Proving continuity and boundedness of the Fourier Transform The Next CEO of Stack OverflowFourier transform (properties)Define The Improper Integral in Fourier TransformFinding Fourier Transform with Special PropertiesIntegrable Fourier transform implies continuityBoundedness of Fourier transformFourier transform of $frac1sqrt1 + x^2$Continuity of fourier transform with complex argumentProving Uniform Continuity of Fourier transform (Related to measure theory)Fourier transform and lebesgue integralNon trivial condition for continuity of multivariable Fourier transform

Why do we use the plural of movies in this phrase "We went to the movies last night."?

Example of a Mathematician/Physicist whose Other Publications during their PhD eclipsed their PhD Thesis

What flight has the highest ratio of time difference to flight time?

Are there any limitations on attacking while grappling?

What does convergence in distribution "in the Gromov–Hausdorff" sense mean?

Do I need to enable Dev Hub in my PROD Org?

Is it possible to search for a directory/file combination?

Why didn't Khan get resurrected in the Genesis Explosion?

What happens if you roll doubles 3 times then land on "Go to jail?"

Help understanding this unsettling image of Titan, Epimetheus, and Saturn's rings?

Real integral using residue theorem - why doesn't this work?

Bold, vivid family

Is there an analogue of projective spaces for proper schemes?

How do I go from 300 unfinished/half written blog posts, to published posts?

What happened in Rome, when the western empire "fell"?

How do scammers retract money, while you can’t?

Is there a way to save my career from absolute disaster?

I believe this to be a fraud - hired, then asked to cash check and send cash as Bitcoin

What can we do to stop prior company from asking us questions?

Received an invoice from my ex-employer billing me for training; how to handle?

sp_blitzCache results Memory grants

In excess I'm lethal

What is the result of assigning to std::vector<T>::begin()?

Can you replace a racial trait cantrip when leveling up?



Proving continuity and boundedness of the Fourier Transform



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowFourier transform (properties)Define The Improper Integral in Fourier TransformFinding Fourier Transform with Special PropertiesIntegrable Fourier transform implies continuityBoundedness of Fourier transformFourier transform of $frac1sqrt1 + x^2$Continuity of fourier transform with complex argumentProving Uniform Continuity of Fourier transform (Related to measure theory)Fourier transform and lebesgue integralNon trivial condition for continuity of multivariable Fourier transform










2












$begingroup$



Let $fin L^1(mathbb R^d)$. Define the Fourier transform of $f$ by $$hatf(y)=int_mathbb R^df(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y,dx,,,,(yinmathbb R^d).$$
Show that $hatf:mathbb R^dtomathbbC$ is a continuous function and $|hatf|_inftyleq|f|_1.$




$textbfMy Attempt:$ First we prove continuity. Let $yinmathbb R^d$ be arbitrary but fixed, and let $(y_n)_nsubsetmathbb R^d$ such that $y_nto y$ as $ntoinfty$. Then for every $xinmathbb R^d$ we have that $f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y_nto f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y$ as $ntoinfty$, since the function $ymapsto e^-2pi ixcdot y$ is continuous. Now observe that $vert f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y_nvertleqvert f(x)vert$ for all $xinmathbb R^d.$ Therefore by the Dominated convergence theorem, it follows that $$limlimits_ntoinftyhatf(y_n)=int_mathbb R^df(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y,dx=hatf(y).$$ Since $yinmathbb R^d$ was arbitrary, the function $hatf:mathbb R^dtomathbbC$ is continuous.



Now we prove that $|hatf|_inftyleq|f|_1.$ Note that for all $yinmathbb R^d$ we have $$vert hatf(y)vertleqint_mathbb R^dvert f(x)vertvert e^-2pi ixcdot yvert,dx=|f|_1.$$ Since the above holds for all $yinmathbb R^d$, it follows that $|hat f(y)|_inftyleq|f|_1.$




Do you agree with the my proof?



Any feedback is much welcomed. Thank your for your time.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Sounds right to me...
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Mar 20 at 0:13















2












$begingroup$



Let $fin L^1(mathbb R^d)$. Define the Fourier transform of $f$ by $$hatf(y)=int_mathbb R^df(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y,dx,,,,(yinmathbb R^d).$$
Show that $hatf:mathbb R^dtomathbbC$ is a continuous function and $|hatf|_inftyleq|f|_1.$




$textbfMy Attempt:$ First we prove continuity. Let $yinmathbb R^d$ be arbitrary but fixed, and let $(y_n)_nsubsetmathbb R^d$ such that $y_nto y$ as $ntoinfty$. Then for every $xinmathbb R^d$ we have that $f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y_nto f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y$ as $ntoinfty$, since the function $ymapsto e^-2pi ixcdot y$ is continuous. Now observe that $vert f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y_nvertleqvert f(x)vert$ for all $xinmathbb R^d.$ Therefore by the Dominated convergence theorem, it follows that $$limlimits_ntoinftyhatf(y_n)=int_mathbb R^df(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y,dx=hatf(y).$$ Since $yinmathbb R^d$ was arbitrary, the function $hatf:mathbb R^dtomathbbC$ is continuous.



