Abstract
By using the symmetry of the Dunkl Laplacian operator, we prove a sharp Shannon-type inequality and a logarithmic Sobolev inequality for the Dunkl transform. Combining these inequalities, we obtain a new, short proof for Heisenberg-type uncertainty principles in the Dunkl setting. Moreover, by combining Nash’s inequality, Carlson’s inequality and Sobolev’s embedding theorems for the Dunkl transform, we prove new uncertainty inequalities involving the -norm. Finally, we obtain a logarithmic Sobolev inequality in -spaces, from which we derive an -Heisenberg-type uncertainty inequality and an -Nash-type inequality for the Dunkl transform.
1. Introduction
Let , be the the Dunkl operators (see [1]) associated to arbitrary finite reflection group G and non-negative multiplicity function k. These are differential-difference operators generalizing the usual partial derivatives. The Dunkl kernel on associated with G and k, introduced by C. F. Dunkl in [2], generalizes the usual exponential function (to which it reduces in the case ). This kernel is especially of interest as it gives rise to an integral transformation on associated with G, k and to the weight measure (where is the weight function given in (23)). It is called the Dunkl transform , and it is defined on by:
where is the Mehta-type constant given in (24), and and are the Banach spaces consisting of measurable functions f on equipped with the norms:
The Dunkl transform extends uniquely to an isometric isomorphism on . In particular, if , then the Dunkl operators are the usual partial derivatives and the Dunkl kernel is the usual exponential function so that the Dunkl transform is exactly the usual Fourier transform defined by,
This is why the Dunkl transform can be considered one of the deformed Fourier transforms (see e.g., [3] for other deformed Fourier transforms). Moreover, if is a radial function on , then
where , , is the Hankel transform (also known as the Fourier-Bessel transform) defined by (see [4]),
where is the spherical Bessel function (see [5]), and is the gamma function.
In order to present our result, let , and be the weighted Lebesgue spaces, and let , be the Dunkl–Sobolev space on . Then we prove the following new Heisenberg-type uncertainty inequalities for the Dunkl transform.
Theorem 1.
Let.
- 1.
- If, then there exists a constantsuch that for every nonzero function,
- 2.
- If, then there exists a constantsuch that for every nonzero function,
The proof of these inequalities is based on Nash’s inequality [6] (Proposition 3.2) and Carlson’s inequality [6] (Proposition 3.3) for the Dunkl transform, combined with the following new inequalities:
- 1.
- For all , and ,
- 2.
- For all and ,
Theorem 1 is a variation of the following uncertainty inequalities (see [6,7]):
- 1.
- There exists a constant such that for all ,
- 2.
- There exists a constant such that for all ,
Heisenberg-type uncertainty inequalities (6) and (7) are related to Inequality (11), since in both cases the proof is based on Nash’s inequality and Carlson’s inequality for the Dunkl transform. Unfortunately, these three inequalities are not sharp, and the best constants and extremal functions remained unknown until now. However, the proof of Heisenberg-type uncertainty inequality (10) can be obtained from either the Faris-type local uncertainty principle [7] (Theorem A) or from the Benedicks–Amrein–Berthier uncertainty principle [7] (Theorem B). Moreover, the sharp constant in (10) is well known only for the special case , and it is equal to ; equality in (10) occurs if and only if for some , and (see [8,9,10]).
Our second result will be the following sharp Shannon-type and logarithmic Sobolev inequalities for the Dunkl transform.
Theorem 2.
Let.
- 1.
- There exists an optimal constantsuch that for all nonzero,
- 2.
- If, then there exists a positive constantsuch that for all nonzero f belongs to,
- 3.
- There exists a positive constantsuch that for all nonzero,
Shannon-type inequality (12) is sharp, and the constant that appears in (13) is the optimal constant of the following Sobolev-type inequality for the Dunkl transform (see [11]): For all ,
More generally (see [11] (Theorem 1.1)), if , and if , then there exists a constant such that for all f in the Dunkl–Sobolev space
we have
Using the sharp Shannon’s inequality (12) and the logarithmic Sobolev inequality (13) we derive for , the well known sharp Heisenberg’s uncertainty inequality for the Dunkl transform (see [9]) is:
Next, from the Sobolev-type inequality (16), we prove the following -logarithmic Sobolev inequality.
