This paper investigates the properties of composition operators on spaces of double Dirichlet series, establishing their connections to holomorphic function spaces and characterizing superposition operators within these contexts.
Contribution
It provides a new characterization of composition operators on spaces of double Dirichlet series and relates them to operators on holomorphic function spaces.
Findings
01
Characterization of composition operators on bounded double Dirichlet series space
02
Connection established between composition operators on Dirichlet series and holomorphic functions
03
Superposition operators characterized on $ ext{H}^p$ spaces
Abstract
We study composition operators on spaces of double Dirichlet series, focusing our interest on the characterization of the composition operators of the space of bounded double Dirichlet series \HCdos. We also show how the composition operators of this space of Dirichlet series are related to the composition operators of the corresponding spaces of holomorphic functions. Finally, we give a characterization of the superposition operators in \HC and in the spaces Hp.
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.
Full text
Composition operators on spaces of double Dirichlet series
Frédéric Bayart
Laboratoire de Mathématiques Blaise Pascal, Université Clermont Auvergne,
Campus des Cézeaux 3, place Vasarely TSA 60026 CS 60026 63178 Aubière cedex, France
We study composition operators on spaces of double Dirichlet series, focusing our interest
on the characterization of the composition operators of the space of bounded double Dirichlet series H∞(C+2).
We also show how the composition operators of this space of Dirichlet series are related to the composition operators of the corresponding spaces of holomorphic functions.
Finally, we give a characterization of the superposition operators in H∞(C+) and in the spaces Hp.
The first author was partially supported by the grant ANR-17-CE40-0021 of the French National Research Agency ANR (project Front). The last four authors were supported by MINECO and FEDER projects MTM2014-57838-C2-2-P and MTM2017-83262-C2-1-P. The second author was also supported by grant FPU14/04365 and MICINN. The third and fourth authors were also supported by PROMETEO/2017/102
1. Introduction
The study of composition operators appears as a consistent topic of interest in the literature of Banach spaces of holomorphic functions. Generally, a composition operator is defined by a function ϕ, called the symbol of the composition operator Cϕ, so that Cϕ(f)=f∘ϕ. Composition operators of spaces of Dirichlet series were first studied in [7], where the authors focus on H2, the Hilbert space of Dirichlet series whose sequence of coefficients belongs to ℓ2. Before we continue, let us introduce some notation. We will denote by Cσ, with σ>0, the half-plane of complex numbers whose real part is strictly larger than σ, using C+ as a substitute notation for the case of C0 to highlight the relevance of this special case. We denote by D the set of Dirichlet series which converge in some half-plane, that is, the set of Dirichlet series which converge somewhere, hence in a half-plane (see [9, Lemma 4.1.1]). The two main results of [7] (see also [9, Theorem 6.4.5]) characterize composition operators acting on H2.
Theorem 1.1**.**
[7, Theorem A]**
Let θ∈R. An analytic function ϕ:Cθ→C21 generates a composition operator Cϕ:H2→D if and only if it is of the form ϕ(s)=c0s+φ(s) with c0∈N0 and φ∈D.
Theorem 1.2**.**
[7, Theorem B]**
An analytic function ϕ:C21→C21 defines a bounded composition operator Cϕ:H2→H2 if and only if
(a)
it is of the form ϕ(s)=c0s+φ(s) with c0∈N0 and φ∈D.
(b)
ϕ* has an analytic extension to C+, also denoted by ϕ, such that*
(i)
ϕ(C+)⊂C+* if 0<c0, and*
(ii)
ϕ(C+)⊂C21* if c0=0.*
Here it should be understood that φ is a Dirichlet series which converges in some half-plane and has an analytic extension, also denoted by φ, defined in Cθ for Theorem 1.1 and in C21 for Theorem 1.2. The same applies for the results that appear throughout this work, where φ will be a Dirichlet series convergent in a certain half-plane with an analytical extension to the domain of ϕ. This work was extended to the whole scale of Hardy spaces of Dirichlet series in [2].
In this paper, we are mostly interested in composition operators on H∞(C+), the space of Dirichlet series that converge on some half-plane and that can be extended as a bounded holomorphic function
to C+ (see [9, Chapter 6]) or, equivalently, of those Dirichlet series that converge on C+ to a bounded holomorphic function
(see [5, Theorem 1.13]). This space is endowed with the norm ∥D∥∞=sups∈C+∣D(s)∣.
It has been shown in [2] that an analytic function ϕ:C+→C+ generates a composition operator Cϕ:H∞(C+)→H∞(C+) if and only if it writes ϕ(s)=c0s+φ(s)
with c0∈N0 and φ∈D.
Our aim is to extend this result to double Dirichlet series and to characterize the composition operators on the space H∞(C+2), introduced in [4] and whose definition we recall now.
A double series ∑m,nam,n is regularly convergent if it is convergent and if, for all m0 and n0, the series ∑nam0,n and ∑mam,n0 are convergent.
Then, the space H∞(C+2) is defined as the space of double Dirichlet series ∑m,n=1+∞am,nm−tn−s that are regularly convergent on C+2 to a bounded holomorphic function
(the norm being defined as the supremum on C+2). With this we can state the main result of this paper.
It is an the analogue of the quoted result of [2] in the double case. Note here that the hypothesis of analyticity of the symbol is also dropped.
Theorem 1.3**.**
Consider a function ϕ:C+2→C+2, ϕ=(ϕ1,ϕ2). Then Cϕ:H∞(C+2)→H∞(C+2) is a composition operator if and only if, for j=1,2 and (s,t)∈C+2 we have
[TABLE]
where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
is a double Dirichlet series that converges regularly and uniformly in Cε2 for every ε>0.
The proof of this theorem will be divided into two parts. The proof that symbols satisfying (1.1) leads to composition operators on H∞(C+2) will follow the arguments of
the one-variable case, with extra difficulties since we are working with double Dirichlet series and we have to be very careful with the convergence of the series.
In particular, we will need the latest results about the range of the symbol of a composition operator of H∞(C+), which are developed in [10, Section 3]. The proof
of the converse part will require really new arguments, which were not necessary in the one-dimensional case (see in particular the proof of the forthcoming Theorem 3.12.
A crucial fact in the theory of Dirichlet series is that Dirichlet series and formal power series (or functions) in infinitely many variables are related through the Bohr transform B.
