11
$\begingroup$

A norm on a real algebra is supermultiplicative when $\lVert f\cdot g\rVert\geq\lVert f\rVert\cdot\lVert g\rVert$ for all $f$ and $g$ in the algebra.

Is there a supermultiplicative norm on $\mathbb R[x]$?

This is a one-sided form of my previous question. An answer to either question could provide an answer to the other.

I suspect that the norm given by $\Big\lVert\sum_ka_kx^k\Big\rVert=\max_k(k!|a_k|)$, or equivalently by $\Big\lVert\sum_ka_kx^k/k!\Big\rVert=\max_k|a_k|$, is a multiple of a supermultiplicative norm (so $\lVert f\cdot g\rVert\geq C\lVert f\rVert\lVert g\rVert$ for some constant $C>0$). Is this true?

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Why don’t you take the $(x)$-adic norm? Write $f(x)\in\Bbb R[x]$ in the form $x^mg(x)$, with $g(0)\ne0$. Then set $\Vert f\Vert=e^{-m}$, and of course $\Vert0\Vert=0$. $\endgroup$
    – Lubin
    Commented Apr 25, 2022 at 1:42
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @Lubin The norm should be absolutely homogeneous. $\endgroup$ Commented Apr 25, 2022 at 2:41
  • $\begingroup$ The quantity $\| f \|_0 = \lambda \max_k k! |a_k|$ that you proposed is not submultiplicative for any $\lambda > 0$. For example, for $f_k = x^k$ is would imply $\|f_k \cdot f_k\|_0 = \lambda (2k)!$, but $\|f_k\|_0^2 = \lambda (k!)^2$, and the ratio $\|f_k \cdot f_k\|_0/\|f_k\|_0^2$ is not bounded by 1 as it needs to be. $\endgroup$ Commented May 3, 2022 at 14:53
  • $\begingroup$ @HansEngler - Here I don't care about submultiplicativity. $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Commented May 3, 2022 at 14:55
  • $\begingroup$ I want the ratio to be bounded below, not bounded above. $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Commented May 3, 2022 at 14:56

1 Answer 1

2
+200
$\begingroup$

(1) Yes, there are supermultiplicative norms. (2) No, no positive multiple of the norm defined by $\Big\lVert\sum_ka_kx^k\Big\rVert=\max_k(k!|a_k|)$ is supermultiplicative.

Proofs:

(1) We’ll construct a norm of the form $\|\sum a_kx^k\|=\max_k(c_k|a_k|).$ We construct the $c_k$ to ensure supermultiplicativity, with a slightly stronger property to help the induction.

Take $c_0=c_1=\tfrac 1 2.$ For each $n\geq 1,$ suppose for induction that we have constructed $c_0,\dots,c_n>0$ such that, if we define a seminorm by $\|\sum a_kx^k\|_n=\max_{k\leq n}(c_k|a_k|),$ then $$\|fg\|_n\geq (1+2^{-\deg(fg)})\|f\|_n\cdot\|g\|_n\tag{†}$$ holds whenever $0\leq \deg(fg)\leq n.$

Consider the set $S$ of pairs of polynomials $(f,g)$ such that: $\deg(f),\deg(g)\leq n,$ and $\deg(fg)\leq n+1,$ and $\|f\|_n=\|g\|_n=1,$ and $\|fg\|_n\leq 1+2^{-(n+1)}.$ The set $S$ is compact (with the “usual” topology, as a subspace of a finite dimensional vector space). Let $m$ be the minimum absolute value of the coefficient of $x^{n+1}$ in $f(x)g(x),$ over all $(f,g)\in S.$ This is attained by compactness of $S.$ We must have $m\neq 0,$ because $m=0$ would imply (†) which contradicts $(f,g)\in S.$ Taking $c_{n+1}=(1+2^{-(n+1)})/m$ works: (†) holds with $n$ replaced by $n+1.$ (We only needed to check factors of degree $\leq n$ because (†) holds when $f$ or $g$ is constant and $c_0\leq \tfrac 1 2.$)

(2) Consider $f_N(x)=\prod_{n=1}^N(1-x/\pi n)$ and $g_N(x)=xf_N(-x)=x\prod_{n=1}^N(1+x/\pi n).$ The $x$ coefficient of $f_N(x)$ tends to $-\infty$ as $N\to\infty,$ and similarly the $x^2$ coefficient of $g_N(x)$ tends to $\infty.$ So $\|f_N\|\cdot\|g_N\|$ is unbounded.

But $\|f_Ng_N\|\leq 1.$ Let $a_{N,k}$ be the $x^k$ coefficient of $f_N(x)g_N(x)=x \prod_{n=1}^N(1-x^2/\pi^2 n^2).$ If we expand the product, all the terms contributing to $a_{N,k}$ have the same sign: there are no terms for even $k$ and the sign for odd $k$ is the same as $(-1)^{(k-1)/2}.$ So $|a_{N,k}|$ converges from below. The sequence $f_Ng_N$ converges locally uniformly to $\sin x$ - this is a standard exercise with the Hadamard factorization thorem. Locally uniform convergence gives convergence of Taylor series coefficients by Cauchy’s differentiation formula. Hence $|a_{N,k}|\leq 1/k!$ as required.

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ And $S$ is not empty; it contains $(x/c_1,x^n/c_n)$, because $\lVert x^{n+1}\rVert_n=0$. $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Commented May 10, 2022 at 19:08
  • $\begingroup$ Does it even matter what $c_1$ is? ...No; we can replace each $c_k$ by $c_kb^k$, for any constant $b>0$. This has the same effect as scaling $x$, which is an isomorphism of $\mathbb R[x]$, thus preserving supermultiplicativity. $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Commented May 10, 2022 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ What do you think of the linked question? $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 19:46
  • $\begingroup$ @mr_e_man: it seems like a fine question, but I don’t have anything useful to say $\endgroup$ Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 20:48
  • $\begingroup$ You can't think of a way to strengthen this answer, to get upper bounds as well as lower bounds? $\endgroup$
    – mr_e_man
    Commented Dec 8, 2022 at 20:53

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .