This paper characterizes the conditions under which the Stieltjes moment problem is solvable in Gelfand-Shilov spaces, providing new insights into ultraholomorphic function spaces and their moment mappings.
Contribution
It offers a complete characterization of the surjectivity and right inverse existence of the Stieltjes moment mapping in Gelfand-Shilov spaces based on their weight sequences.
Findings
01
Characterization of surjectivity conditions for the moment mapping.
02
Existence criteria for continuous linear right inverses.
03
New results on the Borel-Ritt problem in ultraholomorphic spaces.
Abstract
We characterize the surjectivity and the existence of a continuous linear right inverse of the Stieltjes moment mapping on Gelfand-Shilov spaces, both of Beurling and Roumieu type, in terms of their defining weight sequence. As a corollary, we obtain some new results about the Borel-Ritt problem in spaces of ultraholomorphic functions on the upper half-plane.
\displaystyle\mathcal{S}^{n,0}_{M_{p},h}(\mathbb{R}):=\{\varphi\in\mathcal{S}^{n}_{M_{p},h}(\mathbb{R})\,|\,\varphi^{(m)}(0)=0\mbox{ for all $m=0,\ldots,n$}\},
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
Solution to the Stieltjes moment problem in Gelfand-Shilov spaces
Andreas Debrouwere
Department of Mathematics: Analysis, Logic and Discrete Mathematics, Ghent University, Krijgslaan 281, 9000 Gent, Belgium
We characterize the surjectivity and the existence of a continuous linear right inverse of the Stieltjes moment mapping on Gelfand-Shilov spaces, both of Beurling and Roumieu type, in terms of their defining weight sequence. As a corollary, we obtain some new results about the Borel-Ritt problem in spaces of ultraholomorphic functions on the upper half-plane.
Key words and phrases:
The Stieltjes moment problem, Gelfand-Shilov spaces, the Borel-Ritt problem, spaces of ultraholomorphic functions on the upper half-plane, continuous linear right inverses
2010 Mathematics Subject Classification:
30E05, 44A60, 46E05
The author is supported by FWO-Vlaanderen, via the postdoctoral grant 12T0519N
1. Introduction
In 1939, Boas [1] and Pólya [17] independently showed that for every sequence (ap)p∈N of complex numbers there is a function F of bounded variation such that
[TABLE]
A. J. Durán [7] (see also [8]) improved this result in 1989 by showing that for every sequence (ap)p∈N of complex numbers the infinite system of linear equations
[TABLE]
admits a solution φ∈S(0,∞) (= the space of rapidly decreasing smooth functions with support in [0,∞)). Over the past 20 years, various authors studied the (unrestricted) Stieltjes moment problem (1.1) in the context of Gelfand-Shilov spaces [10]; see [4, 3, 13, 14, 5]. In this article, we provide a complete solution to this problem.
In order to be able to discuss our results, we need to introduce some notation; see Section 2 for unexplained notions concerning weight sequences.
Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence. We define S(Mp)(0,∞) as the space consisting of all φ∈S(0,∞) such that
[TABLE]
for all h>0 and n∈N. Similarly, we define S{Mp}(0,∞) as the space consisting of all φ∈S(0,∞) such that there is h>0 for which (1.2) holds for all n∈N. S(Mp)(0,∞) and S{Mp}(0,∞) are endowed with their natural Fréchet space and (LF)-space topology, respectively. Next, we define Λ(Mp) and Λ{Mp} as the sequence spaces consisting of all a=(ap)p∈N∈CN such that
[TABLE]
for all h>0 and some h>0, respectively. Λ(Mp) and Λ{Mp} are endowed with their natural Fréchet space and (LB)-space topology, respectively. If (Mp)p∈N satisfies (dc), the Stieltjes moment mapping
[TABLE]
is well-defined and continuous, where ∗ stands for either (Mp) or {Mp}. Jiménez-Garrido, Sanz and the author [5] characterized the surjectivity of M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp} in the following way; see [14] for earlier work in this direction.
Theorem 1.1**.**
[5, Thm. 3.5]**
Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (slc) (= (Mp/p!)p∈N satisfies (lc)) and (dc). If the mapping M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp} is surjective, then (Mp)p∈N satisfies
If, in addition, (Mp)p∈N satisfies (mg), (γ2) implies that M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp} is surjective.
Condition (γ2) means that (Mp1/2)p∈N is strongly non-quasianalytic [12].
The main goal of this article is to improve and complete Theorem 1.1 in the following three ways: Consider the Beurling case as well; replace (slc) and (mg) by the weaker conditions (lc) and (dc); characterize the existence of a continuous linear right inverse of M:S∗(0,∞)→Λ∗. More precisely, we show the following result; see Theorem 6.1.
Theorem 1.2**.**
Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (dc).
(a)
The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
M:S(Mp)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp)* is surjective.*
(ii)
M:S(Mp)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp)* has a continuous linear right inverse.*
(iii)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (γ2).*
(b)
M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp}* is surjective if and only if (Mp)p∈N satisfies (γ2).*
(c)
M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp}* has a continuous linear right inverse if and only if (Mp)p∈N satisfies (γ2) and*
Condition (β2) is due to Petzsche [16] and appears in his characterization of the existence of a continuous linear right inverse of the Borel mapping on spaces of ultradifferentiable functions of Roumieu type. We also give an analogue of Theorem 1.2 for Gelfand-Shilov spaces of type S∗†(0,∞) (cf. [5, Thm. 3.5]); see Theorem 7.2.
In [5], Theorem 1.1 is shown by reducing it to the Borel-Ritt problem [18, 19, 20, 11] in spaces of ultraholomorphic functions on the upper half-plane and then using solutions to this problem from [20, 11]; a technique that goes back to A. L. Durán and Estrada [8]. Up until now, this seems to be the only known method to study the Stieltjes moment problem in Gelfand-Shilov spaces. It also explains why we had to assume (slc) and (mg) in Theorem 1.1: These conditions are needed to solve the Borel-Ritt problem in spaces of ultraholomorphic functions [20, Thm. 3.2.1]. We develop here a completely new approach. Namely, we show Theorem 1.2 by reducing it to the Borel problem in spaces of ultradifferentiable functions of class (Np)p∈N, where (Np)p∈N denotes the 2-interpolating sequence associated to (Mp)p∈N [19], and then using Petzsche’s classical solution to this problem [16].