Let us briefly recall how this identification is done. Each formal power series ∑αaαzα (where α runs on the set of eventually zero sequences of non-negative integers) is mapped onto the Dirichlet series ∑αaα(p1α1⋯prαr)−s, where (pj) is the sequence of prime numbers. This defines an isometric isomorphism between H∞(Bc0) (the space of bounded holomorphic functions on Bc0, the open unit ball of c0) and H∞(C+) (this was proved in [8], see also [6, Theorem 3.8]) and between Hp(T∞) and Hp for every 1≤p≤∞ [2, Theorem 2] (see also [9, Proposition 6.53] or [6, Chapter 11]). With this idea, it was shown in [2] that, for 1≤p<∞ composition operators on the Hardy space Hp induce composition operators on Hp(T∞).
This identification was extended to the double case in [4, Theorem 3.5].
All this allows us to show (see Propositions 2.6 and 3.14) that composition operators on H∞(C+k) (for k=1,2) induce composition operators on H∞(Bc0k).
As a final note we will deal with superposition operators, since it is interesting to mention how there is a significant difference between the case of H∞(C+) and the case of the spaces Hp.
2. Revisiting composition operators on H∞(C+)
In this section, which is mostly expository, we revisit several arguments of the proof of [7, Theorem A] and of the characterization of composition operators
on H∞(C+). In particular, we clear some details in the proof that were implicit in the original papers and we improve the results by dropping the a priori assumption
of analyticity. All these results will be useful to study the double Dirichlet series case.
Lemma 2.1**.**
Suppose that ϕ:C+→C is a function such that k−ϕ∈H∞(C+) for every k∈N. Then ϕ is analytic in C+ and there exist c0∈N0, φ∈D
such that φ extends to C+ and ϕ(s)=c0s+φ(s) for all s∈C+.
Proof.
First let us prove that ϕ is analytic. By hypothesis, D(s)=2ϕ(s)1∈H∞(C+) with ∣D(s)∣>0 for every s∈C+.
Then there exists L:C+→C a holomorphic logarithm of D,
that is, D(s)=eL(s) for every s∈C+. As we have eL(s)=D(s)=e−(log2)ϕ(s), there exists a function k:C+→Z
such that −(log2)ϕ(s)=L(s)+2k(s)πi. Analogously for D~(s)=3ϕ(s)1,
there exists L~:C+→C a holomorphic logarithm of D~ and a function k~:C+→Z such that
−(log3)ϕ(s)=L~(s)+2k~(s)πi. Therefore, for every s∈C+,
[TABLE]
so, if h:C+→C is defined as
[TABLE]
then h(C+) is a countable set and by the open mapping property, h is a constant function. Now suppose k~ is not constant and take s1,s2∈C+ such that k~(s1)=k~(s2). Since h(s1)=h(s2),
[TABLE]
so
[TABLE]
a contradiction. Therefore, k~ is constant and ϕ(s)=−log31(L~(s)+2k~πi) for all s∈C+, so ϕ is analytic in C+.
Now, note that in the proof of the necessity of [7, Theorem A] the only hypothesis that is really used is that k−ϕ∈D for all k∈N.
Since the assumptions of the present lemma imply this, the proof now follows from the application of [7, Theorem A].
Remark 2.2**.**
Lemma 2.1 can actually be stated with weaker hypothesis with essentially the same proof. It is enough to assume that ϕ:Cθ→C (for θ≥0) is a function such that k−ϕ∈D for every k∈N to get that ϕ(s)=c0s+φ(s) for all s∈Cθ, with c0∈N and φ∈D.
The next result is a particular case of [7, Proposition 4.2].
Proposition 2.3**.**
Suppose ϕ:C+→C+ is a holomorphic mapping of the form ϕ(s)=c0s+φ(s) for some c0∈N0 and such that φ can be represented as a Dirichlet series that converges on Cσ for some σ>0. Then for every ε>0 there exists some δ>0 such that ϕ(Cε)⊂Cδ.
Our next theorem improves a result stated by the first author in [2], since we remove
the assumption of analyticity of the symbol. We give a detailed proof for the sake of completeness as it will be useful later on.
Proposition 2.4**.**
A symbol ϕ:C+→C+ generates a composition operator Cϕ:H∞(C+)→H∞(C+)
if and only if it is analytic and, for all s∈C+, ϕ(s)=c0s+φ(s) with c0∈N0 and φ∈D.
Proof.
The necessity follows from Lemma 2.1 and the fact that ks1∈H∞(C+) for all k∈N.
For the sufficiency, take D∈H∞(C+) given by D(s)=∑k=1∞ksak and ϕ:C+→C+ defined as ϕ(s)=c0s+φ(s) with c0∈N0
and φ∈D, and fix ε>0. Consider Dn(s)=∑k=1nksak. By Theorem 1.1, Dn∘ϕ is a Dirichlet series that
converges in some half-plane. Moreover, by Proposition 2.3, given ε>0 there exists some δ>0 such that ϕ(Cε)⊂Cδ and therefore the sequence {Dn∘ϕ}n is uniformly bounded on Cε, say by C, as there it converges uniformly to D∘ϕ.
Write (Dn∘ϕ)(s)=∑k=1∞ksbk(n). For a fixed k, the sequence {bk(n)}n is bounded by Ckε and it is a Cauchy sequence since
[TABLE]
Therefore it converges to some bk∈C with ∣bk∣≤Ckε. Defining F(s)=∑k=1∞ksbk, since ∣bk∣≤Ckε, F(s) converges absolutely in C1+ε, and it is clear that in that half-plane the sequence {Dn∘ϕ}n converges to F. It is enough to note that ∥D∘ϕ∥∞≤∥D∥∞<∞ to apply Bohr’s Theorem (see e.g. [6, Theorem 1.3] or [9, Theorem 6.2.3]) and get that D∘ϕ actually coincides with F and that it is in H∞(C+).
Arguing as in [10], we can improve Proposition 2.4 and replace analyticity of φ by its uniform convergence
on each half-plane. Indeed, under the previous assumptions, we know that φ(C+)⊂C+ (this is trivial if c0=0 and follows from [7, Proposition 4.2]
if c0=0). Hence we may apply [10, Theorem 3.1] which says the following:
Suppose that φ is analytic with no zeros in C+ and that the harmonic conjugate of log∣φ∣ is bounded in C+.
If φ can be represented as a convergent Dirichlet series in some half-plane Cσ0, then this Dirichlet series converges uniformly in Cε for every ε>0.
