To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
An oversight by the typesetters has led to the omission of the summation condition on the second summation of the first displayed equation on page 392 of [1]. The proof of Lemma 4.1 is consequently very difficult to follow. The expression for Ip(α) should read
In addition, we take this opportunity to note that on page 391, in the two displayed equations following equation (3.15), the summations involving ud+1 should read
The best current bounds for the proportion of zeros of ζ(s) on the critical line are due to Conrey [C], using Levinson's method [Lev]. This method can also be used to detect simple zeros on the critical line. To apply Levinson's method one first needs an asymptotic formula for the meansquare from 0 to T of ζ(s)M(s) near the -line, where
where μ(n) is the Möbius function, h(x) is a real polynomial with h(0) = 0, and y=Tθ for some θ > 0. It turns out that the parameter θ is critical to the method: having an asymptotic formula valid for large values of θ is necessary in order to obtain good results. For example, if we let κ denote the proportion of nontrivial zeros of ζ(s) which are simple and on the critical line, then having the formula valid for 0 < θ < yields κ > 0·3562, having 0 < θ < gives κ > 0·40219, and it is necessary to have θ > 0·165 in order to obtain a positive lower bound for κ. At present, it is known that the asymptotic formula remains valid for 0 < θ < , this is due to Conrey. Without assuming the Riemann Hypothesis, Levinson's method provides the only known way of obtaining a positive lower bound for κ.
Let s1, s2, … denote the squarefree numbers in ascending order. In [1], Erdős showed that, if 0 ≤ γ ≤ 2, then
where B(γ) is a function only of γ. In 1973 Hooley [4] improved the range of validity of this result to 0 ≤ γ ≤ 3, and then later gained a further slight improvement by a method he outlined at the International Number Theory Symposium at Stillwater, Oklahoma in 1984. We have, however, independently obtained the better improvement that (1) holds for
in contrast to the range
derived by Hooley. The main purpose of this paper is to substantiate our new result. Professor Hooley has informed me that there are similarities between our methods as well as significant differences.
Let γ:x = x(u) for a≤ u ≤ b be a closed curve in n dimensional euclidean space En (for n ≥ 2) referred to some point P0, which does not lie on γ, as origin. We suppose that γ is smooth in the sense that the cartesian coordinates are class C2 functions of the parameter u, and that dx/du is non-vanishing so that a tangent vector is everywhere well defined. These properties are also assumed to hold in an obvious way at the join of the end points u = a and u = b. As P moves on γ its position vector x(u) intersects the surface of the unit sphere centred at P0 in a closed curve γ0. Note that γ0: x = x0(u) may not be smooth everywhere. If there are points P on γ where P0P is tangential to γ at P then dx0/du =0 at the corresponding point on γ0, and γ0 may have a cusp there. We assume that γ0 is smooth except at a finite number of points. We define the total swing of the position vector to γ to be the arc length L0 of γ0. Clearly L0 is not an invariant but depends on the choice of the origin P0 in relation to γ. The total (first) curvature of γ is an invariant and is defined by
where s is the arc length on γ, K(S) is the curvature and ‖v‖ is the euclidean norm of the vector v. Note that LT is also the arc length of the closed curve γ1, described on a unit sphere by the unit tangent t = dx/ds to γ as position vector, with the centre of the sphere as origin, γ1 is the spherical indicatrix of t. Our purpose is to establish the result
An oncoming two-dimensional laminar boundary layer that develops an unstable inflection point and becomes three-dimensional is described by the Hall-Smith (1991) vortex/wave interaction equations. These equations are now examined in the neighbourhood of the position where the critical surface starts to form. A consistent structure is established in which an inviscid core flow is matched to a viscous buffer-layer solution where the appropriate jump condition on the transverse shear stress is satisfied. The final result is a bifurcation equation for the (constant) amplitude of the wave pressure. A representative classical velocity profile is considered to illustrate solutions of this equation for a range of values of the wave-numbers.
Suppose that is a distribution of N points in U0, the closed disc of unit area and centred at the origin 0. For every measurable set B in ℝ2, let Z[; B] denote the number of ponts of in B, and write
For many years, the sine, cosine and imaginary exponential functions have been the basic functions of analysis. The sequence (2π)−1/2eikx, k = 0, ±1, ±2, … forms an orthonormal basis of the standard space L2[0, 2π]; Fourier series are the linear combinations. Their study has been and remains, an unquenchable source of problems and discoveries in mathematical analysis. The problems arise from the absence of a good dictionary for translating the properties of a function into those of its Fourier coefficients. Here is an example of the kind of difficulty that occurs. J.P. Kahane, Y. Katznelson and K. de Leeuw have shown ([150]) that, to get a continuous function g(x) from an arbitrary square-summable function ƒ(x), it is sufficient to increase—or leave unchanged—the moduli of the Fourier coefficients of ƒ(x) and to adjust their phases judiciously. It is thus impossible to predict the properties (size, regularity) of a function solely from knowledge of the order of magnitude of its Fourier coefficients. Indeed it is still difficult if we know the Fourier coefficients explicitly, and many problems are still open.
At the beginning of the 1980s, many scientists were already using “wavelets” as an alternative to traditional Fourier analysis. This alternative gave grounds for hoping for simpler numerical analysis and more robust synthesis of certain transitory phenomena. The “wavelets” of J.S. Liénard or of X. Rodet ([167], [206]) were used for numerical treatment of acoustic signals (words or music) and those of J. Morlet ([124]) for stocking and interpreting seismic signals gathered in the course of oil prospecting expeditions.
Well before orthonormal wavelet bases existed, wavelets had been used by J. Morlet (a geophysical engineer with O.R.I.C, Elf-Aquitaine) for the numerical processing of seismic signals recorded during oil prospecting expeditions.
Morlet's methods were mathematically justified, post facto, by Daubechies ([87]) and this chapter is dedicated to the statement and proof of the L2 convergence of Morlet's iterative algorithm.
Unlike the case of orthogonal wavelets, L2 convergence does not necessarily imply that “Morlet's wavelets” can be used in any function space other than the reference space L2. In fact, results by P. Tchamitchian and then by P.G. Lemarié have enabled the following to be established: for every exponent p > 2, there exists a function θ(x), of the real variable x, belonging to the Schwartz class S(ℝ), all of whose moments are zero and which satisfies two apparently contradictory properties as follows:
(a) the collection of functions 2j/2θ(2jx – κ), j, κ ∈ ℤ, is a Riesz basis of L2(ℝ);
(b) the above collection is not complete in Lp(ℝ).
These properties are not due to any special pathology of the spaces Lp(ℝ), 2 < p < ∞, which are, in any case, not in the least pathological. The same happens if we try to decompose the Holder spaces Cα using non-orthogonal wavelets.