P D D D Z
P D D D Z
P D D D Z
TERENCE TAO
arXiv:2008.05066v1 [math.CA] 12 Aug 2020
1. Introduction
thus
XZ
Tm;Σ f (n) = m(θ)e(−n · (α + θ))FZd f (α + θ) dθ.
α∈Σ Rd
Proof. Part (i) is [9, Proposition 2.1] and part (ii) is [9, Corollary 2.1],
after noting that all implied constants in the proof are at most expo-
nential in the dimension d.
for some N ≥ 1 and ε > 0. As it turns out, these classical arcs are
inconvenient to work with directly for the purposes of ℓp multiplier
theory. However, in the remarkable work of Ionescu and Wainger [7],
a more complicated major arc set
M = Σ≤k + [−ε, ε]d
was introduced for which (for suitable choices of parameters) contained
the classical major arc set (1.3) while simultaneously enjoying a satis-
factory ℓp multiplier theory for relatively large values of ε. The Ionescu–
Wainger multiplier theorem has since been indispensable in many re-
sults in discrete harmonic analysis, in particular providing an analogue
of Littlewood-Paley theory adapted to major arcs; see e.g., [18], [6],
[12], [13], [14], [8].
Σ⊆A := Td [QA ].
We let ΣA denote the set
[
ΣA := Σ⊆A \ Σ⊆B .
B(A
A major arc parameter set is said to be (r, c)-good for some integer
r ≥ 1 and 0 < c < 1 if one has the smallness condition
c
ε< 2rk
(1.4)
2rqmax
for some integer qmax that is greater than or equal to all the elements
of S.
kTm;Σ≤k kB(ℓ2r (Zd ;H)) ≤ Oc (1)d O(rLog1/2 (kr))k kTm kB(L2r (Rd )) ;
The factor of Oc (1)d O(rLog1/2 (kr))k looks somewhat messy, but the
key point is that it is uniform in the parameters S, ε, H, m. The orig-
inal version of this result in [7], when adapted to this notion of major
arc, gave instead a bound of the form Oc,d,k,r (Logk |S|), whhich was
later refined in [11] to Oc,d,k,r (Log|S|) (see also [12], [13], [14]). The de-
pendence of c will be unimportant in applications as one can typically
take c to equal a constant value such as c = 1/2. The restriction to
even integer exponents 2r will be removed in Theorem 1.7 below (at
the cost of worsening the bounds slightly). We work with finite dimen-
sional Hilbert spaces H here to avoid technical complications, but one
can extend this result to separable Hilbert spaces without difficulty by
a standard limiting argument.
Our main innovations are to eliminate logarithmic losses in (i) using the
probabilistic decoupling trick (cf. [17]), and to obtain efficient bounds
in (ii) by using recent progress [20] on the sunflower conjecture of Erdős
and Rado [4].
1
ϕ 0 ∈ C∞ ′ ′ ′
c (R) is supported on [−c , c ] for some c < c < 2 that equals
′ c′
1 on [−c, c], and Ω := [− cQ , Q ]d × Td [Q]. From Proposition 1.2 applied
to ϕ we have
kTϕ;Td [Q] kB(ℓp (Zd ;H)) ≤ Oc,c′ (1)d
while from working on each fibre Rd × {y} of AdZ = Rd × Ẑd sepa-
rately and using the Marcinkiewicz–Zygmund theorem (Theorem 1.8),
we have
kTm⊗1 kB(Lp (AdZ ;H)) = kTm kB(Lp (Rd ;H)) = kTm kB(Lp (Rd ))
and hence from Proposition 1.5 we have
kTm;Σ kB(ℓp (Zd ;H)) ≤ Oc,c′ (1)d kTm kB(Lp (Rd ))
which recovers a slightly weaker version of Proposition 1.2; in fact with
a bit more effort (applying a smooth partition of unity to m followed
by the triangle inequality) one can in fact recover the full strength
of Propostition 1.2. Admittedly, there is some circularity here since
Proposition 1.2 was used in the proof, but only for the bump function
ϕ and not for arbitrary multipliers m.
or equivalently
XZ
Tm;Σ f (n) = m(θ, α)e(−n · (α + θ))FZd f (α + θ) dθ.
