) interpolation, similar to what we do in this paper. However, this method could not yield the full range of estimates (1.4) in any dimension. Instead, the restriction problem has been solved in [3] (in all dimensions, apart from \(N^\epsilon \) losses) using \(\ell ^2\) decoupling. This reduction to decoupling was possible in part because of the \(TT^*\) method. Indeed, one can easily show, see for example [4, Sect. 1.4], that (1.4) is equivalent with the \(L^2\) based inequality
A similar reduction is not possible for \(\ell ^p\) improving, as the operator \(f\mapsto f*{K_N^{\mathbb {P}}}\) is not positive, thus not of the form \(TT^*\).
1.1 Notation
Throughout the paper we use standard notation with all symbols referring to the spaces \({\mathbb {Z}}^n\) and \({\mathbb {T}}^n:=[0,1)^n\). Further, we write \(*\) for the convolution on \({\mathbb {Z}}^n\). We set \({\mathbb {N}}= \{1,2, \ldots \}\), \({\mathcal {D}}=\{2^m:m\in {\mathbb {Z}}\}\). Moreover, we let \(e(t)=e^{2\pi i t}\) and use the following notation for the Fourier transform on \({\mathbb {Z}}^n\)
While writing estimates, we will use the notation \(X \lesssim Y\) to indicate that \(X \le CY\) with a positive constant C independent of significant quantities. We shall write \(X \simeq Y\) when simultaneously \(X \lesssim Y\) and \(Y \lesssim X\).
2 Hardy-Littlewood Decomposition and the Proof of Theorem 1.2
For \(N\in {\mathbb {N}}\) let \(\sigma _N:{\mathbb {Z}}\rightarrow [0,1]\) be a function satisfying \(\mathbb {1}_{(-N,N)}\le \sigma _N\le \mathbb {1}_{(-2N,2N)}\) and such that \(s_k=\sigma _N(k+1)-\sigma _N(k)\) is bounded by 1/N and has total variation bounded by 1/N
Define
where
Note that if \(f\ge 0\) then \(A^{{\mathbb {P}}}_N f(x)\le A_N f(x)\) for every \(x\in {\mathbb {Z}}^n\), so to prove Theorem 1.2 (and also the sufficiency part of Theorem 1.1) one can replace \(A^{\mathbb {P}}_N\) with \(A_N\). The technical assumptions imposed on \(\sigma _N\) are necessary in order to get a suitable Gauss sum estimate, see (2.1) below.
The Fourier transform of the kernel is given for \(\xi =(\xi _1,\dots ,\xi _n)\in {\mathbb {T}}^n\) by
where
Recall that the following estimate holds
uniformly in \(y\in {\mathbb {T}}\) and \(|t-a/q|<10/(qN)\), see [2, Lemma 3.18].
We shall partition \({\mathbb {T}}\) into the so called major and minor arcs. For \(1\le q\le N/10\) and \(a\in A_q\) with \(A_q=\{1\le a\le q:\;(a,q)=1\}\), consider
and
Observe that the sets 4I(q, N, a) are mutually disjoint for \(q\le N/10\).
Let \(\psi \in C_c^\infty ({\mathbb {R}}^n)\) be such that \(\mathbb {1}_{(-1,1)}\le \psi \le \mathbb {1}_{(-2,2)}\). Then let \(\varphi (t):=\psi (t)-\psi (2t)\) and \(\varphi _0:=\psi \). Observe that then for each \(\xi _n\in I(q,N,a)\)
Now let
This construction is meant to guarantee the mean zero property
Note that
Moreover, as q ranges from 1 to N/10, \(a\in A_q\) and \(1\le 2^l <N/Q\) all the supports above are mutually disjoint. We will see that the addition of the extra bumps to the functions \(\eta _{l,a,q}\) and \(\eta ^0_{a,q}\) does not harm the contribution from the minor arcs.