As a corollary, we obtain an analogue of Theorem 1.2 for the Borel-Ritt problem in spaces of ultraholomorphic functions on the upper half-plane, thereby improving some results of Schmets and Valdivia [19] and Thilliez [20] in the particular case of the upper half-plane; see Theorem 7.4 and Remark 7.5. Of course, due to the distinct geometry of the upper half-plane, this special case is much simpler to handle than the Borel-Ritt problem in spaces of ultraholomorphic functions on general sectors.
The plan of this article is as follows. In Section 2, we fix the notation, introduce weight sequences and recall Petzsche’s solution to the Borel problem in spaces of ultradifferentiable functions. In Section 3, we define Gelfand-Shilov spaces of type S∗ and collect several properties of these spaces that will be used later on. Next, in the auxiliary Sections 4 and 5, we present an abstract result about the existence of a continuous linear right inverse and prove a Borel type theorem. These results are used in the proof of Theorem 1.2, which is given in Section 6. Finally, in Section 7, we consider the Stieltjes moment problem in Gelfand-Shilov spaces of type S∗†(0,∞) and the Borel-Ritt problem in spaces of ultraholomorphic functions on the upper half-plane.
2. Preliminaries
2.1. Notation
We set N={0,1,2,…} and Z+={1,2,…}. The Fréchet space of rapidly decreasing smooth functions on R is denoted by S(R). We fix the constants in the Fourier transform as follows
[TABLE]
The p-th moment, p∈N, of an element φ∈S(R) is given by
[TABLE]
Notice that φ(p)(0)=ipμp(φ) for all p∈N.
We define the Borel mapping as
[TABLE]
and the Stieltjes moment mapping as
[TABLE]
A lcHs (= locally convex Hausdorff space) E is said to be an (LF)-space if there is a sequence (En)n∈N of Fréchet spaces with En⊆En+1 and continuous inclusion mappings for all n∈N such that E=⋃n∈NEn and the topology of E coincides with the finest locally convex topology such that all the inclusion mappings En→E, n∈N, are continuous. We write E=limn∈NEn. If the sequence (En)n∈N consists of Banach spaces, E is called an (LB)-space. Finally, a lcHs is said to be a (PLB)-space if it can be written as the projective limit of a countable spectrum of (LB)-spaces.
2.2. Weight sequences
A sequence (Mp)p∈N of positive numbers is called a weight sequence if M0=1 and mp:=Mp/Mp−1→∞ as p→∞. The associated function of a weight sequence (Mp)p∈N is defined as M(0):=0 and
[TABLE]
We will make use of the following conditions on weight sequences:
(lc)
(log-convexity)Mp2≤Mp−1Mp+1, p∈Z+.
2. (dc)
(derivation-closedness)Mp+1≤C0Hp+1Mp, p∈N, for some C0,H≥1.
3. (mg)
(moderate growth)Mp+q≤C0Hp+qMpMq, p,q∈N, for some C0,H≥1.
4. (γ)
Clearly, (mg)⇒(dc) and (γ1)⇒(γ). Moreover, if (Mp)p∈N satisfies (lc), then (γ2)⇒(γ1). The conditions (lc), (dc), (mg), (γ) and (γ1) are standard in the theory of ultradifferentiable functions and their meaning is well explained in the classical work of Komatsu [12]. Conditions (γ1) and (γ2) are particular instances of
(γr)
p∈Z+suppmp1/rq=p∑∞mq1/r1<∞,r>0.
Condition (γr) means that (Mp1/r)p∈N satisfies (γ1). These conditions, which were introduced by Schmets and Valdivia [19] for r∈N and by Thilliez [20] for arbitrary r>0, play an important role in the study of the Borel-Ritt problem in spaces of ultraholomorphic functions [18, 19, 20, 11]. Condition (β2) is due to Petzsche [16] and appears in his characterization of the existence of a continuous linear right inverse of the Borel mapping on spaces of ultradifferentiable functions of Roumieu type; see Theorem 2.4 below.
Remark 2.1*.*
Consider
(β20)
∃n∈Z+:p→∞limmpmnp=∞.
(β21)
p→∞limmpMp1/p=0.
Petzsche has shown that (β20)⇒(β2)⇒(β21) [16, Prop. 1.5(b) and Prop. 1.6(a)] and that the converse implications are false in general [16, Example 1.8]. However, (β20) and (β2) are equivalent within the class of weight sequences (Mp)p∈N satisfying the following mild regularity condition: There is n∈Z+ such that the set of finite limit points of the set {mnl/mnl−1∣l∈Z+} is bounded [16, Prop. 1.6(b)].
Example 2.2**.**
(i) The Gevrey sequence (p!α)p∈N, α>0, satisfies (lc) and (mg); it satisfies (γr) if and only if α>r; it does not satisfy (β21) and, thus, also not (β2).
(ii) The q-Gevrey sequence (qp2)p∈N, q>1, satisfies (lc) and (dc) but not (mg); it satisfies (γr)>0 for all r>0; it satisfies (β20) and, thus, also (β2).
Following [19], we define the 2-interpolating sequence(Np)p∈N associated to a weight sequence (Mp)p∈N as
[TABLE]
Lemma 2.3**.**
[19, Lemma 2.3]**
Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc). Denote by (Np)p∈N its 2-interpolating sequence. Then, (Np)p∈N is a weight sequence satisfying (lc). Moreover, the following statements hold:
(a)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (dc) if and only if (Np)p∈N does so.*
(b)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (γ2) if and only if (Np)p∈N satisfies (γ1).*
(c)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (β2) if and only if (Np)p∈N does so.*
2.3. The Borel problem in spaces of ultradifferentiable functions
Let (Np)p∈N be a weight sequence. For h>0 we define D[−1,1]Np,h as the Banach space consisting of all φ∈C∞(R) with suppφ⊆[−1,1] such that
[TABLE]
We set
[TABLE]
D[−1,1](Np) is a Fréchet space, while D[−1,1]{Np} is an (LB)-space. If (Np)p∈N satisfies (lc), the spaces D[−1,1](Np) and D[−1,1]{Np} are non-trivial if and only if (Np)p∈N satisfies (γ), as follows from the Denjoy-Carleman theorem.
For h>0 we define ΛNp,h as the Banach space consisting of all sequences a=(ap)p∈N∈CN such that
[TABLE]
We set
[TABLE]
Λ(Np) is a Fréchet space, while Λ{Np} is an (LB)-space. The mappings
[TABLE]
are well-defined and continuous. Petzsche characterized the surjectivity and the existence of a continuous linear right inverse of these mappings in the following way.
