Fourier reduction

From Polymath1Wiki

Jump to: navigation, search

Let f be an arbitrary function from {\Bbb Z} to {-1,+1} of discrepancy at most C. Let N be a moderately large integer, let p_1,\ldots,p_d be the primes in [N], and let M be a huge integer (much larger than N). Then we can define a function F: ({\Bbb Z}/M{\Bbb Z})^d \to \{-1,+1\} by the formula

F(a_1,\ldots,a_d) := f( p_1^{a_1} \ldots p_d^{a_d} ).

whenever a_1,\ldots,a_d \in [M]. Note that F has a normalised L^2 norm of 1, so by the Plancherel identity

\sum_{\xi \in ({\Bbb Z}/M{\Bbb Z})^d} |\hat F(\xi)|^2 = 1. (1)

Let \pi: [N] \to {\Bbb Z}^d be the map

\pi(p_1^{a_1} \ldots p_d^{a_d}) := (a_1,\ldots,a_d)

then by hypothesis one has

|F(x+\pi(1)) + \ldots + F(x+\pi(n))| \leq C

for all (1 − ON(1 / M)) of the x in ({\Bbb Z}/M{\Bbb Z})^d, and all 1 \leq n \leq N. Applying Plancherel to this, we obtain

 \sum_{\xi \in ({\Bbb Z}/M{\Bbb Z})^d} |\hat F(\xi)|^2 |\sum_{j=1}^n e( \xi \cdot \pi(j) / M )   |^2 \ll C

for each such n, and so on averaging in n we have

 \sum_{\xi \in ({\Bbb Z}/M{\Bbb Z})^d} |\hat F(\xi)|^2 \frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N |\sum_{j=1}^n e( \xi \cdot \pi(j) / M )|^2 \ll C.

Comparing this with (1) and using the pigeonhole principle, we conclude that there exists ξ such that

\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N |\sum_{j=1}^n e( \xi \cdot \pi(j) / M )|^2 \ll C.

If we let g: {\Bbb N} \to S^1 be a completely multiplicative function such that g(pi) = ei / M) for all i=1,...,d, we have

 e( \xi \cdot \pi(j) / M ) = g(j)

for all j=1,...,N, and thus

\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N |\sum_{j=1}^n g(j)|^2 \ll C.

So, if one can show a uniform bound

\frac{1}{N} \sum_{n=1}^N |\sum_{j=1}^n g(j)|^2 \geq \omega(N)

where ω(N) goes to infinity as N \to \infty, for arbitrary S1-valued multiplicative functions, one is done!

Actually, one can do a little better than this. From (1) we see that |\hat F(\xi)|^2 induces a probability measure (depending on N,M) on completely multiplicative functions g: {\Bbb Q} \to S^1 (strictly speaking, this function is only defined on rationals that involve the primes p_1,\ldots,p_d, but one can extend to the rationals by setting g to equal 1 on all other primes), and for g drawn from this probability measure the above arguments in fact show that

 {\Bbb E} |g(1)+\ldots+g(n)|^2 \ll C

for all n up to N. Taking a weak limit of these probability measures (using Prokhorov's theorem) we can in fact get this for all n. So to solve EDP, it in fact suffices to show that

 \sup_n {\Bbb E} |g(1)+\ldots+g(n)|^2 = \infty (*)

for all probabilistic completely multiplicative functions taking values in S1. This should be compared to the completely multiplicative special case of EDP, in which g takes values in {-1,+1} and is deterministic.

If one is interested in square-invariant functions only (so f(q2x) = f(x) for all rational q) then we can restrict g to be {-1,+1} valued (basically because ({\Bbb Z}/M{\Bbb Z})^d can now be replaced with ({\Bbb Z}/2{\Bbb Z})^d in the above analysis.

Actually, (*) is equivalent to the following Hilbert-space version of EDP: if f: {\Bbb N} \to S takes values in the unit sphere of a (real or complex) Hilbert space, then the discrepancy of f is unbounded (note that discrepancy can be defined in arbitrary normed vector spaces). The derivation of Hilbert-space EDP from (*) follows the argument above (f is now vector-valued instead of scalar, but Plancherel's theorem and all the other tools used above go through without difficulty).

Conversely, if (*) failed, then we have a probability distribution μ on the space of completely multiplicative functions for which the left-hand side of (*) is bounded. If we then set H to be the complex Hilbert space L2(dμ) and let f(n) \in L^2(d\mu) be the evaluation map g \mapsto g(n) for each n, we see that f has bounded discrepancy.

Personal tools