We finally get an improved characterization of composition operators on H∞(C+).
Theorem 2.5**.**
A symbol ϕ:C+→C+ generates a composition operator Cϕ:H∞(C+)→H∞(C+) if and only if it is of the form ϕ(s)=c0s+φ(s) with c0∈N0 and φ a Dirichlet series which converges uniformly in Cε for all ε>0.
Note that Theorem 1.3 is a version of this result for double Dirichlet series.
We finish this section by pointing out that composition operators on H∞(C+) induce composition operators on H∞(Bc0); the proof is omited as it follows with the same arguments as the corresponding result from the double case (see proof of Proposition 3.14).
Proposition 2.6**.**
Let ϕ:C+→C+ be a symbol which defines a composition operator Cϕ:H∞(C+)→H∞(C+). Then there exists a map ψ:Bc0→Bc0 such that B−1∘Cϕ∘B coincides with the composition operator Cψ:H∞(Bc0)→H∞(Bc0).
This relationship we have just stated only works one way, in the sense that there are composition operators on H∞(Bc0) that do not induce a composition operator on H∞(C+). The mapping ψ:Bc0→Bc0 given by ψ(z)=(z1,0,…) defines a composition operator Cψ on H∞(Bc0). If there were ϕ:C+→C+ such that Cψ=B−1∘Cϕ∘B, then B−1(3ϕ(s)1)=0 and hence 3ϕ(s)1=0, which is a contradiction.
3. Composition operators on H∞(C+2)
3.1. The sufficient condition
We can now start our work towards the characterization of composition operators on H∞(C+2) stated in Theorem 1.3. We do this in two steps. First we see that the symbols ϕ as in the statement of the theorem indeed define composition operators (see Theorem 3.9). Once we have this we show that these are in fact the only symbols defining a composition operator on H∞(C+2) (this follows from Theorem 3.12). We begin by showing that a symbol as in (1.1) defines a composition operator on the space of double Dirichlet polynomials (finite series).
Lemma 3.1**.**
Let ϕ:C+2→C+2 be an analytic function and suppose there exists some σ>0 such that ϕj(s,t)=cjs+djt+φj(s,t) for j=1,2 and (s,t)∈Cσ2, where φj(s,t)=∑m,n=1∞msntbm,n(j) converges absolutely in Cσ2 and cj,dj∈N0, j=1,2. Then, if D is a double Dirichlet polynomial, D∘ϕ is a double Dirichlet series in H∞(C+2).
Proof.
We are going to see that k−φ1(s,t) can be written as a double Dirichlet series in Cσ2. Using the expansion of the exponential function, if (s,t)∈Cσ2,
[TABLE]
Let us see how can we rearrange this expression for k−φ1(s,t) into a double Dirichlet series. For each (M,N)∈N2, because of the absolute convergence, we may define Ak,M,N in the following way:
(i)
If (M,N)=(1,1), then Ak,1,1=1.
2. (ii)
If M=1 and N=1, consider all possible factorizations of M as M=m1r1⋯mdrd where m1,…,md∈N∖{1} are all different, r1,…,rd∈N (there is at least one such factorization by setting m1=M and r1=1). Now define
[TABLE]
3. (iii)
If M=1, N=1, proceeding analogously to the previous case, define
[TABLE]
4. (iv)
If both M,N=1, combining the two previous cases,
we define
[TABLE]
Then for any (s,t)∈Cσ2,
[TABLE]
With the same idea one gets
[TABLE]
As these two double Dirichlet series are absolutely convergent in Cσ2, they can be multiplied to obtain
[TABLE]
Finally, let D(s,t)=∑k=1K∑l=1Lksltak,l. Then, for (s,t)∈Cσ2,
[TABLE]
which can be rearranged into a double Dirichlet series which still is absolutely convergent on Cσ2. Moreover, as ∥D∘ϕ∥∞≤∥D∥∞<∞, Bohr’s theorem [4, Theorem 2.7] guarantees that D∘ϕ∈H∞(C+2).
Following the same scheme as in the one-dimensional case, some results concerning the range of the symbols of the composition operators are needed.
Remark 3.2**.**
Suppose ϕ is an analytic function as in (1.1), where the Dirichlet series φj converge regularly on Cσ2 for some σ>0. Then the function φ~j(s,t)=ϕ(s,t)−c0(j)s−d0(j)t, defined on C+2, is clearly analytic and coincides with φj on Cσ2. In other words, φ~j is an analytic extension of φj to C+2. For the sake of clarity in the notation we will write φj also for the extension, identifying the Dirichlet series with the extension. This is, for example, how the statement of Lemma 3.3 should be understood.
On the other hand, if we suppose that each φj converges regularly on C+2, then they define an analytic function (see [4, page 531]). Therefore if ϕ is as in (1.1), then by Hartog’s theorem, it is analytic. This is the case, for example, in Lemma 3.7 and Theorem 3.9.
Lemma 3.3**.**
Suppose ϕ:C+2→C+2 is an analytic function such that ϕj(s,t)=cjs+djt+φj(s,t) for j=1,2, where φj(s,t)=∑m,n=1∞msntbm,n(j) converges in C+2 and cj,dj∈N0, j=1,2. Then, Reφj(s,t)≥0 for all (s,t)∈C+2, j=1,2.
Proof.
Fix s0∈C+ and consider ϕj(s0,t)=cjs0+djt+φj(s0,t)=djt+(cjs0+φj(s0,t)). Using the first part of [7, Proposition 4.2], Re(cjs0+φj(s0,t))≥0 for all t∈C+, but also for all s0∈C+.
Fixing now t0∈C+ and using again [7, Proposition 4.2], Reφj(s0,t0)≥0 for all (s0,t0)∈C+.
Remark 3.4**.**
If f:C+2→C+ is a holomorphic function such that Ref(s0,t0)=0 for some (s0,t0)∈C+2, then in fact Ref(s,t)=0 for all (s,t)∈C+2. Indeed, if we define
ft0:C+→C+ as ft0(s)=f(s,t0) and suppose that ft0 is not constant, by the open mapping property ft0(C+) is an open set, which contradicts the fact that f(s0,t0)=iτ0 for some τ0∈R. Therefore, it is constant and ft0(s)=iτ0 for all s∈C+.
Proceeding in the same way, defining for each s∈C+ a function fs:C+→C+ by fs(t)=f(s,t) we conclude that f(s,t)=fs(t)=iτ0 for all t∈C+. This gives Ref≡0 in C+2.
