1:
2: \documentclass[10pt]{amsart}
3:
4: \usepackage{amsmath, amssymb, amsfonts, amsbsy, amsthm, latexsym, graphicx}
5:
6:
7:
8: \theoremstyle{definition}
9: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem} [section]
10: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
11: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
12: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
13: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
14: \newtheorem{notation}[theorem]{Notation}
15: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
16: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
17: \numberwithin{equation}{section}
18:
19:
20: \newcommand{\EQ}{\; = \;}
21: \newcommand{\GE}{\; \ge \;}
22: \newcommand{\GT}{\; > \;}
23: \newcommand{\LE}{\; \le \;}
24: \newcommand{\LT}{\; < \;}
25: \newcommand{\SUBSET}{\; \subset \;}
26: \newcommand{\plus}{\; + \;}
27: \newcommand{\minus}{\; - \;}
28: \newcommand{\Bc}{{\mathcal{B}}}
29: \newcommand{\BD}{D_B}
30: \newcommand{\bigabs}[1]{{\bigl|#1\bigr|}}
31: \newcommand{\Bigabs}[1]{{\Bigl|#1\Bigr|}}
32: \newcommand{\biggabs}[1]{{\biggl|#1\biggr|}}
33: \newcommand{\biggbracket}[1]{\biggl[#1\biggr]}
34: \newcommand{\C}{\mathbf{C}}
35: \newcommand{\clspan}{{\overline{\mbox{\rm span}}}}
36: \newcommand{\comp}{{\mathrm{C}}}
37: \newcommand{\Dim}{{\mathrm{dim}}}
38: \newcommand{\dist}{{\mathrm{dist}}}
39: \newcommand{\Ec}{{\mathcal{E}}}
40: \newcommand{\tEc}{{\tilde{\mathcal{E}}}}
41: \newcommand{\te}{{\tilde{e}}}
42: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}
43: \newcommand{\Fc}{{\mathcal{F}}}
44: \newcommand{\tFc}{{\tilde{\mathcal{F}}}}
45: \newcommand{\tf}{{\tilde{f}}}
46: \newcommand{\Gc}{{\mathcal{G}}}
47: \newcommand{\tg}{{\tilde{g}}}
48: \newcommand{\ip}[2]{\langle#1,#2\rangle}
49: \newcommand{\bigip}[2]{\bigl\langle #1, \, #2 \bigr\rangle}
50: \newcommand{\biggip}[2]{\biggl\langle #1, \, #2 \biggr\rangle}
51: \newcommand{\Int}{{\mathrm{Int}}}
52: \newcommand{\cM}{{\mathcal{M}}}
53: \newcommand{\one}{\mathbf{1}}
54: \newcommand{\N}{\mathbf{N}}
55: \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\|#1\|}
56: \newcommand{\bignorm}[1]{\bigl\|#1\bigr\|}
57: \newcommand{\Bignorm}[1]{\Bigl\|#1\Bigr\|}
58: \newcommand{\biggnorm}[1]{\biggl\|#1\biggr\|}
59: \newcommand{\Pb}{\mathbf{P}}
60: \newcommand{\bigparen}[1]{\bigl(#1\bigr)}
61: \newcommand{\Bigparen}[1]{\Bigl(#1\Bigr)}
62: \newcommand{\biggparen}[1]{\biggl(#1\biggr)}
63: \newcommand{\plim}{\operatornamewithlimits{\mbox{$p$}-\mathrm{lim}}}
64: \newcommand{\Q}{\mathbf{Q}}
65: \newcommand{\Qc}{{\mathcal{Q}}}
66: \newcommand{\R}{\mathbf{R}}
67: \newcommand{\rank}{{\mathrm{rank}}}
68: \newcommand{\set}[1]{\{#1\}}
69: \newcommand{\bigset}[1]{\bigl\{#1\bigr\}}
70: \newcommand{\Bigset}[1]{\Bigl\{#1\Bigr\}}
71: \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}
72: \newcommand{\spectrum}{\mathrm{Sp}}
73: \newcommand{\T}{\mathbf{T}}
74: \newcommand{\trace}{{\mathrm{trace}}}
75: \newcommand{\Z}{\mathbf{Z}}
76:
77: \hyphenation{Gabor}
78:
79: \begin{document}
80:
81: \title[Density, Overcompleteness, and Localization, I]
82: {Density, Overcompleteness, and \\ Localization of Frames. \\ I. Theory}
83:
84: \author[R.~Balan, P.~G.~Casazza, C.~Heil, and Z.~Landau]
85: {Radu~Balan, Peter~G.~Casazza, Christopher~Heil, and Zeph~Landau}
86:
87: \address{\textrm{(R.~Balan)}
88: Siemens Corporate Research,
89: 755 College Road East,
90: Princeton, NJ 08540}
91: \email{radu.balan@siemens.com}
92:
93: \address{\textrm{(P.~G.~Casazza)}
94: Department of Mathematics,
95: University of Missouri,
96: Columbia, MO 65211}
97: \email{pete@math.missouri.edu}
98:
99: \address{\textrm{(C.~Heil)}
100: School of Mathematics,
101: Georgia Institute of Technology,
102: Atlanta, GA 30332}
103: \email{heil@math.gatech.edu}
104:
105: \address{\textrm{(Z.~Landau)}
106: Department of Mathematics R8133,
107: The City College of New York,
108: Convent Ave at 138th Street,
109: New York, NY 10031}
110: \email{landau@sci.ccny.cuny.edu}
111:
112: \date{March 30, 2005}
113:
114: \keywords{
115: Density, excess, frames, Gabor systems, modulation spaces, overcompleteness,
116: Riesz bases, wavelets, Weyl--Heisenberg systems.
117: }
118:
119: \subjclass[2000]{Primary 42C15; Secondary 46C99}
120:
121: \thanks{
122: The second author was partially supported by NSF Grants
123: DMS-0102686 and DMS-0405376.
124: The third author was partially supported by NSF Grant DMS-0139261.
125: Some of the results of this paper were previously announced, without proofs,
126: in the research announcement \cite{BCHL05b}.}
127:
128:
129: \begin{abstract}
130: This work presents a quantitative framework for describing the
131: overcompleteness of a large class of frames.
132: It introduces notions of localization and approximation between two frames
133: $\mathcal{F} = \{f_i\}_{i \in I}$ and
134: $\mathcal{E} = \{e_j\}_{j \in G}$ ($G$ a discrete abelian group),
135: relating the decay of the expansion of the elements of~$\mathcal{F}$
136: in terms of the elements of $\mathcal{E}$ via a map $a \colon I \to G$.
137: A fundamental set of equalities are shown between three seemingly unrelated
138: quantities: the relative measure of $\mathcal{F}$,
139: the relative measure of $\mathcal{E}$ ---
140: both of which are determined by certain averages of inner products
141: of frame elements with their corresponding dual frame elements ---
142: and the density of the set $a(I)$ in $G$.
143: Fundamental new results are obtained on the excess and overcompleteness
144: of frames, on the relationship between frame bounds and density,
145: and on the structure of the dual frame of a localized frame.
146: In a subsequent paper, these results are applied to the case of
147: Gabor frames, producing an array of new results as well as clarifying
148: the meaning of existing results.
149:
150: The notion of localization and related approximation properties
151: introduced in this paper are a spectrum of ideas that quantify the
152: degree to which elements of one frame can be approximated by elements of
153: another frame.
154: A comprehensive examination of the interrelations among these localization
155: and approximation concepts is presented.
156: \end{abstract}
157:
158: \copyrightinfo{}{}
159:
160: \maketitle
161:
162:
163: \section{Introduction}
164:
165:
166:
167: The fundamental structural feature of frames that are not Riesz bases is
168: the overcompleteness of its elements.
169: To date, even partial understanding of this overcompleteness has been
170: restricted to limited examples, such as finite-dimensional frames, frames
171: of windowed exponentials, or frames of time-frequency shifts (Gabor systems).
172: The ideas and results presented here provide a quantitative framework for
173: describing the overcompleteness of a large class of frames.
174: The consequences of these ideas are:
175: (a)~an array of fundamental new results for frames that hold in a
176: general setting,
177: (b)~significant new results for the case of Gabor frames,
178: as well as a new framing of existing results that clarifies their meaning,
179: and (c)~the presentation of a novel and fruitful point of view for
180: future research.
181:
182: Due to the length of this work, it is natural to present it in two parts.
183: The first part, containing the theoretical and structural results that have
184: driven the research, forms this paper.
185: The second part, containing the applications to Gabor frames,
186: will appear in the paper \cite{BCHL05a} (hereafter referred to as ``Part~II'').
187:
188: At the core of our main results is Theorem~\ref{densityredundancy}.
189: The precise statement of the theorem requires some detailed notation, but
190: the essence of the result can be summarized as follows.
191: We begin with two frames $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ and
192: $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$, where $G$ is a discrete abelian group,
193: and introduce a notion of the localization of~$\Fc$ with respect to $\Ec$.
194: The idea of localization is that it describes the decay of the coefficients
195: of the expansion of elements of $\Fc$ in terms of the elements of $\Ec$.
196: To make this notion of decay meaningful, a map $a$ from the index set $I$ into
197: the index set $G$ is introduced.
198: With this setup, Theorem~\ref{densityredundancy} establishes a remarkable
199: equality relating three seemingly unrelated quantities: certain averages
200: of $\ip{f_i}{\tf_i}$ and $\ip{e_j}{\te_j}$
201: of frame elements with corresponding canonical dual frame elements,
202: which we refer to as \emph{relative measures},
203: and the density of the set $a(I)$ in $G$.
204: This equality between density and relative measure is striking since
205: the relative measure is a function of the frame elements,
206: while the density is solely determined by the index set~$I$ and
207: the mapping $a \colon I \to G$.
208:
209:
210:
211: The impact of Theorem~\ref{densityredundancy} comes in several forms.
212: First, the result itself is new, and its consequences along with related
213: ideas discussed in more detail below represent a significant increase in
214: the understanding of the structure of abstract frames.
215: Second, the application of Theorem~\ref{densityredundancy} and our other new
216: theorems to the case of Gabor frames yields new results,
217: which will be presented in Part~II.
218: These recover as corollaries the existing density results known to hold
219: for Gabor frames, but in doing so, shows them in a new light,
220: as the consequence of more general considerations rather than of a
221: particular rigid structure of the frames themselves.
222: The notions of localization, approximation, and measure are
223: interesting and useful new ideas which we feel will have impact beyond
224: the results presented in this paper.
225: In particular, it will be interesting to see to what degree wavelet frames
226: fit into this framework, especially given recent results on density theorems
227: for affine frames \cite{HK03}, \cite{SZ02}.
228:
229: In addition to the fundamental equalities relating density and measures
230: discussed above, we obtain a set of additional significant results,
231: as follows.
232:
233: First, we provide a comprehensive theory of \emph{localization} of frames.
234: Localization is not a single concept, but a suite of related ideas.
235: We introduce a collection of definitions and describe the implications among
236: these various definitions.
237: We also introduce a set of \emph{approximation properties} for frames,
238: and analyze the interrelations between these properties and the localization
239: properties.
240:
241: Second, we explore the implications of the connection between density and
242: overcompleteness.
243: We show that in any overcomplete frame which possesses sufficient localization,
244: the overcompleteness must have a certain degree of uniformity.
245: Specifically, we construct an infinite subset of the frame with positive
246: density which can be removed yet still leave a frame.
247: We obtain relations among the frame bounds, density of the index set $I$,
248: and norms of the frame elements, and prove in particular that if $\Fc$ is
249: a tight localized frame whose elements all have the same norm then
250: the index set $I$ must have uniform density.
251:
252: Third, we explore the structure of the dual frame, showing that if a frame
253: is sufficiently localized then its dual frame is also.
254: We also prove that any sufficiently localized frame can be written as a finite
255: union of Riesz sequences.
256: This shows that the Feichtinger conjecture
257: (which has recently been shown to be equivalent to the
258: famous \emph{Kadison--Singer conjecture} \cite{CT05})
259: is true for the case of localized frames.
260:
261: In Part~II we apply our results to derive new implications for the case of
262: Gabor frames and more general systems of Gabor molecules, whose elements
263: are not not required to be simple time-frequency shifts of each other,
264: but instead need only share a common envelope of concentration about points
265: in the time-frequency plane.
266: These include strong results on the the structure of the dual frame
267: of an irregular Gabor frame, about which essentially nothing has
268: previously been known beyond the fact that it consists of a set of
269: $L^2$ functions.
270: We prove that if an irregular Gabor frame is generated by a function $g$
271: which is sufficiently concentrated in the time-frequency plane
272: (specifically, $g$ lies in the modulation space $M^1$),
273: then the elements of the dual frame also lie in $M^1$.
274: We further prove that the dual frame forms a set of Gabor molecules,
275: and thus, while it need not form a Gabor frame, the elements do share
276: a common envelope of concentration in the time-frequency plane.
277: Moreover, this same result applies if the original frame was only
278: itself a frame of Gabor molecules.
279:
280: Our paper is organized as follows.
281: The next subsection will give a more detailed and precise summary and outline
282: of our results.
283: Section~\ref{section2} introduces the concepts of localization and
284: approximation properties and presents the interrelations among them.
285: We also define density and relative measure precisely in
286: that section.
287: The main results of this paper for abstract frames are presented in
288: Section~\ref{mainsec}.
289:
290:
291:
292: \subsection{Outline} \label{outline}
293:
294: \subsubsection{Density, Localization, HAP, and Relative Measure}
295:
296: The main body of our paper begins in Section~\ref{section2}, where,
297: following the definition of density in Section~\ref{densitysec}, we define
298: several types of localization and approximation properties for abstract frames
299: in Sections~\ref{localizationsec} and~\ref{approxsec}.
300:
301:
302: Localization is determined both by the frame $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$
303: and by a reference system $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$.
304: We assume the reference system is indexed by a group of the form
305: \begin{equation} \label{group}
306: G \EQ \prod_{i=1}^d a_i \Z \, \times \, \prod_{j=1}^e \Z_{n_j},
307: \end{equation}
308: with a metric on $G$ defined as follows.
309: If $m_j \in \Z_{n_j}$, set $\delta(m_j) = 0$ if $m_j =0$, otherwise
310: $\delta(m_j) = 1$.
311: Then given $g = (a_1 n_1, \dots, a_d n_d, m_1, \dots, m_e) \in G$, set
312: \begin{equation} \label{metric}
313: |g|
314: \EQ \sup\bigset{|a_1n_1|, \, \dots,\, |a_d n_d|, \,
315: \delta(m_1), \, \dots, \, \delta(m_e)}.
316: \end{equation}
317: The metric is then $d(g,h) = |g-h|$ for $g$, $h \in G$.
318: Our results can be generalized to other groups;
319: the main properties of the group defined by \eqref{group} that are used are
320: that $G$ is a countably infinite abelian group which has a shift-invariant
321: metric with respect to which it is locally finite.
322: The reader can simply take $G = \Z^d$ without much loss of insight
323: on a first reading.
324:
325: The additive structure of the index set $G$ of the reference system does play
326: a role in certain of our results.
327: However, the index set $I$ of the frame $\Fc$ need not be structured.
328: For example, in our applications in Part~II we will have an irregular
329: Gabor system
330: $\Fc = \Gc(g,\Lambda)
331: = \set{e^{2\pi i \eta x} g(x-u)}_{(u,\eta) \in \Lambda}$,
332: which has as its index set an arbitrary countable subset
333: $\Lambda \subset \R^{2d}$,
334: while our reference system will be a lattice Gabor system
335: $\Ec = \Gc(\phi,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)
336: = \set{e^{2\pi i \eta x} \phi(x-u)}
337: _{(u,\eta) \in \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d}$,
338: indexed by $G = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$.
339:
340: A set of approximation properties for abstract frames is introduced
341: in Definition~\ref{approxdef}.
342: These are defined in terms of how well the elements
343: of the reference system are approximated by finite linear combinations
344: of frame elements, or vice versa, and provide an abstraction for
345: general frames of the essential features of the Homogeneous Approximation
346: Property (HAP) that is known to hold for Gabor frames or windowed exponentials
347: (see \cite{RS95}, \cite{GR96}, \cite{CDH99}).
348:
349: We list in Theorem~\ref{relations} the implications that hold among the
350: localization and approximation properties.
351: In particular, there is an equivalence between
352: $\ell^2$-column decay and the HAP, and between
353: $\ell^2$-row decay and a dual HAP.
354:
355: In Section~\ref{selflocsec} we introduce another type of localization.
356: Instead of considering localization with respect to a fixed reference sequence,
357: we consider localizations in which the reference is the frame itself
358: (``self-localization'') or its own canonical dual frame.
359: Theorem~\ref{selflocthm} states that every $\ell^1$-self-localized frame
360: is $\ell^1$-localized with respect to its canonical dual frame.
361: The proof of this result is an application of a type of noncommutative
362: Wiener's Lemma, and is given in Appendix~\ref{selflocappend}.
363:
364: We define the density of an abstract frame $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$
365: in Section~\ref{densitysec}.
366: We assume there is some associated mapping $a \colon I \to G$.
367: For example, in the Gabor case, $I = \Lambda$ is an arbitrary countable
368: sequence in $\R^{2d}$ while $G = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$,
369: and $a$ maps elements of $I$ to elements of~$G$ by rounding off to a
370: near element of $G$ (note that $a$ will often not be injective).
371: Then density is defined by considering the average number of points in $a(I)$
372: inside boxes of larger and larger radius.
373: By taking the infimum or supremum over all boxes of a given radius and then
374: letting the radius increase, we obtain lower and upper densities
375: $D^\pm(I,a)$.
376: By using limits with respect to an ultrafilter $p$
377: and a particular choice of centers $c = \set{c_N}_{N \in \N}$ for the boxes,
378: we obtain an entire collection of densities
379: $D(p,c)$ intermediate between the upper and lower densities
380: (for background on ultrafilters, we refer to \cite[Chap.~3]{HS98}
381: or \cite[App.~A]{BCHL05a}).