Theorem 3.
Consequently, we obtain the following -Heisenberg-type uncertainty inequality and -Nash-type inequality for the Dunkl transform.
Theorem 4.
- 1.
- If, then there exists a constantsuch that for all,
- 2.
- If, then for all,
The remainder of this paper is arranged as follows: in the next section we recall some useful results associated to the Dunkl transform. In Section 3, we prove a sharp Shannon-type inequality, and in Section 4, we prove some new logarithmic Sobolev inequalities. Section 4 is devoted to the study of a Nash-type inequality. Connecting the previous results, we give an application of the uncertainty principle, showing some new Heisenberg-type uncertainty inequalities.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Notation
Let us denote by the scalar product and by the Euclidean norm on .
We denote by the space of essentially bounded functions on , equipped with the standard essential supremum norm defined by: For all ,
We denote by the set of compactly supported, infinitely differentiable functions on , and by we denote the space of continuous functions f on , vanishing at infinity.
We denote by the Schwartz space, constituted by the infinitely differentiable functions on , rapidly decreasing together with all their derivatives.
2.2. The Dunkl Transform
Let us fix some notation and present some necessary material on the Dunkl theory, which can be found in [2,12,13]. Let G be a finite reflection group on , associated with a root system R, and will be the positive subsystem of R. We denote by k a non-negative multiplicity function defined on R, with the property that k is G-invariant. We denote by the order of the reflection group associated to the root system R. We associate with k the index
and the weight function defined by
Further, we introduce the Mehta-type constant by
Moreover,
where is the Lebesgue measure on the unit sphere of .
If is a radial function, that is , then function defined on is integrable with respect to the measure , and we have,
Introduced by Dunkl in [1], the Dunkl operators , on associated with the reflection group G and the multiplicity function k are the first-order differential-difference operators given by
where f is an infinitely differentiable function on , , being the canonical basis of , and denotes the reflection with respect to the hyperplane orthogonal to .
We will denote by the Dunkl gradient. Note that for , the Dunkl operators reduce to partial derivatives, and is the usual gradient.
The Dunkl kernel on has been introduced by Dunkl in [2]; that is, for , the function can be viewed as the solution on of the following initial problem:
Therefore, for all , and , we have,
The Dunkl transform associated with G and k is defined for an integrable function f by:
Then, by (29) we have,
It is well known that if , then is a bounded continuous function on , and according to the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma for the Dunkl transform: as (i.e., . If, in addition, is in , then the inverse Dunkl transform is defined for almost every by:
The Dunkl transform is an isomorphism from into itself. In particular, the Dunkl transform can be extended to an isometric isomorphism from onto itself, satisfying the following Plancherel formula: For all , we have
By using the Riesz–Thorin theorem and Inequalities (31) and (33), we have
where is the conjugate index of p. Then the Dunkl transform can be extended to a bounded linear operator from to if and only if .
Finally, we define the dilation operator , by
Then for all , we have
3. Sharp Shannon-Type Inequality
Following Shannon (see [15]), the entropy of a probability density function on is defined by
In this section, we continue the study of the sharp Shannon-type inequality in the Dunkl setting started in [16]. First, we consider the weighted Lebesgue spaces , and by
where , for (cf. [16]). Notice that if , we have:
Then f and belong to . On the other hand, if and are in , then
Hence,
Moreover, we have the following result.
Lemma 1.
Let and let . Then there exists a positive constant such that for all ,
Proof.
This completes the proof. □
Remark 1.
From the previous lemma, if , then for all ,
This means that
In particular, we have if and
In the following, we recall the sharp Beckner-type logarithmic inequality proved in [16] (Theorem 6.1).
Theorem 5.