Theorem 2.4**.**
Let (Np)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (γ).
(a)
([16, Thm. 3.4])* The following statements are equivalent:*
(i)
(Np)p∈N* satisfies (γ1).*
(ii)
B:D[−1,1](Np)→Λ(Np)*
has a continuous linear right inverse.*
(iii)
B:D[−1,1](Np)→Λ(Np)*
is surjective.*
(b)
([16, Thm. 3.5])* (Np)p∈N satisfies (γ1) if and only if B:D[−1,1]{Np}→Λ{Np} is surjective.*
(c)
([16, Thm. 3.1(a)])111As pointed out in [19, p. 223], the statement of [16, Thm. 3.1(a)] contains a mistake, namely, one should read “(γ1) and (β2)” instead of “(β2)”.(Np)p∈N satisfies (γ1) and (β2) if and only if B:D[−1,1]{Np}→Λ{Np} has a continuous linear right inverse.
3. Gelfand-Shilov spaces of type S∗
Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence. For n∈N and h>0 we write SMp,hn(R) for the Banach space consisting of all φ∈Cn(R) such that
[TABLE]
Notice that
[TABLE]
We set
[TABLE]
S(Mp)(R) is a Fréchet space, S{Mp}(R) is an (LF)-space, while S{Mp}(R) is a (PLB)-space.
In the sequel, we shall sometimes use S∗(R) as a common notation for S(Mp)(R), S{Mp}(R) and S{Mp}(R); a similar convention will be used for other spaces. If (Mp)p∈N satisfies (dc), the mapping
[TABLE]
is well-defined and continuous. The following result will be used later on.
Proposition 3.1**.**
The (LF)-space S{Mp}(R) is complete.
Proof.
In the notation of [6], we have that S{Mp}(R)=BV(R), where V=(vN)N∈N with vN=eM(∣⋅∣/N) for N∈N. By [6, Thm. 3.4], it suffices to show that V satisfies (Ω), that is,
[TABLE]
The latter follows from the fact that the function t→M(et) is increasing and convex on [0,∞).
∎
Next, we discuss the Fourier transform on S∗(R). For n∈N and h>0 we write SnMp,h(R) for the Banach space consisting of all φ∈C∞(R) such that
[TABLE]
We set
[TABLE]
S(Mp)(R) is a Fréchet space, S{Mp}(R) is an (LF)-space, while S{Mp}(R) is a (PLB)-space.
If (Mp)p∈N satisfies (lc) and (dc), the Fourier transform is a topological isomorphism from S∗(R) onto S∗(R) (cf. [10, Sect. IV.6]).
We now introduce Gelfand-Shilov spaces of type S∗(0,∞). Let n∈N and h>0. We define the following closed subspaces of SMp,hn(R)
[TABLE]
and endow them with the norm ∥⋅∥SMp,hn. Hence, they become Banach spaces. We set
[TABLE]
Notice that S{Mp}(0,∞) was denoted by S{Mp}(0,∞) in the introduction. S(Mp)(0,∞) and S(Mp)0(R) are Fréchet spaces, S{Mp}(0,∞) and S{Mp}0(R) are (LF)-spaces, while S{Mp}(0,∞) and S{Mp}0(R) are (PLB)-spaces. We have that
[TABLE]
as sets.
Lemma 3.2**.**
Let S∗(R)=S(Mp)(R) or S∗(R)=S{Mp}(R). Then, the equalities (3.1) and (3.2) hold topologically if the spaces at the right-hand side are endowed with the relative topology induced by S∗(R).
We need some preparation for the proof of Lemma 3.2. Let E=limn∈NEn be an (LF)-space. A subspace L of E is called a limit subspace of E if L=limn∈NL∩En topologically, where L is endowed with the relative topology induced by E and L∩En, n∈N, is endowed with the relative topology induced by En. The following result is a consequence of [21, Prop. 1.2] and the fact that every Fréchet space is an acyclic (LF)-space; we refer to [21] for the definition of an acyclic (LF)-space.
Lemma 3.3**.**
(cf. [21, Prop. 1.2])*
Let E be an (LF)-space, let F be a Fréchet space and let T:E→F be a surjective continuous linear mapping. Then, kerT is a limit subspace of E.*
Lemma 3.4**.**
Let E be an (LF)-space. Every complemented subspace of E is a limit subspace of E.
Proof.
Since (LF)-spaces are webbed and ultrabornological [15, Remark 24.36] and the class of ultrabornological lcHs is closed under taking complemented subspaces, this follows from De Wilde’s open mapping theorem [15, Thm. 24.30].
∎
S∗(R)=S{Mp}(R): It suffices to show that S{Mp}(0,∞) and S{Mp}0(R) are limit subspaces of S{Mp}(R). We first consider S{Mp}0(R). By Borel’s theorem, the continuous linear mapping B:S{Mp}(R)→CN is surjective. Clearly, S{Mp}0(R)=kerB. Hence, the result follows from Lemma 3.3. Next, we deal with S{Mp}(0,∞). Since S{Mp}(0,∞) is a complemented subspace of S{Mp}0(R), Lemma 3.4 yields that
S{Mp}(0,∞) is a limit subspace of S{Mp}0(R). Consequently, as we already have shown that S{Mp}0(R) is a limit subspace of S{Mp}(R), S{Mp}(0,∞) is a limit subspace of S{Mp}(R).
∎
Finally, we present two technical lemmas that will play an important role later on.
Lemma 3.5**.**
Let (Np)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (dc).
(a)
T:S(Np)(0,∞)→S(Np)(0,∞)* and T:S{Np}(0,∞)→S{Np}(0,∞) are well-defined continuous mappings, where*
[TABLE]
(b)
T:S(Np)(0,∞)→S(Np)(0,∞)* and T:S{Np}(0,∞)→S{Np}(0,∞) are well-defined continuous mappings, where*
[TABLE]
Proof.
We start by recalling the following consequence of Taylor’s theorem: Let φ∈Cn([0,1]), n∈N, be such that φ(m)(0)=0 for all m=0,…,n. Then,
[TABLE]
for all j,k∈N\mboxwithj+k≤n.