382:
383:
384: The relative measure of an abstract frame sequence $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$
385: with respect to a reference frame sequence $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$
386: is introduced in Section~\ref{relativemeasure}.
387: For simplicity, in this introduction we discuss only the case where
388: both are frames for the entire space; in this case we speak of the
389: \emph{measures} of $\Fc$ and $\Ec$ instead of the \emph{relative measures}.
390: Furthermore we will discuss here only the case where $\Ec$ is a Riesz basis,
391: so that its measure is $1$.
392: Let $S_N(j)$ denote the discrete ``box'' in $G$ centered at $j \in G$
393: and with ``side lengths'' $N$ (see equation \eqref{boxdef} for the
394: precise definition).
395: Let $I_N(j) = a^{-1}(S_N(j))$ denote the preimage in $I$ of $S_N(j)$
396: under the map~$a \colon I \to G$.
397: We declare the lower measure of the frame $\Fc$ to be
398: $$\cM^-(\Fc)
399: \EQ \liminf_{N \to \infty} \, \inf_{j \in G} \,
400: \frac1{|I_N(j)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(j)} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i},$$
401: and make a similar definition for the upper measure $\cM^+(\Fc)$
402: (note that $0 \le \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \le 1$ for all~$i$).
403: We also define the measure $\cM(\Fc;p,c)$ with respect to an ultrafilter $p$
404: and a particular choice of box centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$.
405: Thus, as was the case with the densities, we actually have a suite of
406: definitions, a range of measures that are intermediate between
407: the lower and upper measures.
408: Note that if $\Fc$ is a Riesz basis, then $\ip{f_i}{\tf_i} = 1$ for
409: every~$i$, so a Riesz basis has upper and lower measure~$1$.
410: The definition of relative measure becomes more involved when the systems
411: are only frame sequences, i.e., frames for their closed linear spans.
412: In this case, the relative measures are determined by averages of
413: $\ip{P_\Ec f_i}{\tf_i}$ or $\ip{P_\Fc \te_j}{e_j}$, respectively,
414: where $P_\Ec$ and $P_\Fc$ are the orthogonal projections onto the
415: closed spans of $\Ec$ and $\Fc$.
416: The precise definition is given in Definition~\ref{redundancydef}.
417:
418:
419: \subsubsection{Density and Overcompleteness for Localized Frames}
420: Section~\ref{necessarysec} presents two necessary conditions on
421: the density of a frame.
422: In Theorem~\ref{necessary}, we show that a frame which satisfies only a weak
423: version of the HAP will satisfy a Nyquist-type condition, specifically,
424: it must have a lower density which satisfies $D^-(I,a) \ge 1$.
425: In Theorem~\ref{finitedensity}, we show that under a stronger localization
426: assumption, the upper density must be finite.
427:
428: The connection between density and overcompleteness, which is among the most
429: fundamental of our main results, is presented in Section~\ref{connectsec}.
430: We establish a set of equalities between the relative measures
431: and the reciprocals of the density.
432: Specifically, we prove in Theorem~\ref{densityredundancy} that for frame
433: $\Fc$ that is appropriately localized with respect to a Riesz basis~$\Ec$,
434: we have the following equalities for the lower and upper measures and
435: for every measure defined with respect to an ultrafilter $p$
436: and sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$:
437: \begin{equation} \label{equalities}
438: \cM^-(\Fc) \EQ \frac1{D^+(I,a)}, \quad
439: \cM(\Fc;p,c) \EQ \frac1{D(p,c)}, \quad
440: \cM^+(\Fc) \EQ \frac1{D^-(I,a)}.
441: \end{equation}
442: Moreover, we actually obtain much finer versions of the equalities above which
443: hold for the case of a frame sequence compared to a reference system that is
444: also a frame sequence.
445: The left-hand side of each equality is a function of the frame elements,
446: while the right-hand side is determined by the index set alone.
447: As immediate consequences of these equalities we obtain inequalities relating
448: density, frame bounds, and norms of the frame elements.
449: In particular, we show that if $\Fc$ and $\Ec$ are both localized
450: tight frames whose frame elements all have identical norms, then the
451: index set $I$ must have uniform density, i.e., the upper and lower
452: densities of $I$ must be equal.
453: Thus tightness necessarily requires a certain uniformity of the index set.
454:
455: The equalities in \eqref{equalities} suggest that relative measure is a
456: quantification of overcompleteness for localized frames.
457: To illustrate this connection, let us recall the definition of the
458: \emph{excess} of a frame, which is a crude measure of overcompleteness.
459: The excess of a frame $\set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is the cardinality of the
460: largest set $J$ such that $\set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$ is complete
461: (but not necessarily still a frame).
462: An earlier paper \cite{BCHL03} showed that there is an infinite
463: $J \subset I$ such that $\set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$ is still a frame
464: if and only if there exists an infinite set $J_0 \subset I$ such that
465: \begin{equation} \label{excesscondition}
466: \sup_{i \in J_0} \, \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \LT 1.
467: \end{equation}
468: The set $J$ to be removed will be a subset of $J_0$, but, in general,
469: the technique of \cite{BCHL03} will construct only an extremely sparse
470: set $J$ (typically zero density in the terminology of this paper).
471: If $\cM^-(\Fc) < 1$, then \eqref{excesscondition} will be satisfied for
472: some $J_0$ (see Proposition~\ref{infiniteexcess}), and so some infinite
473: set can be removed from the frame.
474: We prove in Section~\ref{positivesec} that if a frame is localized and
475: $\cM^+(\Fc) < 1$, then not merely can some infinite set be removed,
476: but this set can be chosen to have positive density.
477: We believe, although we cannot yet prove, that the reciprocal of the
478: relative measure is in fact quantifying the redundancy of an abstract frame,
479: in the sense that it should be the case that if $\Fc$ is appropriately
480: localized and $\cM^+(\Fc) < 1$, then there should be a subset of $\Fc$
481: with density $\frac1{\cM^+(\Fc)} - 1 - \eps$ which can be removed leaving
482: a subset of $\Fc$ with density $1+\eps$ which is still a frame for~$H$.
483:
484:
485:
486: The last of our results deals with the conjecture of Feichtinger
487: that every frame that is norm-bounded below
488: ($\inf_i \norm{f_i} > 0$) can be written as a union of a finite number of
489: Riesz sequences (systems that are Riesz bases for their closed linear spans).
490: It is shown in \cite{CCLV03}, \cite{CV03}, \cite{CT05}
491: that Feichtinger's conjecture equivalent to the
492: celebrated Kadison--Singer (paving) conjecture.
493: In Section~\ref{rieszsec}, we prove that this conjecture is true for
494: the case of $\ell^1$-self-localized frames which are norm-bounded below.
495: This result is inspired by a similar result of Gr\"ochenig's from
496: \cite{Gro03} for frames which are sufficiently localized in his sense,
497: although our result is distinct.
498: Another related recent result appears in \cite{BS04}.
499:
500: We believe that localization is a powerful and useful new concept.
501: As evidence of this fact, we note that Gr\"ochenig has independently
502: introduced a concept of localized frames, for a completely different
503: purpose \cite{Gro04}.
504: We learned of Gr\"ochenig's results shortly after completion of our own
505: major results.
506: The definitions of localizations presented here and in \cite{Gro04}
507: differ, but the fact that this single concept has independently arisen
508: for two very distinct applications shows its utility.
509: In his elegant paper, Gr\"ochenig has shown that frames which are sufficiently
510: localized in his sense provide frame expansions not only for the Hilbert
511: space~$H$ but for an entire family of associated Banach function spaces.
512: Gr\"ochenig further showed that if a frame is sufficiently localized
513: in his sense (a~polynomial or exponential localization) then the dual frame
514: is similarly localized.
515:
516:
517: \subsection{General Notation} \label{prelimsec}
518:
519: The following notation will be employed throughout this paper.
520: $H$ will refer to a separable Hilbert space,
521: $I$ will be a countable index set, and~$G$ will be the group given
522: by \eqref{group} with the metric defined in \eqref{metric}.
523: We implicitly assume that there exists a map $a \colon I \to G$
524: associated with $I$ and~$G$.
525: The map $a$ induces a semi-metric
526: $d(i,j) = |a(i) - a(j)|$ on $I$.
527: This is only a semi-metric since $d(i,j) = 0$ need not imply $i=j$.
528:
529: The finite linear span of a subset $S \subset H$ is denoted $\Span(S)$,
530: and the closure of this set is $\clspan(S)$.
531: The cardinality of a finite set $E$ is denoted by $|E|$.
532:
533: For each integer $N > 0$ we let
534: \begin{equation} \label{boxdef}
535: S_N(j)
536: \EQ \Bigset{k \in G : |k-j| \le \frac{N}2}
537: \end{equation}
538: denote a discrete ``cube'' or ``box'' in $G$ centered at $j \in G$.
539: The cardinality of $S_N(j)$ is independent of $j$.
540: For example, if $G = \Z^d$ then
541: $|S_{2N}(j)| = |S_{2N+1}(j)| = (2N+1)^d$.
542: In general, there will exist a constant $C$ and integer $d>0$ such that
543: \begin{equation} \label{asymptotics}
544: \lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{|S_N(j)|}{N^d} \EQ C.
545: \end{equation}
546: We let $I_N(j)$ denote the inverse image of $S_N(j)$ under $a$, i.e.,
547: $$I_N(j) \EQ a^{-1}(S_N(j))
548: \EQ \set{i \in I : a(i) \in S_N(j)}.$$
549:
550:
551: \subsection{Notation for Frames and Riesz Bases}
552:
553: We use standard notations for frames and Riesz bases as found in the texts
554: \cite{Chr03}, \cite{Dau92}, \cite{Gro01}, \cite{You01}
555: or the research-tutorials \cite{Cas00}, \cite{HW89}.
556: Some particular notation and results that we will need are as follows.
557:
558: A sequence $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is a \emph{frame} for $H$ if there
559: exist constants $A$, $B > 0$, called \emph{frame bounds}, such that
560: \begin{equation} \label{framedef}
561: \forall\, f \in H, \quad
562: A \, \norm{f}^2 \LE \sum_{i \in I} |\ip{f}{f_i}|^2 \LE B \, \norm{f}^2.
563: \end{equation}
564: The \emph{analysis operator} $T \colon H \to \ell^2(I)$ is
565: $Tf = \set{\ip{f}{f_i}}_{i \in I}$, and its adjoint
566: $T^* c = \sum_{i \in I} c_i \, f_i$
567: is the \emph{synthesis operator}.
568: The \emph{Gram matrix} is
569: $T T^* = [\ip{f_i}{f_j}]_{i,j \in I}$.
570: The \emph{frame operator}
571: $Sf = T^* T f = \sum_{i \in I} \ip{f}{f_i} \, f_i$
572: is a bounded, positive, and invertible mapping of $H$ onto itself.
573: The \emph{canonical dual frame} is
574: $\tFc = S^{-1}(\Fc) = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$
575: where $\tf_i = S^{-1} f_i$.
576: For each $f \in H$ we have the \emph{frame expansions}
577: $f = \sum_{i \in I} \ip{f}{f_i} \, \tf_i
578: = \sum_{i \in I} \ip{f}{\tf_i} \, f_i$.
579: We call $\Fc$ a \emph{tight frame} if we can take $A=B$, and
580: a \emph{Parseval frame} if we can take $A=B=1$.
581: If $\Fc$ is any frame, then $S^{-1/2}(\Fc)$ is the
582: \emph{canonical Parseval frame} associated to $\Fc$.
583: We call $\Fc$ a \emph{uniform norm frame} if all the frame elements have
584: identical norms, i.e., if $\norm{f_i} = const.$ for all $i \in I$.
585:
586: A sequence which satisfies the upper frame bound estimate
587: in \eqref{framedef}, but not necessarily the lower estimate, is called
588: a \emph{Bessel sequence} and $B$ is a \emph{Bessel bound}.
589: In this case, $\norm{\sum c_i f_i}^2 \le B \, \sum |c_i|^2$ for any
590: $(c_i)_{i \in I} \in \ell^2(I)$.
591: In particular, $\norm{f_i}^2 \le B$ for every $i \in I$, i.e., all
592: Bessel sequences are norm-bounded above.
593: If we also have $\inf_i \norm{f_i} > 0$, then we say the sequence is
594: norm-bounded below.
595:
596: We will also consider sequences that are frames for their closed linear spans
597: instead of for all of $H$.
598: We refer to such a sequence as a \emph{frame sequence}.
599: If $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is a frame sequence,
600: then $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$ will denote its canonical dual frame
601: within $\clspan(F)$.
602: The orthogonal projection $P_\Fc$ of $H$ onto $\clspan(\Fc)$ is given~by
603: \begin{equation} \label{orthogproj}
604: P_\Fc f \EQ \sum_{i \in I} \ip{f}{f_i} \, \tf_i,
605: \qquad f \in H.
606: \end{equation}
607:
608:
609: A frame is a basis if and only if it is a Riesz basis, i.e., the image
610: of an orthonormal basis for $H$ under a continuous, invertible linear mapping.
611: We say $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is a \emph{Riesz sequence} if it is a
612: Riesz basis for its closed linear span in~$H$.
613: In this case the canonical dual frame $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$
614: is the unique sequence in $\clspan(\Fc)$ that is biorthogonal to~$\tFc$, i.e.,
615: $\ip{f_i}{\tf_j} = \delta_{ij}$.
616:
617:
618:
619: \section{Density, Localization, HAP, and Relative Measure} \label{section2}
620:
621: \subsection{Density} \label{densitysec}
622:
623: Given an index set $I$ and a map $a \colon I \to G$, we define
624: the density of~$I$ by computing the analogue of Beurling density of its
625: image $a(I)$ as a subset of~$G$.
626: Note that we regard $I$ as a sequence, and hence repetitions of images
627: count in determining the density.
628: The precise definition is as follows.
629:
630: \begin{definition}[Density] \label{densitydef}
631: The \emph{lower and upper densities of $I$ with respect to $a$} are
632: \begin{equation} \label{lowerdensity}
633: D^-(I,a)
634: \EQ \liminf_{N \to \infty} \inf_{j \in G} \frac{|I_N(j)|}{|S_N(j)|},
635: \qquad
636: D^+(I,a)
637: \EQ \limsup_{N \to \infty} \sup_{j \in G} \frac{|I_N(j)|}{|S_N(j)|},
638: \end{equation}
639: respectively.
640: Note that these quantities could be zero or infinite, i.e., we have
641: $0 \le D^-(I,a) \le D^+(I,a) \le \infty$.
642: When $D^-(I,a) = D^+(I,a) = D$ we say $I$ has \emph{uniform density}~$D$.
643: ~\qed
644: \end{definition}
645:
646: These lower and upper densities are only the extremes of the
647: possible densities that we could naturally assign to $I$ with respect to $a$.
648: In particular, instead of taking the infimum or supremum over all possible
649: centers in \eqref{lowerdensity} we could choose one
650: specific sequence of centers, and instead of computing the liminf or limsup
651: we could consider the limit with respect to some ultrafilter.
652: The different possible choices of ultrafilters and sequences of centers
653: gives us a natural collection of definitions of density, made precise in
654: the following definition.
655:
656: \begin{definition}
657: Let $p$ be a free ultrafilter, and let $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ be any
658: sequence of centers $c_N \in G$.
659: Then the \emph{density of $I$ with respect to $a$, $p$, and $c$} is
660: $$D(p,c)
661: \EQ D(p,c;I,a)
662: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac{|I_N(c_N)|}{|S_N(c_N)|}.
663: \quad\qed$$
664: \end{definition}
665:
666: \begin{example}
667: If $I=G$ and $a$ is the identity map, then $I_N(j) = S_N(j)$ for every $N$
668: and~$j$, and hence $D(p,c) = D^-(I,a) = D^+(I,a) = 1$
669: for every choice of free ultrafilter $p$ and sequence of centers~$c$.
670: \qed
671: \end{example}
672:
673: The following example shows how the density we have defined relates to the
674: standard Beurling density of the index set of a Gabor system.
675:
676: \begin{example}[Gabor Systems] \label{gabordensityrel}
677: Consider a Gabor system $\Fc = \Gc(g,\Lambda)$ and a reference Gabor system
678: $\Ec = \Gc(\phi,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$.
679: The index set $I = \Lambda$ is a countable sequence of points in $\R^{2d}$,
680: and the reference group is $G = \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$.
681: A natural map $a \colon \Lambda \to G$ is a
682: simple roundoff to a near element of $G$, i.e.,
683: $$a(x,\omega)
684: \EQ \bigparen{\alpha \, \Int\bigparen{\tfrac{x}{\alpha}},
685: \beta \, \Int\bigparen{\tfrac{\omega}{\beta}}},
686: \qquad (x,\omega) \in \Lambda,$$
687: where $\Int(x) = (\lfloor x_1 \rfloor, \dots, \lfloor x_d \rfloor)$.
688: With this setup, $S_N(j)$ is the intersection of
689: $\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$ with the cube $Q_N(j)$ in $\R^{2d}$
690: centered at $j$ with side lengths $N$.
691: Such a cube contains approximately $N^{2d}/(\alpha\beta)^d$ points of
692: $\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$; precisely,
693: $$\lim_{N \to \infty} \frac{|S_N(j)|}{N^{2d}} \EQ \frac1{(\alpha\beta)^d}.$$
694: Also, because $a$ is a bounded perturbation of the identity map,
695: the number of points in $I_N(j)$ is asymptotically the cardinality of
696: $\Lambda \cap Q_N(j)$.