Let. Then for all nonzero,
where
is the sharp constant, and equality holds if and only if
Consequently, by following the same process as in [17], we derive the following Shannon-type inequality in the Dunkl setting.
Corollary 1.
Let . Then for all nonzero ,
where
Proof.
Let such that . Then by Inequality (48) and Jensen’s inequality,
Now let , , the function is defined by:
Minimizing the right-hand side of the last inequality with , we get
Moreover, we have the following improvement:
Theorem 6.
Let. Then for any nonzero, we have
where
is the sharp constant, and it is attained byup to dilation, whereis given by
Proof.
Let be a nonzero function such that , and let function satisfy . Then by Jensen’s inequality,
Therefore,
By optimizing (61) with , we have
Hence,
where .
Remark 2.
The constant in the Shannon-type inequality (51) coincides with the sharp constant of the Shannon-type inequality (57) for large enough . In fact, from Stirling’s approximation
we have for . Moreover, the optimal Shannon-type inequality (57) can be written as
Now, if , then . Thus by (57), we have for all and all
Moreover, from Theorem 5, we have for all and all
As a corollary of Theorem 6, we obtain the following:
Corollary 2.
Let and . Then for any non-negative function
where , and the constant on the right-hand side is the best possible and is given by (58).
4. Nash-Type and Logarithmic Sobolev-Type Inequalities and Applications
For , we consider the Dunkl–Sobolev space on (cf. [14]) defined by
or equivalently (by Plancherel’s Formula (33))
Noting that if , then and are in . Therefore, from (47), is in if . Thus, it follows from the Riemann–Lebesgue lemma that f is uniformly continuous on , vanishing at infinity. If, in addition (e.g., if ), then by the inverse Dunkl transform Theorem (32), f is almost everywhere equal to a function in . Moreover, we have the following Sobolev’s embedding theorem:
Proposition 1
(Sobolev’s embedding theorem). If , then for all ,
Moreover, there exists a constant such that for all ,
where
Proof.
Let . Then by the inversion formula for the Dunkl transform, we have
Therefore, by the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and by (33),
Thus
Now replacing f by in the last inequality, we obtain
Minimizing the right-hand side with
we obtain the desired result. □
Remark 3.
We recall that the inhomogeneous Dunkl–Sobolev spaces endowed with the norm
and the homogeneous Dunkl–Sobolev spaces defined in a similar way by replacing with in (77) have been defined and studied in [18]. The fact that is a simple consequence of Plancherel’s identity.
When , Sobolev’s embedding theorem in the Dunkl setting follows from Hölder’s inequality and the Hausdorff–Young inequality (34). Indeed, if , then
Hence, for and , we have
In particular, for and ,
4.1. New Heisenberg-Type Uncertainty Inequalities
In this section, we revisit and prove new Heisenberg-type uncertainty principles for the Dunkl transform. The first result is the following well-known uncertainty inequality (see [8,9,10]).
Theorem 7.
For every ,
with equality if and only if for some and .
It is also well known that by using a dilation argument the last inequality is equivalent to the following sharp additive uncertainty inequality (see e.g., [9] (Theorem 1.1)):
with equality if and only if for some .
More generally, we recall the following results (see [6,7]):
Theorem 8.
Let.
- 1.
- There exists a constantsuch that for all,
- 2.
- There exists a constantsuch that for all,
Notice that if the time dispersion (or ) or the frequency dispersion are not finite, then the last inequalities are trivial. Hence we may assume that in Inequalities (80)–(82), and in Inequality (83).
The Proof of Inequality (82) can be obtained from either the Faris-type local uncertainty inequalities [7] (Theorem A) or from the Benedicks–Amrein–Berthier uncertainty principle [7] (Theorem B). The Proof of Inequality (83) can be obtained by combining the following Nash-type inequality [6] (Proposition 3.2) and Carlson-type inequality [6] (Proposition 3.3) in the Dunkl setting:
Proposition 2.
Let .
- 1.
- A Carlson-type inequality: There exists a positive constantsuch that for all,
- 2.