(a) It suffices to show that T:SNp,hn+2(0,∞)→SNp,hn(0,∞) is well-defined and continuous for all n∈N and h>0. Let φ∈SNp,hn+2(0,∞) be arbitrary. It holds that
[TABLE]
for all m≤n. Hence, (3.3) yields that T(φ)∈Cn(R) with suppφ⊆[0,∞) and
[TABLE]
(b) It suffices to show that T:SNp,hHn(0,∞)→SNp,hn(0,∞) is well-defined and continuous for all n∈N and h>0. Let φ∈SNp,hHn(0,∞) be arbitrary. It holds that T(φ)∈Cn(R) with suppφ⊆[0,∞) and
[TABLE]
∎
Lemma 3.6**.**
Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (dc). Denote by (Np)p∈N its 2-interpolating sequence.
(a)
T:S(Np)(0,∞)→S(Mp)(0,∞)* and T:S{Np}(0,∞)→S{Mp}(0,∞) are well-defined continuous mappings, where*
[TABLE]
(b)
T:S(Mp)(0,∞)→S(Np)(0,∞)* and T:S{Mp}(0,∞)→S{Np}(0,∞) are well-defined continuous mappings, where*
[TABLE]
Proof.
(a) It suffices to show that T:SNp,h1/22n+1(0,∞)→SMp,hn(0,∞) is well-defined and continuous for all n∈N and h>0. Let φ∈SNp,h1/22n+1(0,∞) be arbitrary. We set I0={0} and
[TABLE]
Faà di Bruno’s formula implies that
[TABLE]
for all m≤n, where aα are real constants. Hence, (3.3) yields that T(φ)∈Cn(R) with suppφ⊆[0,∞). Since Mp=N2p for all p∈N, it holds that
[TABLE]
(b) Lemma 2.3(a) yields that (Np)p∈N satisfies (dc). We may assume without loss of generality that the constants C0 and H occuring in (dc) are the same for (Mp)p∈N and (Np)p∈N. It suffices to show that T:SMp,H2n+1h2n(0,∞)→SNp,hn(0,∞) is well-defined and continuous for all n∈N and h>0. Set l=H2n+1h2. Let φ∈SMp,ln(0,∞) be arbitrary. Clearly, T(φ)∈Cn(R) with suppφ⊆[0,∞). Faà di Bruno’s formula implies that
[TABLE]
for all m≤n, where aj are positive constants. It holds that Np+q≤C0qHq(q−1)/2HpqNp for all p,q∈N. Moreover, there is C1>0 such that M⌈p/2⌉≤C1H⌈p/2⌉Np for all p∈N. Therefore,
[TABLE]
∎
4. A functional analytic tool
In this section, we show an abstract result about the existence of a continuous linear right inverse that it is tailor-made to prove Proposition 6.3 below. We start with the following simple observation.
Lemma 4.1**.**
Let E, F and G be vector spaces and let T:E→F and S:E→G be linear mappings. If both T:E→F and S∣kerT:kerT→G are surjective, then T∣kerS:kerS→F is also surjective.
Proof.
Let x∈F be arbitrary. Choose y∈E such that T(y)=x and z∈kerT such that S(z)=S(y). Then, y−z∈kerS and T(y−z)=T(y)=x.
∎
Now suppose that E, F and G are lcHs and that T and S are continuous linear mappings. If both T and S∣kerT have a continuous linear right inverse, it is clear from the proof of Lemma 4.1 that also T∣kerS has a continuous linear right inverse. Our goal is to show that, under suitable extra conditions on F and T, T∣kerS has a continuous linear right inverse if one merely assumes that S∣kerT lifts bounded sets. We need some preparation to formulate and prove this result.
Let E and F be lcHs. We denote by csn(E) the set consisting of all continuous seminorms on E and by L(E,F) the space consisting of all continuous linear mappings from E to F.
Let (xn)n∈N⊂F and (xn′)n∈N⊂F′. The pair ((xn)n∈N,(xn′)n∈N) is said to be a Schauder frame (in F) [2, Def. 1.1] if
[TABLE]
for all x∈F. A Schauder frame ((xn)n∈N,(xn′)n∈N) is called absolute if for all p∈csn(F) there is q∈csn(F) such that
[TABLE]
for all x∈F. Every absolute Schauder basis [15, p. 340] canonically determines a Schauder frame. We need the following lemma.
Lemma 4.2**.**
Let E and F be lcHs and let T∈L(E,F). Suppose that E is sequentially complete and that F possesses an absolute Schauder frame ((xn)n∈N,(xn′)n∈N). If there is a sequence (yn)n∈N⊂E such that T(yn)=xn for all n∈N and for all p∈csn(E) there is q∈csn(F) such that p(yn)≤q(xn) for all n∈N, then T has a continuous linear right inverse.
Proof.
For each x∈F the sequence (∑n=0N⟨xn′,x⟩yn)N∈N is Cauchy in E. Since E is sequentially complete, we have that
[TABLE]
Then, R:F→E is a continuous linear right inverse of T.
∎
Proposition 4.3**.**
Let E, F and G be lcHs and let T∈L(E,F) and S∈L(E,G). Endow kerT and kerS with the relative topology induced by E. Suppose that the following conditions are satisfied:
(1)
E* is sequentially complete.*
(2)
F* possesses an absolute Schauder frame.*
(3)
S∣kerT:kerT→G* lifts bounded sets, that is, for every B⊂G bounded there is A⊂kerT bounded such that S(A)=B.*
(4)
There is a lcHs E0 with the following properties:
(4.1)
E0⊂E* with continuous inclusion mapping.*
(4.2)
T∣E0:E0→F* has a continuous linear right inverse.*
(4.3)
S∣E0:E0→G* is locally bounded, that is, there is a neighbourhood U of [math] in E0 such that S(U) is bounded in G.*
Then, T∣kerS:kerS→F has a continuous linear right inverse.
Proof.
Suppose that ((xn)n∈N,(xn′)n∈N) is an absolute Schauder frame in F. Since kerS is sequentially complete (as a closed subspace of E), it suffices to construct a sequence (yn)n∈N⊂kerS satisfying the assumptions of Lemma 4.2. By (4.2), there is a sequence (y0,n)n∈N⊂E0 such that T(y0,n)=xn for all n∈N and for all p∈csn(E0) there is q∈csn(F) such that p(y0,n)≤q(xn) for all n∈N. (4.3) means that there is p0∈csn(E0) such that S∣E0:(E0,p0)→G is continuous, where (E0,p0) stands for the vector space E0 endowed with the topology generated by the single seminorm p0. In particular, S(y)=0 for all y∈E0 with p0(y)=0. We set
[TABLE]
for n∈N. Since the sequence (sn)n∈N is bounded in G, (3) yields that there is a bounded sequence (zn)n∈N⊂kerT such that S(zn)=sn for all n∈N. Set yn=y0,n−p0(y0,n)zn for all n∈N. Then, yn∈kerS and T(yn)=T(y0,n)=xn for all n∈N. Finally, let p∈csn(E) be arbitrary. Since the sequence (zn)n∈N is bounded in E, there is C>0 such that
[TABLE]
for all n∈N, where p′=(1+C)max{p∣E0,p0}. (4.1) yields that p′∈csn(E0). Hence, there is q∈csn(F) such that p(yn)≤p′(y0,n)≤q(xn) for all n∈N.
