4

Consider the following transform $T:g\mapsto f$, where $$ f(x)=\int_{0}^{\infty} \exp\left\{-(k_t * g)(x)\right\}\,dt $$ where $k_t$ is the "tent" function $$ k_t(u)=\begin{cases} t-|u|,&|u|\leq t,\\ 0,&|u|>t. \end{cases} $$ Assume $f\geq 0$ and $g>0$ are $C^\infty(\mathbb{R})$. How does one tackle the question of whether this transform is injective?

Some thoughts: We want to show that $T(g_1)=T(g_2)$ implies $g_1=g_2$, or find an example where it does not. Could we perhaps use the Fourier transform and the convolution theorem? Any ideas would be appreciated.

My attempt: The tent function $k_t(u)$ has Fourier transform $$ \mathcal{F}(k_t)(\omega) = \frac{4 \sin^2(\omega t/2)}{\omega^2}. $$ Then, by the convolution theorem, the Fourier transform of $k_t * g$ is $$ \mathcal{F}(k_t * g)(\omega) = \mathcal{F}(k_t)(\omega) \cdot \mathcal{F}(g)(\omega). $$ The zeros of $\mathcal{F}(k_t)$ occur at $\omega = \frac{2\pi k}{t}$ for $k \in \mathbb{Z} \setminus \{0\}$. As $t$ varies over $\mathbb{R}^+$, these zeros cover all non-zero frequencies. If $k_t * (g_1 - g_2) = 0$ for all $t$, then $\mathcal{F}(g_1 - g_2)$ must vanish everywhere, implying $g_1 = g_2$.

Suppose $\int_{0}^{\infty} \exp\{ -(k_t * g_1)(x) \} \, dt = \int_{0}^{\infty} \exp\{-(k_t * g_2)(x)\} \, dt$ for all $x$. By the mean value theorem for integrals, this implies $$ \exp\{ -(k_t * g_1)(x) \} = \exp\{ -(k_t * g_2)(x) \} \quad \forall t, x. $$ Taking logarithms gives $k_t * (g_1 - g_2) = 0$ for all $t, x$, which forces $g_1 = g_2$. Hence, $T$ is injective. Is this correct?

sam wolfe
  • 3,465
  • Interesting problem, can you explain how the physics of the problem is related to the wave equation? (It seems like the convolution satisfies something close to it) – K. Grammatikos Feb 04 '25 at 20:47
  • @K.Grammatikos $f$ is the expected time of crystallization in a 1D crystallization process with nucleation rate given by $g$. The derivation is not relevant to this question, but if you are interested look for KJMA theory. Any thoughts on the proof? – sam wolfe Feb 04 '25 at 22:11
  • I am not sure about your step "By the mean value theorem for integrals". What I can say using it is that there exists one $t_1(x)$ and one $t_2(x)$ (not necessarily the same) such that $(k_{t_1} * g_1)(x) = (k_{t_2} * g_2)(x)$ for every $x$... – Thomas Lehéricy Feb 10 '25 at 16:25
  • I see you have posted questions in the same vein: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/5020070/is-this-transform-invertible and https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/5024364/how-to-invert-a-tent-convolution – Thomas Lehéricy Feb 10 '25 at 16:29
  • @ThomasLehéricy Indeed, but slightly differently framed. I am happy to close the second linked question if I get to a reliable answer on this one. – sam wolfe Feb 10 '25 at 16:47
  • Correction/addendum to my earlier comment: the mean value theorem assumes that you consider the integral on a compact set. Here, on $[0,\infty)$, I do not think it can apply. – Thomas Lehéricy Feb 10 '25 at 17:12
  • @ThomasLehéricy I believe you're right. Thank you for pointing that out. Is there any way around it? I figure I might be close to it, but alternatively constructing an example where injectivity fails would be equally appreciated. – sam wolfe Feb 10 '25 at 17:48
  • Do you have any boundedness assumption on g? If g is not bounded from below enough (just take g=0) then f is infinity. – Liding Yao Feb 16 '25 at 00:01
  • @LidingYao Assume $g>0$. – sam wolfe Feb 16 '25 at 00:17

0 Answers0