This allows to strengthen the Lemma 3.3 to say that either Reφj(s,t)>0 for all (s,t)∈C+2, or Reφj(s,t) is constant and equal to zero.
We aim now at an analogue of Proposition 2.3 for double Dirichlet series. A fundamental tool is the following version in our setting of [5, Theorem 3.3].
We could give a proof of it following the lines of [5], but we prefer to give a more elementary proof avoiding the sophisticated tools (Bohr transform,
Aron-Berner extension) used there.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let D(s,t)=∑m,n=1∞msntam,n be a non-constant double Dirichlet series in H∞(C+2), and 0<σ1<η1, 0<σ2<η2. Then
[TABLE]
Proof.
We first recall that for all Dirichlet series h belonging to H∞(C+) and for all σ>0, then
supRe(s)=σ∣h(s)∣=supRe(s)>σ∣h(s)∣ (see for instance [5, Corollary 2.3]). This yields
[TABLE]
Observe also that, since D is not constant,
[TABLE]
Again, this follows easily from the corresponding result in the one-dimensional case. Indeed, let f(t)=∑n=1+∞am,1n−t and Dt(s)=D(s,t),
so that f(t) is the constant term of the Dirichlet series Dt. If f is constant, then there exists t′ with Re(t′)>σ2 such that
Dt′ is not constant (otherwise D itself would be constant). We then write
[TABLE]
On the contrary, if f is not constant, we write
[TABLE]
Let θ1,θ2∈(0,1) be such that η1=(1−θ1)σ1+θ1γ,
η2=(1−θ2)σ2+θ2γ. Two successive applications of Hadamard’s three lines theorem lead to
[TABLE]
Remark 3.6**.**
The previous proof uses that if D(s)=∑n≥1ann−s is a nonconstant Dirichlet series converging in some half-plane Cσ, then ∣a1∣<supRe(s)>σ∣D(s)∣.
Although this is well known to specialists, we have not been able to locate a proof for this statement and we provide here an elementary one for the convenience of the reader.
We may assume that a1 is not equal to zero.
Let k>1 be such that ak=0 and a2,…,ak−1 are all equal to zero. Then as Re(s) goes to +∞,
D(s)−a1∼akk−s. Let σ0>σ be such that D(s)−a1=(1+ε(s))akk−s with ∣ε(s)∣<1/2 for Re(s)≥σ0. Let τ∈R be such that
akk−σ0−iτ=λa1 for some a1>0. Then
[TABLE]
Lemma 3.7**.**
Suppose ϕ:C+2→C+2 is a function such that ϕj(s,t)=cjs+djt+φj(s,t) for j=1,2, where φj(s,t)=∑m,n=1∞msntbm,n(j) converges regularly in C+2 and cj,dj∈N0 for j=1,2. Then, for every ε>0 there exists some δ>0 such that ϕj(Cε2)⊂Cδ for all j=1,2.
Proof.
Suppose c1=0, that is c1∈N. By Lemma 3.3,
Reϕ1(s,t)=c1Res+d1Ret+Reφ1(s,t)>ε for (s,t)∈Cε2, so for all ε>0, ϕ1(Cε2)⊂Cε. The same argument applies in the case d1=0. Now, if c1=0=d1, then ϕ1(s,t)=φ1(s,t) for all (s,t)∈C+2, so φ1:C+2→C+2 and Reφ1(s,t)>0 for all (s,t)∈C+2. Now, if φ1 is constant, then that constant has positive real part and the lemma is trivially satisfied. Otherwise we can apply Lemma 3.5 to D(s,t)=2−φ1(s,t), which by Lemma 3.1 is a non-constant double Dirichlet series. Therefore, given ε>0,
[TABLE]
which implies that there exists some δ>0 such that
[TABLE]
that is, φ1(Cε2)⊂Cδ.
Remark 3.8**.**
If ∑m,nam,nm−sn−t is a double Dirichlet series that converges at some (s0,t0)∈C2 then \sup_{m,n}\big{|}\frac{a_{m,n}}{m^{s_{0}}n^{t_{0}}}\big{|}=K<\infty and
[TABLE]
In other words, the Dirichlet series converges absolutely on CRes0+1×CRet0+1.
Now we are ready to prove that the symbols we are dealing with actually define composition operators, which is done in the following theorem.
Theorem 3.9**.**
Let ϕ=(ϕ1,ϕ2):C+2→C+2 be a function such that ϕj(s,t)=cjs+djt+φj(s,t) for j=1,2 and (s,t)∈C+2, where φj(s,t)=∑m,n=1∞msntbm,n(j) converges regularly in C+2 and cj,dj∈N0 for j=1,2. Then ϕ generates a composition operator Cϕ:H∞(C+2)→H∞(C+2).
Proof.
Take some D=∑k,l=1∞ksltak,l∈H∞(C+2) and let us see that D∘ϕ∈H∞(C+2). For each (m,n) we denote Dm,n=∑k,l=1m∑l=1nksltak,l (the partial sum of D) and use Lemma 3.1 (note that by Remark 3.2ϕ is analytic, and by Remark 3.8 each φj converges absolutely on C12) to have that Dm,n∘ϕ is a double series in H∞(C+2),
that we denote by ∑k,l=1∞ksltck,l(m,n).
Now, by Lemma 3.7, given ε>0 there exists δ>0 such that ϕ(Cε2)⊂Cδ2. As a consequence of [4, Theorem 2.7], the partial sums Dm,n are uniformly convergent on Cδ2 to D. Therefore the sequence {Dm,n∘ϕ}m,n is uniformly bounded on Cε2, say by C. This implies that
the horizontal translates defined by ∑k,l=1∞ks+εlt+εck,l(m,n) are in H∞(C+2) for every m,n∈N. Applying now [4, Proposition 2.2], which controls the coefficients of a series in H∞(C+2) by its norm, we get that for every k,l,m,n∈N,
[TABLE]
Therefore for fixed k and l we have
[TABLE]
so the double sequence {ck,l(m,n)}m,n converges to some ck,l∈C satisfying ∣ck,l∣≤Cσkσlσ for all σ>ε.