697: Consequently, the standard definition of the upper Beurling density
698: $\BD^+(\Lambda)$ of $\Lambda$ is related to our definition of the
699: upper density of $\Lambda$ with respect to $a$ as follows:
700: \begin{align*}
701: \BD^+(\Lambda)
702: & \EQ \limsup_{N \to \infty} \sup_{j \in \R^{2d}}
703: \frac{|\Lambda \cap Q_N(j)|}{N^{2d}} \\
704: & \EQ \frac1{(\alpha\beta)^d} \, \limsup_{N \to \infty}
705: \sup_{j \in \alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d}
706: \frac{|I_N(j)|}{|S_N(j)|}
707: \EQ \frac1{(\alpha\beta)^d} \, D^+(\Lambda,a). \notag
708: \end{align*}
709: Similarly the lower Beurling density of $\Lambda$ is
710: $\BD^-(\Lambda) = (\alpha\beta)^{-d} \, D^-(\Lambda,a)$.
711: In particular, when $\alpha\beta = 1$ (the ``critical density'' case),
712: our definition coincides with Beurling density, but in general the extra
713: factor of $(\alpha\beta)^d$ must be taken into account.
714: \qed
715: \end{example}
716:
717: The following two lemmas will be useful later for our density calculations.
718: The first lemma is similar to \cite[Lem.~20.11]{HS98}.
719:
720: \begin{lemma} \label{liminfexist}
721: Let $a \colon I \to G$ be given.
722:
723: \smallskip
724: \begin{enumerate}
725: \item[(a)]
726: For every free ultrafilter $p$ and sequence of centers
727: $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$, we have
728: $D^-(I,a) \le D(p,c) \le D^+(I,a)$.
729:
730: \smallskip
731: \item[(b)]
732: There exist free ultrafilters $p^-$, $p^+$ and sequence of centers
733: $c^- = (c_N^-)_{N \in \N}$, $c^+ = (c_N^+)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$ such that
734: $D^-(I,a) = D(p^-,c^-)$
735: and
736: $D^+(I,a) = D(p^+,c^+)$.
737: \end{enumerate}
738: \end{lemma}
739: \begin{proof}
740: (a) Follows immediately from the properties of ultrafilters.
741:
742: \medskip
743: (b) For each $N > 0$, we can choose a point $c_N$ so that
744: $$\inf_{j \in G} \frac{|I_N(j)|}{|S_N(j)|}
745: \LE \frac{|I_N(c_N)|}{|S_N(j)|}
746: \LE \Bigparen{\inf_{j \in G} \frac{|I_N(j)|}{|S_N(j)|}} \plus \frac1N.$$
747: Then we can choose a free ultrafilter $p$ such that
748: $$\plim_{N \in \N} \frac{|I_N(c_N)|}{|S_N(j)|}
749: \EQ \liminf_{N \to \infty} \frac{|I_N(c_N)|}{|S_N(j)|}.$$
750: For these choices, we have
751: \begin{align*}
752: D^-(I,a) \LE D(p,c)
753: & \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac{|I_N(c_N)|}{|S_N(j)|} \\[1 \jot]
754: & \LE \liminf_{N \to \infty} \, \biggbracket{
755: \Bigparen{\inf_{j \in G} \frac{|I_N(j)|}{|S_N(j)|}} \plus \frac1N}
756: \\[1 \jot]
757: & \LE \Bigparen{\liminf_{N \to \infty} \inf_{j \in G}
758: \frac{|I_N(j)| }{|S_N(j)|}}
759: \plus \Bigparen{\limsup_{N \to \infty} \frac1N}
760: \EQ D^-(I,a).
761: \end{align*}
762: Thus we can take $p^- = p$ and $c^- = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$.
763: The construction of $p^+$ and $c^+$ is similar.
764: \end{proof}
765:
766: \begin{lemma} \label{annuluslemma}
767: Assume $D^+(I,a) < \infty$.
768: Then $K = \sup_{j \in G} |a^{-1}(j)|$ is finite, and
769: for any set $E \subset G$ we have
770: \begin{equation} \label{annulus}
771: |a^{-1}(E)| \LE K \, |E|.
772: \end{equation}
773: \end{lemma}
774:
775:
776: \subsection{The Localization Properties} \label{localizationsec}
777:
778: We now introduce a collection of definitions of localization,
779: given in terms of the decay of the inner products of the elements of one
780: sequence $\Fc$ with respect to the elements of a reference sequence $\Ec$.
781: In Section~\ref{approxsec}, we define several approximation properties,
782: which are determined by how well the elements of one sequence are approximated
783: by finite linear combinations of the elements of the other sequence.
784: The relationships among these properties is stated in Theorem~\ref{relations}.
785:
786: The words ``column'' and ``row'' in the following definition
787: refer to the $I \times G$ cross-Grammian matrix
788: $[\ip{f_i}{e_j}]_{i \in I, j \in G}$.
789: We think of the elements in locations $(i,a(i))$ as corresponding to the
790: main diagonal of this matrix.
791:
792: \begin{definition}[Localization] \label{localizationdef}
793: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ and
794: $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be sequences in~$H$
795: and $a \colon I \to G$ an associated map.
796:
797: \smallskip
798: \begin{enumerate}
799: \item[(a)]
800: We say $\Fc$ is \emph{$\ell^p$-localized} with respect to the
801: reference sequence $\Ec$ and the map $a$,
802: or simply that \emph{$(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ is $\ell^p$-localized}, if
803: $$\sum_{j \in G} \, \sup_{i \in I} \, |\ip{f_i}{e_{j+a(i)}}|^p
804: \LT \infty.$$
805: Equivalently, there must exist an $r \in \ell^p(G)$ such that
806: $$\forall\, i \in I, \quad
807: \forall\, j \in G, \quad
808: |\ip{f_i}{e_j}| \LE r_{a(i)-j}.$$
809:
810: \medskip
811: \item[(b)]
812: We say that $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has \emph{$\ell^p$-column decay} if for every
813: $\eps > 0$ there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$ so that
814: \begin{equation} \label{PropXdef}
815: \forall\, j \in G, \quad
816: \sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N_\eps}(j)} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^p \LT \eps.
817: \end{equation}
818:
819: \medskip
820: \item[(c)]
821: We say $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has \emph{$\ell^p$-row decay} if for every
822: $\eps > 0$ there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$ so that
823: \begin{equation} \label{PropXstardef}
824: \forall\, i \in I, \quad
825: \sum_{j \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}({a(i)})} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^p \LT \eps.
826: \quad\qed
827: \end{equation}
828: \end{enumerate}
829: \end{definition}
830:
831:
832: Note that given a sequence $\Fc$, the definition of localization is dependent
833: upon both the choice of reference sequence $\Ec$ and the map $a$.
834:
835:
836:
837: \begin{remark}
838: For comparison, we give Gr\"ochenig's notion of localization from
839: \cite{Gro04}.
840: Let $I$ and $J$ be countable index sets in $\R^d$ that are separated,
841: i.e., $\inf_{i \ne j \in I} |i-j| > 0$ and similarly for $J$.
842: Then $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is \emph{$s$-polynomially localized}
843: with respect to a Riesz basis $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in J}$ if
844: for every $i \in I$ and $j \in J$ we have
845: $$|\ip{f_i}{e_j}| \LE C \, (1 + |i-j|)^{-s}
846: \qquad\text{and}\qquad
847: |\ip{f_i}{\te_j}| \LE C \, (1 + |i-j|)^{-s},$$
848: where $\set{\te_j}_{j \in J}$ is the dual basis to
849: $\set{e_j}_{j \in J}$.
850: Likewise $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is \emph{exponentially localized}
851: with respect to a Riesz basis $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in J}$ if
852: for some $\alpha > 0$ we have for every $i \in I$ and $j \in J$ that
853: $$|\ip{f_i}{e_j}| \LE C \, e^{-\alpha |i-j|}
854: \qquad\text{and}\qquad
855: |\ip{f_i}{\te_j}| \LE C \, e^{-\alpha |i-j|}.
856: \quad\qed$$
857: \end{remark}
858:
859:
860: \subsection{The Approximation Properties} \label{approxsec}
861:
862: In this section we introduce a collection of definitions which we call
863: approximation properties.
864: These definitions extract the essence of the Homogeneous Approximation
865: Property that is satisfied by Gabor frames, but without reference to the
866: exact structure of Gabor frames.
867: A weak HAP for Gabor frames was introduced in \cite{RS95} and developed
868: further in \cite{GR96}, \cite{CDH99}.
869: In those papers, the HAP was stated in a form that is specific to the
870: particular structure of Gabor frames or windowed exponentials,
871: whereas the following definition applies to arbitrary frames.
872:
873:
874: \begin{definition}[Homogeneous Approximation Properties] \label{approxdef}
875: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame for~$H$ with
876: canonical dual $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$, and
877: let $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be a sequence in $H$.
878: Let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.
879:
880: \smallskip
881: \begin{enumerate}
882: \item[(a)]
883: We say $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has the \emph{weak HAP}
884: if for every $\eps > 0$, there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$
885: so that for every $j \in G$ we have
886: $$\dist\Bigparen{e_j, \,\,
887: \clspan\bigset{\tf_i : i \in I_{N_\eps}(j)}}
888: \LT \eps.$$
889: Equivalently, there must exist scalars $c_{i,j}$, with only finitely many
890: nonzero, such that
891: \begin{equation} \label{weakHAPdef}
892: \Bignorm{e_j - \sum_{i \in I_{N_\eps}(j)} c_{i,j} \, \tf_i}
893: \LT \eps.
894: \end{equation}
895:
896: \medskip
897: \item[(b)]
898: We say $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has the \emph{strong HAP}
899: if for every $\eps > 0$, there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$
900: so that for every $j \in G$ we have
901: \begin{equation} \label{strongHAPdef}
902: \Bignorm{e_j - \sum_{i \in I_{N_\eps}(j)} \ip{e_j}{f_i} \, \tf_i}
903: \LT \eps.
904: \quad\qed
905: \end{equation}
906: \end{enumerate}
907: \end{definition}
908:
909: We could also define the weak and strong HAPs for frame sequences.
910: If $\Fc$ is a frame sequence, then a necessary condition for
911: \eqref{weakHAPdef} or \eqref{strongHAPdef} to hold is that
912: $\clspan(\Ec) \subset \clspan(\Fc)$.
913: Thus, the HAPs for frame sequences are the same as the HAPs for a frame
914: if we set $H = \clspan(\Fc)$.
915:
916: We also introduce the following symmetric version of the HAPs.
917:
918: \begin{definition}[Dual Homogeneous Approximation Properties]
919: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a sequence in $H$, and
920: let $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be a frame for $H$ with
921: canonical dual $\tEc = \set{\te_j}_{j \in G}$.
922: Let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.
923:
924: \smallskip
925: \begin{enumerate}
926: \item[(a)]
927: We say $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has the \emph{weak dual HAP}
928: if for every $\eps > 0$, there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$
929: so that for every $i \in I$ we have
930: $\dist\bigparen{f_i, \,\,
931: \clspan\bigset{\te_j : j \in S_{N_\eps}(a(i))}}
932: < \eps$.
933:
934: \medskip
935: \item[(b)]
936: We say $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has the \emph{strong dual HAP}
937: if for every $\eps > 0$, there is an integer $N_\eps > 0$
938: so that for every $i \in I$ we have
939: $\bignorm{f_i - \sum_{j \in S_{N_\eps}(a(i))} \ip{f_i}{e_j} \, \te_j}
940: < \eps$.
941: ~\qed
942: \end{enumerate}
943: \end{definition}
944:
945:
946:
947: \subsection{Relations Among the Localization and Approximation Properties}
948: \label{relationsec}
949:
950: The following theorem summarizes the relationships that hold among the
951: localization and approximation properties.
952: This result is proved in Part~II.
953:
954: \begin{theorem} \label{relations}
955: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ and
956: $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be sequences in $H$, and
957: let $a : I \to G$ be an associated map.
958: Then the following statements hold.
959:
960: \smallskip
961: \begin{enumerate}
962: \item[(a)] If $\Fc$ is a frame for $H$, then
963: $\ell^2$-column decay implies the strong HAP.
964:
965: \smallskip
966: \item[(b)] If $\Fc$ is a frame for $H$ and
967: $\sup_j \norm{e_j} < \infty$, then
968: the strong HAP implies $\ell^2$-column decay.
969:
970: \smallskip
971: \item[(c)] If $\Ec$ is a frame for $H$, then
972: $\ell^2$-row decay implies the strong dual HAP.
973:
974: \smallskip
975: \item[(d)] If $\Ec$ is a frame for $H$ and
976: $\sup_i \norm{f_i} < \infty$, then
977: the strong dual HAP implies $\ell^2$-row decay.
978:
979: \smallskip
980: \item[(e)] If $\Fc$ is a frame for $H$, then
981: the strong HAP implies the weak HAP.
982: If $\Fc$ is a Riesz basis for $H$, then
983: the weak HAP implies the strong HAP.
984:
985: \smallskip
986: \item[(f)] If $\Ec$ is a frame for $H$, then
987: the strong dual HAP implies the weak dual HAP.
988: If $\Ec$ is a Riesz basis for $H$, then
989: the weak dual HAP implies the strong dual HAP.
990:
991: \smallskip
992: \item[(g)] If $D^+(I,a) < \infty$ and $1 \le p < \infty$, then
993: $\ell^p$-localization implies both $\ell^p$-column and $\ell^p$-row decay.
994: \end{enumerate}
995: \end{theorem}
996:
997: For the case that $\Fc$ and $\Ec$ are both frames for $H$ and
998: the upper density $D^+(I,a)$ is finite,
999: these relations can be summarized in the diagram in Figure~\ref{fig1}.
1000:
1001: \begin{figure}[ht]
1002: \scalebox{.6}{\includegraphics{inclusions.eps}}
1003: \caption{Relations among the localization and approximation properties
1004: for $p=2$, under the assumptions that $\Fc$, $\Ec$ are frames and
1005: $D^+(I,a)<\infty$. \label{fig1}}
1006: \end{figure}
1007:
1008: Part~II exhibits counterexamples to most of
1009: the converse implications of Theorem~\ref{relations}.
1010: These are summarized below.
1011:
1012: \begin{enumerate}
1013: \item[(a)]
1014: There exist orthonormal bases $\Ec$, $\Fc$ such that
1015: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ does not have $\ell^2$-column decay, and hence does
1016: not satisfy the strong HAP.
1017:
1018: \smallskip
1019: \item[(b)]
1020: There exists a frame $\Fc$ and orthonormal basis $\Ec$ such that
1021: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ satisfies the weak HAP but not the strong HAP.
1022:
1023: \smallskip
1024: \item[(c)]
1025: There exists a frame $\Fc$ and orthonormal basis $\Ec$ such that
1026: $D^+(I,a) < \infty$, $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has both $\ell^2$-column decay and
1027: $\ell^2$-row decay, but fails to have $\ell^2$-localization.
1028:
1029: \smallskip
1030: \item[(d)]
1031: There exists a Riesz basis $\Fc$ and orthonormal basis $\Ec$ such that
1032: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has $\ell^2$-column decay but not $\ell^2$-row decay.
1033: \end{enumerate}
1034:
1035:
1036: \subsection{Self-Localization} \label{selflocsec}
1037:
1038: In this section we introduce a type of localization in which the system
1039: $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is compared to itself or to its canonical
1040: dual frame instead of to a reference system $\Ec$.
1041: An analogous polynomial or exponential ``intrinsic localization'' was
1042: independently introduced by Gr\"ochenig in \cite{Gro03};
1043: see also \cite{For03}, \cite{GF04}.
1044: Although there is no reference system, we still require a mapping
1045: $a \colon I \to G$ associating $I$ with a group $G$.
1046:
1047: \begin{definition}[Self-localization]
1048: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a sequence in $H$, and
1049: let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.
1050:
1051: \smallskip
1052: \begin{enumerate}
1053: \item[(a)]
1054: We say that $(\Fc,a)$ is \emph{$\ell^p$-self-localized} if there exists
1055: $r \in \ell^p(G)$ such that
1056: $$\forall\, i, j \in I, \quad
1057: |\ip{f_i}{f_j}| \LE r_{a(i) - a(j)}.$$
1058:
1059: \medskip
1060: \item[(b)]
1061: If $\Fc$ is a frame sequence, then we say that $(\Fc,a)$ is
1062: \emph{$\ell^p$-localized with respect to its canonical dual frame sequence}
1063: $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$ if there exists $r \in \ell^p(G)$ such that
1064: $$\forall\, i, j \in I, \quad
1065: |\ip{f_i}{\tf_j}| \LE r_{a(i) - a(j)}. \quad\qed$$
1066: \end{enumerate}
1067: \end{definition}
1068:
1069: \begin{remark} \label{selfremark}
1070: (a) If $I = G$ and $a$ is the identity map, then $(\Fc,a)$ is
1071: $\ell^1$-self-localized if and only if $(\Fc,a,\Fc)$ is $\ell^1$-localized.
1072: However, if $a$ is not the identity map, then this need not be the case.
1073: For example, every orthonormal basis is $\ell^1$-self-localized regardless
1074: of which map~$a$ is chosen, but in Part~II we construct
1075: an orthonormal basis $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in \Z}$
1076: and a map $a \colon \Z \to \Z$ such that $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ is not
1077: $\ell^1$-localized for any Riesz basis $\Ec$; in fact,
1078: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ cannot even possess both $\ell^2$-column decay and
1079: $\ell^2$-row decay for any Riesz basis $\Ec$.
1080:
1081: \medskip
1082: (b) Let $\Fc$ be a frame, $\tFc$ its canonical dual frame,
1083: and $S^{-1/2}(\Fc)$ its canonical Parseval frame.
1084: Since $\ip{f_i}{\tf_j} = \ip{S^{-1/2}f_i}{S^{-1/2}f_j}$,
1085: we have that
1086: $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^p$-localized with respect to its canonical dual frame
1087: if and only if $(S^{-1/2}(\Fc),a)$ is $\ell^p$-self-localized.
1088: \qed
1089: \end{remark}
1090:
1091: We show in Part~II that $\ell^1$-localization with
1092: respect to the dual frame does not imply $\ell^1$-self-localization.
1093: However, the following result states that the converse is true.