∎
Remark 4.4*.*
If E is an (FS)-space (= Fréchet-Schwartz space) and G is a Fréchet space, then condition (3) in Proposition 4.3 may be relaxed to “S∣kerT:kerT→G is surjective”. Indeed, as a closed subspace of an (FS)-space is again an (FS)-space, ker(S∣kerT) is an (FS)-space. Since every (FS)-space is quasinormable, the result follows from the fact that a surjective continuous linear mapping Q:X→Y between two Fréchet spaces X and Y lifts bounded sets if kerQ is quasinormable [15, Lemma 26.13].
5. The Borel problem in S(Np),0(R)
Given a weight sequence (Np)p∈N, we define the following closed subspace of S(Np)(R)
[TABLE]
and endow it with the relative topology induced by S(Np)(R). Hence, it becomes a Fréchet space. The goal of this section is to show the following result; it will be used in the proof of Proposition 6.3 below.
Proposition 5.1**.**
Let (Np)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc), (dc) and (γ1). Then,
B:S(Np),0(R)→CN
is surjective.
If (Np)p∈N satisfies (lc) and (dc), [12, Prop. 3.4] implies that S(Np)(R) is an (FS)-space. Hence, Proposition 5.1
can be strengthened as follows (cf. Remark 4.4).
Proposition 5.2**.**
Let (Np)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc), (dc) and (γ1). Then,
B:S(Np),0(R)→CN
lifts bounded sets.
The proof of Proposition 5.1 is based on the following variant of Eidelheit’s theorem.
Proposition 5.3**.**
Let E be a Fréchet space and let (xn′)n∈N⊂E′. Let F be a closed subspace of E and set
[TABLE]
The mapping
F→CN:x→(⟨xn′,x⟩)n∈N
is surjective if and only if
(1)
For all N∈N and c0,…,cN∈C it holds that
[TABLE]
implies that c0=⋯=cN=0.
(2)
For every B⊂E′ equicontinuous there is ν∈N such that for all N≥ν and c0,…,cN∈C it holds that
[TABLE]
implies that cν=⋯=cN=0.
Proof.
This is a consequence of the classical theorem of Eidelheit [15, Thm. 26.27] and the Hahn-Banach theorem.
∎
We shall prove Proposition 5.1 via Proposition 5.3 with E=S(Np)(R), F=S(Np),0(R) and (xn′)n∈N=((−1)nδ(n))n∈N). To this end, we first give an explicit description of the space (S(Np),0(R))⊥ and the equicontinuous subsets of S(Np)′(R). We need some preparation.
Let (Np)p∈N be a weight sequence. An entire function P(z)=∑p=0∞bpzp, bp∈C, is said to be an ultrapolynomial of class (Np) if
[TABLE]
for some h>0. If (Np)p∈N satisfies (lc), an entire function P is an ultrapolynomial of class (Np) if and only if
[TABLE]
for some h>0.
Lemma 5.4**.**
Let (Np)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc), (dc) and (γ1). Then, f∈S(Np)′(R) belongs to (S(Np),0(R))⊥ if and only if there is an ultrapolynomial P of class (Np) such that f=P in S(Np)′(R).
Proof.
Since D[−1,1](Np)⊆S(Np)(R), Theorem 2.4(a) implies that
B:S(Np)(R)→Λ(Np) is surjective. By taking the Fourier transform, we obtain that M:S(Np)(R)→Λ(Np) is surjective. Consequently, the sequence
[TABLE]
is exact, where ι:S(Np),0(R)→S(Np)(R) denotes the inclusion mapping. Therefore, its dual sequence
[TABLE]
is also exact [15, Prop. 26.4]. In particular, imMt=kerιt. It is clear that kerιt=(S(Np),0(R))⊥. On the other hand, Λ(Np)′ may be identified with the space consisting of all sequences b=(bp)p∈N∈CN satisfying (5.1) for some h>0 and, under this identification, the duality is given by
[TABLE]
Hence, imMt coincides with the subspace of S(Np)′(R) consisting of all ultrapolynomials of class (Np).
∎
The next result follows from the structural theorem for general Gelfand-Shilov spaces [10, p. 113] and [12, Prop. 3.4].
Lemma 5.5**.**
Let (Np)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (dc). For every B⊂S(Np)′(R) equicontinuous there are ν∈N and C,h>0 such that for all f∈B there are measurable functions g0,…,gν such that
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
for all n=0,…,ν.
Finally, we will also use the following well-known fact from distribution theory.
Lemma 5.6**.**
Let ν∈N. For all N≥ν, c0,…,cN∈C and g0,…,gν∈Lloc1(R) it holds that
We use Proposition 5.3 with E=S(Np)(R), F=S(Np),0(R) and (xn′)n∈N=((−1)nδ(n))n∈N. In view of Lemma 5.4, condition (1) follows from Lemma 5.6 (with ν=0), while condition (2) follows from Lemmas 5.5 and 5.6.
∎
6. The Stieltjes moment problem in S∗(0,∞)
We are ready to characterize the surjectivity and the existence of a continuous linear right inverse of M:S∗(0,∞)→Λ∗ (cf. Theorem 1.2).
Theorem 6.1**.**
Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (dc).
(a)
The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (γ2).*
(ii)
M:S(Mp)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp)* has a continuous linear right inverse.*
(iii)
M:S(Mp)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp)* is surjective.*
(b)
The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (γ2).*
(ii)
M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp}* is surjective.*
(iii)
M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp}* is surjective.*
(c)
The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (γ2) and (β2).*
(ii)
M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp}* has a continuous linear right inverse.*
(iii)
M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp}* has a continuous linear right inverse.*
In view of Lemma 2.3, Theorem 6.1 is a consequence of the following two results.
Proposition 6.2**.**
Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (dc). Denote by (Np)p∈N its 2-interpolating sequence.
(a)
M:S(Mp)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp)* is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse) if and only if
M:S(Np)0(R)→Λ(Np) is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse).*
(b)
If M:S{Np}0(R)→Λ{Np} is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse),
M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp} is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse) as well.