Now we prove that $|hatf|_inftyleq|f|_1.$ Note that for all $yinmathbb R^d$ we have $$vert hatf(y)vertleqint_mathbb R^dvert f(x)vertvert e^-2pi ixcdot yvert,dx=|f|_1.$$ Since the above holds for all $yinmathbb R^d$, it follows that $|hat f(y)|_inftyleq|f|_1.$




Do you agree with the my proof?



Any feedback is much welcomed. Thank your for your time.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$











  • $begingroup$
    Sounds right to me...
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Mar 20 at 0:13













2












2








2





$begingroup$



Let $fin L^1(mathbb R^d)$. Define the Fourier transform of $f$ by $$hatf(y)=int_mathbb R^df(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y,dx,,,,(yinmathbb R^d).$$
Show that $hatf:mathbb R^dtomathbbC$ is a continuous function and $|hatf|_inftyleq|f|_1.$




$textbfMy Attempt:$ First we prove continuity. Let $yinmathbb R^d$ be arbitrary but fixed, and let $(y_n)_nsubsetmathbb R^d$ such that $y_nto y$ as $ntoinfty$. Then for every $xinmathbb R^d$ we have that $f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y_nto f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y$ as $ntoinfty$, since the function $ymapsto e^-2pi ixcdot y$ is continuous. Now observe that $vert f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y_nvertleqvert f(x)vert$ for all $xinmathbb R^d.$ Therefore by the Dominated convergence theorem, it follows that $$limlimits_ntoinftyhatf(y_n)=int_mathbb R^df(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y,dx=hatf(y).$$ Since $yinmathbb R^d$ was arbitrary, the function $hatf:mathbb R^dtomathbbC$ is continuous.



Now we prove that $|hatf|_inftyleq|f|_1.$ Note that for all $yinmathbb R^d$ we have $$vert hatf(y)vertleqint_mathbb R^dvert f(x)vertvert e^-2pi ixcdot yvert,dx=|f|_1.$$ Since the above holds for all $yinmathbb R^d$, it follows that $|hat f(y)|_inftyleq|f|_1.$




Do you agree with the my proof?



Any feedback is much welcomed. Thank your for your time.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$





Let $fin L^1(mathbb R^d)$. Define the Fourier transform of $f$ by $$hatf(y)=int_mathbb R^df(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y,dx,,,,(yinmathbb R^d).$$
Show that $hatf:mathbb R^dtomathbbC$ is a continuous function and $|hatf|_inftyleq|f|_1.$




$textbfMy Attempt:$ First we prove continuity. Let $yinmathbb R^d$ be arbitrary but fixed, and let $(y_n)_nsubsetmathbb R^d$ such that $y_nto y$ as $ntoinfty$. Then for every $xinmathbb R^d$ we have that $f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y_nto f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y$ as $ntoinfty$, since the function $ymapsto e^-2pi ixcdot y$ is continuous. Now observe that $vert f(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y_nvertleqvert f(x)vert$ for all $xinmathbb R^d.$ Therefore by the Dominated convergence theorem, it follows that $$limlimits_ntoinftyhatf(y_n)=int_mathbb R^df(x)e^-2pi ixcdot y,dx=hatf(y).$$ Since $yinmathbb R^d$ was arbitrary, the function $hatf:mathbb R^dtomathbbC$ is continuous.



Now we prove that $|hatf|_inftyleq|f|_1.$ Note that for all $yinmathbb R^d$ we have $$vert hatf(y)vertleqint_mathbb R^dvert f(x)vertvert e^-2pi ixcdot yvert,dx=|f|_1.$$ Since the above holds for all $yinmathbb R^d$, it follows that $|hat f(y)|_inftyleq|f|_1.$




Do you agree with the my proof?