1094: The proof of this result requires us to develop some results on the
1095: Banach algebra of matrices with $\ell^1$-type decay, and is presented in
1096: Appendix~\ref{selflocappend}.
1097: In particular, the proof requires an application of
1098: a type of noncommutative Wiener's Lemma (Theorem~\ref{sjostrand}).
1099:
1100: \begin{theorem} \label{selflocthm}
1101: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame for $H$, and let
1102: $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map such that $D^+(I,a) < \infty$.
1103: Let $\tFc$ be the canonical dual frame and
1104: $S^{-1/2}(\Fc)$ the canonical Parseval frame.
1105: If $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized, then:
1106:
1107: \begin{enumerate}
1108: \item[(a)]
1109: $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-localized with respect to its
1110: canonical dual frame $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$,
1111:
1112: \medskip
1113: \item[(b)]
1114: $(\tFc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized, and
1115:
1116: \medskip
1117: \item[(c)]
1118: ($S^{-1/2}(\Fc),a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized.
1119: \end{enumerate}
1120: \end{theorem}
1121:
1122: The following is a useful lemma on the relation between self-localization
1123: and localization with respect to a reference sequence.
1124:
1125: \begin{lemma} \label{selflemma}
1126: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a sequence in $H$.
1127: Let $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be a frame for~$H$ with canonical
1128: dual frame $\tEc$.
1129: Let $a : I \to G$ be an associated map.
1130: If $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ and $(\Fc,a,\tEc)$ are both $\ell^1$-localized, then
1131: $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized.
1132: In particular, if $\Ec$ is a tight frame and $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ is
1133: $\ell^1$-localized, then $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized.
1134: \end{lemma}
1135:
1136: \begin{proof}
1137: By definition, there exists $r \in \ell^1(G)$ such that both
1138: $|\ip{f_i}{e_j}| \le r_{a(i) - j}$
1139: and
1140: $|\ip{f_i}{\te_j}| \le r_{a(i) - j}$
1141: hold for all $i \in I$ and $j \in G$.
1142: Let $\tilde r(k) = r(-k)$. Then
1143: $$|\ip{f_i}{f_j}|
1144: \EQ \biggabs{\sum_{k \in G} \ip{f_i}{e_k} \, \ip{\te_k}{f_j}}
1145: \LE \sum_{k \in G} r_{a(i) - k} \, r_{a(j) - k}
1146: \EQ (r * \tilde r)_{a(i) - a(j)}.$$
1147: Since $r * \tilde r \in \ell^1(G)$, we conclude that $(\Fc,a)$ is
1148: $\ell^1$-self-localized.
1149: \end{proof}
1150:
1151:
1152: \subsection{Relative Measure} \label{relativemeasure}
1153:
1154: We now define the relative measure of frame sequences.
1155:
1156:
1157: \begin{definition} \label{redundancydef}
1158: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ and $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$
1159: be frame sequences in $H$, and let
1160: $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.
1161: Let $P_\Fc$, $P_\Ec$ denote the orthogonal projections of $H$ onto
1162: $\clspan(\Fc)$ and $\clspan(\Ec)$, respectively.
1163: Then given a free ultrafilter $p$ and a sequence of centers
1164: $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$, we define the
1165: \emph{relative measure of $\Fc$ with respect to $\Ec$, $p$, and $c$} to be
1166: $$\cM_\Ec(\Fc; p, c)
1167: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)}
1168: \ip{P_\Ec f_i}{\tf_i}.$$
1169: The \emph{relative measure of $\Ec$ with respect to $\Fc$} is
1170: $$\cM_\Fc(\Ec; p, c)
1171: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|S_N(c_N)|} \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)}
1172: \ip{P_\Fc \te_j}{e_j}.
1173: \quad\qed$$
1174: \end{definition}
1175:
1176:
1177:
1178: Let $A$, $B$ be frame bounds for $\Fc$, and let $E$, $F$ be frame bounds
1179: for $\Ec$.
1180: Then we have the estimates
1181: $|\ip{P_\Ec f_i}{\tf_i}| \le \norm{f_i} \, \norm{\tf_i} \le \sqrt{B/A}$ and
1182: $|\ip{P_\Fc e_j}{\te_j}| \le \norm{e_j} \, \norm{\te_j} \le \sqrt{F/E}$.
1183: Thus,
1184: $|\cM_\Ec(\Fc; p, c)| \le \sqrt{B/A}$ and
1185: $|\cM_\Fc(\Ec; p, c)| \le \sqrt{F/A}$.
1186: Unfortunately, in general $\cM_\Ec(\Fc; p, c)$ or
1187: $\cM_\Fc(\Ec; p, c)$ need be real.
1188: However, if the closed span of $\Fc$ is included in the closed span of $\Ec$
1189: then, as noted in the following definition, the relative measure of $\Ec$
1190: with respect to $\Fc$ will be real and furthermore we can give tighter
1191: bounds on its value, as pointed out in the following definition.
1192:
1193: \begin{definition}
1194: If $\clspan(\Ec) \supset \clspan(\Fc)$ then $P_\Ec$ is the identity map and
1195: $\Ec$ plays no role in determining the value of $\cM_\Ec(\Fc;p,e)$.
1196: Therefore, in this case we define the
1197: \emph{measure of $\Fc$ with respect to $p$ and $c$} to be
1198: $$\cM(\Fc; p, c)
1199: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)}
1200: \ip{f_i}{\tf_i}.$$
1201: Since $\ip{f_i}{\tf_i} = \norm{S^{-1/2}f_i}^2$, we have that
1202: $\cM(\Fc; p, c)$ is real.
1203: Additionally, since $S^{-1/2}(\Fc)$ is a Parseval frame, we have
1204: $0 \le \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \le 1$ for all $i$, and therefore
1205: $$0 \LE \cM(\Fc;p,c) \LE 1.$$
1206: We further define the
1207: \emph{lower and upper measures of $\Fc$} to be, respectively,
1208: \begin{align}
1209: \cM^-(\Fc)
1210: & \EQ \liminf_{N \to \infty} \, \inf_{j \in G} \,
1211: \frac1{|I_N(j)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(j)}
1212: \ip{f_i}{\tf_i}, \label{lowermeasure}
1213: \\[1 \jot]
1214: \cM^+(\Fc)
1215: & \EQ \limsup_{N \to \infty} \, \sup_{j \in G} \,
1216: \frac1{|I_N(j)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(j)}
1217: \ip{f_i}{\tf_i}. \label{uppermeasure}
1218: \end{align}
1219: As in Lemma~\ref{liminfexist}, there will exist free ultrafilters
1220: $p^-$, $p^+$ and sequence of centers $c^-$, $c^+$ such that
1221: $\cM^-(\Fc) = \cM(\Fc;p^-,c^-)$ and
1222: $\cM^+(\Fc) = \cM(\Ec;p^+,c^+)$.
1223:
1224: When $\clspan(\Fc) \supset \clspan(\Ec)$, we define
1225: $\cM(\Ec; p, c)$ and $\cM^\pm(\Ec)$ in an analogous manner.
1226: ~\qed
1227: \end{definition}
1228:
1229: \begin{example} \label{specialcases}
1230: The following special cases show that the measure of a Riesz basis is~$1$.
1231:
1232: \smallskip
1233: \begin{enumerate}
1234: \item[(a)] If $\clspan(\Ec) \supset \clspan(\Fc)$ and
1235: $\Fc$ is a Riesz sequence then
1236: $\ip{f_i}{\tf_i} = 1$ for every $i \in I$, so
1237: $\cM(\Fc;p,c) = \cM^+(\Fc) = \cM^-(\Fc) = 1$.
1238:
1239: \medskip
1240: \item[(b)] If $\clspan(\Fc) \supset \clspan(\Ec)$ and
1241: $\Ec$ is a Riesz sequence then
1242: $\ip{\te_j}{e_j} = 1$ for every $j \in G$, so
1243: $\cM(\Ec;p,c) = \cM^+(\Ec) = \cM^-(\Ec) = 1$.
1244: ~\qed
1245: \end{enumerate}
1246: \end{example}
1247:
1248: \begin{example}
1249: For each $k = 1, \dots, M$, let $\set{f_{jk}}_{j \in \Z}$ be an
1250: orthogonal basis for~$H$ such that
1251: $\norm{f_{jk}}^2 = A_k$ for every $j \in \Z$.
1252: Let $I = \Z \times \set{1,\dots,M}$.
1253: Then $\Fc = \set{f_{jk}}_{(j,k) \in I}$ is a tight frame for $H$
1254: and its canonical dual frame is
1255: $\tFc = \set{\tf_{jk}}_{(j,k) \in I}$
1256: where $\tf_{jk} = (\frac1{A_1 + \cdots + A_M}) \, f_{jk}$.
1257: Define $a \colon I \to \Z$ by $a(j,k) = j$.
1258: Then for each $N$,
1259: $$\frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{(j,k) \in I_N(c_N)} \ip{f_{jk}}{\tf_{jk}}
1260: \EQ \frac1{MN} \sum_{k=1}^M \, \sum_{j \in [c_N - \frac{N}2, c_N + \frac{N}2)}
1261: \frac{A_k}{A_1 + \cdots + A_M}
1262: \EQ \frac1M.$$
1263: Consequently, for any choice of free ultrafilter $p$ or sequence of centers $c$
1264: we have
1265: $\cM(\Fc;p,c) = \cM^-(\Fc) = \cM^+(\Fc) = \frac1M$.
1266: ~\qed
1267: \end{example}
1268:
1269: \begin{example}[Lattice Gabor Systems] \label{latticegabor}
1270: Consider a lattice Gabor frame, i.e., a frame of the form
1271: $\Gc(g,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$.
1272: The canonical dual frame is a lattice Gabor frame of the form
1273: $\Gc(\tg,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)$ for some $\tg \in L^2(\R^d)$.
1274: By the Wexler--Raz relations, we have $\ip{g}{\tg} = (\alpha\beta)^d$
1275: (we also derive this fact directly from our results in Part~II).
1276: Since
1277: $\ip{M_{\beta n} T_{\alpha k} g}{M_{\beta n} T_{\alpha k} \tg}
1278: = \ip{g}{\tg}$,
1279: we therefore have for any free ultrafilter $p$ and sequence of centers
1280: $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d$ that
1281: $$\cM(\Gc(g,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d);p,c)
1282: \EQ \cM^\pm(\Gc(g,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d))
1283: \EQ \ip{g}{\tg}
1284: \EQ (\alpha\beta)^d.$$
1285: Since we also have
1286: $\BD^\pm(\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d) = (\alpha\beta)^{-d}$,
1287: we conclude that
1288: $$\cM^\pm(\Gc(g,\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d))
1289: \EQ \frac1{\BD^\mp(\alpha\Z^d \times \beta\Z^d)}.$$
1290: We prove a similar but much more general relationship for
1291: abstract localized frames in Theorems~\ref{densityredundancy}
1292: and~\ref{excesscor}.
1293: ~\qed
1294: \end{example}
1295:
1296: The following proposition gives a connection between measure and
1297: excess (excess was defined just prior to equation \eqref{excesscondition}).
1298: By imposing localization hypotheses, stronger results will be derived
1299: in Section~\ref{positivesec}.
1300:
1301: \begin{proposition}[Infinite Excess] \label{infiniteexcess}
1302: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame sequence and $a \colon I \to G$
1303: an associated map.
1304: If $\cM^-(\Fc) < 1$, then $\Fc$ has infinite excess, and furthermore,
1305: there exists an infinite subset $J \subset I$ such that
1306: $\set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$ is still a frame for $\clspan(\Fc)$.
1307: \end{proposition}
1308: \begin{proof}
1309: Fix $s$ with $\cM^-(\Fc) < s < 1$.
1310: Then, considering the definition of $\cM^-(\Fc)$ in \eqref{lowermeasure},
1311: there exists a subsequence $N_k \to \infty$ and points $j_k$ such that
1312: $$\frac1{|I_{N_k}(j_k)|} \sum_{i \in I_{N_k}(j_k)} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i}
1313: \LE s
1314: \LT 1$$
1315: for each $k$.
1316: It then follows that there exists an infinite subset
1317: $J \subset I$ such that $\sup_{i \in J} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} < 1$,
1318: which by \cite[Cor.~5.7]{BCHL03} completes the proof.
1319: \end{proof}
1320:
1321: In general, the set $J$ constructed in the preceding proposition may have
1322: zero density.
1323: The following result provides a necessary condition under which a set of
1324: positive density can be removed yet leave a frame
1325: (a sufficient condition will be obtained in
1326: Theorem~\ref{positiveremove} below).
1327: For simplicity of notation, if $J \subset I$ then we will write
1328: $D(p,c;J,a)$ to mean $D(p,c;J,a|_J)$.
1329:
1330: \begin{proposition} \label{jalphaprop}
1331: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame sequence and $a \colon I \to G$
1332: an associated map such that $0 < D^-(I,a) \le D^+(I,a) < \infty$.
1333: For each $0 \le \alpha \le 1$, define
1334: \begin{equation} \label{Jalphadef}
1335: J_\alpha
1336: \EQ \set{i \in I : \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \le \alpha}.
1337: \end{equation}
1338: Then the following statements hold.
1339:
1340: \smallskip
1341: \begin{enumerate}
1342: \item[(a)]
1343: For each free ultrafilter $p$ and sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$
1344: in $G$, we have for each $0 < \alpha < 1$ that
1345: \begin{align}
1346: \frac{\alpha - \cM(\Fc;p,c)}{\alpha} \, D(p,c;I,a)
1347: & \LE D(p,c;J_{\alpha},a) \label{Jalphaest1} \\
1348: & \LE \frac{1- \cM(\Fc;p,c)}{1 - \alpha} \, D(p,c;I,a). \label{Jalphaest2}
1349: \end{align}
1350:
1351: \medskip
1352: \item[(b)]
1353: If there exists a free ultrafilter $p$ and sequence of centers
1354: $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$ such that
1355: $D(p,c;J_\alpha,a) > 0$, then $\cM(\Fc;p,c) < 1$.
1356: Consequently $\cM^-(\Fc) < 1$ and there exists an infinite set $J \subset I$
1357: such that $\set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$ is a frame for $\clspan(\Fc)$.
1358:
1359: \medskip
1360: \item[(c)]
1361: If there exists a
1362: subset $J \subset I$, a free ultrafilter $p$, and a sequence of centers
1363: $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$ such that $D(p,c;J,a) > 0$ and
1364: $\set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$ is a frame for $\clspan(\Fc)$,
1365: then $\cM(\Fc;p,c) < 1$.
1366: In particular, $\cM^-(\Fc) < 1$.
1367: \end{enumerate}
1368: \end{proposition}
1369:
1370: \begin{proof}
1371: (a) Consider any $0 < \alpha < 1$.
1372: If $\cM(\Fc;p,c) \ge \alpha$ then inequality \eqref{Jalphaest1}
1373: is trivially satisfied, so assume that $\cM(\Fc;p,c) < \alpha$.
1374: Fix $\eps > 0$ so that $\cM(\Fc;p,c) + \eps < \alpha$.
1375: Then by definition of ultrafilter, there exists an infinite set $A \in p$
1376: such that
1377: \begin{equation} \label{limD}
1378: \forall\, N \in A, \quad
1379: \Bigabs{\cM(\Fc;p,c) - \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|}
1380: \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i}}
1381: \LT \eps.
1382: \end{equation}
1383: Hence for $N \in A$ we have
1384: \begin{align*}
1385: \cM(\Fc;p,c) + \eps
1386: & \GE \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \\[1 \jot]
1387: & \EQ \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \,
1388: \biggparen{\sum_{i \in I_N(c_N) \cap J_\alpha} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \plus
1389: \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N) \cap J_\alpha^\comp} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i}}
1390: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
1391: & \GE \frac{0 \cdot |I_N(c_N) \cap J_\alpha| \plus
1392: \alpha \cdot |I_N(c_N) \cap J_\alpha^\comp|} {|I_N(c_N)|} \\[1 \jot]
1393: & \EQ \alpha \, \frac{|I_N(c_N)| - |I_N(c_N) \cap J_\alpha|} {|I_N(c_N)|}.
1394: \end{align*}
1395: Multiplying both sides of this inequality by $\frac{|I_N(c_N)|}{|S_N(c_N)|}$
1396: and rearranging, we find that
1397: $$\forall\, N \in A, \quad
1398: \frac{|I_N(c_N) \cap J_\alpha|} {|S_N(c_N)|}
1399: \GE \biggparen{1 - \frac{\cM(\Fc;p,c) + \eps}{\alpha}} \,
1400: \frac{|I_N(c_N)|} {|S_N(c_N)|}.$$
1401: Taking the limit with respect to the ultrafilter $p$ we obtain
1402: $$D(p,c;J_\alpha,a)
1403: \GE \biggparen{1 - \frac{\cM(\Fc;p,c) + \eps}{\alpha}} \, D(p,c;I,a).$$
1404: Since $\eps$ was arbitrary, we obtain the inequality \eqref{Jalphaest1}.
1405:
1406: The inequality \eqref{Jalphaest2} is similar,
1407: arguing from an infinite set $A \in p$ such that \eqref{limD} holds true that
1408: \begin{align*}
1409: \cM(\Fc;p,e) - \eps
1410: & \LE \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \\[1 \jot]
1411: & \EQ \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \,
1412: \biggparen{\sum_{i \in I_N(c_N) \cap J_\alpha} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \plus
1413: \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N) \cap J_\alpha^\comp} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i}}
1414: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
1415: & \LE \frac{\alpha \cdot |I_N(c_N) \cap J_\alpha| \plus
1416: 1 \cdot |I_N(c_N) \cap J_\alpha^\comp|} {|I_N(c_N)|} \\[1 \jot]
1417: & \EQ \frac{|I_N(c_N)| -
1418: (1-\alpha) \cdot |I_N(c_N) \cap J_\alpha|} {|I_N(c_N)|},
1419: \end{align*}
1420: and then multiplying both sides of this inequality by
1421: $\frac{|I_N(c_N)|}{|S_N(c_N)|}$,
1422: rearranging, and taking the limit.