Define now F(s,t)=∑k,l=1∞ksltck,l. Since ∣ck,l∣≤C(kl)2ε, F(s,t) converges absolutely in C1+ε2, and there the double sequence {Dm,n∘ϕ}m,n clearly converges absolutely to F. It is enough to note that ∥D∘ϕ∥∞≤∥D∥∞<∞ to apply [4, Theorem 2.7] and get that D∘ϕ actually coincides with F and that it is in H∞(C+2).
3.2. The necessary condition
Theorem 3.9 gives the sufficient condition for the characterization of the composition operators of H∞(C+2) in Theorem 1.3. To prove the necessity we use the vector-valued perspective introduced in [4] to deal with double Dirichlet series (formalized in Lemma 3.10). But before that let us first recall some notation. Given ∑m,nmsntam,n∈H∞(C+2), for each m∈N we define the row subseries αm(t)=∑n=1∞ntam,n∈H∞(C+). Then D(s,t)=∑m=1∞msαm(t) for every (s,t)∈C+2.
Lemma 3.10**.**
Let ϕ=(ϕ1,ϕ2):C+2→C+2 be inducing a composition operator Cϕ:H∞(C+2)→H∞(C+2).
For each fixed t∈C+ and j=1,2, consider ϕj,t:C+→C+ given by ϕj,t(s)=ϕj(s,t). Then ϕj,t defines a composition operator of H∞(C+).
Proof.
We just deal with the case j=1, the other one being analogous. Take D(s)=∑m=1∞msam∈H∞(C+), and define bm,1=am, bm,n=0 for n≥2, and D~(s,t)=∑m,n=1∞msntbm,n. Clearly D~(s,t)=D(s) for every (s,t)∈C+2, and D~∈H∞(C+2), so D~∘ϕ∈H∞(C+2). Now,
[TABLE]
Then, for a fixed t∈C+,
[TABLE]
so D∘ϕ∈H∞(C+).
We still need a further lemma before we give the main step towards the necessity in Theorem 1.3.
Lemma 3.11**.**
Consider φ2(s)=∑nnsan and φ3(s)=∑mmsbm two Dirichlet series that converge absolutely in Cσ and
let φ be any function defined on Cσ. If there exists c0∈N such that
[TABLE]
for all s∈Cσ, then φ is also a Dirichlet series that converges absolutely in Cσ.
Proof.
Let j∈N such that it is not a multiple of 2c0. Then, using [6, Proposition 1.9])
[TABLE]
because 2c0m3c0j is not an integer. Hence, all the coefficients of φ2 corresponding to non-multiples of 2c0 are null, so
[TABLE]
Therefore φ is a Dirichlet series which converges absolutely in Cσ.
Theorem 3.12**.**
Let ϕ=(ϕ1,ϕ2):C+2→C+2 be inducing a composition operator Cϕ:H∞(C+2)→H∞(C+2). Then there exists some σ>0 such that, for j=1,2, ϕj(s,t)=c0(j)s+d0(j)t+φj(s,t) for (s,t)∈Cσ2, where c0(j),d0(j)∈N0 and φj(s,t)=∑m,n=1∞msntbm,n(j) is a double Dirichlet series that converges absolutely in Cσ2.
Proof.
The proof works for j=1 or j=2 so, to keep the notation simpler, we will drop the subscript and consider ϕ(s,t):C+2→C+. On the one hand, by hypothesis Dk(s,t):=k−ϕ(s,t)∈H∞(C+2) for every k∈N. Using the regular convergence of Dk, if t∈C+ is fixed,
[TABLE]
On the other hand, for t∈C+ still fixed, Lemma 3.10 gives that ϕt defines a composition operator of H∞(C+), so by Theorem 2.5ϕt(s)=c0(t)s+φt(s), where c0(t)∈N0 and φt(s)=∑m=1∞mscm(t) is a Dirichlet series that converges regularly and uniformly in the half-plane Cε for every ε>0.
We first show that t↦c0(t) is constant on some half-plane Cσ0. Using the argument in [7, page 316]
[TABLE]
This means that the series in (3.1) actually runs up for m≥kc0 and
[TABLE]
Define
[TABLE]
Let akc0,N(k) be the first non-zero coefficient of αkc0(k). By [7, Lemma 3.1] we can find σ0>0 such that
[TABLE]
Hence αkc0(k) has no zeros in the half-plane Cσ0 and therefore c0(t)=c0 for every t∈Cσ0.
Since for each t the Dirichlet series φt converges uniformly on every half-plane strictly contained in C+,
[9, Theorem 4.4.2] (see also [6, Proposition 1.10]) implies that φt(s) is absolutely convergent for every s with Res>1/2. Take, then, (s,t)∈C21×Cσ0. Following [7, Theorem A] and proceeding as in Lemma 3.1 (using the Taylor expansion of the exponential) we arrive at
[TABLE]
Expanding the product at the right-hand side yields a series whose terms we can rearrange (because all the involved series are absolutely convergent), into a Dirichlet series the coefficients of which we denote by dl(k)(t). Hence
[TABLE]
So, we have arrived at an equality between Dirichlet series that converge absolutely on some half-plane and we may identify coefficients (recall that we already saw that the series in the left-hand side in fact starts at kc0). To begin with, k−c1(t) is the coefficient
corresponding to the term (kc0)s, so k−c1(t)=αkc0(k)(t) for all t∈Cσ0, and αkc0(k)∈H∞(C+). Since this holds for every k, we can apply
Lemma 2.1 to get that c1(t) is holomorphic in Cσ0 and that there exists some σ1≥σ0 such that c1(t)=d0t+∑n=1∞ntb1,n for every t∈Cσ1, with ∑n=1∞ntb1,n absolutely convergent in Cσ1.
What we want to do now is to push further this idea, comparing coefficients in (3.3) in a systematic way to end up showing that every cm(t) can be written as a Dirichlet series absolutely convergent in Cσ1. We do this by induction on m≥2 and start with the case m=2.
We take some (s,t)∈C21×Cσ1 and note that the term corresponding to l=2 in (3.3) is obtained by multiplying the term m=2 and j=1 (this carries c2(t)) and 1’s in (3.2). In this way we have
[TABLE]
Identifying again coefficients we get α2kc0(k)(t)=−logkc2(t)k−c1(t), so
[TABLE]
We need to see now that ψk(t) is a Dirichlet series that converges absolutely in Cσ1. Note first that α2kc0(k) belongs to H∞(C+).