(c)
If M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp} is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse),
M:S{Np}0(R)→Λ{Np} is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse) as well.
Proposition 6.3**.**
Let (Np)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (dc).
(a)
The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
(Np)p∈N* satisfies (γ1).*
(ii)
M:S(Np)0(R)→Λ(Np)*
has a continuous linear right inverse.*
(iii)
M:S(Np)0(R)→Λ(Np)*
is surjective.*
(b)
The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
(Np)p∈N* satisfies (γ1).*
(ii)
M:S{Np}0(R)→Λ{Np}*
is surjective.*
(iii)
M:S{Np}0(R)→Λ{Np}*
is surjective.*
(c)
The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
(Np)p∈N* satisfies (γ1) and (β2).*
(ii)
M:S{Np}0(R)→Λ{Np}*
has a continuous linear right inverse.*
(iii)
M:S{Np}0(R)→Λ{Np}*
has a continuous linear right inverse.*
The rest of this section is devoted to the proofs of the above two results.
We only show that M:S(Mp)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp) has a continuous linear right inverse if and only if
M:S(Np)0(R)→Λ(Np) does so; all other statements follow from a similar argument. We start with the direct implication. The proof is divided into two steps.
STEP I: Me:S(Np)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp):φ→(μ2p(φ))p∈N and Mo:S(Np)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp):φ→(μ2p+1(φ))p∈N have a continuous linear right inverse. Let R:Λ(Mp)→S(Mp)(0,∞) be a continuous linear right inverse of M:S(Mp)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp). Lemmas 3.5(b) and 3.6(b) imply that the mapping
[TABLE]
is well-defined and continuous. We claim that Te∘R:Λ(Mp)→S(Np)(0,∞) is a continuous linear right inverse of Me:S(Np)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp). Let a=(ap)p∈N∈Λ(Mp) be arbitrary. Then,
[TABLE]
for all p∈N. Likewise, Lemma 3.6(b) yields that the mapping
[TABLE]
is well-defined and continuous. We claim that To∘R:Λ(Mp)→S(Np)(0,∞) is a continuous linear right inverse of Mo:S(Np)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp). Let a=(ap)p∈N∈Λ(Mp) be arbitrary. Then,
[TABLE]
for all p∈N.
STEP II: M:S(Np)0(R)→Λ(Np) has a continuous linear right inverse.
Let Re:Λ(Mp)→S(Np)(0,∞) and Ro:Λ(Mp)→S(Np)(0,∞) be continuous linear right inverses of Me:S(Np)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp) and Mo:S(Np)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp), respectively. Consider the continuous mappings
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
Let a=(ap)p∈N∈Λ(Np) be arbitrary. Then,
[TABLE]
for all p∈N. Hence, Se∘Re∘Te+So∘Ro∘To is a continuous linear right inverse of M:S(Np)0(R)→Λ(Np).
Next, we show the converse implication. Again, we divide the proof into two steps.
STEP I: Me:S(Np)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp):φ→(μ2p(φ))p∈N has a continuous linear right inverse. Let R:Λ(Np)→S(Np)0(R) be a continuous linear right inverse of M:S(Np)0(R)→Λ(Np). Consider the continuous mappings T:Λ(Mp)→Λ(Np) given by T((ap)p∈N)=(bp)p∈N, where
[TABLE]
and
[TABLE]
We claim that S∘R∘T:Λ(Mp)→S(Np)(0,∞) is a continuous linear right inverse of Me:S(Np)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp). Let a=(ap)p∈N∈Λ(Mp) be arbitrary. Then,
[TABLE]
for all p∈N.
STEP II: M:S(Mp)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp) has a continuous linear right inverse. Let Re:Λ(Mp)→S(Np)(0,∞) be a continuous linear right inverse of Me:S(Np)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp). Lemmas 3.5(a) and 3.6(a) imply that the mapping
[TABLE]
is well-defined and continuous. We claim that T∘Re:Λ(Mp)→S(Mp)(0,∞) is a continuous linear right inverse of M:S(Mp)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp). Let a=(ap)p∈N∈Λ(Mp) be arbitrary. Then,
(a)(i)⇒(ii) We apply Proposition 4.3 with E=S(Np)(R), F=Λ(Np), G=CN, T=M:S(Np)(R)→Λ(Np) and S=B:S(Np)(R)→CN.
Lemma 3.2 yields that the topology induced by E=S(Np)(R) on kerS=S(Np)0(R) coincides with the original topology of S(Np)0(R).
We now verify conditions (1)-(4): (1) Obvious. (2) The sequence of standard unit vectors is an absolute Schauder basis in Λ(Np). (3) This has been shown in Proposition 5.2. (4) Set E0=F−1(D[−1,1](Np)) and endow it with the topology generated by the system of seminorms {p∘F∣p∈csn(D[−1,1](Np))}. Notice that D[−1,1](Np)⊂S(Np)(R) with continuous inclusion mapping and recall that F:S(Np)(R)→S(Np)(R) is a topological isomorphism. Hence, (4.1) is clear, while (4.2) follows from Theorem 2.4(a). Finally,
[TABLE]
for all φ∈E0, whence (4.3) holds.
(ii)⇒(iii) Trivial.
(iii)⇒(i) In particular, M:S(Np)(R)→Λ(Np) is surjective. By taking the Fourier transform, we obtain that B:S(Np)(R)→Λ(Np) is surjective. Choose φ∈S(Np)(R) such that φ(p)(0)=δ0,p for all p∈N. Set ψ=φ−1. Then,
[TABLE]
for all h>0 and ψ(p)(0)=0 for all p∈N. Since lim∣x∣→∞φ(x)=0, ψ is not identically zero. Hence, the Denjoy-Carleman theorem implies that (Np)p∈N satisfies (γ). By Theorem 2.4(a), it therefore suffices to show that the mapping B:D[−1,1](Np)→Λ(Np) is surjective. Let a∈Λ(Np) be arbitrary and choose φ∈S(Np)(R) such that B(φ)=a. Pick ψ∈D[−1,1](Np) such that ψ≡1 in a neighbourhood of 0. Then, φψ∈D[−1,1](Np) and B(φψ)=a.
