Thursday, 20 July 2017

real analysis - Proving that the Cesaro means of Fourier sums for continuous f converge uniformly to f

Let f be a 1-periodic and continuous function on R. I would like someone to verify that the following proof is correct. I prove that , where \sigma_n(f) denotes the n-th Cesaro mean of the partial sums of the Fourier series of f. That being said, \sigma_n(f)=f*K_n, where K_n is Fejer's kernel: K_n(x)=\displaystyle\frac{1}{n+1}\biggl(\frac{\sin((n+1)\pi x)}{\sin(\pi x)}\biggr)^2 (for x\not\in\mathbb{Z}; for x\in\mathbb{Z} it is K_n(x)=n+1).



Now a popular and sharp estimate of Fejer's kernel is the following: for all x\in[-1/2, 1/2] it is K_n(x)\leq\Phi_{\frac{1}{n+1}}(x), where \Phi_{\frac{1}{n+1}}(x) is a piecewise function: For |x|<\frac{1}{2(n+1)} it is \Phi_{\frac{1}{n+1}}(x)=n+1 and for \frac{1}{2(n+1)}\leq|x|<\frac{1}{2} it is \Phi_\frac{1}{n+1}(x)=\frac{1}{4(n+1)x^2}.



I am not going to prove the estimate; as I said, it's popular.



Now for our goal: It is \|\sigma_n(f)-f\|_\infty\leq\displaystyle\sup_{x\in[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2})}|\sigma_n(f)(x)-f(x)|. As proved here, since f is 1-periodic and continuous it is uniformly continuous; Let \varepsilon>0 and \delta>0 be the corresponding quantity. Let x\in[-\frac{1}{2},\frac{1}{2}). We have |\sigma_n(f)(x)-f(x)|=|(f*K_n)(x)-f(x)|=|\int_{(-1/2,1/2)}f(x-y)K_n(y)dy-\int_{(-1/2,1/2)}f(x)K_n(y)dy|\leq\displaystyle{\int_{(-1/2,1/2)}|f(x-y)-f(x)|K_n(y)dy}\;\;(1)




Now we can break the integral on RHS in two parts: The first, I_1, being the integral over (-\delta,\delta) and the second, I_2, the integral over the rest of (-1/2,1/2).



But I_1=\displaystyle{\int_{(-\delta,\delta)}|f(x-y)-f(x)|K_n(y)dy\leq\varepsilon\int_{(-\delta,\delta)}K_n(y)dy\leq\varepsilon} (we used the fact that \int_0^1K_n(y)dy=1)



As for I_2, for n's large enough so that \frac{1}{2(n+1)}<\delta, we have that I_2=2\displaystyle{\int_{(\delta,\frac{1}{2})}|f(x-y)-f(x)|K_n(y)dy\leq4M\int_{(\delta,\frac{1}{2})}K_n(y)dy\leq 4M\int_\delta^\frac{1}{2}\frac{1}{4(n+1)y^2}dy=\frac{C_\varepsilon}{(n+1)}}, a quantity that also gets arbitarily small as we increase n.



Everything is independent of x; therefore the \infty-norm gets small as n gets large.



Is there something wrong with my proof?

No comments:

Post a Comment

real analysis - How to find lim_{hrightarrow 0}frac{sin(ha)}{h}

How to find \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\frac{\sin(ha)}{h} without lhopital rule? I know when I use lhopital I easy get $$ \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}...