1423:
1424:
1425: \medskip
1426: (b) Follows immediately from~(a) and Proposition~\ref{infiniteexcess}.
1427:
1428: \medskip
1429: (c) Suppose that such a $J$ exists.
1430: If $f_i = 0$ for every $i \in J$ then the result is trivial, so suppose this
1431: is not the case.
1432: Let $S$ be the frame operator for~$\Fc$.
1433: Then $\set{S^{-1/2}f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$ is a frame, and in
1434: particular is a subset of the Parseval frame $S^{-1/2}(\Fc)$.
1435: For a given $j \in J$, the optimal lower frame bound for the frame
1436: $\set{S^{-1/2}f_i}_{i \ne j}$ with a single element deleted is
1437: $1 - \norm{S^{-1/2}f_j}^2 = 1 - \ip{f_j}{\tf_j}$.
1438: Hence, if $A$ is a lower frame bound for
1439: $\set{S^{-1/2}f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$,
1440: then $A \le 1 - \ip{f_j}{\tf_j}$ for all $j \in J$.
1441: Thus $J \subset J_\alpha$ where $\alpha = 1 - A$, and consequently,
1442: for any $p$ and $c$ we have $D(p,c;J_\alpha,a) \ge D(p,c;J,a) > 0$.
1443: Therefore \eqref{Jalphaest2} implies that $\cM(\Fc;p,c) < 1$.
1444: \end{proof}
1445:
1446: Choosing in the preceding proposition the ultrafilters $p$ and centers $c$
1447: that achieve upper or lower density or measure yields the following corollary.
1448:
1449: \begin{corollary} \label{Jalphacoro}
1450: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame sequence and $a \colon I \to G$
1451: an associated map such that $0 < D^-(I,a) \le D^+(I,a) < \infty$.
1452: Let $J_\alpha$ be defined by \eqref{Jalphadef}.
1453: Then the following statements hold.
1454:
1455: \smallskip
1456: \begin{enumerate}
1457: \item[(a)]
1458: $\cM^+(\Fc) < 1$ if and only if there exists $0 < \alpha < 1$
1459: such that $D^-(J_\alpha,a) > 0$.
1460: In fact, $D^-(J_\alpha,a) > 0$ for all
1461: $\cM^+(\Fc) < \alpha < 1$.
1462:
1463: \medskip
1464: \item[(b)]
1465: If there exists $J \subset I$ such that $D^-(J,a) > 0$ and
1466: $\set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$ is a frame for $\clspan(\Fc)$,
1467: then $\cM^+(\Fc) < 1$.
1468:
1469: \medskip
1470: \item[(c)]
1471: $\cM^-(\Fc) < 1$ if and only if there exists $0 < \alpha < 1$
1472: such that $D^+(J_\alpha,a) > 0$.
1473: In fact, $D^+(J_\alpha,a) > 0$ for all
1474: $\cM^-(\Fc) < \alpha < 1$.
1475:
1476: \medskip
1477: \item[(d)]
1478: If there exists $J \subset I$ such that $D^+(J,a) > 0$ and
1479: $\set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$ is a frame for $\clspan(\Fc)$,
1480: then $\cM^-(\Fc) < 1$.
1481: \end{enumerate}
1482: \end{corollary}
1483: \begin{proof}
1484: Suppose that $\cM^+(\Fc) < 1$, and fix
1485: $\cM^+(\Fc) < \alpha < 1$.
1486: Let $p$ and $c$ be the free ultrafilter and sequence of centers given
1487: by Lemma~\ref{liminfexist}(b) such that
1488: $D^-(J_\alpha,a) = D(p,c;J_\alpha,a)$.
1489: Then by Proposition~\ref{jalphaprop},
1490: \begin{align*}
1491: D^-(J_\alpha,a)
1492: \EQ D(p,c;J_\alpha,a)
1493: & \GE \frac{\alpha - \cM(F;p,c)}{\alpha} \, D(p,c;I,a) \\[1 \jot]
1494: & \GE \frac{\alpha - \cM^+(F)}{\alpha} \, D^-(I,a)
1495: \GT 0.
1496: \end{align*}
1497: The other statements are similar.
1498: \end{proof}
1499:
1500:
1501: \section{Density and Overcompleteness} \label{mainsec}
1502:
1503: \subsection{Necessary Density Conditions} \label{necessarysec}
1504:
1505: In this section we prove two necessary conditions on the density of
1506: localized frames.
1507:
1508: First we require the following standard lemma.
1509:
1510: \begin{lemma} \label{dimcount}
1511: Let $H_N$ be an $N$-dimensional Hilbert space.
1512: Then the following statements hold.
1513:
1514: \begin{enumerate}
1515: \item[(a)]
1516: Let nonzero $f_1,\dots,f_M \in H_N$ be given.
1517: Let $m = \min\set{\norm{f_1},\dots,\norm{f_M}}$.
1518: Then the Bessel bound $B$ for $\set{f_1,\dots,f_M}$ satisfies
1519: $B \ge mM/N$.
1520:
1521: \medskip
1522: \item[(b)] If $\set{f_i}_{i \in J}$ is a Bessel sequence in $H_N$
1523: that is norm-bounded below, i.e., $\inf_i \norm{f_i} > 0$, then $J$ is finite.
1524: \end{enumerate}
1525: \end{lemma}
1526: \begin{proof}
1527: (a) We may assume that $H_N = \Span\set{f_1,\dots,f_M}$.
1528: Then $\set{f_1,\dots,f_M}$ is a frame for $H_N$, so this family has a positive
1529: definite frame operator $S$.
1530: Let $\lambda_1 \ge \dots \ge \lambda_N$ be the eigenvalues of $S$.
1531: Letting $\set{\tf_1,\dots,\tf_M}$ be the dual frame, we have then that
1532: $$\sum_{j=1}^N \lambda_j
1533: \EQ \trace(S)
1534: \EQ \sum_{i=1}^M \ip{Sf_i}{\tf_i}
1535: \EQ \sum_{i=1}^M \norm{f_i}^2
1536: \GE mM.$$
1537: Hence $mM/N \le \lambda_1 = \norm{S} \le B$.
1538:
1539: \medskip
1540: (b) From part~(a), $|J| \le BN/m < \infty$.
1541: \end{proof}
1542:
1543: Our first main result shows that the weak HAP implies a lower bound for the
1544: density of a frame.
1545: The proof is inspired by the double projection techniques of \cite{RS95},
1546: although those results relied on the structure of Gabor frames and, in
1547: particular, a version of the HAP that is satisfied by Gabor frames.
1548:
1549:
1550: \begin{theorem}[Necessary Density Bounds] \label{necessary} \
1551:
1552: \begin{enumerate}
1553: \item[(a)]
1554: Assume $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is a frame for $H$
1555: and $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ is a Riesz sequence in $H$.
1556: Let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.
1557: If $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has the weak HAP, then
1558: $$1 \LE D^-(I,a) \LE D^+(I,a) \LE \infty.$$
1559:
1560: \medskip
1561: \item[(b)]
1562: Assume $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is a Riesz sequence in $H$
1563: and $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ is a frame for $H$.
1564: Let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.
1565: If $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has the weak dual HAP, then
1566: $$0 \LE D^-(I,a) \LE D^+(I,a) \LE 1.$$
1567: \end{enumerate}
1568: \end{theorem}
1569: \begin{proof}
1570: (a) Let $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$ be the canonical dual frame to $\Fc$,
1571: and let $\tEc = \set{\te_j}_{j \in G}$ be the Riesz sequence in $\clspan(\Ec)$
1572: that is biorthogonal to $\Ec$.
1573: Fix $\eps > 0$, and let $N_\eps$ be the number given in the definition
1574: of the weak HAP.
1575: Fix an arbitrary point $j_0 \in G$ and a box size $N > 0$.
1576: Define
1577: $$V \EQ \Span\set{e_j : j \in S_N(j_0)}
1578: \qquad\text{and}\qquad
1579: W \EQ \clspan\set{\tf_i : i \in I_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)}.$$
1580: Note that $V$ is finite-dimensional, with $\dim(V) = |S_N(j_0)|$.
1581: On the other hand, $W$ may be finite or infinite-dimensional, but in any case
1582: we have
1583: $\Dim(W) \le |I_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)|$ in the sense of the extended reals.
1584:
1585: Let $P_V$ and $P_W$ denote the orthogonal projections of $H$ onto $V$ and $W$,
1586: respectively.
1587: Define a map $T \colon V \to V$ by $T = P_V P_W$.
1588: Note that since the domain of $T$ is $V$, we have
1589: $T = P_V P_W P_V$, so $T$ is self-adjoint.
1590:
1591: Let us estimate the trace of $T$.
1592: First note that every eigenvalue $\lambda$ of $T$ satisfies
1593: $|\lambda| \le \norm{T} \le \norm{P_V} \, \norm{P_W} = 1$.
1594: This provides us with an upper bound for the trace of $T$, since
1595: the trace is the sum of the eigenvalues, and hence
1596: \begin{equation} \label{upper}
1597: \trace(T)
1598: \LE \rank(T)
1599: \LE \Dim(W)
1600: \LE |I_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)|.
1601: \end{equation}
1602:
1603: For a lower estimate, note that $\set{e_j : j \in S_N(j_0)}$
1604: is a Riesz basis for $V$.
1605: The dual Riesz basis in $V$ is $\set{P_V \te_j : j \in S_N(j_0)}$.
1606: Therefore
1607: \begin{align}
1608: \trace(T)
1609: & \EQ \sum_{j \in S_N(j_0)} \ip{T e_j}{P_V \te_j}
1610: \label{est1} \\[1 \jot]
1611: & \EQ \sum_{j \in S_N(j_0)} \ip{P_V T e_j}{\te_j}
1612: \allowdisplaybreaks \notag \\[1 \jot]
1613: & \EQ \sum_{j \in S_N(j_0)} \ip{e_j}{\te_j} \plus
1614: \sum_{j \in S_N(j_0)} \ip{(P_V P_W - \one) e_j}{\te_j}
1615: \notag \\[1 \jot]
1616: & \GE |S_N(j_0)| \minus
1617: \sum_{j \in S_N(j_0)} |\ip{(P_V P_W - \one) e_j}{\te_j}|, \notag
1618: \end{align}
1619: where in the last line we have used the fact that
1620: $\ip{e_j}{\te_j} = 1$.
1621:
1622: The elements of any Riesz sequence are uniformly bounded in norm,
1623: so $C = \sup_j \norm{\te_j} < \infty$.
1624: Hence
1625: \begin{equation} \label{est2}
1626: |\ip{(P_V P_W - \one) e_j}{\te_j}|
1627: \LE \norm{(P_V P_W - \one) e_j} \, \norm{\te_j}
1628: \LE C \, \norm{(P_V P_W - \one) e_j}.
1629: \end{equation}
1630: Since $(P_V P_W - \one) e_j \in V$
1631: while $(\one - P_V) P_W e_j \perp V$,
1632: we have by the Pythagorean Theorem that
1633: \begin{align*}
1634: \norm{(P_W - \one) e_j}^2
1635: & \EQ \norm{(P_V P_W - \one) e_j + (\one - P_V) P_W e_j}^2 \\[1 \jot]
1636: & \EQ \norm{(P_V P_W - \one) e_j}^2 + \norm{(\one - P_V) P_W e_j}^2.
1637: \end{align*}
1638: Thus,
1639: \begin{align}
1640: \norm{(P_V P_W - \one) e_j}^2
1641: & \EQ \norm{(P_W - \one) e_j}^2 - \norm{(\one - P_V) P_W e_j}^2
1642: \label{est3} \\[2 \jot]
1643: & \LE \norm{(P_W - \one) e_j}^2
1644: \notag \\[2 \jot]
1645: & \EQ \dist(e_j, W)^2. \notag
1646: \end{align}
1647: However, for $j \in S_N(j_0)$, we have
1648: $I_{N_\eps(j)} \subset I_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)$, so for such $j$,
1649: \begin{align}
1650: \dist(e_j, W)
1651: & \EQ \dist\bigparen{e_j, \, \clspan\set{\tf_i : i \in I_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)}}
1652: \label{est4} \\[1 \jot]
1653: & \LE \dist\bigparen{e_j, \, \clspan\set{\tf_i : i \in I_{N_\eps}(j)}}
1654: \LT \eps, \notag
1655: \end{align}
1656: the last inequality following from the weak HAP.
1657: By combining equations \eqref{est1}--\eqref{est4}, we find that
1658: \begin{equation} \label{lower}
1659: \trace(T)
1660: \GE |S_N(j_0)| - \sum_{j \in S_N(j_0)} C \eps
1661: \EQ (1 - C \eps) \, |S_N(j_0)|.
1662: \end{equation}
1663:
1664: Finally, combining the upper estimate for $\trace(T)$ from \eqref{upper}
1665: with the lower estimate from \eqref{lower}, we obtain
1666: $$\frac{|I_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)|} {|S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)|}
1667: \GE \frac{(1 - C \eps) \, |S_N(j_0)|} {|S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)|},$$
1668: where the left-hand side could be infinite.
1669: In any case, taking the infimum over all $j_0 \in G$ and then the
1670: liminf as $N \to \infty$ yields
1671: $$D^-(I,a)
1672: \EQ \liminf_{N \to \infty} \inf_{j_0 \in G}
1673: \frac{|I_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)|}{|S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)|}
1674: \GE (1 - C \eps) \, \liminf_{N \to \infty}
1675: \frac{|S_N(j_0)|} {|S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)|}
1676: \EQ 1 - C \eps,$$
1677: the last equality following from the asymptotics in \eqref{asymptotics}.
1678: Since $\eps$ was arbitrary, we obtain $D^-(I,a) \ge 1$.
1679:
1680: \medskip
1681: (b) Let $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$ be the Riesz sequence in $\clspan(\Fc)$
1682: that is biorthogonal to $\Fc$, and let
1683: $\tEc = \set{\te_j}_{j \in G}$ be the canonical dual frame to $\Ec$.
1684: Fix $\eps > 0$, and let $N_\eps$ be the number given in the definition
1685: of the weak dual HAP.
1686: Fix an arbitrary point $j_0 \in G$ and a box size $N > 0$.
1687: Define
1688: $$V \EQ \clspan\set{f_i : i \in I_N(j_0)}
1689: \qquad\text{and}\qquad
1690: W \EQ \Span\set{\te_j : j \in S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)}.$$
1691: Note that $W$ is finite-dimensional, with
1692: $\Dim(W) \le |S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)|$.
1693: We will show next that $V$ is also finite-dimensional.
1694:
1695: Because $\Fc$ is a Riesz sequence, it is norm-bounded below.
1696: In fact, $\norm{f_i} \ge A^{1/2}$ where $A$,~$B$ are frame bounds for $\Fc$.
1697: Now for $i \in I_N(j_0)$ we have
1698: $S_{N_\eps}(a(i)) \subset S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)$, so
1699: \begin{align*}
1700: \dist(f_i, W)
1701: & \EQ \dist\bigparen{f_i, \, \Span\set{\te_j : j \in S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)}}
1702: \\[1 \jot]
1703: & \LE \dist\bigparen{f_i, \, \Span\set{\te_j : j \in S_{N_\eps}(a(i))}}
1704: \LT \eps,
1705: \end{align*}
1706: the last inequality following from the weak dual HAP.
1707: Hence
1708: \begin{equation} \label{lowerbound}
1709: \forall\, i \in I_N(j_0), \quad
1710: \norm{P_W f_i} \GE \norm{f_i} - \eps \GE A^{1/2} - \eps.
1711: \end{equation}
1712: Thus $\set{P_W f_i}_{i \in I_N(j_0)}$
1713: is a Bessel sequence in the finite-dimensional space $W$, and
1714: furthermore this sequence is norm-bounded below by \eqref{lowerbound}.
1715: Lemma~\ref{dimcount} therefore implies that $I_N(j_0)$ is finite.
1716: Thus $V$ is finite-dimensional, as $\dim(V) = |I_N(j_0)| < \infty$.
1717:
1718: Let $P_V$ and $P_W$ denote the orthogonal projections of $H$ onto $V$ and $W$,
1719: respectively, and define a map $T \colon V \to V$ by $T = P_V P_W$.
1720: An argument very similar to the one used in part~(a) then shows that
1721: $(1 - C \eps) \, |I_N(j_0)| \le |S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)|$,
1722: where $C = \sup_i \norm{\tf_i} < \infty$.
1723: Taking the supremum over all $j_0 \in G$ and then the limsup as $N \to \infty$
1724: then yields the result.
1725: \end{proof}
1726:
1727:
1728: The conclusion of Theorem~\ref{necessary}(a) allows the possibility
1729: that the density might be infinite.
1730: Our next main result will show that $\ell^2$-row decay implies, at least
1731: for Bessel sequences compared to frames, that the upper density is finite.
1732:
1733: \begin{theorem}[Necessary Finite Density Condition] \label{finitedensity}
1734: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a Bessel sequence in $H$, and suppose
1735: $\inf_{i \in I} \norm{f_i} > 0$.
1736: Assume $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ is a frame for~$H$,
1737: and let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.
1738: If $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has $\ell^2$-row decay,
1739: then $D^+(I,a) < \infty$.
1740: \end{theorem}
1741: \begin{proof}
1742: If we let $S$ be the frame operator for $\Ec$ then
1743: $S^{-1/2}(\Ec)$ is a Parseval frame for~$H$.
1744: Further, $\ip{f_i}{e_j} = \ip{S^{1/2}f_i}{S^{-1/2}e_j}$ and
1745: $S^{1/2}(\Fc)$ is still a Bessel sequence in $H$ that is norm-bounded below.
1746: Thus, it suffices to show the result when $\Ec$ is a Parseval frame for~$H$.
