On the linear polarization constants of finite dimensional spaces
Daniel Carando, Dami\'an Pinasco, Jorge Tom\'as Rodr\'iguez

TL;DR
This paper investigates the asymptotic behavior of linear polarization constants in finite-dimensional Banach spaces, providing precise growth rates for spaces ill_p^d across different p-values.
Contribution
It determines the exact asymptotic behavior of linear polarization constants for ill_p^d spaces, clarifying their growth rates for all p between 1 and infinity.
Findings
Constants grow as d^{1/p} for 1 p 2
Constants grow as d^{1/2} for 2 p < infinity
For p= infinity, asymptotic behavior is established up to a logarithmic factor
Abstract
We study the linear polarization constants of finite dimensional Banach spaces. We obtain the correct asymptotic behaviour of these constants for the spaces : they behave as if and as if . For we get the asymptotic behavior up to a logarithmic factor
Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsAdvanced Banach Space Theory · Holomorphic and Operator Theory · Advanced Harmonic Analysis Research
On the linear polarization constants of finite dimensional spaces
Daniel Carando
Departamento de Matemática - Pab I, Facultad de Cs. Exactas y Naturales, Universidad de Buenos Aires, (1428) Buenos Aires, Argentina and IMAS-CONICET
,
Damián Pinasco
Departamento de Matemáticas y Estadística, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, Av. Figueroa Alcorta 7350, (1428) Buenos Aires, Argentina and CONICET
and
Jorge Tomás Rodríguez
Departamento de Matemática and NUCOMPA, Facultad de Cs. Exactas, Universidad Nacional del Centro de la Provincia de Buenos Aires, (7000) Tandil, Argentina and CONICET
Abstract.
We study the linear polarization constants of finite dimensional Banach spaces. We obtain the correct asymptotic behaviour of these constants for the spaces : they behave as if and as if . For we get the asymptotic behaviour up to a logarithmic factor.
Introduction
Given a Banach space , its th linear polarization constant is defined as the smallest constant such that for any set of linear functionals , we have
[TABLE]
where is the -homogeneous polynomial given by the pointwise product of and is the supremum norm over the unit sphere of Related to this concept the linear polarization constant of is defined as
[TABLE]
The existence of this limit is a result of [RS].
These constants have been studied by several authors. Among the works on this topic, in [RT] the authors proved that for each there is a constant such that for every Banach space . As a corollary of Theorem 3 from [BST] the best possible constant , for complex Banach spaces, is . Arias-de-Reyna proved in [Ar] that if is a *complex *Hilbert space, of dimension greater or equal than , then
[TABLE]
This result holds for real Hilbert spaces and (see Theorem 4.6 in [PPT]), but it is not known if it is true for every natural number .
We recall that the linear polarization constant is infinite for infinite dimensional Banach spaces (see Theorem 12 in [RS]). As a consequence, an interesting problem is to understand how this constant behaves as the dimension of the involved spaces vary. For example, the linear polarization constant of a real -dimensional Hilbert space was obtained by García-Vázquez and Villa in [GV], where they proved that behaves like as goes to infinity. This result was later extended to complex Hilbert spaces by A. Pappas and S. G. Révész in [PR]. For the spaces it is know that (see Proposition 17 of [RS]).
In this article we study the th linear polarization constants, as well as the linear polarization constant of finite dimensional Banach spaces. In the first section we develop a method to estimate the linear polarization constant of a finite dimensional space (see Theorem 1.2). In Section 2, we apply this method to the finite dimensional spaces , obtaining in Theorem 2.1 the following asymptotically optimal results on (the asymptotic notation is explained in Section 2):
[TABLE]
For we obtain
In Section 3 we use a probabilistic approach to estimate the norm of the product of linear functionals with coefficients (in the canonical basis) over the spaces . This allow us to give in Proposition 3.1 some estimates for their th linear polarization constants.
1. Linear polarization constants of finite dimensional spaces
Throughout this work, given a Banach space , and will stand for the unit ball and the unit sphere respectively.
In this section we present a general method for estimating linear polarization constants. In order to state our results, which give lower and upper bounds for these constants, we will define the so–called admissible measures, which are measures that satisfy a rather mild condition.
Definition 1.1**.**
Let be a Banach space and a Borel measure over a Borel subset . We say that is admissible if
[TABLE]
is finite for every and the functions defined as
[TABLE]
converges uniformly to the function , defined as
[TABLE]
For example, for a finite dimensional Hilbert space, the Lebesgue measure over is admissible, since the functions are constant functions that converges to the constant function .