α∈Σ Rd
Note that the previous definition (1.1) corresponds to the special case
in which the adelic symbol m(θ, α) does not depend on the arithmetic
component α.
Theorem 1.7 (Ionescu–Wainger multiplier theorem, adelic form). Let
(d, k, S, ε) be a major arc parameter set, and let H be a finite-dimensional
Hilbert space. Let m ∈ S(AdZ ) be supported on [−ε, ε]d × (Q/Z)d . Then
if (d, k, S, ε) is (r, c)-good for some r ≥ 1 and 0 < c < 1, one has
kTm;Σ≤k kB(ℓp (Zd ;H)) ≤ Oc (1)d O(rLogk)O(k) kTm kB(Lp (AdZ ))
All Hilbert spaces will be over the complex numbers. Given a bounded
linear operator T : V → W between (quasi-)normed vector spaces
V, W , we use kT kB(V →W ) to denote its operator norm; if V = W ,
we abbreviate B(V → V ) as B(V ). We recall
1For instance, the bilinear estimates considered in [8] typically involve the end-
point space ℓ1 (or even ℓp for some p < 1), and also take values in variational norm
spaces rather than Hilbert spaces, so would not be able to be directly treated by a
bilinear variant of Theorem 1.7.
12 TERENCE TAO
Thus for instance the sets {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {2, 4} contain 3 and 4 as nonces,
whereas {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {2, 3} are nonce-free, while {1, 2}, {1, 3}, {1, 4}
IONESCU–WAINGER AND THE ADELES 13
is a sunflower with core {1} and petals {2}, {3}, {4}. The property of
having a nonce is also referred to as the uniqueness property in [7], [14],
[19].
2. Superorthogonality
Note that any 2r-superorthogonal system (fs )s∈S can also be viewed
as a 2r-superorthogonal hypersystem (fA )A∈(S ) by identifying each ele-
1
Part (i) is standard (see e.g., [19, §3.1]). Part (ii) (without any losses of
Log|S| factors) appears to new; with logarithmic losses one can obtain
a result of this type from [13, Lemma 5.1], an iteration of (i), and the
triangle inequality.
Proof. We begin with (i). We may index S = {1, . . . , n}. The desired
estimate may be rewritten as
Z n
X Z X n
2r r
k fs kH dµ ≤ O(r) ( kfs k2H )r dµ.
X s=1 X s=1
where Z is also a linear combination of expressions of the form rj=1 hvsj , vsr+j i
′
Q
r
elements in the order indicated, and j1 ,...,j n
ways to partition the re-
maining elements, with the original partition being recoverable from
this data. This gives (i).
k0 k1 kk kk
ek = + +···+ +··· ≥
0! 1! k! k!
it will thus suffice to establish the deterministic inequality
X
≤ O(r)k/2
(f{s1 ,...,sk } )s1 ∈S1 ,...,sk ∈Sk
L2r (X;H S1 ×···×Sk )
f{s1 ,...,sk }
s1 ∈S1 ,...,sk ∈Sk L2r (X;H)
for all 1 ≤ i ≤ k. But this follows by applying part (i) to the Hilbert
space H S1 ×···×Si−1 and the functions
f~si :=
X
f{s1 ,...,sk }
si+1 ∈Si+1 ,...,sk ∈Sk
s1 ∈S1 ,...,si−1 ∈Si−1
See [16], [22] for some previous Hoeffding-type inequalities for sums of
R-wise independent random variables.
3. Sunflower bound
Now suppose that P(A = A) < (4Sun(k, r))−1 for all A ∈ Sk . We form
2Sun(k, r) independent samples A1 , . . . , A2Sun(k,r) of A. Consider the
event E that these samples only consist of at most Sun(k, r) distinct
sets. On this event, there are at most m≤Sun(k,r) 2Sun(k,r) ≤ 2Sun(k,r)
P
m
ways to a maximal collection Ai1 , . . . , Aim of distinct samples for some
m ≤ Sun(k, r); if we fix these indices i1 , . . . , im , we see from hypothesis
that each of the other samples Ai has a probability at most 1/4 of
matching one of these distinct samples. From the union bound, we
conclude that
P(E) ≤ 2Sun(k,r) (1/4)Sun(k,r) ≤ 1/2.