For further reference we note that the Fourier transform of \(\eta _{l,a,q}\), as a function on \({\mathbb {R}}\), is given by
For a dyadic \(1\le Q\le N/10\) and \(1\le 2^l\le N/Q\) define
Decompose
where
and
Note that
2.1 Major Arcs Estimates
For \(k\in {\mathbb {Z}}\) let d(k) denote the number of divisors of k. For \(k\in {\mathbb {Z}}\), \(Q\in {\mathbb {N}}\) let d(k, Q) denote the number of positive divisors of k which are smaller than Q.
We will need the following auxiliary estimate, whose proof can be found in [2].
Lemma 2.1
[2, Lemma 3.33] For any \(\epsilon >0\) we have
Since
as an immediate consequence of the above result we get the following estimate.
Corollary 2.2
Let \(Q\in {\mathbb {N}}\), \(k\in {\mathbb {Z}}\setminus \{0\}\). Then for any \(\epsilon >0\)
The main result of this subsection reads as follows.
Lemma 2.3
For every \(\epsilon >0\) the following estimates hold:
Proof
Since
the estimate (2.1) implies
which gives part (2.7) of the claim, since \(m_N(\xi )=\prod _{i=1}^{n-1}G(\xi _n, \xi _i)\).
To prove (2.8) we begin with writing, for \(r=(r',r_n)\in {\mathbb {Z}}^n\) with \(r'=(r_1,r_2,\ldots ,r_{n-1})\in {\mathbb {Z}}^{n-1}\),
We distinguish two cases. If \(|r'|^2=r_n\), then the above computation combined with (2.2) shows that \(\widehat{m_{Q,l}}(r)=0\).
On the other hand, if \(||r'|^2-r_n|\ge 1\), using the representation (2.3), the Schwartz decay of the function \(\widehat{\eta }\) and Corollary 2.2 we obtain
In the last estimate above we use the decay of \(\left( 1+\frac{||r'|^2-r_n|}{2^l NQ}\right) ^{-100n}\) if \(\left| |r'|^2-r_n\right| >N^3\) and Corollary 2.2 if \(\left| |r'|^2-r_n\right| \le N^3\).
The arguments proving (2.9) and (2.10) are analogous. \(\square \)
2.2 Minor Arcs Estimates
Lemma 2.4
For every \(\epsilon >0\) the following estimates hold
Proof
By the Dirichlet’s Principle, for each \(\xi _n\in [0,1)\) there exists \(1\le q\le N-1\) and \(a\in A_q\) such that
If \(\xi _n\in \text{ supp }\,m_N^{\text {min}}\), then condition (2.4) implies that \(q>N/10\). Therefore, \(q\simeq N\) and so using (2.1) we get
thus (2.11) is proved.
To get (2.12), we use (2.8) and (2.10) and write for any \(\epsilon >0\)
Combining this with the trivial observation that \(\Vert \widehat{m_N}\Vert _{\ell ^\infty ({\mathbb {Z}}^n)} =1\), we obtain
\(\square \)
2.3 \(\ell ^p\rightarrow \ell ^{p'}\) Estimates
We begin with deriving \(\ell ^p({\mathbb {Z}}^n)\rightarrow \ell ^{p'}({\mathbb {Z}}^n)\) inequalities which are consequences of the estimates from the previous subsections and linear interpolation. More precisely, we will use the fact that for each kernel K we have
and
Corollary 2.5
Let \(1<p\le 2\). For every \(\epsilon >0\) the following estimates hold:
Moreover, if \(\frac{n+1}{p'}-1\ge 0\), then
Proof
Parts (2.15) and (2.16) follow immediately by interpolating \(\ell ^2\mapsto \ell ^2\) and \(\ell ^1\mapsto \ell ^\infty \) bounds for the convolution operator, using (2.13), (2.14) and Lemma 2.3.