Any feedback is much welcomed. Thank your for your time.







real-analysis proof-verification fourier-analysis lebesgue-integral fourier-transform






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Mar 18 at 21:32









Gaby AlfonsoGaby Alfonso

1,1881318




1,1881318











  • $begingroup$
    Sounds right to me...
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Mar 20 at 0:13
















  • $begingroup$
    Sounds right to me...
    $endgroup$
    – Mostafa Ayaz
    Mar 20 at 0:13















$begingroup$
Sounds right to me...
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Mar 20 at 0:13




$begingroup$
Sounds right to me...
$endgroup$
– Mostafa Ayaz
Mar 20 at 0:13










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1












$begingroup$

Your proof is correct, but I think it is not the best possible: you use the Dominated convergence theorem, which is quite a strong result, only to prove continuity of the Fourier transform.



Another proof could be based on



$|hatf(y+h)-hatf(y)|=|int_mathbbR^df(x)e^-2pi i xcdot y(e^-2pi ixcdot h-1)|
leqint_mathbbR^d|f(x)||e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$



This equation one has the advantage not do depend on $y$, and from this we deduce that the continuity is uniform (some work is required to show it thought, since $|e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ doesn't go to $0$ uniformly), and we did this without appelling to $hatf$ the Dominated convergence theorem.



For what concerns the boundedness of $hatf$, your proof is perfectly fine.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In my opinion anyone studying Fourier transforms of $L^1$ function should have no hesitation to use DCT, MCT etc. However if we are specifically asked to prove uniform continuity, then your comment on OP's proof is very reasonable.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Mar 18 at 23:47










  • $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy yes, you are right
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 6:08










  • $begingroup$
    Why do you think you've shown the continuity is uniform? $ |e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ is not uniformly small.
    $endgroup$
    – zhw.
    Mar 19 at 18:04











  • $begingroup$
    @zhw. Because the bound on the distance does not depend on $y$ but only on $h$. Thus, for $epsilon>0$ small enough, we can obtain a relation such that $|x-x_0|<h rightarrow |hatf(x)-hatf(x_0)|<epsilon$
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 18:16











  • $begingroup$
    @zhw. The integral will have to be divided in pieces to avoid too much oscillations caused by the dipendence on $x$ ( or maybe using an approximation of $f$ with compact-supported functions), but doing this will result in proving the uniform continuity
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 18:22












Your Answer





StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");

StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3153340%2fproving-continuity-and-boundedness-of-the-fourier-transform%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









1












$begingroup$

Your proof is correct, but I think it is not the best possible: you use the Dominated convergence theorem, which is quite a strong result, only to prove continuity of the Fourier transform.



Another proof could be based on



$|hatf(y+h)-hatf(y)|=|int_mathbbR^df(x)e^-2pi i xcdot y(e^-2pi ixcdot h-1)|
leqint_mathbbR^d|f(x)||e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$



This equation one has the advantage not do depend on $y$, and from this we deduce that the continuity is uniform (some work is required to show it thought, since $|e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ doesn't go to $0$ uniformly), and we did this without appelling to $hatf$ the Dominated convergence theorem.



For what concerns the boundedness of $hatf$, your proof is perfectly fine.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In my opinion anyone studying Fourier transforms of $L^1$ function should have no hesitation to use DCT, MCT etc. However if we are specifically asked to prove uniform continuity, then your comment on OP's proof is very reasonable.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Mar 18 at 23:47










  • $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy yes, you are right
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 6:08










  • $begingroup$
    Why do you think you've shown the continuity is uniform? $ |e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ is not uniformly small.
    $endgroup$
    – zhw.
    Mar 19 at 18:04











  • $begingroup$
    @zhw. Because the bound on the distance does not depend on $y$ but only on $h$. Thus, for $epsilon>0$ small enough, we can obtain a relation such that $|x-x_0|<h rightarrow |hatf(x)-hatf(x_0)|<epsilon$
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 18:16











  • $begingroup$
    @zhw. The integral will have to be divided in pieces to avoid too much oscillations caused by the dipendence on $x$ ( or maybe using an approximation of $f$ with compact-supported functions), but doing this will result in proving the uniform continuity
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 18:22
















1












$begingroup$

Your proof is correct, but I think it is not the best possible: you use the Dominated convergence theorem, which is quite a strong result, only to prove continuity of the Fourier transform.



Another proof could be based on



$|hatf(y+h)-hatf(y)|=|int_mathbbR^df(x)e^-2pi i xcdot y(e^-2pi ixcdot h-1)|
leqint_mathbbR^d|f(x)||e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$



This equation one has the advantage not do depend on $y$, and from this we deduce that the continuity is uniform (some work is required to show it thought, since $|e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ doesn't go to $0$ uniformly), and we did this without appelling to $hatf$ the Dominated convergence theorem.