IONESCU–WAINGER AND THE ADELES 21
and conversely
2
X X ∗∗
Y r
2r
kfA0 ∪Ai kH
≤
(fA )A∈(S )
,
k L2r (X;H [k] )
S
A0 ∈(≤k ) i=1 L2 (X)
P∗∗
where denotes the sum over tuples (A1 , . . . , Ar ) of sets A1 , . . . , Ar ∈
S\A0
k−|A0 |
that are pairwise disjoint (or equivalently, that A0 ∪A1 , . . . , A0 ∪
S
A form a sunflower), and H [k] := H (k ) .
r
See [7, Lemma 2.3] for a version of this result in the k = 1 case;
Proof. We begin with the first inequality. Expanding out both sides,
it suffices to establish the pointwise estimate
r
∗∗ Yr
X 2 r
X X
kfA (x)kH ≤ (4Sun(k, r)) kfA0 ∪Ai (x)k2H
A∈(S S i=1
k)
A0 ∈(≤k )
(3.2)
22 TERENCE TAO
for all x.
(i) The major arcs α + [−ε, ε]d , α ∈ Σ≤k are disjoint. (Indeed, the
α ∈ Σ≤k are at least 2ε/c-separated in the ℓ∞ metric.)
(ii) (Denominator orthogonality) The hypersystem (fΣA )A∈( S ) is
≤k
Type II 2r-superorthogonal.
S
(iii) (Numerator orthogonality) If A1 , . . . , Ar ∈ ≤k form a sun-
flower with core A0 and petals A1 \A0 , . . . , Ar \A0 , then the func-
tions
Yr
fΣA0 +αi ∈ ℓ2 (Zd ; H ⊗r )
i=1
Proof. Note from Definition 1.3 that the coefficients of every element of
k
Σ≤k is a rational number with denominator at most qmax . In particular,
if α, α are two distinct elements of Σ≤k , then α, α differ in ℓ∞ metric
′ ′
by at least qk1 . The claim (i) now follows (with room to spare) from
max
(1.4).
0|A |
Note that QA0 ≤ qmax . On the other hand, from the sunflower hy-
pothesis and the Chinese remainder theorem we see that the point
QA0 (α1 + · · · + αr − αr+1 − · · · − α2r ) is non-zero. The coordinates of
1
this point consist of rational numbers of denominator at most 2r(k−|A 0 |)
,
qmax
and the claim now follows from (1.4) and the triangle inequality.
Proof. We begin with (ii), as this will be used in the proof of (i). By
interpolation it suffices to establish the claims for p = 2, ∞. For p = 2
the claim follows from Lemma 4.1(i) and Plancherel’s theorem, noting
that each Tϕ;α+ΣA0 f has Fourier transform supported in ΣA0 + α +
[−ε, ε]d , and each β ∈ Σ≤k k
has at most 2 representations of the form
S
β = α + α0 with A0 ∈ ≤k , α0 ∈ ΣA0 , α ∈ Σ(A0 ) . For p = ∞, it suffices
by translation invariance to show that
≤ Oϕ0 (1)d O(1)k kf kℓ∞ (Zd ;H)
Tϕ;α+ΣA0 f (0) α∈Σ
Σ
(A0 ) H (A0 )
S
for any f ∈ L∞ (Td ; H) and A0 ∈ ≤k
. By the inclusion-exclusion
k
formula, and conceding a factor of 2 , it suffices to show that
≤ Oϕ0 (1)d kf kℓ∞ (Zd ;H)
Tϕ;α+Σ ′ f (0)
⊆A
0 α∈Σ(A ) Σ
(A )
0 H 0
From Lemma 4.1(i) we see that the functions wT∗ϕ;α+Σ⊆A′ δ0 have dis-
0
joint Fourier supports and are thus pairwise orthogonal. Each such
function can be split into QdA′ orthogonal components wT∗ϕ;α+α0 δ0 with
0
α0 ∈ Σ⊆A′0 . By the Pythagorean theorem, it thus suffices to establish
the bound
kwT∗ϕ;α+α0 δ0 kℓ2 (Zd ) ≤ Oϕ0 (1)d εd/2
for each α ∈ Σ(A0 ) , α0 ∈ Σ⊆A′0 . The magnitude of the expression inside
the norm of the left-hand side does not actually depend on α + α0 , so
we may assume that α + α0 = 0. The left-hand side then factors as
26 TERENCE TAO
which follows from the rapid decrease of ϕ̂ (and noting from (1.4) that
ε ≤ 1). This completes the proof of (ii).