- A Nash-type inequality: There exists a positive constantsuch that for all,
In [6], we have proved that the Nash-type inequality (85) is a key tool in proving uncertainty inequalities for the Dunkl transform. Moreover, from Lemma 1 and the Nash-type inequality (85), we can give another proof of the Heisenberg-type uncertainty inequality (82) (only for ).
Corollary 3.
Letand. Then
- 1.
- There exists a positive constantsuch that for all, the time-dispersion satisfies
- 2.
- There exists a positive constantsuch that for all, the frequency-dispersion satisfies
- 3.
- There exists a positive constantsuch that for all
Proof.
Let be a nonzero function. Then from Lemma 1, the function f belongs in , and
Remark 4.
The last corollary is valid only for (not for all ), but it is stronger than Inequality (82), since here Inequalities (86) and (87) give separate lower bounds for the values of the time-dispersion and the frequency-dispersion , which give more information than the lower bound of the product between them in Heisenberg’s inequality (82).
Moreover, we have the following new uncertainty inequalities involving and norms.
Theorem 9.
Let.
- 1.
- If, then there exists a positive constantsuch that for every nonzero,
- 2.
- If, then there exists a positive constantsuch that for every nonzero,
4.2. Logarithmic Sobolev Inequalities and the Uncertainty Principles
First recall the Sobolev-type inequality for the Dunkl transform, recently proved in [11] (Theorem 1.1, Theorem 6.1).
Theorem 10.
Suppose that , and let . Then for all ,
where is the sharp constant given by
Then we have the following logarithmic Sobolev inequality.
Corollary 4.
Let . Then for all nonzero ,
where is the constant given in (95).
Now, using the asymptote of the sharp Shannon’s inequality (57) and the sharp Sobolev inequality (94), we derive the sharp Heisenberg’s uncertainty inequality (80).
Corollary 5.
Let . Then there exists a positive constant such that for all f belonging to , we have
where
Moreover, for , we have the sharp inequality
Proof.
Let be a nonzero function. Then, from (68), for we have
Moreover, by (96), we have
Thus
Then by Stirling’s approximation
we have for
Thus for ,
which is the sharp constant in Heisenberg’s inequality (80). □
Now from [16] (Theorem 6.2) we have the following Beckner-type inequality for the Dunkl transform, although not with the sharp constant c.
Theorem 11.
For any nonzero , we have
This inequality is stronger than Inequality (96) since it implies the following logarithmic Sobolev inequality.
Corollary 6.
Let . Then there exists a constant such that for all nonzero ,
Proof.
For any nonzero function , set the measure by
Then, by Jensen’s inequality and Plancherel’s Frmula (33),
Thus by Inequality (110), we obtain the desired result, with . □
The last result allows us to give a new, short proof for Heisenberg’s Inequality (82).
Corollary 7.
Let . Then there exists a positive constant such that for every , we have
Following we give another formulation for the logarithmic Sobolev inequality (96).
Proposition 3.
Let For any and , the following inequality holds
where
Proof.
Moreover, if we introduce a parameter we have
Remark 5.
- 1.
- One can chooseand obtain the following inequalityand then the inequality does not depend on the dimension.
- 2.
- We can derive (96) from (116). Indeed, we optimize the parameter appearing in Proposition 3, and then the equivalent form of (116) is the inequality (96). More precisely, we setand optimize the right-hand side with the parameterSinceand the minimum ofis realized bywiththen the minimum of the right-hand side is
Now we will study the logarithmic Sobolev inequalities on the space defined by
The sharp Sobolev inequality implies the following sharp logarithmic Sobolev inequality.
Theorem 12.
Let For any , the following inequality holds
The constant in the right-hand side is the best possible, and it is attained on the closure of a Weyl chamber by for any .
Proof.
Let , and for simplicity we assume that By (96), we have
where is the best possible constant for the Dunkl–Sobolev inequality given by (95). Plugging for with and into (122) and noticing and we see that
By using the Stirling formula: , as , we obtain
Letting , we obtain the sharp inequality (121).
