How statement and proof provenance work
The first chip identifies the source of the statement or construction; the second identifies the source of its local proof or verification.
- Literature-sourced: the exact statement appears in a cited source; only wording and notation differ.
- AI-adapted: a semantically identical restatement of literature-sourced material, modulo indexing, notation, and boundary cases adopted by the library.
- AI-generated: a genuinely novel statement formulated by AI, with no source for the claim itself.
These labels describe origin, not correctness: citations and verification chips remain separate evidence.
Periodic Fourier partial sums converge in the strict Lp range
Statement
Assume Countable Choice, and use the torus conventions of Period-one Fourier coefficients, partial sums, and convolution on the torus and The one-dimensional torus and its normalized Haar integral: the torus carries normalized Haar measure with , and for .
- For every and every ,
- At the endpoints the operator norms grow at least as the Lebesgue constants. For every , Hence both families and are unbounded, and there exist and such that fails to converge in and fails to converge in .
No failure of weak-type or of any endpoint mapping weaker than norm convergence is asserted.
Facts & Assumptions
Given: Countable Choice, the torus conventions of Period-one Fourier coefficients, partial sums, and convolution on the torus and The one-dimensional torus and its normalized Haar integral, and the norms of Complex Lp classes and Euclidean test-function conventions.
The torus integral is normalized, , and translation invariant: for integrable . The character , the coefficient , the partial sum , trigonometric polynomials and torus convolution are defined as in the cited definition, as is for the normalized measure. Period-one Fourier coefficients, partial sums, and convolution on the torus The one-dimensional torus and its normalized Haar integral
For every one-period integrable , every and every , . Fourier partial sums are Dirichlet convolutions
is real, even, continuous and bounded, , and . The Fejer kernel satisfies and , so . Dirichlet and Fejer kernels The Fejer kernel is a positive approximate identity
For and the Cesaro means satisfy , are trigonometric polynomials, and ; hence trigonometric polynomials are dense in . For a trigonometric polynomial one has whenever . Fejer means converge in L^p for 1 <= p < infinity Cesaro and Abel means of a Fourier series
For every one has . Uniform Lp bounds for periodic Fourier partial sums
For integrable complex one has and ; Tonelli's theorem applies to nonnegative measurable functions on the finite product . The modulus of an integral is bounded by the integral of the modulus Complex Holder, Minkowski, and the quotient norm Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative measurable functions on a sigma-finite product
For every the space is complete. Complex Lp completeness and almost-everywhere subsequences
(Sequential uniform boundedness.) If is a Banach space, a normed space over the same field, and , , are bounded linear maps with for every and every , then . Sequential uniform boundedness under countable choice
Proof
For , the convolution formula [F2] and the integral triangle inequality [F7] give for every , so is bounded on with . For , Tonelli and the translation invariance of [F1] give , so is bounded on . Both bounds are finite by [F3].
For all one has : the first equality is [F2], the second is the substitution in the absolutely convergent torus convolution, and the third is [F4]. Since by [F3], the identity and the Fejer convergence of [F4] give as .
For , the unit ball of is contained in the unit ball of , and for continuous the partial sum is a trigonometric polynomial, whose essential supremum equals its supremum; hence by [F6].
Let , and . By [F4] choose a trigonometric polynomial with , where is the finite bound of [F5]. For one has by [F4], so the triangle inequality [F7] and the bound [F5] give . Hence in for every .
For fixed and every , step 1.2 and [F3] give , while ; therefore .
By step 1.3 and step 2.1, for every both endpoint norms satisfy , and . Hence , which is the norm-growth assertion of part 2.
Suppose no failed to converge. Then each would have , and since is Banach by [F8] and each is a bounded linear operator on it by step 1.1, the sequential uniform boundedness principle [F9] would give , contradicting step 3.1. Hence there is with ; if converged to some in , then for all large , a contradiction. So does not converge in .
The same argument with in place of : each is bounded on by step 1.1, this space is Banach by [F8], and by step 3.1, so [F9] supplies with , and does not converge in .
Step 1.4 proves part 1, and steps 4.1 and 4.2 together with the norm lower bounds of steps 1.3 and 2.1 prove part 2.
Depends on
- Uniform Lp bounds for periodic Fourier partial sums
- Fejer means converge in L^p for 1 <= p < infinity
- Fourier partial sums are Dirichlet convolutions
- The Fejer kernel is a positive approximate identity
- Dirichlet and Fejer kernels
- Cesaro and Abel means of a Fourier series
- Period-one Fourier coefficients, partial sums, and convolution on the torus
- Fourier partial-sum operator norm equals the Lebesgue constant
- Sequential uniform boundedness under countable choice
- Complex Lp completeness and almost-everywhere subsequences
- Complex Holder, Minkowski, and the quotient norm
- The modulus of an integral is bounded by the integral of the modulus
- Tonelli's theorem for nonnegative measurable functions on a sigma-finite product
- The one-dimensional torus and its normalized Haar integral
- The Axiom of Countable Choice ($\mathrm{AC}_\omega$)
- Complex Lp classes and Euclidean test-function conventions
Used by
Nothing in the library uses this result yet.
Dependency tree · two levels
110 results within two dependency steps of this one, each drawn at its shortest distance from it. An arrow runs from a result to what uses it, so the chart reads left to right and ends at this result, which carries a heavier outline. Every node is a link to that result. Click elsewhere on the chart to enlarge it.
Sources
- Richard S. Laugesen, Harmonic Analysis Lecture Notes (standard reference, not scraped)