Tuesday, 8 January 2008

ca.analysis and odes - Are two probability distributions uniquely constrained by the sum of their p-norms?

Here is a proof that Steve's rescaling gives you all solutions, together with the trivial operation of permuting the components of AA, BB, and CC if you view them as vectors with positive coeifficients. (If you view them this way, then Steve's notation ||A||p||A||p is just the usual pp-norm.)



I first tried what Alekk tried: You can take the limit as ptoinftyptoinfty and eventually obtain certain power series expansions in 1/p1/p. Or you can take the limit pto0pto0 and obtain certain power series expansions in pp. The problem with both approaches is that the information in the terms of these expansions is complicated. To help understand the second limit, I observed that the two sides of Steve's equation are analytic in pp, but it only helped so much.



Then I realized that when you have a complex analytic function of one variable, you can get a lot of information from looking at singularities. So let's look at that. Let
alphak=lnakalphak=lnak, so that
||A||p=expleft(fraclnbigl[exp(alpha1p)+exp(alpha2p)+cdots+exp(alphadp)bigr]pright).||A||p=expleft(fraclnbigl[exp(alpha1p)+exp(alpha2p)+cdots+exp(alphadp)bigr]pright).
The expression inside the logarithm has been called an exponential polynomial in the literature, which I'll call a(p)a(p). As indicated, ||A||p||A||p has a logarithmic singularity when a(p)=0a(p)=0. ||A||p||A||p has another kind of singularity when p=0p=0, but won't matter for anything. Also a(p)a(p) is an entire function, which means in particular that it is univalent and has isolated zeroes. Also, none of the zeroes of a(p)a(p) are on the real axis. Let b(p)b(p) and c(p)c(p) be the corresponding exponential polynomials for BB and CC.



Suppose that you follow a loop that starts on the positive real axis, encircles an mm-fold zero of a(p)a(p) at p0p0, and then retraces to its starting point. Then the value of ||A||p||A||p, which is non-zero for p>0p>0, gains a factor of exp(2mpii/p0)exp(2mpii/p0). Thus Steve's equation is not consistent unless all three of a(p)a(p), b(p)b(p) and, c(p)c(p) have the same zeroes with the same multiplicity. (Since exp(2mpii/p0)exp(2mpii/p0) cannot have norm 1, geometric sequences with this ratio but with different values of mm are linearly independent.)



At this point, the problem is solved by a very interesting paper of Ritt, On the zeros of exponential polynomials. Ritt reviews certain results of Tamarkin, Polya, and Schwengler, which imply in particular that if an exponential polynomial f(z)f(z) does not have any zeroes, then it is a monomial falphaexp(alphaz)falphaexp(alphaz). Ritt's own theorem is that if f(z)f(z) and g(z)g(z) are exponential polynomials, and if the roots of f(z)f(z) are all roots of g(z)g(z) (with multiplicity), then their ratio is another exponential polynomial. Thus in our situation a(p)a(p), b(p)b(p), and c(p)c(p) are all proportional up to a constant and an exponential factor. Thus, AA, BB, and CC must be the same vectors up to permutation, repetition, and rescaling of the coordinates. Repetition is an operation that hasn't yet been analyzed. If AoplusnAoplusn denotes the nn-fold repetition of AA, then ||Aoplusn||p=n1/p||A||p||Aoplusn||p=n1/p||A||p. Again, since geometric sequences with distinct ratios are linearly independent, Steve's equation is not consistent if AA, BB, and CC are repetitions of the same vector by different amounts.



The same argument works for the generalized equation
x1||A1||p+x2||A2||p+cdots+xn||An||p=0.x1||A1||p+x2||A2||p+cdots+xn||An||p=0.
The result is that any such linear dependence trivializes, after rescaling the vectors and permuting their coordinates.



Update (by J.O'Rourke): Greg's paper based on this solution was just published:




"Norms as a function of pp are linearly
independent in finite dimensions," Amer. Math. Monthly, Vol. 119, No. 7, Aug-Sep 2012, pp. 601-3
(JSTOR link).


No comments:

Post a Comment