The main result of this section is the following.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Given a finite dimensional Banach space , let and be admissible probability measures over and respectively. Then there is and , depending on and , such that
[TABLE]
We will treat separately the lower and the upper bound, and state both as propositions. Let us first sketch some of the ideas behind the proof, specifically for the lower bound. Since is finite dimensional, by a compactness argument there exist, for each natural number , linear functionals such that
[TABLE]
Take now a point where the function attains its norm, i.e., . Then,
[TABLE]
If we consider the functions defined as and the probability measure over defined as
[TABLE]
then we have:
[TABLE]
The idea now is to take a subsequence such that -converges to some probability measure and such that converges to some . All this will give us an estimate of in terms of and the function , defined as .
Since it is not clear how to find a set of functions satisfying (2) (and then, it is not clear that we can obtain and the estimate for ), the following alternative procedure gives a lower bound for it: we fix a measure beforehand and choose the sets of linear functionals to obtain this particular as the -limit of the measures . These sets of linear functionals may not satisfy (2), but we clearly have
[TABLE]
which is precisely what we need to obtain the desired lower bounds. The sharpness of the bounds thus obtained will depend on the good choice of the probability measure .
Lower bounds in Theorem 1.2
In the sequel, for a measure space and an integrable function we will use the notation
[TABLE]
We need the following auxiliary lemma due to A. Pappas and S. G. Révész (see [PR, Lemma 4]).
Lemma 1.3**.**
Let be any probability measure over There is a sequence of sets of norm one linear functionals over such that
[TABLE]
for any continuous function . In other words, if we consider the measures , the sequence -converges to .
We remark that, although the result in [PR] is stated for a Hilbert space and the normalized Lebesgue measure, the proof works in the more general setting of our statement. Now we are ready to prove the lower estimates for .
Proposition 1.4**.**
Given a finite dimensional Banach space and an admissible probability measure over , there is a point , depending on , such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Take a sequence of sets of norm one of linear functionals as in Lemma 1.3, and consider the measures . Let be a point where attains its norm. We may assume \Big{\|}\prod_{j=1}^{n}\psi_{j}^{n}\Big{\|}^{\frac{1}{n}} converges, otherwise we work with a subsequence. With the same argument we may assume that there is such that . Since
[TABLE]
we need an upper bound for \displaystyle\lim_{n\rightarrow\infty}\Big{\|}\prod_{j=1}^{n}\psi_{j}^{n}\Big{\|}^{\frac{1}{n}}.
For every consider the functions and defined as
[TABLE]
[TABLE]
Using that we obtain
[TABLE]
Fixed , since , it is easy to check that the functions converges uniformly to as . Also, we know that -converges to . This altogether gives that converges to and then
[TABLE]
This holds for arbitrary m. Since is admissible, taking limit on , we obtain
[TABLE]
as desired. ∎
Remark 1.5**.**
In the previous proof we only use from the Definition 1.1 that
[TABLE]
that is, we only needed pointwise convergence for the point , rather than uniform convergence on To see this, it is enough to have
[TABLE]
and apply the Dominated Convergence Theorem.
Upper bounds in Theorem 1.2
For the upper bounds we will obtain a slightly better result, since we will get upper bounds for rather than for . Setting as the sphere in the following proposition we obtain the upper bounds of Theorem 1.2.
Proposition 1.6**.**
Given a finite dimensional Banach space , , and an admissible probability measure over , there is a point , depending on , such that
[TABLE]
Proof.
Consider the function defined as
[TABLE]
We start by showing that is continuous. For every natural number define by
[TABLE]
Given that is admissible, converges uniformly to and therefore, since each is continuous, is continuous. Given that is continuous and is compact, there is a global minimum of .
Recall that is the smallest constant such that
[TABLE]
for any set of linear functionals . So we need to prove that
[TABLE]
Using that is a probability measure and that minimizes , we obtain
[TABLE]
as desired. ∎
Remark 1.7**.**
In the previous proof we used that is admissible only to prove that has a global minimum.
2. Linear polarization constants of spaces
In this section we apply the method developed in the previous section and stated in Theorem 1.2, to estimate the asymptotic behaviour of the linear polarization constants . To describe the asymptotic behaviour of two sequences of positive numbers and we use the notation to indicate that there is a constant such that . The notation means that and . In the following we write for the normalized surface (Lebesgue) measure over the sphere .