If we then apply Corollary 3.2 with the sunflower bound (3.1), and
apply the triangle inequality to sum in k, we conclude that
1/2r
X
kfΣ≤k kℓ2r (Zd ;H) ≤ O(rLog1/2 (kr))k XA 0 (4.5)
S
A0 ∈(≤k)
where
∗∗∗
X r
Y
XA 0 := k fΣA0 ∪Ai k2ℓ2 (Zd ;H ⊗r )
i=1
and ∗∗∗
P
S\A0
denotes a sum over tuples (A1 , . . . , Ar ) of disjoint sets A1 , . . . , Ar ∈
≤k−|A0 |
. For A0 , A1 , . . . , Ar as above, we can split
r
Y X r
Y
fA0 ∪Ai = fαi +ΣA0 .
i=1 α1 ∈A1 ,...,αr ∈Ar i=1
From Lemma 4.1(iii) and the Pythagorean theorem, we may thus write
∗∗∗
X X r
Y
XA 0 = k fαi +ΣA0 k2ℓ2 (Zd ;H ⊗r ) .
α1 ∈ΣA1 ,...,αr ∈ΣAr i=1
P∗∗∗
We drop the hypothesis of disjointness in the sum to obtain the
upper bound
X X r
Y
XA 0 ≤ k fαi +ΣA0 k2ℓ2 (Zd ;H ⊗r )
S\A0
A1 ,...,Ar ∈(≤k−|A
0|
) α1 ∈ΣA1 ,...,αr ∈ΣAr i=1
1+c
Now we establish the second inequality in (4.3). Let c′ := 2
, so that
c < c′ < 1. Let ϕ ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) be a multiplier of the form
d
Y
ϕ(ξ1 , . . . , ξd) := ϕ0 (ξj /ε), (4.6)
j=1
where ϕ0 ∈ Cc∞ (R) is a fixed real even bump function (depending only
on c) supported on [−c′ /c, c′ /c] that equals 1 on [−1, 1]. From Lemma
′
4.1(i) (with c replaced by c′ , and ε replaced by cc ε) we have
fα+ΣA0 := Tϕ;α+ΣA0 fΣ≤k
and the claim now follows from (ii) (setting p = 2r).
Now we can prove Theorem 1.4. Let the notation and hypotheses be as
in that theorem. We normalize kTm kB(L2r (Rd )) = 1 and kf kℓ2r (Zd ;H) = 1
(we can also assume by limiting arguments that f ∈ ℓ2 (Zd ; H) to avoid
technicalities), and our task is to show that
X
ǫA Tm;ΣA f
≤ Oc (1)d O(rLog1/2 (kr))k .
S
A∈(≤k )
2r d
ℓ (Z ;H)
for any Fα ∈ ℓ2r (Zd ; H), which by the modulation symmetries of the
Fourier transform imply that
d
(Tm;α+ΣA0 Fα )α∈Σ(A0 )
≤ O(1)
(Fα )α∈Σ(A0 )
.
Σ(A ) Σ(A )
ℓ2r (Zd ;H 0 ) ℓ2r (Zd ;H 0 )
28 TERENCE TAO
Proof. One can establish (4.8) by direct repetition of the proof of The-
orem 4.2, but we shall instead deduce this theorem as a limiting case
of Theorem 4.2 (basically by sending ε to zero). By splitting AdZ into
fibres {x} × Ẑd for x ∈ Rd and using the Fubini–Tonelli theorem, it suf-
fices to establish the analogous claim for Ẑd , that is to say to establish
the bound
O(rLog1/2 (kr))−k kfΣ≤k kL2r (Ẑd ;H)
1/2r
2r
X
≤
(fα+ΣA0 )α∈Σ(A0 )
2r d Σ(A )
L (Ẑ ;H 0 )
S
A0 ∈(≤k )
≤ O(1)d+k kfΣ≤k kL2r (Ẑd ;H)
(4.10)
where for each α ∈ Σ≤k , fα ∈ S(Ẑd ; H) has Fourier support in {α},
that is to say fα (y) = cα e(−y · α) for some cα ∈ H. Let 0 < ε < 1 be a
IONESCU–WAINGER AND THE ADELES 29
We now prove (4.9). Let F ∈ L2 (Ẑd ; H), then we have T1Σ≤k F = FΣ≤k ,
P
where Fα (y) := e(−y ·α)FẐd F (α) and FΣ := α∈Σ Fα for any Σ ⊆ Σ≤k .