To see the optimality, we take , and by simple calculations we derive the result. □
Remark 6.
The equality is attained on the closure of a Weyl chamber by .
Corollary 8.
Let For any non-negative with it holds that
The constant in the right-hand side is the best possible, and it is attained on closure of a Weyl chamber by with
Remark 7.
The resulting inequality can be seen by the following normalized form:
for any non-negative f with and
We end this section by involving the logarithmic Sobolev inequality on the space with the Gaussian measure.
Theorem 13
(The Gaussian logarithmic Sobolev inequality). Let and 0. For any non-negative function g and any G invariant and satisfying , we have
where
5. -Nash-Type and Uncertainty Inequalities
Let , and let . Then from [11] (Theorem 1.1)), there exists a constant such that for all :
This inequality extends naturally to the Dunkl–Sobolev space (see also [19,20])
Then we have the following -logarithmic Sobolev inequality.
Theorem 14.
Proof.
This proof is inspired by [21]. Let s be a real number such that , and let be a function such that , by which is a probability measure. Then by Hölder’s inequality, we have
where
Then , and since , we have
Thus by the Sobolev inequality (129), we obtain
Hence,
The density argument completes the proof. □
Remark 8.
Hence, we derive the following -Heisenberg uncertainty inequality for the Dunkl transform.
Corollary 9.
Let . Then for all , we have
where
Proof.
Thus
Therefore,
which implies that
Replacing f with in the last inequality, we obtain the result. □
It’s well know that Sobolev’s inequality and Nash’s inequality are equivalent (see e.g., [11,23,24]). The Nash-type inequality (85) (for and with the assumption ) can be derived from the Sobolev-type inequality (94) by using only Hölder’s inequality (see [11] (Theorem 4.2)). Now we will use the -logarithmic Sobolev inequality (130) and the techniques of Beckner in [24] to derive an -Nash-type inequality for the Dunkl transform.
Corollary 10.
Proof.
Let , and let such that . Then, by Jensen’s inequality and the -logarithmic Sobolev inequality (130),
Then
Now replacing f with in the last inequality, we obtain
as desired. □
Remark 9.
If instead of the -logarithmic Sobolev inequality (130) we use the logarithmic Sobolev inequality (96) in the last proof, we obtain, with the assumption ,
where is the sharp constant in Sobolev’s inequality (96) given by (95). Therefore the optimal constant in the Nash-type inequality (145) should be for .
Theorem 15.
Let . For any non-negative function such that belongs to , we have
where is the best possible constant, and it is attained by with
Proof.
Involving the fact that Green’s identity in the Dunkl setting (cf. [1,14]) and Hölder’s inequality, we get
Remark 10.
We illustrate a different method using the logarithmic Sobolev inequality and the generalized version of the Shannon inequality in . Firstly, we recall the following results from [11].
Theorem 16.
Assume that . Let . Then for any , we have
where
Moreover, the constant is sharp, and equality is achieved if and only if f is supported on the closure of a Weyl chamber, where it takes the form , where .
Remark 11.
Assume that , and let . We have (see [11])
where is the constant defined by (149), and .
We proceed as in the proof of Theorem 14, and, involving (148), we get the following inequality:
Theorem 17.
Proof.
From Theorem 6 with , we have
where
Namely,
or equivalently
The proof is complete. □
Let p and q be two positive reals (not necessarily Hölder conjugate exponents). We proceed as in Theorem 15 to derive a generalized version of the uncertainty principle.
Proposition 4.
Theorem 18
(Generalized uncertainty principle). Let and For any non-negative function with , it holds
where and denote and respectively.