On the other hand, we have just seen that −∑n=1∞b1,nn−t is an absolutely convergent series in Cσ1, and a
careful inspection of the proof of the sufficiency of [7, Theorem A] shows that k∑n=1∞ntb1,n is an absolutely convergent Dirichlet series in Cσ1. This gives the claim. Letting now k=2,3 we have 2c0tψ2(t)=c2(t)=3c0tψ3(t) for every t∈Cσ1.
Since c2(t) is analytic,
Lemma 3.11 gives that c2(t)=∑n=1∞ntb2,n is a Dirichlet series that converges absolutely in Cσ1.
This completes the proof of the fact for m=2.
Suppose now that cm(t) is analytic for every 2≤m≤m0. We want to use again (3.3), comparing the coefficients of the term corresponding to l=m0. Note that we get this factor by multiplying the term m=m0 and j=1 with all 1’s (this brings cm0(t)) and the product of terms involving divisors of m0 (this brings other cm(t)’s, that we group in a term Dm0). Let us be more precise. Starting from (3.2) we get
[TABLE]
where Dm0 is given by
[TABLE]
Since m1r1⋯mqrq=m0 for q>1 implies that mh<m0 for all 1≤h≤q we have Dm0 is a finite sum of finite products of Dirichlet series which by the induction hypothesis are absolutely convergent in Cσ1. Hence Dm0 is a Dirichlet series that converges absolutely on Cσ1. Then
[TABLE]
where, with the same argument as above, ψk(m0) is again an absolutely convergent Dirichlet series on Cσ1. Once again by application of Lemma 3.11, cm0(t)=∑n=1∞ntbm0,n is a Dirichlet series that converges absolutely on Cσ1.
Finally, for (s,t)∈C21×Cσ1,
[TABLE]
where the last equality holds because the sums converge absolutely in C21×Cσ1.
Once we have established the form of the symbols of composition operators we may proceed as in [10] to strengthen the conditions on the symbol in terms of its uniform convergence in Cε2 for every ε>0, giving the proof of our main result.
To begin with, if ϕj is as in (1.1) and φj converges uniformly and regularly on Cε for every ε>0, then it converges regularly on
C+ and Theorem 3.9 gives that Cϕ defines a composition operator on H∞(C+2).
For the necessary condition, Theorem 3.12 gives that each φj converges absolutely on Cσ2 for some σ>0.
We adapt the arguments of [10, Section 3] to see that in fact they converge uniformly on Cε2
(we do it only for j=1). Note first that Lemma 3.10, Lemma 2.1 and Hartog’s theorem give that ϕ is analytic.
Then, by Lemma 3.3 (recall also Remark 3.2), we get φ1(C+2)⊂C+, that is, ∣Argφ1∣≤2π and ∣Argφ11/2∣≤4π, from which Reφ11/2Imφ11/2=∣tan(Argφ11/2)∣≤1 follows.
We consider now the function u(s,t)=Re(φ1(s,t)1/2). Since φ1 converges absolutely on Cσ2 it is uniformly bounded there. Now it is easy to see that ∣Reφ11/2∣≤∣Reφ1∣1/2≤∣φ1∣1/2≤2∣Reφ11/2∣, because ∣φ11/2∣=Reφ1+Imφ1≤2Reφ1, and then u is uniformly bounded on Cθ2, say by K. Our aim now is to see that, in fact, u is uniformly bounded on Cε for every ε>0. By Remark 3.4 either φ1 is identically zero or Reφ1(s,t)>0 for every (s,t)∈C+2. If it is identically zero, then so also is φ11/2 and therefore u. If this is not the case, then (since ∣Argφ11/2∣≤4π) u is strictly positive.
If u is identically zero then the claim is trivially satisfied. We may then assume that u is positive and take (s0,t0)=(σ1+iτ1,σ2+iτ2)∈Cε2. We know from [10, Section 3] that if v is a positive harmonic function defined on some Cσ0, then
[TABLE]
for every σ0<θ1≤θ2. Suppose that ε<σ1<σ and consider ut0(s)=u(s,t0)=Re(φ1,t0(s)1/2). Suppose now that ε<σ1<σ then, since ut0 is a positive harmonic function (3.4) gives
[TABLE]
We distinguish two cases for t0. First, if σ≤σ2 we immediately obtain (recall that u is uniformly bounded on Cσ2 by K)
[TABLE]
On the other hand, if ε<σ2<σ, we can consider s~=θ+iτ1∈Cθ and t↦us~(t), which is again a positive harmonic function.
Starting with (3.5) and using (3.4) again (this time for us~) we get
[TABLE]
The only case left to check is that in which ε<σ2<σ and σ1≥σ, but it is completely analogous to the one above, so we get u(s,t)≤ε2θ2K for every (s,t)∈Cε. Hence,
φ11/2, and therefore φ1, is uniformly bounded in Cε and consequently uniformly convergent.
The characterization of compact composition operators on H∞(C+) given in [2, Theorem 18] still works for double Dirichlet series.
Theorem 3.13**.**
Let ϕ define a continuous composition operator Cϕ:H∞(C+2)→H∞(C+2). Then Cϕ is compact if and only if ϕ(C+2)⊂Cδ2 for some δ>0.
Proof.
First, suppose that there exists some δ>0 such that ϕ(C+2)⊂Cδ2 and consider {Dn} a bounded sequence in H∞(C+2). By [4, Lemma 3.4], there exists some subsequence {Dnk} in H∞(C+2) and D∈H∞(C+2) such that Dnk converges uniformly to D on Cδ2, and therefore Dnk∘ϕ converges to D∘ϕ uniformly on C+2. Hence, Cϕ is compact. On the other hand, if Cϕ is compact, choose the sequence Dm(u,v)=m−u in H∞(C+2). Since Cϕ is compact there exists some subsequence Dmk in H∞(C+2) and some D~∈H∞(C+2) such that limk→∞∥Dmk∘ϕ−D~∥∞=0. Fix (s,t)∈C+2, then D~(s,t)=limk→∞mk−ϕ1(s,t)=0 since Reϕ1(s,t)>0. Therefore
[TABLE]
so necessarily inf(s,t)∈C+2Reϕ1(s,t)>0 and there exists some δ1>0 such that ϕ1(C+2)⊂Cδ1. Applying the same idea to the sequence of functions n−v in H∞(C+2), one gets that there exists some δ2>0 such that ϕ2(C+2)⊂Cδ2. Taking δ=min(δ1,δ2) we have ϕ(C+2)⊂Cδ2.