Summing up the estimates (2.15) and (2.16) we get
provided that \(\frac{n+1}{p'}-1\ge 0.\) \(\square \)
Corollary 2.6
Let \(1\le p\le 2\). For any \(\epsilon >0\) the following estimate holds
Proof
Interpolate the bounds from Lemma 2.4. \(\square \)
Now we are ready to prove the main result of this section.
Proof of Theorem 1.2
Observe that
where R is the reflection operator \(Rg(x)=g(-x)\).
Therefore, since \(\frac{n-1}{p'}\le 2\frac{(n+1)}{p'}-2\) if and only if \(p\ge \frac{n+3}{n+1}\), we can apply Corollaries 2.5 and 2.6 to get
for \(p\in [\frac{n+3}{n+1},2]\). \(\square \)
We note that since \(\frac{n-1}{p'}-(n-1)<-(n+1)(\frac{2}{p}-1)\) when \(p>\frac{n+3}{n+1}\), the minor arc contribution (2.18) is better than the global contribution (1.1). Because of this, the presence of the \(N^\epsilon \) term in (2.18) is not a serious issue and will cause no trouble in the remaining part of the paper. However, the \(N^\epsilon \) term in the estimates for the major arcs needs to be addressed carefully. The main sources of the \(N^\epsilon \) term are Lemma 2.1 and (2.6). In the next section we will still use this lemma, but we will refine (2.6).
3 \(\epsilon \)-Removal Technology and the Proof of Theorem 1.1
Note that, same as in Sect. 2, when proving the sufficiency part of Theorem 1.1 one can consider \(A_N\) instead of \(A^{{\mathbb {P}}}_N\). We begin with improving the major arc estimate (2.17). Recall the definitions from the previous section.
To obtain an improvement of the estimates from the previous section we need some auxiliary results. The first of them is a version of [2, Lemma 3.47]. This may be seen as a refinement of (2.6).
Lemma 3.1
Let \(\tau , B>0\). Then the following estimate holds uniformly over \(Q,N\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \(D>0\)
Remark 3.2
Note that compared to Bourgain’s [2, Lemma 3.47] we do not include the term d(0, Q) corresponding to \(k=0\) on the left hand side of the estimate. As it shall soon become apparent, this term does not appear in our analysis due to the application of the mean zero property (2.2). For reader’s convenience, we provide the proof below.
Proof
We may assume that B is a positive integer. Write for \(1\le q\le Q\)
Then, denoting by \([q_1,\ldots ,q_B]\in \{1,2,\ldots ,Q^B\}\) the least common multiple of \(q_1,\ldots ,q_B\) we get
where the last bound follows by (2.6). \(\square \)
We shall also need the following consequence of Lemma 3.1.
Lemma 3.3
[2, equation (3.72)] Let \(\tau , B>0\) be any given constants. Then the following estimate holds uniformly over \(K,Q,N\in {\mathbb {N}}\) and \(D>0\)
Proof
We need to observe two things. First, \(|r_n-r_1^2-\dots -r^2_{n-1}|\lesssim \max (K,N^2 ).\) Second, the equation \(r_n-r_1^2-\dots -r^2_{n-1}=k\) has \(O(N^{n-1})\) solutions. \(\square \)
The above number theoretic lemmas allow for a more delicate treatment of the expression arising from computing \(\widehat{m_{Q,l}}\).
Proposition 3.4
For any \(B, \kappa >0\) the following bounds hold uniformly over \(D,N,Q\ge 1\), \(l\ge 0\) and f
Remark 3.5
The novelty of (3.4) and (3.6) compared to their counterparts from Lemma 2.3 is the lack of the \(N^\epsilon \) term, which is substituted with the flexible variable D. This comes at the expense of introducing an extra term involving \(\Vert f\Vert _{\ell ^\infty ({\mathbb {Z}}^n)}\), that will prove to be harmless.