By (4.8) we then have
1/2r
2r
X
kT1Σ≤k F kL2r (Ẑd ;H) ≤ O(rLog1/2 (kr))k
(Fα+ΣA0 )α∈Σ(A0 )
2r d Σ(A )
L (Ẑ ;H 0 )
S
A0 ∈(≤k )
so it will suffice to establish the bound
1/p
p
X
(Fα+ΣA0 )α∈Σ(A0 )
p d Σ(A ) ≤ O(1)d kF kLp (Ẑd ;H)
L (Ẑ ;H 0 )
S
A0 ∈(≤k )
30 TERENCE TAO
Observe that the integrand vanishes unless the projection of y to (Z/QA0 Z)d
vanishes, thus the integrand is supported on a set of measure Q−d A0 . By
Cauchy-Schwarz, it thus suffices to show that
2
Z
X X
X
d d
kcα k2H .
c α e(−y · (α + α ))
0
dµ Ẑd (y) ≤ O(1) QA0
d
Ẑ
α∈Σ
(A )
0
α0 ∈ΣA0
α∈Σ(A ) 0
H
and
(fα+ΣA0 )α∈Σ(A0 ) = S(Fα+ΣA0 )α∈Σ(A0 ) .
The claim now follows from Proposition 1.5 and Lemma 4.1(i).
and the claim now follows from the p = 2r case of Theorem 1.6 already
established (with c replaced by c′ ).
and the claim now follows from (4.12), (1.5). This concludes the proof
of Theorem 1.6 for general p.
Now we can prove Theorem 1.7. Let the notation and hypotheses be
as in that theorem, and as before let ϕ be the function (4.6). Then by
(1.5) (and Lemma 4.1(i)) we can factorize
Tm;Σ≤k = Tm;Σ≤k Tϕ;Σ≤k = STm SΩ−1′ Tϕ;Σ≤k .
The claim now follows from (4.13) and Theorem 1.6.
We now describe the specific choice of major arcs that essentially ap-
pears in the original work [7] of Ionescu and Wainger, as well as in
many subsequent works.
Lemma 5.1. Let 0 < ρ < 1 be a parameter, and set k := ⌊ 2ρ ⌋ + 1.
Suppose that N ≥ 2k . Then there exists a set S of pairwise coprime
natural numbers such that for any d ∈ Z+ , and ε > 0, the major arc
parameter set (d, k, S, ε) obeys the following properties:
ρ/2
(iii) All elements of S are bounded by C kN for some absolute con-
stant C > 1. In particular, (d, k, S, ε) will be (r, 12 )-good when-
ever
1
ε< . (5.1)
4rC 2rk2 N ρ/2
(iv) Σ≤k is the union of finitely many subgroups of Td , each of the
2 ρ/2
form Td [q] for some q ≤ O(1)k N . In particular, |Σ≤k | ≤
2 ρ/2
O(1)dk N .
Finally to prove (iv), note from definition that Σ≤k is the union of Td [q]
where q is the product of at most k elements of S, and the claim now
follows from (iii).
Proof. Set r to be the first natural number such that (2r)′ ≤ p ≤ 2r,
then r ∼ max(p, p′ ). Let k := ⌊ ρ2 ⌋ + 1 ∼ ρ−1 , and let S be the set
constructed by Lemma 5.1, then Ω ⊆ [−ε, ε]d × Σ≤k . If the constant
C in (5.2) is large enough, Lemma 5.1(iii) ensures that (d, k, S, ε) is
(r, 21 )-good, and the claim now follows from Theorem 1.6.