3.3. Composition operators on H∞(C+2) and on H∞(Bc02)
We finish this section by relating composition operators of H∞(C+2) and composition operators on the corresponding space of holomorphic functions.
Observe that this result is new even for the one dimensional case (this is Proposition 2.6) and that it is more difficult
than the corresponding result for Hp and Hp(T∞), 1≤p<+∞ obtained in [2]. Indeed, for finite values of p,
Dirichlet polynomials are dense in Hp and this was a key point in the proof done in [2].
Proposition 3.14**.**
Let ϕ define a continuous composition operator Cϕ:H∞(C+2)→H∞(C+2). Then Cϕ induces a composition operator Cψ:H∞(Bc02)→H∞(Bc02).
Proof.
Let us recall how the bijective isometry B:H∞(Bc02)→H∞(C+2) from [4, Theorem 3.5] (now with k=2) is defined. For each f∈H∞(Bc02
with coefficients cα,β(f) (that can be computed through the Cauchy integral formula) we have
[TABLE]
Clearly T=B−1∘Cϕ∘B is an operator, T:H∞(Bc02)→H∞(Bc02), and our aim is to see that it is actually a composition operator. For j∈N define D1(j)=Cϕ(pjs1)=pj−ϕ1(s,t)∈H∞(C+2) and D2(j)=Cϕ(pjt1)=pj−ϕ2(s,t)∈H∞(C+2) and D(j)=(D1(j),D2(j)). Note that B−1(D1(j)),B−1(D2(j))∈H∞(Bc02) for every j∈N. Define formally Φ=(Φ1,Φ2)=((D1(j))j,(D2(j))j) and ψ=(ψ1,ψ2)=((B−1D1(j))j,(B−1D2(j))j).
Then, if we consider a polynomial f(z,ω)=∑α,β∈Λcα,βzαωβ with Λ finite and we denote by p the sequence of prime numbers, we get
[TABLE]
Therefore, T coincides with the composition operator Cψ on finite polynomials, and we will see that they actually are the same operator.
First we need to see that Cψ is well defined, namely that ψ is a holomorphic function with ψ(Bc02)⊂Bc02. The holomorphy of ψ follows from its definition. Let us define F1(j)=B−1(D1(j)) so that ψ1(z,w)=(F1(j)(z,w)). Since
ϕ(C+2)⊂C+2,
∣D1(j)(s,t)∣=pj−Reϕ1(s,t)<1 for every (s,t)∈C+2, so that ∥F1(j)∥∞=∥D1(j)∥∞≤1.
Assume by contradiction that there exists some (z0,w0)∈Bc02 such that ψ1(z0,w0) does not belong to c0. Then there exists an increasing sequence of integers
(jr) and ε>0 such that, for all r≥1, ∣F1(jr)(z0,w0)∣≥ε.
By Montel’s theorem, we may extract from (F1(jr)) a sequence, that we will still denote (F1(jr)), converging uniformly on compact subsets of Bc02 to some
F∈H∞(Bc02). Set D=BF, so that (D1(jr)) converges uniformly to D on each product of half-planes Cε2. Now, for (s,t)∈C+,
[TABLE]
since Reϕ1(s,t)>0. Thus D hence F are identically zero. But this contradicts ∣F1(jr)(z0,w0)∣≥ε for all r≥1. Finally, this yields that ψ1(Bc02)⊂c0.
To see that T and Cψ are the same operator we will define a topology on H∞(Bc02) so that the finite polynomials on Bc02 are dense in H∞(Bc02) and such that T and Cψ are continuous, with the aim of extending (3.6) by continuity. Define G:C+→Bc0 by G(s)=ps1 and consider τ~ the topology of uniform convergence on the product of half-planes Cσ1×Cσ2 for H∞(C+2) and for H∞(Bc02) we consider τ the topology of the uniform convergence on the compact subsets of Bc0 of the form Kσ1,σ2={(ps1,pt1):Res≥σ1,Ret≥σ2}=G(Cσ1)×G(Cσ2)=Kσ1×Kσ2. It should be noted that these topologies define metrizable spaces since we can take σ1=n1, σ2=m1, n,m∈N, and we get the same topologies. First, since for every σ1,σ2>0 there exists some 0<r<1 such that supRes≥σ1Ret≥σ2(ps1,pt1)∞≤r, then any f∈H∞(Bc02) has a uniformly convergent Taylor series on Kσ1,σ2. Moreover, by adapting the arguments from the proof of [1, Theorem 2.5], the set of finite polynomials on Bc02 is dense in the space of homogeneous polynomials on Bc02 with the topology induced by ∥⋅∥∞. Therefore we can extend (3.6) to homogeneous polynomials. Again, since the topology of ∥⋅∥∞ is finer than topology τ, if we prove that T and Cψ are continuous with the topology τ, then we will be able to extend (3.6) to H∞(Bc02) to get that T=Cψ as operators of H∞(Bc02).
To see that T is continuous, we just have to check that Cϕ is continuous for the topology τ~ and that B defines a homeomorphism with the respective topologies τ and τ~. To prove that Cϕ is continuous we have to apply Lemma 3.7 to ϕ to get that for every σ1,σ2>0 there exists some δ(σ1),δ(σ2)>0 such that ϕ(Cσ1×Cσ2)⊂Cδ(σ1)×Cδ(σ2). Now, let {Dn}n⊂H∞(C+2) be a sequence convergent to D∈H∞(C+2) with τ~. As
[TABLE]
Cϕ is continuous. Now, to see that B is a homeomorphism with the respective topologies, suppose that {fn}n⊂H∞(Bc02) is a sequence convergent to f∈H∞(Bc02) with τ. Then, using the continuity of fn and f,
[TABLE]
so clearly B is a homeomorphism between the topological spaces (H∞(Bc02),τ) and (H∞(C+2),τ~), giving that T is continuous with the topology τ.
It remains to prove that Cψ is continuous with the topology τ. Let us recall that ψ=((B−1(D1(j)))j,(B−1(D2(j)))j). Hence, if σ1,σ2>0, take (z,ω)∈G(Cσ1)×G(Cσ2), that is, (z,ω)=(ps1,pt1) for some (s,t)∈Cσ1×Cσ2, and then B−1(D1(j))(z,ω)=D1(j)(s,t)=pjϕ1(s,t)1, so
[TABLE]
and therefore ψ1(Kσ1,σ2)⊂{ps1:Res≥δ(σ1)}=Kδ(σ1). Analogously, ψ2(Kσ1,σ2)⊂Kδ(σ2), so ψ(Kσ1,σ2)⊂Kδ(σ1)×Kδ(σ2)=Kδ(σ1),δ(σ2). Then, if {fn}n⊂H∞(Bc02) is a sequence convergent to f∈H∞(Bc02) with τ,
[TABLE]
which gives the continuity of Cψ with the topology τ.