(b)(i)⇒(ii) We apply Lemma 4.1 with E=S{Np}(R), F=Λ{Np}, G=CN, T=M:S{Np}(R)→Λ{Np} and S=B:S{Np}(R)→CN. Theorem 2.4(b) and the inclusion D[−1,1]{Np}⊂S{Np}(R) yield that B:S{Np}(R)→Λ{Np} is surjective. By taking the Fourier transform, we obtain that T is surjective. S∣kerT is surjective because of Proposition 5.1 and the inclusion S(Np)(R)⊂S{Np}(R).
(ii)⇒(iii) This follows from the continuous inclusion S{Np}(R)⊂S{Np}(R).
(iii)⇒(i) This can be shown in a similar way as (iii)⇒(i) from part (a).
(c)(i)⇒(ii) We apply Proposition 4.3 with E=S{Np}(R), F=Λ{Np}, G=CN, T=M:S{Np}(R)→Λ{Np} and S=B:S{Np}(R)→CN.
Lemma 3.2 yields that the topology induced by E=S{Np}(R) on kerS=S{Np}0(R) coincides with the original topology of S{Np}0(R).
We now verify conditions (1)-(4): (1)S{Np}(R) is complete by Proposition 3.1. (2) The sequence of standard unit vectors is an absolute Schauder basis in Λ{Np}. (3) This follows from Proposition 5.2 and the continuous inclusion S(Np)(R)⊂S{Np}(R). (4) Set E0=F−1(D[−1,1]{Np}) and endow it with the topology generated by the system of seminorms {p∘F∣p∈csn(D[−1,1]{Np})}. Notice that D[−1,1]{Np}⊂S{Np}(R) with continuous inclusion mapping and recall that F:S{Np}(R)→S{Np}(R) is a topological isomorphism. Hence, (4.1) is clear, while (4.2) follows from Theorem 2.4(c). Finally,
[TABLE]
for all φ∈E0, whence (4.3) holds.
(ii)⇒(iii) This follows from the inclusion S{Np}(R)⊂S{Np}(R).
(iii)⇒(i) This can be shown in a similar way as (iii)⇒(i) from part (a).
∎
7. The Stieltjes moment problem in S∗†(0,∞) and the Borel-Ritt problem in spaces of ultraholomorphic functions on the upper half-plane
In this final section, we show an analogue of Theorem 7.2 both for the Stieltjes moment problem in Gelfand-Shilov spaces of type S∗†(0,∞) and the Borel-Ritt problem in spaces of ultraholomorphic functions on the upper half-plane H={z∈C∣ℑmz>0}.
We start by introducing Gelfand-Shilov spaces of type S∗†. Let (Mp)p∈N and (Ap)p∈N be two weight sequences. For h>0 we write SMp,hAp,h(R) for the Banach space consisting of all φ∈C∞(R) such that
[TABLE]
We set
[TABLE]
S(Mp)(Ap)(R) is a Fréchet space, while S{Mp}{Ap}(R) is an (LB)-space.
Similarly as before, we will sometimes use S∗†(R) as a common notation for S(Mp)(Ap)(R) and S{Mp}{Ap}(R). If both (Mp)p∈N and (Ap)p∈N satisfy (lc), (dc) and (γ), the Fourier transform is a topological isomorphism from S∗†(R) onto S†∗(R) (cf. [10, Sect. IV.6] and [12, Lemma 4.1]).
Let h>0. We define the following closed subspace of SMp,hAp,h(R)
[TABLE]
and endow it with the norm ∥⋅∥SMp,hAp,h. Hence, it becomes a Banach space. We set
[TABLE]
S(Mp)(Ap)(0,∞) is a Fréchet space, while S{Mp}{Ap}(0,∞) is an (LB)-space.
Notice that
[TABLE]
as sets. In the Beurling case, it is clear that (7.1) also holds topologically if we endow the space at the right-hand side with the relative topology induced by S(Mp)(Ap)(R). If (Mp)p∈N satisfies (lc) and (dc), the corresponding statement also holds in the Roumieu case. By [12, Prop. 3.4], these assumptions imply that S{Mp}{Ap}(R) is a (DFS)-space, whence the result follows from the fact that a closed subspace of a (DFS)-space is again a (DFS)-space and De Wilde’s open mapping theorem.
The image of S∗†(0,∞) under the Fourier transform can be described as follows.
Lemma 7.1**.**
(cf. [3, Prop. 2.1])* Let (Mp)p∈N and (Ap)p∈N be two weight sequences satisfying (lc), (dc) and (γ). Let ψ∈S†∗(R). Then, ψ∈F(S∗†(0,∞)) if and only if there is Ψ:H→C satisfying the following conditions:*
(i)
Ψ∣R=ψ.
(ii)
Ψ* is continuous on H and holomorphic on H.*
(iii)
limz∈H,z→∞Ψ(z)=0.
Next, we define spaces of ultraholomorphic functions on H. Given an open subset Ω⊆C, we denote by O(Ω) the space of holomorphic functions on Ω. Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence. For h>0 we write AMp,h(H) for the Banach space consisting of all f∈O(H) such that
[TABLE]
We set
[TABLE]
A(Mp)(H) is a Fréchet space, while A{Mp}(H) is an (LB)-space. Let f∈A∗(H) be arbitrary. Since f and all its derivatives are Lipschitz on H, it holds that
[TABLE]
exists for all p∈N. Moreover, f0∈C∞(R) and f0(p)=fp for all p∈N. From now on, we simply write f0=f. The asymptotic Borel mapping
[TABLE]
is well-defined and continuous.
We are ready to prove the two main results of this section.
Theorem 7.2**.**
Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (dc), and let (Ap)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (γ).
(a)
The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (γ2).*
(ii)
M:S(Mp)(Ap)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp)* has a continuous linear right inverse.*
(iii)
M:S(Mp)(Ap)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp)* is surjective.*
(b)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (γ2) if and only if M:S{Mp}{Ap}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp} is surjective.*
(c)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (γ2) and (β2) if and only if M:S{Mp}{Ap}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp} has a continuous linear right inverse.*
Remark 7.3*.*
In [5, Thm. 3.5], the direct implication of Theorem 7.2(b) was shown under the assumptions (slc) (= (Mp/p!)p∈N satisfies (lc)) and (mg), while the converse implication was shown under the assumptions (slc) and (dc).
Theorem 7.4**.**
Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (dc).