We first observe that it will suffice to establish the claim for d = 1, since
if we can find a one-dimensional multiplier m ∈ Cc∞ (R) supported in
[− 21 , 21 ] with
kTm;0 kB(ℓp (Z)) > CkTm kB(Lp (R))
then by taking tensor products (and many applications of the Fubini–
Tonelli theorem) we see that m⊗d ∈ Cc∞ (Rd ) is supported in [− 12 , 12 ]d
with Tm⊗d the d-fold tensor product of Tm , and Tm⊗d ;0 similarly the
d-fold tensor product of Tm;0 , and hence (by many further applications
of Fubini–Tonelli)
kTm⊗d ;0 kB(ℓp (Zd )) = kTm;0 kdB(ℓp (Zd )) > C d kTm kdB(Lp (R)) = C d kTm⊗d kB(Lp (Rd ))
giving the claim.
With some numerical effort one could refine the above argument to
obtain an explicit range p ∈ [1, 1 + ε] ∪ [(1 + ε)′ , ∞] of exponents p
and an explicit constant C > 1 for which the above proposition holds,
but we will not do so here. It seems likely that this proposition in fact
38 TERENCE TAO
References
[1] R. Alweiss, S. Lovett, K. Wu, J. Zhang, Improved bounds for the sunflower
lemma, STOC 2020: Proceedings of the 52nd Annual ACM SIGACT Sympo-
sium on Theory of Computing, June 2020, 624–630.
[2] R. Bañuelos, M. Kwaśnicki, On the ℓp -norm of the discrete Hilbert transform,
Duke Math. J. 168 (2019), 471–504.
[3] F. Bruhat, Distributions sur un groupe localement compact et applications à
l’t́ude des représentations des groupes ℘-adiques, Bull. Soc. Math. France 89
(1961), 43–75.
[4] P. Erdős, R. Rado, Intersection theorems for systems of sets, Journal of London
Mathematical Society 35 (1960), 85–90.
[5] D. Hanson. On the product of the primes, Canad. Math. Bull. 15 (1972), 33–37.
[6] A. Ionescu, E. Stein, A. Magyar, S. Wainger, Discrete Radon transforms and
applications to ergodic theory, Acta Math. 198 (2007), no. 2, 231–298.
[7] A. D. Ionescu, S. Wainger, Lp boundedness of discrete singular Radon trans-
forms, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 19 (2005), no. 2, pp. 357–383.
[8] B. Krause, M. Mirek, T. Tao, Pointwise ergodic theorems for non-conventional
bilinear polynomial averages, preprint.
[9] A. Magyar, E. M. Stein, S. Wainger, Discrete analogues in harmonic analysis:
spherical averages, Ann. Math. 155 (2002), pp. 189–208.
[10] J. Marcinkiewicz, A. Zygmund, Quelques inegalités pour les opérations
linéaires, J. Marcinkiewicz Collected Papers edited by A. Zygmund, Warsaw
(1964), 541–546.
[11] M. Mirek, Square function estimates for discrete Radon transforms, Analysis
& PDE 11 (2018), no. 3, 583–608.
[12] M. Mirek, E. M. Stein, B. Trojan, ℓp (Zd )-estimates for discrete operators of
Radon type: variational estimates, Invent. Math. 209 (2017), no. 3, 665–748.
[13] M. Mirek, E. M. Stein, B. Trojan, ℓp (Zd )-estimates for discrete operators of
Radon type: maximal functions and vector-valued estimates, J. Funct. Anal.
277 (2019), no. 8, 2471–2521.
[14] M. Mirek, E. M. Stein, P. Zorin-Kranich, Jump inequalities for translation-
invariant operators of Radon type on Zd , Adv. Math. 365 (2020), 107065, 57
pp.
[15] M. S. Osborne, On the Schwartz–Bruhat space and the Paley–Wiener theorem
for locally compact abelian groups, J. Functional Analysis 19 (1975), pp. 40–
49.
[16] B. Pass, S. Spektor, On Khintchine Type Inequalities for k-wise independent
Rademacher random variables, Statist. Probab. Lett. 132 (2018), 35–39.
IONESCU–WAINGER AND THE ADELES 39