Finally, as every function in H∞(Bc02) is the limit of a series of finite polynomials with the topology τ, and by (3.6), T and Cψ coincide on finite polynomials, T=Cψ.
4. Superposition operators
In this section we deal with superposition operators, which are defined by Sφ(f)=φ∘f where f belongs to some function space and φ is defined on C. We are especially interested in superposition operators acting on spaces of Dirichlet series, precisely on Hp and on H∞(C+).
Let us first recall the characterization of superposition operators on the classical Hardy spaces Hp(D), which was given in [3].
Theorem 4.1**.**
An entire function φ defines a superposition operator Sφ:Hp(D)→Hq(D) if and only if φ is a polynomial of degree at most ⌊qp⌋.
Remark 4.2**.**
As a matter of fact, the assumption of φ to be entire can be dropped.
If φ:C→C induces a superposition operator Sφ mapping Hp(D) into Hq(D), then, since f(z)=rz belongs to Hp(D) for all r>0,
the function z↦φ(rz) is analytic in D for all r>0, hence φ is entire.
Recall that the Bohr transform induces an isometric isomorphism from Hp(T∞) onto Hp. The subspace of Hp consisting of Dirichlet series of the form ∑k=1∞a2k(2k)s1 is isometrically isomoporphic to Hp(T)↪Hp(T∞). Let us recall also that Hp(T) is isometrically isomorphic to Hp(D). We are going to see that the superposition operators on Hp are in fact the same ones as on Hp(D).
Theorem 4.3**.**
A function φ:C→C defines a superposition operator Sφ:Hp→Hq if and only if φ is a polynomial of degree at most ⌊qp⌋.
Proof.
We first see that if φ is a polynomial of degree N≤⌊qp⌋ then Sφ defines a superposition operator. Take first φk(w)=wk. By Young’s inequality we have an≤pnap whenever a>0 and pn<1. Then, since pkq≤1 for all 1≤k≤N, given a Dirichlet polynomial P, we get
[TABLE]
so φk(P)∈Hq. Now, if φ(w)=∑k=0Nbkwk, then φ(P)=∑k=0Nbkφk(P)∈Hq for every Dirichlet polynomial P∈Hp. Using that Dirichlet polynomials are dense in Hp and Hq with the respective norms is enough to get the desired result.
On the other hand, suppose now that φ defines a superposition operator Sφ:Hp→Hq. First of all, since s↦φ(2−s2R) is holomorphic in C1/2, then taking two different branches of the complex logarithm we get that φ is holomorphic in B(0,R)∖{0} for every R>0.
Moreover, s↦φ(2−s2R) is an absolutely convergent Dirichlet series, and therefore is bounded in Cσ for every σ>1.
Since [math] is an isolated singularity of φ we get that φ is entire. Now let f∈Hp(D), B(f)∈Hp and φ∘B(f)∈Hq.
Since the Taylor series of φ converges absolutely on C, the Taylor series of f converges absolutely on D and the Dirichlet series B(f)(s) converges absolutely in Cσ
for any σ>1 then there exists {an}n such that (φ∘B(f))(s)=∑n=0∞(2n)san for every s∈Cσ, σ>1, and also
(φ∘f)(z)=∑n=0∞anzn for every z∈D. Hence φ∘f=B−1(φ∘B(f))∈Hq(D),
thus φ defines a superposition operator Sφ:Hp(D)→Hq(D) and consequently it is a polynomial of degree at most ⌊qp⌋.
Remark 4.4**.**
It is interesting to note here the differences between the spaces Hp and H∞(C+) regarding superposition operators.
While only polynomials of a certain degree will define superposition operators Sφ:Hp→Hq, the fact that H∞(C+) is an algebra gives trivially
that any polynomial defines a superposition operator on H∞(C+). This leads easily to the fact that any entire function defines a superposition operator.
Indeed, since entire functions are uniformly approximated by their Taylor series on all compact sets, in particular on the image of any function of H∞(C+), if φ(z)=∑n=1∞anzn and f∈H∞(C+), then Sφ(f) is the uniform limit of SφN(f)∈H∞(C+) where φN=∑n=1Nanzn. Using that H∞(C+) is complete is enough to get that Sφ:H∞(C+)→H∞(C+) is a superposition operator.
Bibliography10
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] R. M. Aron, F. Bayart, P. M. Gauthier, M. Maestre, and V. Nestoridis. Dirichlet approximation and universal Dirichlet series. Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. , 145(10):4449–4464, 2017.
2[2] F. Bayart. Hardy spaces of Dirichlet series and their composition operators. Monatsh. Math. , 136(3):203–236, 2002.
3[3] G. A. Cámera. Nonlinear superposition on spaces of analytic functions. In Harmonic analysis and operator theory (Caracas, 1994) , volume 189 of Contemp. Math. , pages 103–116. Amer. Math. Soc., Providence, RI, 1995.
4[4] J. Castillo-Medina, D. García, and M. Maestre. Isometries between spaces of multiple dirichlet series. Journal of Mathematical Analysis and Applications , 472(1):526 – 545, 2019.
5[5] A. Defant, D. García, M. Maestre, and P. Sevilla-Peris. Dirichlet series from the infinite dimensional point of view. Funct. Approx. Comment. Math. , 59(2):285–304, 2018.
6[6] A. Defant, D. García, M. Maestre, and P. Sevilla-Peris. Dirichlet Series and Holomorphic Funcions in High Dimensions , volume 37 of New Mathematical Monographs . Cambridge University Press, 2019.
7[7] J. Gordon and H. Hedenmalm. The composition operators on the space of Dirichlet series with square summable coefficients. Michigan Math. J. , 46(2):313–329, 1999.
8[8] H. Hedenmalm, P. Lindqvist, and K. Seip. A Hilbert space of Dirichlet series and systems of dilated functions in L 2 ( 0 , 1 ) superscript 𝐿 2 0 1 L^{2}(0,1) . Duke Math. J. , 86(1):1–37, 1997.