(a)
The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
Mp* satisfies (γ2).*
(ii)
B:A(Mp)(H)→Λ(Mp)* has a continuous linear right inverse.*
(iii)
B:A(Mp)(H)→Λ(Mp)* is surjective.*
(b)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (γ2) if and only if B:A{Mp}(H)→Λ{Mp} is surjective.*
(c)
(Mp)p∈N* satisfies (γ2) and (β2) if and only if B:A{Mp}(H)→Λ{Mp} has a continuous linear right inverse.*
Remark 7.5*.*
Theorem 7.4 improves various results from [19, 20, 11] in the special case of the upper half-plane:
The implication (i)⇒(iii) from Theorem 7.2(a) was shown in [20, Cor. 3.4.1] under the assumptions (slc) and (mg); the existence of a continuous linear right inverse of B:A(Mp)(H)→Λ(Mp) was shown in [19, Thm. 4.4 and Thm. 4.5] under the assumptions (lc) and (γ3); the direct implication of Theorem 7.4(b) was shown in [20, Thm. 3.2.1] under the assumptions (slc) and (mg), while the converse implication was shown in [11, Thm. 4.14] under the assumptions (slc) and (dc); the existence of a continuous linear right inverse of B:A{Mp}(H)→Λ{Mp} was shown in [19, Thm. 5.4 and Thm. 5.5] under the assumptions (lc), (γ3) and (β2).
In view of Theorem 6.1, Theorems 7.2 and 7.4 are both consequences of the following result; it is essentially shown in [5, Sect. 3], but we repeat the argument here for the sake of completeness.
Proposition 7.6**.**
Let (Mp)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (dc), and let (Ap)p∈N be a weight sequence satisfying (lc) and (γ).
(a)
The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
M:S(Mp)(Ap)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp)* is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse).*
(ii)
M:S(Mp)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp)* is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse).*
(iii)
B:A(Mp)(H)→Λ(Mp)* is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse).*
(b)
The following statements are equivalent:
(i)
M:S{Mp}{Ap}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp}* is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse).*
(ii)
M:S{Mp}(0,∞)→Λ{Mp}* is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse).*
(iii)
B:A{Mp}(H)→Λ{Mp}* is surjective (has a continuous linear right inverse).*
Proof.
We only show the equivalences about the existence of a continuous linear right inverse stated in (a); all other cases follow from a similar argument.
(i)⇒(ii) This follows from the continuous inclusion S(Mp)(Ap)(0,∞)⊂S(Mp)(0,∞).
(ii)⇒(iii) We define the Laplace transform of an element φ∈S(Mp)(0,∞) as
[TABLE]
L:S(Mp)(0,∞)→A(Mp)(H) is well-defined and continuous, and L(φ)(p)(0)=ipμp(φ) for all p∈N. Let R:Λ(Mp)→S(Mp)(0,∞) be a continuous linear right inverse of M:S(Mp)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp). Consider the continuous mapping
[TABLE]
Then, L∘R∘T:Λ(Mp)→A(Mp)(H) is a continuous linear right inverse of B:A(Mp)(H)→Λ(Mp).
(iii)⇒(i) We start by making some preliminary observations about the weight sequences (Mp)p∈N and (Ap)p∈N. By [5, Lemma 2.2], we may assume without loss of generality that (Ap)p∈N satisfies (dc). Next, choose f∈A(Mp)(H) such that f(p)(0)=δ1,p for all p∈N. Set φ(x)=f(x)−x for x∈R. Then,
[TABLE]
for all h>0 and R>0, and φ(p)(0)=0 for all p∈N. Since f is bounded, φ is not identically zero. Hence, the Denjoy-Carleman theorem implies that (Mp)p∈N satisfies (γ). Consequently, we have that limp→∞(p!/Mp)1/p=0 [12, Lemma 4.1]. We now turn to the actual proof. It is based on the following observation [5, Lemma 3.6]: Let (ap)p∈N∈CN and let G∈C∞((−δ,δ)), δ>0, with G(0)=0. Set
[TABLE]
Then,
[TABLE]
Set V={z∈C∣ℑmz>−1}. By [5, Lemma 3.1] and [12, Lemma 4.3], there is G∈O(V) satisfying the following properties:
(i)
G does not vanish on V.
(ii)
z∈Vsup∣G(z)∣eA(h∣z∣)<∞ for all h>0.
(iii)
p∈Nsupx∈Rsup2pp!∣G(p)(x)∣eA(h∣x∣)<∞ for all h>0.
Lemma 7.1 implies that the mapping T:A(Mp)(H)→S(Mp)(Ap)(0,∞):f→F−1((fG)∣R) is well-defined. Since F:S(Mp)(Ap)(R)→S(Ap)(Mp)(R) is a topological isomorphism and (7.1) holds topologically, T is also continuous. Next, the Cauchy estimates yield that
[TABLE]
Hence, the mapping
[TABLE]
is well-defined and continuous. Let R:Λ(Mp)→A(Mp)(H) be a continuous linear right inverse of B:A(Mp)(H)→Λ(Mp). Then, T∘R∘S:Λ(Mp)→S(Mp)(Ap)(0,∞) is a continuous linear right inverse of M:S(Mp)(Ap)(0,∞)→Λ(Mp).
∎
Bibliography21
The reference list from the paper itself. Each links out to its DOI / PubMed record.
1[1] R. P. Boas, The Stieltjes moment problem for functions of bounded variation , Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. 45 (1939), 399–404.
2[2] J. Bonet, C. Fernández, A. Galbis, J. Ribera, Shrinking and boundedly complete Schauder frames in Fréchet spaces , J. Math. Anal. Appl. 410 (2014), 953–966.
3[3] J. Chung, S.-Y. Chung, D. Kim, Every Stieltjes moment problem has a solution in Gelfand-Shilov spaces , J. Math. Soc. Japan 55 (2003), 909–913.
4[4] S.-Y. Chung, D. Kim, Y. Yeom, Stieltjes moment problem for Gelfand-Leontiev spaces , Fract. Calc. Appl. Anal. 5 (1999), 623–629.
5[5] A. Debrouwere, J. Jiménez-Garrido, J. Sanz, Injectivity and surjectivity of the Stieltjes moment mapping in Gelfand-Shilov spaces , submitted, preprint available at ar Xiv:1902.01305 .
6[6] A. Debrouwere, J. Vindas, Topological properties of convolutor spaces via the short-time Fourier transform , submitted, preprint available at ar Xiv:1801.09246 .
7[7] A. J. Durán, The Stieltjes moments problem for rapidly decreasing functions , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 107 (1989), 731–741.
8[8] A. L. Durán, R. Estrada, Strong moment problems for rapidly decreasing smooth functions , Proc. Amer. Math. Soc. 120 (1994), 529–534.