1747:
1748: Let $B$ be the Bessel bound for $\Fc$, and let $m = \inf_i \norm{f_i}^2$.
1749: Fix $0 < \eps < m$.
1750: Since $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has $\ell^2$-row decay, there exists an $N_\eps$ such that
1751: $$\forall\, i \in I, \quad
1752: \sum_{j \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}(a(i))} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2 \LT \eps.$$
1753: Let $j_0 \in G$ and $N > 0$ be given.
1754: Define
1755: $$V \EQ \Span\set{e_j : j \in S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)},$$
1756: and note that $\dim(V) \leq |S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)|$.
1757: Define $L_V \colon H \to V$ by
1758: $$L_V f
1759: \EQ \sum_{j \in S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)} \ip{f}{e_j} \, e_j,
1760: \qquad f \in H,$$
1761: and set $h_i = L_V f_i$ for $i \in I$.
1762: Since $\norm{L_V} \le 1$, it follows that $\set{h_i}_{i \in I}$
1763: is a Bessel sequence in $H$ with the same Bessel bound~$B$ as $\Fc$.
1764:
1765:
1766: Now, if $i \in I_N(j_0)$ then $a(i) \in S_N(j_0)$, so
1767: $S_{N_\eps}(a(i)) \subset S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)$.
1768: Therefore,
1769: $$\sum_{j \in G \setminus S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2
1770: \LE \sum_{j \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}(a(i))} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2
1771: \LT \eps.$$
1772: Hence
1773: $$\sum_{j \in S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2
1774: \GE \sum_{j \in G} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2 \minus \eps
1775: \EQ \norm{f_i}^2 - \eps
1776: \GE m - \eps.$$
1777: On the other hand,
1778: $$\sum_{j \in S_{N+N_\eps}(j_0)} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2
1779: \EQ \ip{h_i}{f_i}
1780: \LE \norm{h_i} \, \norm{f_i}
1781: \LE B^{1/2} \, \norm{h_i}.$$
1782: Thus
1783: $$\norm{h_i} \GE \frac{m-\eps}{B^{1/2}},
1784: \qquad i \in I_N(j_0).$$
1785: Applying Lemma~\ref{dimcount}(a) to $\set{h_i}_{i \in I_N(j_0)}$,
1786: we conclude that
1787: $$B \GE \frac{m-\eps}{B^{1/2}} \,\, \frac{|I_N(j_0)|}{\dim(V)}
1788: \GE \frac{m-\eps}{B^{1/2}} \,\, \frac{|I_N(j_0)|}{|S_{N+N_\eps(j_0)}|}.$$
1789: Consequently, applying the asymptotics in \eqref{asymptotics}, we conclude that
1790: \begin{align*}
1791: D^+(I,a)
1792: & \EQ \limsup_{N \to \infty} \, \sup_{j_0 \in G} \,
1793: \frac{|I_N(j_0)|}{|S_N(j_0)|} \\[1 \jot]
1794: & \LE \limsup_{N \to \infty} \, \sup_{j_0 \in G} \,
1795: \frac{B^{3/2}}{m-\eps} \, \frac{|S_{N+N_{\eps}}(j_0)|}{|S_N(j_0)|}
1796: \EQ \frac{B^{3/2}}{m-\eps}
1797: \LT \infty. \qedhere
1798: \end{align*}
1799: \end{proof}
1800:
1801:
1802: \subsection{The Connection Between Density and Relative Measure}
1803: \label{connectsec}
1804:
1805: We now derive the fundamental relationship between density
1806: and relative measure for localized frames.
1807:
1808:
1809: \begin{theorem}[Density--Relative Measure] \label{densityredundancy}
1810: Let $\Fc =\set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ and $\Ec =\set{e_j}_{j \in G}$
1811: be frame sequences in $H$, and let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.
1812: If $D^+(I,a) < \infty$ and $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$
1813: has both $\ell^2$-column decay and $\ell^2$-row decay,
1814: then the following statements hold.
1815:
1816: \smallskip
1817: \begin{enumerate}
1818: \item[(a)] For every sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$,
1819: \begin{align*}
1820: \lim_{N \to \infty} & \biggl[
1821: \biggparen{\frac1{|S_N(c_N)|} \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \ip{P_\Fc \te_j}{e_j}}
1822: \minus \biggr. \\
1823: & \qquad\quad \biggl. \biggparen{\frac{|I_N(c_N)|}{|S_N(c_N)|}} \,
1824: \biggparen{\frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \ip{P_\Ec f_i}{\tf_i}}
1825: \biggr]
1826: \EQ 0.
1827: \end{align*}
1828:
1829: \smallskip
1830: \item[(b)] For every sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$ and
1831: any free ultrafilter $p$,
1832: $$\cM_\Fc(\Ec;p,c) \EQ D(p,c) \cdot \cM_\Ec(\Fc;p,c).$$
1833: \end{enumerate}
1834: \end{theorem}
1835:
1836: \begin{proof}
1837: (a) Fix any sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$.
1838: Define
1839: \begin{align*}
1840: d_N & \EQ \frac{|I_N(c_N)|}{|S_N(c_N)|}, \\[2 \jot]
1841: r_N & \EQ \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \ip{P_\Ec f_i}{\tf_i},
1842: \\[1 \jot]
1843: s_N & \EQ \frac1{|S_N(c_N)|} \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \ip{P_\Fc \te_j}{e_j}.
1844: \end{align*}
1845: We must show that $|s_N - d_N r_N| \to 0$.
1846:
1847: First, we make some preliminary observations and introduce some notation.
1848: Let $A$,~$B$ denote frame bounds for $\Fc$, and let
1849: $E$,~$F$ denote frame bounds for $\Ec$.
1850: Then the canonical dual frame sequences $\tFc$ and $\tEc$ have frame bounds
1851: $\frac1B$,~$\frac1A$ and
1852: $\frac1F$,~$\frac1E$, respectively.
1853: Consequently, for all $i \in I$ and $j \in G$,
1854: $$\norm{f_i}^2 \LE B, \qquad
1855: \norm{\tf_i}^2 \LE \frac1A, \qquad
1856: \norm{e_j}^2 \LE F, \qquad
1857: \norm{\te_j}^2 \LE \frac1E.$$
1858:
1859: Fix any $\eps > 0$.
1860: Since $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has both $\ell^2$-column decay and $\ell^2$-row decay,
1861: there exists an integer $N_\eps > 0$ such that both
1862: equations \eqref{PropXdef} and \eqref{PropXstardef} hold.
1863: Additionally, since $D^+(I,a) < \infty$, there exists an $K > 0$
1864: such that \eqref{annulus} holds.
1865:
1866: Let $P_\Fc$ and $P_\Ec$ denote the orthogonal projections of $H$ onto
1867: $\clspan(\Fc)$ and $\clspan(\Ec)$, respectively, and recall that these
1868: projections can be realized as in equation \eqref{orthogproj}.
1869: Then for $N > N_\eps$ we have the following:
1870: \begin{align}
1871: & |S_N(c_N)| \, (s_N - d_N r_N) \label{reduction2} \\[1 \jot]
1872: & \qquad \EQ \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \ip{\te_j}{P_\Fc e_j} \minus
1873: \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \ip{P_\Ec f_i}{\tf_i}
1874: \notag \\[1 \jot]
1875: & \qquad \EQ \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \, \sum_{i \in I} \,
1876: \ip{f_i}{e_j} \, \ip{\te_j}{\tf_i} \minus
1877: \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \, \sum_{j \in J} \,
1878: \ip{f_i}{e_j} \, \ip{\te_j}{\tf_i} \notag \\[2 \jot]
1879: & \qquad \EQ T_1 + T_2 - T_3 - T_4, \notag
1880: \end{align}
1881: where
1882: \begin{align*}
1883: T_1 & \EQ \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \,
1884: \sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N+N_\eps}(c_N)}
1885: \ip{f_i}{e_j} \, \ip{\te_j}{\tf_i}, \\[1 \jot]
1886: T_2 & \EQ \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \,
1887: \sum_{i \in I_{N+N_\eps}(c_N) \setminus I_N(c_N)}
1888: \ip{f_i}{e_j} \, \ip{\te_j}{\tf_i}, \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
1889: T_3 & \EQ \sum_{i \in I_{N-N_\eps}(c_N)} \,
1890: \sum_{j \in G \setminus S_N(c_N)}
1891: \ip{f_i}{e_j} \, \ip{\te_j}{\tf_i}, \\[1 \jot]
1892: T_4 & \EQ \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N) \setminus I_{N-N_\eps}(c_N)} \,
1893: \sum_{j \in G \setminus S_N(c_N)}
1894: \ip{f_i}{e_j} \, \ip{\te_j}{\tf_i}.
1895: \end{align*}
1896: We will estimate each of these quantities in turn.
1897:
1898:
1899: \smallskip
1900: \emph{Estimate $T_1$}.
1901: If $j \in S_N(c_N)$, then $I_{N_\eps}(j) \subset I_{N+N_\eps}(c_N)$,
1902: so by $\ell^2$-column decay we have
1903: $$\sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N+N_\eps}(c_N)} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2
1904: \LE \sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N_\eps}(j)} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2
1905: \LT \eps.$$
1906: Using this and the fact that $\set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$ is a frame sequence,
1907: we estimate that
1908: \begin{align*}
1909: |T_1|
1910: & \LE \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \,
1911: \biggparen{\sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N+N_\eps}(c_N)}
1912: |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2}^{1/2} \,
1913: \biggparen{\sum_{i \in I \setminus I_{N+N_\eps}(c_N)}
1914: |\ip{\te_j}{\tf_i}|^2}^{1/2} \\[2 \jot]
1915: & \LE \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \, \eps^{1/2} \,
1916: \biggparen{\frac1A \, \norm{\te_j}^2}^{1/2}
1917: \LE |S_N(c_N)| \, \biggparen{\frac{\eps}{AE}}^{1/2}.
1918: \end{align*}
1919:
1920: \smallskip
1921: \emph{Estimate $T_2$}.
1922: By \eqref{annulus}, we have
1923: $|I_{N+N_\eps}(c_N) \setminus I_N(c_N)|
1924: \le K \, \bigparen{|S_{N+N_\eps}(c_N)| - |S_N(c_N)|}$.
1925: Since $\set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ and $\set{\te_j}_{j \in G}$ are frame
1926: sequences, we therefore have
1927: \begin{align*}
1928: |T_2|
1929: & \LE \sum_{i \in I_{N+N_\eps}(c_N) \setminus I_N(c_N)} \,
1930: \biggparen{\sum_{j \in G} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2}^{1/2} \,
1931: \biggparen{\sum_{j \in G} |\ip{\te_j}{\tf_i}|^2}^{1/2} \\[2 \jot]
1932: & \LE \sum_{i \in I_{N+N_\eps}(c_N) \setminus I_N(c_N)} \,
1933: \Bigparen{E \, \norm{f_i}^2}^{1/2} \,
1934: \Bigparen{\frac1F \, \norm{\tf_i}^2}^{1/2} \,
1935: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[2 \jot]
1936: & \LE K \, \bigparen{|S_{N+N_\eps}(c_N)| - |S_N(c_N)|} \,
1937: \biggparen{\frac{EB}{FA}}^{1/2}.
1938: \end{align*}
1939:
1940: \smallskip
1941: \emph{Estimate $T_3$}.
1942: This estimate is similar to the one for $T_1$.
1943: If $i \in I_{N-N_\eps}(c_N)$ then $a(i) \in S_{N-N_\eps}(c_N)$, so
1944: $S_{N_\eps}(a(i)) \subset S_N(c_N)$.
1945: Hence, by $\ell^2$-row decay,
1946: $$\sum_{j \in G \setminus S_{N}(c_N)} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2
1947: \LE \sum_{j \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}(a(i))} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2
1948: \LT \eps.$$
1949: Since $\set{\te_j}_{j \in G}$ is a frame sequence, we therefore have
1950: \begin{align*}
1951: |T_3|
1952: & \LE \sum_{i \in I_{N-N_\eps}(c_N)} \,
1953: \biggparen{\sum_{j \in G \setminus S_N(c_N)}
1954: |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2}^{1/2} \,
1955: \biggparen{\sum_{j \in G} |\ip{\te_j}{\tf_i}|^2}^{1/2} \\[2 \jot]
1956: & \LE \sum_{i \in I_{N-N_\eps}(c_N)} \, \eps^{1/2} \,
1957: \biggparen{\frac1E \, \norm{\tf_i}^2}^{1/2}
1958: \LE K \, |S_{N - N_\eps}(c_N)| \, \biggparen{\frac{\eps}{AE}}^{1/2}.
1959: \end{align*}
1960:
1961: \smallskip
1962: \emph{Estimate $T_4$}.
1963: This estimate is similar to the one for $T_2$.
1964: Since $\set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ and $\set{\te_j}_{j \in G}$ are frame
1965: sequences, we have for $N > N_\eps$ that
1966: \begin{align*}
1967: |T_4|
1968: & \LE \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N) \setminus I_{N-N_\eps}(c_N)} \,
1969: \biggparen{\sum_{j \in G} |\ip{f_i}{e_j}|^2}^{1/2} \,
1970: \biggparen{\sum_{j \in G} |\ip{\te_j}{\tf_i}|^2}^{1/2} \\[2 \jot]
1971: & \LE K \, \bigparen{|S_N(c_N)| - |S_{N-N_\eps}(c_N)|} \,
1972: \biggparen{\frac{EB}{FA}}^{1/2}.
1973: \end{align*}
1974:
1975: \smallskip
1976: \emph{Final Estimate}.
1977: Applying the above estimates to \eqref{reduction2},
1978: we find that if $N > N_\eps$, then
1979: \begin{align*}
1980: |s_N - d_N r_N|
1981: & \LE \frac{|T_1| + |T_2| + |T_3| + |T_4|} {|S_N(c_N)|}
1982: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[2 \jot]
1983: & \LE \biggparen{\frac{\eps}{AE}}^{1/2} \plus
1984: K \, \biggparen{\frac{EB}{FA}}^{1/2} \,
1985: \frac{|S_{N+N_\eps}(c_N)| - |S_N(c_N)|}{|S_N(c_N)|} \, \plus
1986: \\[1 \jot]
1987: & \qquad\qquad
1988: K \, \biggparen{\frac{\eps}{AE}}^{1/2} \,
1989: \frac{|S_{N-N_\eps}(c_N)|}{|S_N(c_N)|} \, \plus
1990: \\[1 \jot]
1991: & \qquad\qquad
1992: K \, \biggparen{\frac{EB}{FA}}^{1/2} \,
1993: \frac{|S_N(c_N)| - |S_{N-N_\eps}(c_N)|}{|S_N(c_N)|}.
1994: \end{align*}
1995: Consequently, applying the asymptotics in \eqref{asymptotics},
1996: we conclude that
1997: $$\limsup_{N \to \infty} |s_N - d_N r_N|
1998: \LE \biggparen{\frac{\eps}{AE}}^{1/2} \plus 0 \plus
1999: K \biggparen{\frac{\eps}{AE}}^{1/2} \plus 0.$$
2000: Since $\eps$ was arbitrary, this implies
2001: $\lim_{N \to \infty} (s_N - d_N r_N) = 0$, as desired.
2002:
2003: \medskip
2004: (b) Since ultrafilter limits exist for any bounded sequence and furthermore
2005: are linear and respect products, we have
2006: \begin{align*}
2007: 0 \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} (s_N - d_N r_N)
2008: & \EQ \Bigparen{\plim_{N \in \N} s_N} \minus
2009: \Bigparen{\plim_{N \in \N} d_N} \,
2010: \Bigparen{\plim_{N \in \N} r_N} \\[1 \jot]
2011: & \EQ \cM_\Fc(\Ec;p,c) \minus D(p,c) \cdot \cM_\Ec(\Fc;p,c).
2012: \qedhere
2013: \end{align*}
2014: \end{proof}
2015:
2016:
2017: \subsection{Applications of the Density--Relative Measure Theorem}
2018: \label{applications}
2019:
2020: In this section we will derive some consequences of
2021: Theorem~\ref{densityredundancy}.
2022:
2023: Our first result specializes Theorem~\ref{densityredundancy} to the case
2024: where $\Fc$ and $\Ec$ are both frames for~$H$, including the important
2025: special cases where $\Ec$ is actually a Riesz basis for~$H$.
2026: It also connects the infinite excess result of
2027: Proposition~\ref{infiniteexcess}.
2028:
2029: \begin{theorem}[Abstract Density Theorem] \label{excesscor}
2030: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ and $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be frames
2031: for~$H$, and let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map such that
2032: $D^+(I,a) < \infty$.
2033: If $(\Fc, a, \Ec)$ has both $\ell^2$-column decay and $\ell^2$-row decay,
2034: then the following statements hold.
2035:
2036: \smallskip
2037: \begin{enumerate}
2038: \item[(a)]
2039: For each free ultrafilter $p$ and
2040: sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$, we have
2041: \begin{equation} \label{equality1}
2042: \cM(\Ec;p,c) \EQ D(p,c) \cdot \cM(\Fc;p,c).
2043: \end{equation}
2044: Consequently,
2045: \begin{align}
2046: \cM^-(\Ec) & \LE D^+(I,a) \cdot \cM^-(\Fc) \LE \cM^+(\Ec), \label{equality2}
2047: \\[2 \jot]
2048: \cM^-(\Ec) & \LE D^-(I,a) \cdot \cM^+(\Fc) \LE \cM^+(\Ec). \label{equality3}
2049: \end{align}
2050:
2051: \item[(b)]
2052: If $D^+(I,a) > \cM^+(\Ec)$, then there exists an infinite set $J \subset I$
2053: such that $\set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$ is still a frame for $H$.
2054: \end{enumerate}
2055:
2056: \medskip\noindent
2057: If $\Ec$ is a Riesz basis for $H$ then the following additional
2058: statements hold.