When we consider a -dimensional (real or complex) Hilbert space , taking in Theorem 1.2 both measures and to be the normalized Lebesgue measure over , we recover the following result from [PR]:
[TABLE]
Note that, by symmetry, this expression does not depend . If we call
[TABLE]
a standard computation (see [PR]) gives:
[TABLE]
In particular . Moreover, using the fact that increases monotonically to the Euler-Mascheroni constant it is easy to see that for and even
[TABLE]
while for the rest of the cases we get
[TABLE]
In order to apply our results to a -dimensional Banach space , we need good candidates for the measures and . Ideally, the measure on should be induced by a sequence of sets of norm one linear functionals such that
[TABLE]
Since it is not easy to find such functionals, a good guess of their distribution on would be helpful. When is a Hilbert space, due to the symmetry of the sphere, it is natural to believe that they are uniformly distributed across the sphere. And that is a good choice: the measure induced by uniformly distributed functionals is the normalized Lebesgue measure which, as we observed, is an optimal choice of .
But this argument is no longer valid for the spaces with . If , the lack of symmetry of for suggests that the linear functionals will not be uniformly distributed on the sphere. After some reflection, by the geometry of the sphere, one may expect that if , the linear functionals should be more concentrated around the points than around points of the form , with . This is the case for (see [CPR, Theorem 2.4]), or for , as we will see below (see proof of Theorem 2.1, Step II). For we expect the reverse situation.
Then, for the spaces we will choose a measure reflecting the previous reasoning and try to obtain the best possible lower bound, taking into consideration that we will not have control over the vector mentioned in Theorem 1.2.
The following is our main result and gives the asymptotic behaviour of the linear polarization constants as goes to infinity. This extends results of [GV] and [PR] to non-Euclidean spaces. We devote the rest of this section to its proof.
Theorem 2.1**.**
Let . Then,
[TABLE]
For we have the following estimation
[TABLE]
In order to prove Theorem 2.1 we need some auxiliary calculations. Next lemma is essentially contained in Lemma 2.8 from [CGP], but we state it and say a a few words about the proof for completeness.
Lemma 2.2**.**
Given we have
[TABLE]
and for we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
The complex case can be easily deduced from the real case, since the norms of and are equivalent up to a factor which is independent of . The case and is a particular case of Lemma 2.8 from [CGP]. The case and follows just as in the case , considering the Gaussian measure over and using the well known behaviour of the maximum of standard Gaussian variables
[TABLE]
With this lemma we are able to prove the following.
Lemma 2.3**.**
Let . Then
[TABLE]
and for we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
We prove only the real case, since the complex case follows from the real one as in Lemma 2.2. Let us start with the upper bound and , using Jensen’s inequality and relation (6.2) from the proof of Theorem 6.1 in [Pi]
[TABLE]
we have
[TABLE]
Therefore, by [Pi, Equation (1.18)]
[TABLE]
we obtain
[TABLE]
The upper bound for follows using the obvious modifications to the previous reasoning.
For the lower bound and , we will use again Jensen’s inequality to get
[TABLE]
Then, using Lemma 2.2, we obtain
[TABLE]
As before, using the obvious modifications to the previous reasoning, we obtain the lower bound for the case . ∎
Now we are ready to prove our main result.
Proof of Theorem 2.1.
In order to have a better organization, we divide the proof in different parts. Given that the proof is the same for or , for simplicity, we omit the notation on the scalar field. Throughout this proof will be the conjugate exponent of .
Step I: for .
As mentioned before, we want to consider a measure related to the geometry of the sphere . That being said, we also want a measure that can be easily related to the Lebesgue measure of , given that for Hilbert spaces the linear polarization constant is known.
Consider, then, the measure on defined by
[TABLE]
where is defined as . That is, we choose such that for any integrable function , we have
[TABLE]
Using that the normalized Lebesgue measure is admissible, and its close relation with , it is easy to see that is admissible. Then, by Theorem 1.2, there is such that
[TABLE]
Let’s find an upper bound for the integral. By (4), we have
[TABLE]
Then, using (3), Lemma 2.3 and that , with , we obtain
[TABLE]
Step II: for .
Note that in this case, the previous procedure would lead us to so we need an alternative way. It is enough to find a subsequence of natural numbers such that
[TABLE]
Let us consider the subsequence . For each consider the following set of norm one linear functionals
[TABLE]
that is, we consider copies of each vector of the canonical basis. Then we have
[TABLE]
since attains its maximum on .