Proof
Estimates (3.3) and (3.5) follow from Lemma 2.3. It remains to prove (3.4), the argument for (3.6) being analogous. Recall that in the proof of Lemma 2.3 we showed that if \(r=(r',r_n)\in {\mathbb {Z}}^n\) with \(r'=(r_1,r_2,\ldots ,r_{n-1})\in {\mathbb {Z}}^{n-1}\) is such that \(|r'|^2=r_n\), then \(\widehat{m_{Q,l}}(r)=0\).
Therefore we can assume that \(||r'|^2-r_n|\ge 1\), in which case we can estimate
Let us now fix a large constant \(C>0\) and decompose
To bound the second term we use the trivial bound
and the inequality \(\left| |r'|^2-r_n\right| > rsim Q^\kappa N^2 > rsim 2^lNQ^{1+\kappa }\) to get
Note that clearly \(\frac{1}{2^l N}\le \frac{DQ^{\kappa }}{2^l N}\), so the contribution from \(I_2\) is controlled by the right-hand side of (3.4). Thus \(I_2\) can be thought of as an error term.
It remains to deal with \(I_1\). Using Lemma 2.1 and then Lemma 3.3 (applied with \(K=C N^2 Q^\kappa \)) we get for any \(x\in {\mathbb {Z}}^n\)
where in the last estimate we used a trivial bound \(d(|r'|^2-r_n,Q)\le Q\). Therefore (3.4) is proved. \(\square \)
Choosing suitably the values of the parameters we get the following corollary.
Corollary 3.6
For any \(\tau >0\), \(B>0\) and for any \(\kappa >0\), the following estimates hold uniformly over \(Q,N,M\ge 1\) and \(l\ge 0\)
Proof
Since \(M\ge 1\), it suffices to assume \(B>(2+2\kappa )/\tau \). Take \(D=M Q^\tau \) in (3.4) and (3.6). It suffices to note that
\(\square \)
Finally, we are in a position to obtain the improvement of (2.17).
Corollary 3.7
Let \(\frac{n+1}{n}< p\le 2\). Then for any \(M\ge 1\) and \(B>0\) the following estimate holds
for any \(f=\mathbb {1}_E\), where \(E\subset {\mathbb {Z}}^n\) is an arbitrary finite set.
Proof
Fix any \(\frac{n+1}{n}< p\le 2\) and let \(\theta =\frac{2}{p'}\). Then
and notice that for any characteristic function f we have
Due to Hölder’s inequality, the equality sign in the above relations can be replaced with \(\ge \) for arbitrary functions. However, in our case the inequality \(\le \) will be needed, which justifies the use of characteristic functions.
Interpolating (3.3) and (3.5) with (3.7) and (3.8), respectively, where the latter two are applied with \(\tau ,\kappa >0\) such that \((1-\frac{2}{p'})(\tau +\kappa )<\frac{n+1}{p'}-1\) and \(M_*=M^{\frac{1}{1-\theta }}\), we get
where \(\sigma :=\min \{\frac{n-1}{p'}, \frac{2}{p'}(\frac{n+1}{2}+\tau +\kappa )-1-\tau -\kappa \}>0.\)
Similarly, we get with the same \(\sigma \) as above,
Summing up the estimates (3.10) and (3.11) we get
provided that \(\frac{n+1}{p'}-1\ge 0.\) It remains to notice that this condition is equivalent to \(p\ge \frac{n+1}{n}.\) Note the the condition \(\sigma >0\) insures that no additional logarithmic terms are introduced. \(\square \)
Now we are ready to present the proof of the main result of the paper. The argument relies on the ideas from [2].
Proof of Theorem 1.1
Note that it suffices to prove that for any \(\frac{n+3}{n+1}<p\le 2\) and any \(p< q<p'\) one has
Indeed, interpolating (3.13) with trivial estimate, see (1.2),
gives in particular (1.1) for \(\frac{n+3}{n+1}<p\le 2\), see Fig. 1 below.