2059:
2060: \smallskip
2061: \begin{enumerate}
2062: \item[(c)]
2063: For each free ultrafilter $p$ and
2064: sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$, we have
2065: $$\cM(\Fc;p,c) \EQ \frac1{D(p,c)}, \quad
2066: \cM^-(\Fc) \EQ \frac1{D^+(I,a)}, \quad
2067: \cM^+(\Fc) \EQ \frac1{D^-(I,a)}.$$
2068:
2069: \medskip
2070: \item[(d)] $D^-(I,a) \ge 1$.
2071:
2072: \medskip
2073: \item[(e)]
2074: If $D^+(I,a) > 1$, then there exists an infinite subset
2075: $J \subset I$ such that $\set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$
2076: is still a frame for~$H$.
2077:
2078: \medskip
2079: \item[(f)]
2080: If $\Fc$ is also a Riesz basis for $H$,
2081: then for each free ultrafilter $p$ and
2082: sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$, we have
2083: \begin{align*}
2084: & D^-(I,a) \EQ D(p,c) \EQ D^+(I,a) \EQ 1, \\[1 \jot]
2085: & \cM^-(\Fc) \EQ \cM(\Fc;p,c) \EQ \cM^+(\Fc) \EQ 1.
2086: \end{align*}
2087: \end{enumerate}
2088: \end{theorem}
2089: \begin{proof}
2090: (a) Since the closed span of $\Fc$ and $\Ec$ is all of $H$, the
2091: equality in \eqref{equality1}
2092: is a restatement of Theorem~\ref{densityredundancy}(a).
2093: For the first inequality in \eqref{equality2}, choose an ultrafilter
2094: $p$ and sequence of centers $c$ such that
2095: $\cM^-(\Fc) = \cM(\Fc;p,c)$.
2096: Then we have
2097: $$\cM^-(\Ec)
2098: \LE \cM(\Ec;p,c)
2099: \EQ D(p,c) \cdot \cM(\Fc;p,c)
2100: \LE D^+(p,c) \cdot \cM^-(\Fc).$$
2101: The other inequalities in \eqref{equality2} and \eqref{equality3}
2102: are similar.
2103:
2104: \medskip
2105: (b) In this case it follows from \eqref{equality2} that
2106: $\cM^-(\Fc) \le \cM^+(\Ec) / D^+(I,a) < 1$,
2107: so the result follows from Proposition~\ref{infiniteexcess}.
2108:
2109: \medskip
2110: (c) If $\Ec$ is a Riesz basis then
2111: $\cM(\Ec;p,c) = \cM^\pm(\Ec) = 1$,
2112: so the result follows from part~(a).
2113:
2114: \medskip
2115: (d) Follows from part~(c) and the fact that
2116: $0 \le \cM^+(\Fc) \le 1$.
2117:
2118: \medskip
2119: (e) Follows from part~(b) and the fact that
2120: $\cM^+(\Ec) = 1$.
2121:
2122: \medskip
2123: (f) If $\Fc$ is a Riesz basis then $\cM^\pm(\Fc) = 1$, so this
2124: follows from part~(c).
2125: \end{proof}
2126:
2127: Note that the conclusion $D^-(I,a) \ge 1$ of Theorem~\ref{excesscor}(d)
2128: is shown under a weaker hypothesis in Theorem~\ref{necessary}.
2129: Specifically, Theorem~\ref{necessary} requires only the hypothesis that the
2130: weak HAP be satisfied.
2131: However, the stronger localization hypotheses of Theorem~\ref{excesscor}
2132: ($\ell^2$-column and row decay) yields the significantly
2133: stronger conclusions of Theorem~\ref{excesscor}.
2134:
2135: Next we derive relationships among the density, frame bounds, and
2136: norms of the frame elements for localized frames.
2137: In particular, part~(a) provides an estimate of the relations between frame
2138: bounds, density, and limits of averages of the norms of frame elements.
2139: Many of the frames that are important in applications, such as
2140: Gabor frames, are uniform norm frames, i.e., all the frame elements
2141: have identical norms, and for these frames these averages are a constant.
2142: As a consequence, we show that if $\Fc$ and $\Ec$ are both tight uniform
2143: norm frames, then the index set $I$ must have uniform density.
2144:
2145: \begin{theorem}[Density--Frame Bounds] \label{framebounds}
2146: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame for $H$ with frame bounds $A$,~$B$,
2147: and let $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be a frame for $H$ with frame bounds
2148: $E$,~$F$.
2149: Let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map such that $D^+(I,a) < \infty$.
2150: If $(\Fc, a, \Ec)$ has both $\ell^2$-column decay and $\ell^2$-row decay,
2151: then the following statements hold.
2152:
2153: \smallskip
2154: \begin{enumerate}
2155: \item[(a)]
2156: For each free ultrafilter $p$ and
2157: sequence of centers $c = (c_N)_{N \in \N}$ in $G$, we have
2158: \begin{align}
2159: \frac1{F} \,
2160: \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|S_N(c_N)|} \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \norm{e_j}^2
2161: & \LE \frac{D(p,c)}{A} \,
2162: \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \norm{f_i}^2,
2163: \label{firstplim} \\[1 \jot]
2164: \frac1{E} \,
2165: \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|S_N(c_N)|} \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \norm{e_j}^2
2166: & \GE \frac{D(p,c)}{B} \,
2167: \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \norm{f_i}^2.
2168: \label{secondplim}
2169: \end{align}
2170:
2171: \smallskip
2172: \item[(b)]
2173: We have
2174: $$\frac{A}{F} \, \frac{\liminf_j \norm{e_j}^2}{\limsup_i \norm{f_i}^2}
2175: \LE D^-(I,a)
2176: \LE D^+(I,a)
2177: \LE \frac{B}{E} \, \frac{\limsup_j \norm{e_j}^2}{\liminf_i \norm{f_i}^2}.$$
2178:
2179: \smallskip
2180: \item[(c)]
2181: If $\Fc$ and $\Ec$ are both uniform norm frames, with
2182: $\norm{f_i}^2 = \mathcal{N}_\Fc$ for $i \in I$ and
2183: $\norm{e_j}^2 = \mathcal{N}_\Ec$ for $j \in G$, then
2184: $$\frac{A \, \mathcal{N}_\Ec}{F \, \mathcal{N}_\Fc}
2185: \LE D^-(I,a)
2186: \LE D^+(I,a)
2187: \LE \frac{B \, \mathcal{N}_\Ec}{E \, \mathcal{N}_\Fc}.$$
2188: Consequently, if $\Fc$ and $\Ec$ are both tight uniform norm frames,
2189: then $I$ has uniform density, with
2190: $D^-(I,a) = D^+(I,a) = (A \, \mathcal{N}_\Ec)/(E \, \mathcal{N}_\Fc)$.
2191: \end{enumerate}
2192: \end{theorem}
2193:
2194: \begin{proof}
2195: (a) Let $S$ be the frame operator for $\Fc$.
2196: Then $A\one \le S \le B\one$, so we have
2197: $\ip{f_i}{\tf_i}
2198: = \ip{f_i}{S^{-1}(f_i)}
2199: \le \frac1{A} \, \ip{f_i}{f_i}
2200: = \frac1{A} \, \norm{f_i}^2$,
2201: and hence
2202: $$\cM(\Fc;p,c)
2203: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i}
2204: \LE \frac1{A} \,
2205: \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \norm{f_i}^2.$$
2206: Similarly $\ip{\te_j}{e_j} \ge \frac1{F} \, \norm{e_j}^2$, so
2207: $$\cM(\Ec;p,c)
2208: \EQ \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|S_N(c_N)|} \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \ip{\te_j}{e_j}
2209: \GE \frac1{F} \,
2210: \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|S_N(c_N)|} \sum_{j \in S_N(c_N)} \norm{e_j}^2.$$
2211: Combining these inequalities with the equality
2212: $\cM(\Ec;p,c) = D(p,c) \cdot \cM(\Fc;p,c)$ from Theorem~\ref{excesscor}(a)
2213: yields \eqref{firstplim}.
2214: Inequality \eqref{secondplim} is similar, using
2215: $\ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \ge \frac1B \, \norm{f_i}^2$ and
2216: $\ip{\te_j}{e_j} \le \frac1E \, \norm{e_j}^2$.
2217:
2218: \medskip
2219: (b) Observe that
2220: $$\liminf_{i \in I} \, \norm{f_i}^2
2221: \LE \plim_{N \in \N} \frac1{|I_N(c_N)|} \sum_{i \in I_N(c_N)} \norm{f_i}^2
2222: \LE \limsup_{i \in I} \, \norm{f_i}^2,$$
2223: and combine this and a similar inequality for $\Ec$ with \eqref{firstplim}.
2224:
2225: \medskip
2226: (c) This is an immediate consequence of part~(b).
2227: \end{proof}
2228:
2229: A similar result can be formulated in terms of the norms $\norm{\tf_i}$
2230: of the canonical dual frame elements, by using the inequality
2231: $A \, \norm{\tf_i}^2 \le \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \le B \, \norm{\tf_i}$.
2232:
2233:
2234: \subsection{Removing Sets of Positive Measure} \label{positivesec}
2235:
2236: In this section, we will show that by imposing a stronger form of
2237: localization than we used in Theorem~\ref{excesscor},
2238: a subset of positive measure may be removed yet still leave a frame.
2239: This is a stronger conclusion than the infinite excess statements
2240: of Proposition~\ref{infiniteexcess} or Theorem~\ref{excesscor},
2241: which only state that an infinite set may be removed, without any
2242: conclusion about the density of that set.
2243:
2244: In the remainder of this section we will use the results of
2245: Appendix~\ref{selflocappend}, as well as the following notations.
2246: If $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is a frame then
2247: the orthogonal projection of $\ell^2(I)$ onto the range of the analysis
2248: operator $T$ is $\Pb = T S^{-1} T^*$.
2249: Given $J \subset I$, we define truncated analysis and frame operators
2250: $T_J f = \set{\ip{f}{f_i}}_{i \in J}$ and
2251: $S_J f = \sum_{i \in J} \ip{f}{f_i} \, f_i$.
2252: We let $R_J \colon \ell^2(I) \to \ell^2(I)$ be the projection operator
2253: given by $(R_J c)_k = c_k$ for $k \in J$, and $0$ otherwise.
2254: Written as matrices,
2255: $$\Pb \EQ T S^{-1} T^* \EQ [\ip{f_i}{\tf_j}]_{i,j \in I}
2256: \qquad\text{and}\qquad
2257: T_J S^{-1} T_J^* \EQ [\ip{f_i}{\tf_j}]_{i,j \in J}.$$
2258:
2259: The following lemma characterizes those subsets of a frame which
2260: can be removed yet still leave a frame.
2261:
2262: \begin{lemma} \label{frameremove}
2263: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame for $H$,
2264: with frame bounds $A$, $B$.
2265: Let $J \subset I$ be given, and define
2266: \begin{equation} \label{rhodef}
2267: \rho
2268: \EQ \norm{T_J S^{-1} T_J^*}
2269: \EQ \norm{S^{-1/2} S_J S^{-1/2}}
2270: \EQ \norm{R_J \Pb R_J}.
2271: \end{equation}
2272: Then $\Fc_{I \setminus J} = \set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$
2273: is a frame for $H$ if and only if $\rho < 1$.
2274: In this case, $A(1-\rho)$,~$B$ are frame bounds for $\Fc_{I \setminus J}$.
2275: \end{lemma}
2276: \begin{proof}
2277: First, the fact that equality holds in \eqref{rhodef} is a consequence
2278: of the fact that $\norm{L^* L} = \norm{LL^*}$ for any operator~$L$.
2279: Specifically,
2280: \begin{align*}
2281: \norm{S^{-1/2} S_J S^{-1/2}}
2282: & \EQ \norm{(S^{-1/2} T_J^*) (S^{-1/2} T_J^*)^*}
2283: \EQ \norm{(S^{-1/2} T_J^*)^* (S^{-1/2} T_J^*)}
2284: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
2285: & \EQ \norm{T_J S^{-1} T_J^*}
2286: \EQ \norm{R_J T S^{-1} T^* R_J}
2287: \EQ \norm{R_J \Pb R_J}.
2288: \end{align*}
2289: Second,
2290: since $\Fc_{I \setminus J}$ is a subset of $\Fc$, it is clearly a
2291: Bessel sequence with Bessel bound $B$.
2292: Further, $S_{I \setminus J}$ is a bounded operator on $H$, satisfying
2293: $0 \le S_{I \setminus J} \le S \le BI$.
2294: Therefore, $\Fc_{I \setminus J}$ is a frame for $H$ with frame bounds
2295: $A'$, $B$ if and only if $A' \one \le S_{I \setminus J}$.
2296:
2297: Suppose now that $\rho = \norm{S^{-1/2} S_J S^{-1/2}} < 1$.
2298: Then
2299: $$S_{I \setminus J}
2300: \EQ S - S_J
2301: \EQ S^{1/2} (\one - S^{-1/2} S_J S^{-1/2}) S^{1/2}$$
2302: is invertible.
2303: Further,
2304: $$\ip{S^{-1/2} S_J S^{-1/2}f}{f}
2305: \LE \norm{S^{-1/2} S_J S^{-1/2}} \, \norm{f}^2
2306: \LE \rho \, \norm{f}^2
2307: \EQ \ip{\rho\one f}{f},$$
2308: so
2309: \begin{align*}
2310: S_{I \setminus J}
2311: & \EQ S^{1/2} (\one - S^{-1/2} S_J S^{-1/2}) S^{1/2} \\
2312: & \GE S^{1/2} (\one - \rho\one) S^{1/2}
2313: \EQ (1-\rho) S
2314: \GE (1-\rho) A\one.
2315: \end{align*}
2316: Thus $\Fc_{I \setminus J}$ is a frame for $H$ with frame bounds
2317: $(1-\rho)A$, $B$.
2318:
2319: Conversely, if $\Fc_{I \setminus J}$ is a frame with frame bounds
2320: $A'$, $B$ then $S_{I \setminus J} \ge A'\one$, so
2321: $$\one - S^{-1/2} S_J S^{-1/2}
2322: \EQ S^{-1/2} S_{I \setminus J} S^{-1/2}
2323: \GE S^{-1/2} A' \one S^{-1/2}
2324: \EQ A' S^{-1}
2325: \GE \frac{A'}B \one.$$
2326: Hence
2327: $\rho
2328: = \norm{S^{-1/2} S_J S^{-1/2}}
2329: \le \norm{(1 - \frac{A'}B) \one}
2330: = 1 - \frac{A'}B
2331: < 1$.
2332: \end{proof}
2333:
2334: Now we can give the first main result of this section, that if
2335: $\cM(\Fc^+) < 1$ and we have $\ell^1$-localization with respect to the
2336: dual frame, then a set of positive uniform density can be removed
2337: yet still leave a frame.
2338: Note by Theorem~\ref{selflocthm} the hypothesis of $\ell^1$-localization with
2339: respect to the canonical dual is implied by $\ell^1$-self-localization.
2340: Although we omit it, it is possible to give a direct proof
2341: of the following result under the hypothesis of $\ell^1$-self-localization
2342: that does not appeal to Theorem~\ref{selflocthm}.
2343:
2344:
2345:
2346: \begin{theorem}[Positive Uniform Density Removal] \label{positiveremove}
2347: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame sequence with frame bounds $A$,~$B$,
2348: with associated map $a \colon I \to G$,
2349: and assume that the following statements hold:
2350:
2351: \smallskip
2352: \begin{enumerate}
2353: \item[(a)]
2354: $0 < D^-(I,a) \le D^+(I,a) < \infty$,
2355:
2356: \medskip
2357: \item[(b)]
2358: $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-localized with respect to its canonical dual frame, and
2359:
2360: \medskip
2361: \item[(c)]
2362: $\cM^+(\Fc) < 1$.
2363: \end{enumerate}
2364:
2365: \smallskip\noindent
2366: Then there exists a subset $J \subset I$ such that
2367: $D^+(J,a) = D^-(J,a) > 0$ and
2368: $\Fc_{I \setminus J} = \set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$
2369: is a frame for $\clspan(\Fc)$.
2370:
2371: Moreover, if $\cM^+(\Fc) < \alpha < 1$ and $J_\alpha$ is defined
2372: by~\eqref{Jalphadef}, i.e.,
2373: $$J_\alpha \EQ \set{i \in I : \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \le \alpha},$$
2374: then for each $0 < \eps < 1-\alpha$
2375: there exists a subset $J \subset J_\alpha$ such that
2376: $D^+(J,a) = D^-(J,a) > 0$ and
2377: $\Fc_{I \setminus J} = \set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$
2378: is a frame for $\clspan(\Fc)$ with frame bounds $A(1-\alpha-\eps)$,~$B$.
2379: \end{theorem}
2380:
2381: \begin{proof}
2382:
2383: Note first that by Corollary~\ref{Jalphacoro}(a),
2384: if $\cM^+(\Fc) < \alpha < 1$ then we have that $D^-(J_\alpha,a) > 0$.
2385: Also, since $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-localized with respect to its dual frame,
2386: there exists $r \in \ell^1(G)$ such that
2387: $|\ip{f_i}{\tf_j}| \le r_{a(i) - a(j)}$ for all $i$, $j \in I$.
2388: Given $0 < \eps < 1 - \alpha$, let $N_\eps$ be large enough that
2389: $$\sum_{k \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}(0)} r_k
2390: \LT \eps.$$
2391: Since $D^-(J_\alpha,a) > 0$, there exists $N_0 > 0$ such that
2392: $|I_{N_0}(j) \cap J_\alpha| > 0$ for every $j \in G$.
2393: Let $N = \max\set{N_\eps,N_0}$, and define
2394: $$\Qc = \set{S_N(2Nk) : k \in G}.$$
2395: Each preimage $I_N(2Nk) = a^{-1}(S_N(2Nk))$ of the boxes in $\Qc$
2396: contains at least one point of~$J_\alpha$.