6. Conclusions
We have obtained new Heisenberg-type uncertainty principles, new Shannon’s inequalities and new logarithmic Sobolev inequalities for functions in certain weighted Lebesgue spaces in the Dunkl setting. Moreover we have given another, short proof of some known results.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, S.G. and H.M.; methodology, S.G. and H.M.; software, S.G. and H.M.; validation, S.G. and H.M.; formal analysis, S.G. and H.M.; investigation, S.G. and H.M.; resources, S.G. and H.M.; data curation, S.G. and H.M.; writing original draft preparation, S.G.; writing—review and editing, H.M.; visualization, S.G. and H.M.; supervision, S.G. and H.M.; project administration, S.G.; funding acquisition, S.G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was supported through the Annual Funding track by the Deanship of Scientific Research, Vice Presidency for Graduate Studies and Scientific Research, King Faisal University, Saudi Arabia [Project No. AN000319].
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Dunkl, C.F. Differential-difference operators associated to reflection groups. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 1989, 311, 16–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunkl, C.F. Integral kernels with reflection group invariance. Can. J. Math. 1991, 43, 1213–1227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Said, S.B.; Kobayashi, T.; Orsted, B. Laguerre semigroup and Dunkl operators. Compos. Math. 2012, 148, 1265–1336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hirschman, I.I. Variation diminishing Hankel transforms. J. Anal. Math. 1960, 8, 307–336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Watson, G.N. A Treatise on the Theory of Bessel Functions; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1944. [Google Scholar]
- Ghobber, S. Uncertainty principles involving L1-norms for the Dunkl transform. Integral Transform. Spec. Funct. 2013, 24, 491–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghobber, S.; Jaming, P. Uncertainty principles for integral operators. Studia Math. 2014, 220, 197–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ghobber, S. Shapiro’s uncertainty principle in the Dunkl setting. Bull. Aust. Math. Soc. 2015, 92, 98–110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rösler, M. An uncertainty principle for the Dunkl transform. Bull. Austs. Math. Soc. 1999, 59, 353–360. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shimeno, N. A note on the uncertainty principle for the Dunkl transform. J. Math. Sci. Univ. Tokyo 2001, 8, 33–42. [Google Scholar]
- Velicu, A. Sobolev-type inequalities for Dunkl operators. J. Funct. Anal. 2020, 279, 108695. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- de Jeu, M.F.E. The Dunkl transform. Invent. Math. 1993, 113, 147–162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dunkl, C.F. Hankel transforms associated to finite reflexion groups. Contemp. Math. 1992, 138, 123–138. [Google Scholar]
- Mejjaoli, H.; Trimèche, K. Hypoellipticity and hypoanalyticity of the Dunkl Laplacian operator. Integ. Transf. Special Funct. 2004, 15, 523–548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shannon, C.E. A mathematical theory of communication. Bell Syst. Tech. J. 1948, 27, 379–423, 623–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mejjaoli, H.; Sraieb, N. New uncertainty principles for the Dunkl wavelet transform. Int. J. Open Probl. Complex Anal. 2020, 13, 51–75. [Google Scholar]
- Kubo, H.; Ogawa, T.; Suguro, T. Beckner type of the logarithmic Sobolev and a new type of Shannon’s inequalities and an application to the uncertainty principle. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 2019, 147, 1511–1518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mejjaoli, H. Generalized Lorentz spaces and applications, J. Funct. Spaces Appl. 2013, 14, 302941. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Amri, B.; Sifi, M. Riesz transforms For Dunkl transform. Ann. Math. Blaise Pascal 2012, 19, 247–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Velicu, A. Logarithmic Sobolev inequalities for Dunkl operators with applications to functional inequalities for singular Boltzmann-Gibbs measures. arXiv 2020, arXiv:1910.06857v2. [Google Scholar]
- Park, Y.J. Derivation of logarithmic Sobolev trace inequalities, J. Chungcheong Math. Soc. 2019, 32, 239–243. [Google Scholar]
- Jones, F. Lebesgue Integration on Euclidean Space; John and Bartlett Publishers: Burlington, MA, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Bakry, D.; Coulhon, T.; Ledoux, M.; Saloff-Coste, L. Sobolev inequalities in disguise. Indiana Univ. Math. J. 1995, 44, 1033–1074. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Beckner, W. Geometric asymptotics and the logarithmic Sobolev inequality. Forum Math. 1999, 11, 105–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).