Fix \(\frac{n+3}{n+1}<p\le 2\), \(q<q_1<p'\) and let \(f\in \ell ^p({\mathbb {Z}}^n)\) be positive and such that \(\Vert f\Vert _{\ell ^p({\mathbb {Z}}^n)}=1\), which we clearly can assume without loss of generality. Moreover, for \(\lambda >0\) define the level set
and let \(F=\mathbb {1}_{E_\lambda }\). Using positivity and then Hölder’s inequality we obtain
where R is the reflection operator \(Rg(x)=g(-x)\).
Combining (2.18) with (3.9) we get for each \(M\ge 1\)
where the last estimate holds provided that \(\epsilon \le (n+3)\left( \frac{n+1}{n+3}-\frac{1}{p}\right) \).
It follows that
Let \(\tau :=p'-q_1>0\) and take \(M=N^{(n+1)\frac{\tau }{p p'}}\lambda ^{\frac{\tau }{p'}}\). Note that \(M\ge 1\) if and only if \(\lambda \ge N^{-\frac{n+1}{p}}\). Thus letting \(B=p'\left( \frac{p'-\tau }{p}-1\right) \tau ^{-1}=\frac{p'(q_1-p)}{p\tau }>0\) we have
If \(\lambda \ge N^{-\frac{n+1}{p}}\) we get
Note that by Tschebyshev’s inequality and (1.2) we also have for any \(\lambda \ge 0\)
Finally, applying the layer cake formula and then (3.15) and (3.14) we obtain
which gives the desired estimate.
It remains to prove the necessity part of the theorem. Letting
we get
and
since
This shows that
Next, letting \(f=\delta _0\) we get
Observe that \( -\frac{n-1}{p}\le -(n+1)(\frac{2}{p}-1) \) if and only if \(p\ge \frac{n+3}{n+1}\), which concludes the proof of the necessity part of the theorem. \(\square \)
References
Anderson, T.C.: Quantitative \(\ell ^p\)-improving for discrete spherical averages along the primes. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 26, 32 (2020)
Bourgain, J.: Fourier transform restriction phenomena for certain lattice subsets and applications to nonlinear evolution equations. I. Schrödinger equations. Geom. Funct. Anal. 3(2), 107–156 (1993)
Bourgain, J., Demeter, C.: The proof of the \(\ell ^2\) decoupling conjecture. Ann. Math. (2) 182(1), 351–389 (2015)
Demeter, C.: Fourier Restriction, Decoupling and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2020)
Han, R., Lacey, M. T., Yang, F.: Averages along the square integers: \(\ell ^p\) improving and sparse inequalities. Preprint (2019)
Han, R., Krause, B., Lacey, M. T., Yang, F.: Averages along the primes: improving and sparse bounds. Preprint (2019)
Han, R., Kovač, V., Lacey, M.T., Madrid, J., Yang, F.: Improving estimates for discrete polynomial averages. J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 26, 42 (2020)
Hughes, K.: \(\ell ^p\)-improving for discrete spherical averages. Ann. H. Lebesgue 3, 959–980 (2020)
Kesler, R.: \(\ell ^p({\mathbb{Z}}^d)\)-Improving properties and sparse bounds for discrete spherical maximal means, revisited. Preprint (2018)
Kesler, R., Lacey, M.T.: \(\ell ^p\)-improving inequalities for discrete spherical averages. Anal. Math. 46, 85–95 (2020)
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the anonymous referees for their careful reading of our manuscript and insightful comments and suggestions.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Hans G. Feichtinger.
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Ciprian Demeter is partially supported by the NSF Grant DMS-1800305. Bartosz Langowski is supported by the National Science Centre of Poland within the research Project OPUS 2017/27/B/ST1/01623.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Dasu, S., Demeter, C. & Langowski, B. Sharp \(\ell ^p\)-Improving Estimates for the Discrete Paraboloid. J Fourier Anal Appl 27, 3 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00041-020-09801-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00041-020-09801-2