Titchmarsh convolution theorem

From testwiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

The Titchmarsh convolution theorem describes the properties of the support of the convolution of two functions. It was proven by Edward Charles Titchmarsh in 1926.[1]

Titchmarsh convolution theorem

If φ(t) and ψ(t) are integrable functions, such that

φ*ψ=0xφ(t)ψ(xt)dt=0

almost everywhere in the interval 0<x<κ, then there exist λ0 and μ0 satisfying λ+μκ such that φ(t)=0 almost everywhere in 0<t<λ and ψ(t)=0 almost everywhere in 0<t<μ.

As a corollary, if the integral above is 0 for all x>0, then either φ or ψ is almost everywhere 0 in the interval [0,+). Thus the convolution of two functions on [0,+) cannot be identically zero unless at least one of the two functions is identically zero.

As another corollary, if φ*ψ(x)=0 for all x[0,κ] and one of the function φ or ψ is almost everywhere not null in this interval, then the other function must be null almost everywhere in [0,κ].

The theorem can be restated in the following form:

Let φ,ψL1(). Then infsuppφψ=infsuppφ+infsuppψ if the left-hand side is finite. Similarly, supsuppφψ=supsuppφ+supsuppψ if the right-hand side is finite.

Above, supp denotes the support of a function f (i.e., the closure of the complement of f−1(0)) and inf and sup denote the infimum and supremum. This theorem essentially states that the well-known inclusion suppφψsuppφ+suppψ is sharp at the boundary.

The higher-dimensional generalization in terms of the convex hull of the supports was proven by Jacques-Louis Lions in 1951:[2]

If φ,ψ(n), then c.h.suppφψ=c.h.suppφ+c.h.suppψ

Above, c.h. denotes the convex hull of the set and (n) denotes the space of distributions with compact support.

The original proof by Titchmarsh uses complex-variable techniques, and is based on the Phragmén–Lindelöf principle, Jensen's inequality, Carleman's theorem, and Valiron's theorem. The theorem has since been proven several more times, typically using either real-variable[3][4][5] or complex-variable[6][7][8] methods. Gian-Carlo Rota has stated that no proof yet addresses the theorem's underlying combinatorial structure, which he believes is necessary for complete understanding.[9]

References

Template:Reflist