For what concerns the boundedness of $hatf$, your proof is perfectly fine.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    In my opinion anyone studying Fourier transforms of $L^1$ function should have no hesitation to use DCT, MCT etc. However if we are specifically asked to prove uniform continuity, then your comment on OP's proof is very reasonable.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Mar 18 at 23:47










  • $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy yes, you are right
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 6:08










  • $begingroup$
    Why do you think you've shown the continuity is uniform? $ |e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ is not uniformly small.
    $endgroup$
    – zhw.
    Mar 19 at 18:04











  • $begingroup$
    @zhw. Because the bound on the distance does not depend on $y$ but only on $h$. Thus, for $epsilon>0$ small enough, we can obtain a relation such that $|x-x_0|<h rightarrow |hatf(x)-hatf(x_0)|<epsilon$
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 18:16











  • $begingroup$
    @zhw. The integral will have to be divided in pieces to avoid too much oscillations caused by the dipendence on $x$ ( or maybe using an approximation of $f$ with compact-supported functions), but doing this will result in proving the uniform continuity
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 18:22














1












1








1





$begingroup$

Your proof is correct, but I think it is not the best possible: you use the Dominated convergence theorem, which is quite a strong result, only to prove continuity of the Fourier transform.



Another proof could be based on



$|hatf(y+h)-hatf(y)|=|int_mathbbR^df(x)e^-2pi i xcdot y(e^-2pi ixcdot h-1)|
leqint_mathbbR^d|f(x)||e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$



This equation one has the advantage not do depend on $y$, and from this we deduce that the continuity is uniform (some work is required to show it thought, since $|e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ doesn't go to $0$ uniformly), and we did this without appelling to $hatf$ the Dominated convergence theorem.



For what concerns the boundedness of $hatf$, your proof is perfectly fine.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$



Your proof is correct, but I think it is not the best possible: you use the Dominated convergence theorem, which is quite a strong result, only to prove continuity of the Fourier transform.



Another proof could be based on



$|hatf(y+h)-hatf(y)|=|int_mathbbR^df(x)e^-2pi i xcdot y(e^-2pi ixcdot h-1)|
leqint_mathbbR^d|f(x)||e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$



This equation one has the advantage not do depend on $y$, and from this we deduce that the continuity is uniform (some work is required to show it thought, since $|e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ doesn't go to $0$ uniformly), and we did this without appelling to $hatf$ the Dominated convergence theorem.



For what concerns the boundedness of $hatf$, your proof is perfectly fine.







share|cite|improve this answer














share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Mar 19 at 19:05

























answered Mar 18 at 21:57









Gabriele CasseseGabriele Cassese

1,181316




1,181316











  • $begingroup$
    In my opinion anyone studying Fourier transforms of $L^1$ function should have no hesitation to use DCT, MCT etc. However if we are specifically asked to prove uniform continuity, then your comment on OP's proof is very reasonable.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Mar 18 at 23:47










  • $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy yes, you are right
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 6:08










  • $begingroup$
    Why do you think you've shown the continuity is uniform? $ |e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ is not uniformly small.
    $endgroup$
    – zhw.
    Mar 19 at 18:04











  • $begingroup$
    @zhw. Because the bound on the distance does not depend on $y$ but only on $h$. Thus, for $epsilon>0$ small enough, we can obtain a relation such that $|x-x_0|<h rightarrow |hatf(x)-hatf(x_0)|<epsilon$
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 18:16











  • $begingroup$
    @zhw. The integral will have to be divided in pieces to avoid too much oscillations caused by the dipendence on $x$ ( or maybe using an approximation of $f$ with compact-supported functions), but doing this will result in proving the uniform continuity
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 18:22

















  • $begingroup$
    In my opinion anyone studying Fourier transforms of $L^1$ function should have no hesitation to use DCT, MCT etc. However if we are specifically asked to prove uniform continuity, then your comment on OP's proof is very reasonable.
    $endgroup$
    – Kavi Rama Murthy
    Mar 18 at 23:47










  • $begingroup$
    @KaviRamaMurthy yes, you are right
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 6:08










  • $begingroup$
    Why do you think you've shown the continuity is uniform? $ |e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ is not uniformly small.
    $endgroup$
    – zhw.
    Mar 19 at 18:04