Note that in this case we proved that , rather than We also remark that the strategy followed in this step would not give useful information in the previous case.
Step III: for .
As before, define the measure on by
[TABLE]
where is defined as . Proceeding as in the previous case, we obtain
[TABLE]
where is some point in . Note that so far the fact that has not been used.
Using Lemma 2.3 and the that we conclude
[TABLE]
Step IV: .
Combining (5) with Lemma 2.3 for we obtain
[TABLE]
Step V: for .
By (5), the fact that in this case is some point in with and Lemma 2.3 we obtain
[TABLE]
∎
3. On the th linear polarization constant of
In this section we study the th linear polarization constant of the complex finite dimensional spaces . Although we do not solve the gap in Theorem 2.1, we obtain a more precise result on the lower bounds. We use a probabilistic approach to prove the existence of linear functionals such that the norm of the product is small in comparison with the product of the norms. The probabilistic techniques we use in this section are an adaptation to our problem of techniques used, for example, by H. Boas in [Bo]. The aim of this section is then to prove the following.
Proposition 3.1**.**
The th linear polarization constant of satisfies
[TABLE]
Remark 3.2**.**
Note that in particular, the result from above assures us that
[TABLE]
This improves the bound from Theorem 2.1 where we had
We start by using some notation. Let , with and , be a family of independent Rademacher functions over a probability space . That is, are independent random variables such that for and . For any and we define the linear function as and by
[TABLE]
We will show the existence of some such that the norm is small. To do this we need some auxiliary lemmas related to the function , the geometry of the dimensional torus and the space .
Lemma 3.3**.**
For any natural number , the -dimensional torus can be covered up with balls of , with center on and radius .
Proof.
It is enough to consider the balls of center , with . ∎
Lemma 3.4**.**
Given and a positive number , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
If we write , then the expected value of is
[TABLE]
where we used the independence of the family . The result now follows from Chebyshev’s inequality. ∎
Lemma 3.5**.**
For any pair of norm one vectors and any , we have
[TABLE]
Proof.
If we define for , there is such that
[TABLE]
where in (3) we have used the following inequality, which is a particular case of a result by Harris [Ha, Corollary 1]: if is an -homogeneous polynomial over a complex Banach space , then
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 3.6**.**
For any positive number ,
[TABLE]
Proof.
By Lemma 3.3, there is a family of points such that for any , we have
[TABLE]
for some . For any fixed , by the maximum modulus principle, there is such that
[TABLE]
Let be such that . By Lemma 3.5
[TABLE]
Therefore, for each we have
[TABLE]
for some , and then we conclude that
[TABLE]
Since was arbitrary, using Lemma 3.4, we have
[TABLE]
as desired. ∎
Now we are ready to prove the main result of this section.
Proof of Proposition 3.1.
Take in Lemma 3.6
[TABLE]
Then
[TABLE]
Therefore, there is , such that
[TABLE]
which ends the proof. ∎
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
- 1[1]
- 2[AR] A. Anagnostopoulos and S. G. Révész, Polarization constants for products of linear functionals over ℝ 2 superscript ℝ 2 \mathbb{R}^{2} and ℂ 2 superscript ℂ 2 \mathbb{C}^{2} and Chebyshev constants of the unit sphere. Publ. Math. Debrecen 68 (2006), 75–83.
- 3[Ar] J. Arias-de-Reyna, Gaussian variables, polynomials and permanents . Linear Algebra Appl. 285 (1998), 107–114.
- 4[BST] C. Benítez, Y. Sarantopoulos and A. Tonge, Lower bounds for norms of products of polynomials . Math. Proc. Cambridge Philos. Soc. 124 (1998), 395–408.
- 5[BL] L. Bertin and M. Lalín, Mahler measure of multivariate polynomials . Workshop Women in Numbers 2 (2012), 125–147.
- 6[Bo] H. P. Boas, Majorant series . J. Korean Math. Soc. 37 (2000), 321–337.
- 7[CGP] D. Carando, D. Galicer and D. Pinasco, Energy integrals and metric embedding theory . International Mathematics Research Notices (2014): rnu 169.
- 8[CPR] D. Carando, D. Pinasco and J.T. Rodríguez, Lower bounds for norms of products of polynomials on L p subscript 𝐿 𝑝 L_{p} spaces . Studia Math. 214 (2013), 157–166.
