Approximate orthogonality, Bourgain's pinned distance theorem and exponential frames
Abstract
Let A be a countable and discrete subset of Rd, d 2, of positive upper Beurling density. Let K denote a bounded symmetric convex set with a smooth boundary and everywhere non-vanishing Gaussian curvature. It is known that E(A)=\e2 π i x · a\a ∈ A cannot serve as an orthogonal basis for L2(K) IKT01. In this paper, we prove that even approximate average orthogonality is an obstacle to the existence of an exponential frame in the following sense. Let A be as above and φ 0 be a continuous monotonically nonincreasing function on [0, ∞) such that the approximate orthogonality condition holds align ( 12j ∫2j2j+1 φp(t) dt )1/p ≤ cj 2-jd+12 and |K(a-a')| ≤ φ(*(a-a')) \ ∀ a =a , a,a' ∈ A, align where * is the Minkowski functional on K*, the dual body of K. Then, if j ∞ cj=0, then the upper density of A is equal to 0, hence E(A) is not a frame for L2(K). The case p=∞ was previously established by the authors of this paper in IM2020. The point is that if E(A) is a frame for L2(K), then very few pairs of distinct exponentials e2 π i x.a, e2 π i x.a' from E(A) come anywhere near being orthogonal. Our proof uses a generalization of Bourgain's result on pinned distances determined by sets of positive Lebesgue upper density in Rd, d 2. We also improve the L∞ version of this result originally established in IM2020. By using an extension of the combinatorial idea from IR03, we prove that under the L∞ hypothesis, A is finite if d =1 4. If d=1 mod 4, A may be infinite, but if it is, then it must be a subset of a line.
Turn this paper into a lesson
ArcXiv compiles a structured reading guide from this paper's metadata: plain-English importance, contributions, prerequisite concepts, which sections to read first, flashcards, and a quiz. Grounded in the abstract, never invented.