  • $begingroup$
    @zhw. Because the bound on the distance does not depend on $y$ but only on $h$. Thus, for $epsilon>0$ small enough, we can obtain a relation such that $|x-x_0|<h rightarrow |hatf(x)-hatf(x_0)|<epsilon$
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 18:16











  • $begingroup$
    @zhw. The integral will have to be divided in pieces to avoid too much oscillations caused by the dipendence on $x$ ( or maybe using an approximation of $f$ with compact-supported functions), but doing this will result in proving the uniform continuity
    $endgroup$
    – Gabriele Cassese
    Mar 19 at 18:22
















$begingroup$
In my opinion anyone studying Fourier transforms of $L^1$ function should have no hesitation to use DCT, MCT etc. However if we are specifically asked to prove uniform continuity, then your comment on OP's proof is very reasonable.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Mar 18 at 23:47




$begingroup$
In my opinion anyone studying Fourier transforms of $L^1$ function should have no hesitation to use DCT, MCT etc. However if we are specifically asked to prove uniform continuity, then your comment on OP's proof is very reasonable.
$endgroup$
– Kavi Rama Murthy
Mar 18 at 23:47












$begingroup$
@KaviRamaMurthy yes, you are right
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Cassese
Mar 19 at 6:08




$begingroup$
@KaviRamaMurthy yes, you are right
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Cassese
Mar 19 at 6:08












$begingroup$
Why do you think you've shown the continuity is uniform? $ |e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ is not uniformly small.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 19 at 18:04





$begingroup$
Why do you think you've shown the continuity is uniform? $ |e^-2pi i xcdot h-1|$ is not uniformly small.
$endgroup$
– zhw.
Mar 19 at 18:04













$begingroup$
@zhw. Because the bound on the distance does not depend on $y$ but only on $h$. Thus, for $epsilon>0$ small enough, we can obtain a relation such that $|x-x_0|<h rightarrow |hatf(x)-hatf(x_0)|<epsilon$
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Cassese
Mar 19 at 18:16





$begingroup$
@zhw. Because the bound on the distance does not depend on $y$ but only on $h$. Thus, for $epsilon>0$ small enough, we can obtain a relation such that $|x-x_0|<h rightarrow |hatf(x)-hatf(x_0)|<epsilon$
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Cassese
Mar 19 at 18:16













$begingroup$
@zhw. The integral will have to be divided in pieces to avoid too much oscillations caused by the dipendence on $x$ ( or maybe using an approximation of $f$ with compact-supported functions), but doing this will result in proving the uniform continuity
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Cassese
Mar 19 at 18:22





$begingroup$
@zhw. The integral will have to be divided in pieces to avoid too much oscillations caused by the dipendence on $x$ ( or maybe using an approximation of $f$ with compact-supported functions), but doing this will result in proving the uniform continuity
$endgroup$
– Gabriele Cassese
Mar 19 at 18:22


















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3153340%2fproving-continuity-and-boundedness-of-the-fourier-transform%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Popular posts from this blog

How should I support this large drywall patch? Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern) Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?How do I cover large gaps in drywall?How do I keep drywall around a patch from crumbling?Can I glue a second layer of drywall?How to patch long strip on drywall?Large drywall patch: how to avoid bulging seams?Drywall Mesh Patch vs. Bulge? To remove or not to remove?How to fix this drywall job?Prep drywall before backsplashWhat's the best way to fix this horrible drywall patch job?Drywall patching using 3M Patch Plus Primer

random experiment with two different functions on unit interval Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manara Planned maintenance scheduled April 23, 2019 at 00:00UTC (8:00pm US/Eastern)Random variable and probability space notionsRandom Walk with EdgesFinding functions where the increase over a random interval is Poisson distributedNumber of days until dayCan an observed event in fact be of zero probability?Unit random processmodels of coins and uniform distributionHow to get the number of successes given $n$ trials , probability $P$ and a random variable $X$Absorbing Markov chain in a computer. Is “almost every” turned into always convergence in computer executions?Stopped random walk is not uniformly integrable

Lowndes Grove History Architecture References Navigation menu32°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661132°48′6″N 79°57′58″W / 32.80167°N 79.96611°W / 32.80167; -79.9661178002500"National Register Information System"Historic houses of South Carolina"Lowndes Grove""+32° 48' 6.00", −79° 57' 58.00""Lowndes Grove, Charleston County (260 St. Margaret St., Charleston)""Lowndes Grove"The Charleston ExpositionIt Happened in South Carolina"Lowndes Grove (House), Saint Margaret Street & Sixth Avenue, Charleston, Charleston County, SC(Photographs)"Plantations of the Carolina Low Countrye