2397: For each $k$, select one such point, say~$i_k \in I_N(2Nk) \cap J_\alpha$,
2398: and set
2399: $J = \set{i_k : k \in G}$.
2400: Then $J$ has positive density, with
2401: $D^+(J,a) = D^-(J,a) = \frac1{|S_{2N}(0)|}$.
2402:
2403: Consider now the matrix
2404: $T_J S^{-1} T_J^* = [\ip{f_i}{\tf_j}]_{i,j \in J}$.
2405: Write $T_J S^{-1} T_J^* = D + V$, where $D$ is the diagonal part
2406: of $T_J S^{-1} T_J^*$ and $V=[v_{ij}]_{i,j\in J}$.
2407: By the definition of $J_\alpha$, we have
2408: $\norm{D} = \sup_{i \in J} \ip{f_i}{\tf_i} \le \alpha$.
2409: Define
2410: $$s_k \EQ
2411: \begin{cases}
2412: r_k, & k \notin S_{N_\eps}(0), \\
2413: 0, & k \in S_{N_\eps}(0).
2414: \end{cases}$$
2415: If $i$, $j \in J$ and $i \ne j$, then $a(i) - a(j) \notin S_{N_\eps}(0)$,
2416: and therefore
2417: $|v_{ij}| = |\ip{f_i}{\tf_j}| \le r_{a(i) - a(j)} = s_{a(i) - a(j)}$.
2418: On the other hand, $|v_{ii}| = 0 = s_{a(i) - a(i)}$.
2419: Applying Proposition~\ref{matrixdecay}(a) to $V$ and the index set $J$
2420: therefore yields
2421: $$\norm{V}
2422: \LE \sum_{k \in G} s_k
2423: \EQ \sum_{k \in G \setminus S_{N_\eps}(0)} r_k
2424: \LT \eps.$$
2425: Therefore
2426: $\norm{T_J S^{-1} T_J^*}
2427: \le \norm{D} + \norm{V}
2428: \le \alpha + \eps
2429: < 1$.
2430: Lemma~\ref{frameremove} therefore implies that
2431: $\set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$ is a frame for $H$
2432: with frame bounds $A(1-\alpha-\eps)$, $B$.
2433: \end{proof}
2434:
2435: If we impose $\ell^2$-column decay and $\ell^2$-row decay,
2436: then we can reformulate Theorem~\ref{positiveremove}
2437: in terms of density instead of relative measure.
2438:
2439: \begin{corollary} \label{removecorollary}
2440: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ and $\Ec = \set{e_j}_{j \in G}$ be frames
2441: for $H$, and let $A$,~$B$ be frame bounds for $\Fc$.
2442: Let $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map, and
2443: assume that the following statements hold:
2444:
2445: \smallskip
2446: \begin{enumerate}
2447: \item[(a)]
2448: $0 < D^-(I,a) \le D^+(I,a) < \infty$,
2449:
2450: \medskip
2451: \item[(b)]
2452: $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-localized with respect to its canonical dual frame,
2453:
2454: \medskip
2455: \item[(c)]
2456: $(\Fc,a,\Ec)$ has both $\ell^2$-column decay and $\ell^2$-row decay, and
2457:
2458: \medskip
2459: \item[(d)]
2460: $\cM^+(\Ec) < D^-(I,a)$;
2461: in particular, $D^-(I,a) > 1$ if $\Ec$ is a Riesz basis.
2462: \end{enumerate}
2463:
2464: \smallskip\noindent
2465: Then $\cM^+(\Fc) < 1$, and
2466: then there exists a subset $J \subset I$ such that
2467: $D^+(J,a) = D^-(J,a) > 0$ and
2468: $\Fc_{I \setminus J} = \set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$
2469: is a frame for $\clspan(\Fc)$.
2470:
2471: Moreover, if $\cM^+(\Fc) < \alpha < 1$ and $J_\alpha$ is defined
2472: by~\eqref{Jalphadef}, then for each $0 < \eps < 1-\alpha$
2473: there exists a subset $J \subset J_\alpha$ such that
2474: $D^+(J,a) = D^-(J,a) > 0$ and
2475: $\Fc_{I \setminus J} = \set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$
2476: is a frame for $\clspan(\Fc)$ with frame bounds $A(1-\alpha-\eps)$,~$B$.
2477: \end{corollary}
2478: \begin{proof}
2479: By Theorem~\ref{excesscor} we have
2480: $\cM^+(\Fc) \le \frac{\cM^+(\Ec)}{D^-(I,a)} < 1$,
2481: so the result follows by applying Theorem~\ref{positiveremove}.
2482: \end{proof}
2483:
2484: Theorem~\ref{positiveremove} and Corollary~\ref{removecorollary} are
2485: evidence that the reciprocal of the relative measure should in fact be
2486: a quantification of the redundancy of an abstract frame.
2487: Concentrating for purposes of discussion on the case where $\Ec$ is a
2488: Riesz basis (and hence $\cM^+(\Ec) = 1$),
2489: this quantification would be precise if it was the case that if
2490: $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ is an appropriately localized frame and if
2491: $\cM^+(\Fc) < 1$, then there exists a subset $I'$ of $I$ with density
2492: $1+\eps$ such that $\Fc' = \set{f_i}_{i \in I'}$ is still a frame for $H$
2493: (and not merely, as implied by Theorem~\ref{positiveremove} or
2494: Corollary~\ref{removecorollary}, that there is some set $J$ with positive
2495: density such that $\set{f_i}_{i \in I \setminus J}$ is a frame).
2496: To try to prove such a result, we could attempt to iteratively apply
2497: Corollary~\ref{removecorollary}, repeatedly removing sets of positive
2498: measure until we are left with a subset of density $1+\eps$ that is
2499: still a frame.
2500: However there are several obstructions to this approach.
2501: One is that with each iteration, the lower frame bound is reduced and
2502: may approach zero in the limit.
2503: A second problem is that the lower density of $I'$ may eventually approach~$1$.
2504: Because Corollary~\ref{removecorollary} removes sets of uniform density,
2505: we would then have $D^+(I',a)$ approaching $1 + D^+(I,a)- D^-(I,a)$,
2506: which for a frame with non-uniform density would not be of the form
2507: $1+\eps$ with $\eps$ small.
2508: Due to the length and breadth of this work, we have chosen to omit some
2509: results dealing with this second obstruction.
2510:
2511:
2512:
2513:
2514: \subsection{Localized Frames and $\eps$-Riesz sequences} \label{rieszsec}
2515:
2516: Feichtinger has conjectured that every frame that is norm-bounded below
2517: can be written as a union of a finite number of Riesz sequences
2518: (systems that are Riesz bases for their closed linear spans).
2519: It is shown in \cite{CCLV03}, \cite{CV03}, \cite{CT05}
2520: that Feichtinger's conjecture equivalent to the
2521: celebrated Kadison--Singer (paving) conjecture.
2522: and that both of these are equivalent to a conjectured generalization
2523: of the Bourgain--Tzafriri restricted invertibility theorem.
2524:
2525: In this section we will show that every $\ell^1$-self-localized frame
2526: that is norm-bounded below is a finite union of $\eps$-Riesz sequences,
2527: and every frame that is norm-bounded below and $\ell^1$-localized with
2528: respect to its dual frame is a finite union of Riesz sequences.
2529:
2530: \begin{definition}
2531: If $0 < \eps < 1$ and $f_i \in H$, then $\set{f_i}_{i \in I}$
2532: is an \emph{$\eps$-Riesz sequence}
2533: if there exists a constant $A > 0$ such that for every sequence
2534: $(c_i)_{i \in I} \in \ell^2(I)$ we have
2535: $$(1-\eps)A \, \sum_{i \in I} |c_i|^2
2536: \LE \Bignorm{\sum_{i \in I} c_i f_i}^2
2537: \LE (1+\eps)A \, \sum_{i \in I} |c_i|^2.
2538: \qquad\qed$$
2539: \end{definition}
2540:
2541: \smallskip
2542: Every $\eps$-Riesz sequence is a Riesz sequence, i.e.,
2543: a Riesz basis for its closed linear span.
2544:
2545: \begin{theorem} \label{epsrieszthm}
2546: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a sequence in $H$ and let
2547: $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.
2548: If
2549:
2550: \begin{enumerate}
2551: \item[(a)] $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized,
2552:
2553: \smallskip
2554: \item[(b)] $D^+(I,a) < \infty$, and
2555:
2556: \smallskip
2557: \item[(c)] $\inf_i \norm{f_i} > 0$,
2558: \end{enumerate}
2559:
2560: \smallskip\noindent
2561: then for each $0 < \eps < \inf_i \norm{f_i}$,
2562: $\Fc$ can be written as a finite union of $\eps$-Riesz sequences.
2563: \end{theorem}
2564: \begin{proof}
2565: Recall that $G$ has the form
2566: $G \EQ \prod_{i=1}^d a_i \Z \, \times \, \prod_{j=1}^e \Z_{n_j}$.
2567: For simplicity of notation, we will treat the case where $a_i = 1$
2568: for all $i$, so $G = \Z^d \times H$ with
2569: $H = \prod_{j=1}^e \Z_{n_j}$.
2570: The general case is similar.
2571:
2572: For this proof we will use boxes in $G$ of the form
2573: $$B_N(j)
2574: \EQ j \plus \biggparen{\biggl[-\frac{N}{2},\frac{N}{2}\biggr)^d
2575: \times H},
2576: \qquad j \in G, \ N > 0.$$
2577:
2578: Set $m = \inf_i \norm{f_i}^2$ and
2579: $M = \sup_i \norm{f_i}^2$.
2580: Fix $0 < \eps < m$, set $\delta = \eps m$, and choose $K$ so that
2581: $\frac{M-m}K < \frac{\delta}2$.
2582: Partition $I$ into subsequences $\set{J_k}_{k=1}^K$ so that
2583: $$\forall\, i \in J_k, \qquad
2584: m + \frac{M-m}K \, (k-1)
2585: \LE \norm{f_i}^2
2586: \LE m + \frac{M-m}K \, k.$$
2587:
2588: Since $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized, there exists an
2589: $r \in \ell^1(G)$ such that
2590: $|\ip{f_i}{f_j}| \le r_{a(i) - a(j)}$
2591: for all $i$, $j \in I$.
2592: Let $N_\delta$ be large enough that
2593: $$\sum_{n \in G \setminus B_{N_\delta}(0)} r_n
2594: \LT \frac{\delta}2.$$
2595:
2596: Let $\set{u_\nu}_{\nu=1}^{2^d}$ be a list of the vertices of
2597: the unit cube $[0,1]^d$.
2598: For $\nu = 1, \dots, 2^d$, define
2599: $$\Qc_\nu
2600: \EQ \set{B_{N_\delta}(2N_\delta n + N_\delta u_\nu)}_{n \in \Z^d}.$$
2601: Each $\Qc_\nu$ is a set of disjoint boxes in $G$, each of which is separated
2602: by a distance of at least~$N_\delta$ from the other boxes.
2603: Furthermore, the union of the boxes in $\Qc_\nu$ for
2604: $\nu = 1,\ldots,2^d$ forms a disjoint cover of $G$.
2605:
2606: Since $D^+(I,a) < \infty$, we have
2607: $L = \sup_{n \in G} |I_{N_\delta}(n)| < \infty$.
2608: Therefore each box in $\Qc_\nu$ contains at most $L$ points of $a(I)$.
2609: By choosing, for each fixed $k$ and $\nu$, at most a single element of
2610: $J_k$ out of each box in $\Qc_\nu$, we can divide each subsequence
2611: $J_k$ into $2^d L$ or fewer subsequences
2612: $\set{J_{k\ell}}_{\ell=1}^{K_k}$ in such a way that
2613: $$\forall\, i, j \in J_{k\ell}, \qquad
2614: i \ne j \ \implies\ a(i) - a(j) \notin B_{N_\delta}(0).$$
2615:
2616: Fix $k$, $\ell$,
2617: let $G_{k\ell} = [\ip{f_i}{f_j}]_{i,j \in J_{k\ell}}$, and write
2618: $G_{k\ell} = D_{k\ell} + V_{k\ell}$, where $D_{k\ell}$ is the diagonal
2619: part of~$G_{k\ell}$.
2620: Set
2621: $$s_n \EQ
2622: \begin{cases}
2623: r_n, & n \notin B_{N_\delta}(0), \\
2624: 0, & n \in B_{N_\delta}(0),
2625: \end{cases}$$
2626: If we write the entries of $V_{k\ell}$ as $V_{k\ell} = [v_{ij}]_{i,j \in J}$
2627: then we have $|v_{ij}| \le s_{a(i) - a(j)}$ for all $i$, $j \in J$.
2628: Applying Proposition~\ref{matrixdecay} to the matrix $V_{k\ell}$ and the
2629: index set $J$ therefore implies
2630: $$\norm{V_{k\ell}}
2631: \LE \sum_{n \in G} s_n
2632: \EQ \sum_{n \in G \setminus B_{N_\delta}(0)} r_n
2633: \LT \frac{\delta}2.$$
2634: Hence, given any sequence
2635: $c = (c_i)_{i \in J_{k\ell}} \in \ell^2(J_{k\ell})$, we have
2636: \begin{align*}
2637: \biggnorm{\sum_{i \in J_{k\ell}} c_i f_i}^2
2638: & \EQ \biggip{\sum_{i \in J_{k\ell}} c_i f_i} {\sum_{j \in J_{k\ell}} c_j f_j}
2639: \\[1 \jot]
2640: & \EQ \sum_{i \in J_{k\ell}} |c_i|^2 \, \norm{f_i}^2 \plus
2641: \sum_{i, j \in J_{k\ell}, \, i \ne j} c_i \bar{c}_j \, \ip{f_i}{f_j}
2642: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
2643: & \LE \Bigparen{m + \frac{M-m}K \, k} \sum_{i \in J_{k\ell}} |c_i|^2
2644: \plus \ip{V_{k\ell}c}c
2645: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
2646: & \LE \Bigparen{m + \frac{M-m}K \, k + \frac{\delta}2} \, \norm{c}_{\ell^2}^2
2647: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
2648: & \LE \Bigparen{m + \frac{M-m}K \, k + \eps m} \, \norm{c}_{\ell^2}^2
2649: \\[1 \jot]
2650: & \LE (1 + \eps) \, \Bigparen{m + \frac{M-m}K} \, \norm{c}_{\ell^2}^2.
2651: \end{align*}
2652: Similarly,
2653: \begin{align*}
2654: \biggnorm{\sum_{i \in J_{k\ell}} c_i f_i}^2
2655: & \GE \Bigparen{m + \frac{M-m}K \, (k-1)} \sum_{i \in J_{k\ell}} |c_i|^2
2656: \minus \ip{V_{k\ell}c}c \\
2657: & \GE \Bigparen{m + \frac{M-m}K \, k - \frac{M-m}K - \frac{\delta}2} \,
2658: \norm{c}_{\ell^2}^2
2659: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
2660: & \GE \Bigparen{m + \frac{M-m}K \, k - \delta} \, \norm{c}_{\ell^2}^2
2661: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
2662: & \GE \Bigparen{m + \frac{M-m}K \, k - \eps m} \, \norm{c}_{\ell^2}^2
2663: \\[1 \jot]
2664: & \GE (1 - \eps) \, \Bigparen{m + \frac{M-m}K \, k} \, \norm{c}_{\ell^2}^2.
2665: \end{align*}
2666: Thus each $\set{f_i}_{i \in J_{k\ell}}$ is an $\eps$-Riesz sequence.
2667: \end{proof}
2668:
2669: \begin{corollary}
2670: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a sequence in $H$ and let
2671: $a \colon I \to G$ be an associated map.
2672: If
2673:
2674: \begin{enumerate}
2675: \item[(a)]
2676: $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-localized with respect to its canonical dual frame,
2677:
2678: \smallskip
2679: \item[(b)] $D^+(I,a) < \infty$, and
2680:
2681: \smallskip
2682: \item[(c)] $\inf_i \norm{f_i} > 0$,
2683: \end{enumerate}
2684:
2685: \smallskip\noindent
2686: then $\Fc$ can be written as a finite union of Riesz sequences.
2687: \end{corollary}
2688: \begin{proof}
2689: Let $S$ be the frame operator for $\Fc$.
2690: Then $(S^{-1/2}(\Fc),a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized by
2691: Remark~\ref{selfremark}(b), and we have
2692: $\inf_i \norm{S^{-1/2} f_i} > 0$ since $S^{-1/2}$ is a
2693: continuous bijection.
2694: If we fix $0 < \eps < \inf_i \norm{S^{-1/2}(f_i)}^2$, then
2695: Theorem~\ref{epsrieszthm} implies that $S^{-1/2}(\Fc)$ is a finite union of
2696: $\eps$-Riesz sequences, and hence~$\Fc$ is a finite union of Riesz sequences.
2697: \end{proof}
2698:
2699:
2700: \appendix
2701: \section{The Algebra of $\ell^1$-Localized Operators}
2702: \label{selflocappend}
2703:
2704: Our goal in this appendix is to prove Theorem~\ref{selflocthm}.
2705: However, we first develop some machinery about the algebra of matrices
2706: which are bounded by Toeplitz-like matrices which have an $\ell^1$-decay
2707: on the diagonal.
2708:
2709:
2710: \begin{definition}
2711: Let $I$ be a countable index set and $a \colon I \to G$ an
2712: associated map.
2713: We say that an $I \times I$ matrix
2714: $V = [v_{ij}]_{i,j \in J}$ has \emph{$\ell^1$-decay}
2715: if there exists $r \in \ell^1(G)$ such that
2716: $|v_{ij}| \le r_{a(i) - a(j)}$.
2717: We call $r$ an \emph{associated sequence}.
2718: We define
2719: $$\Bc_1(I,a) \EQ \set{V : V \text{ has } \ell^1\text{-decay}}.$$
2720: and set $\Bc_1(G) = \Bc_1(G,Id)$, where $Id$ is the identity map.
2721: \qed
2722: \end{definition}
2723:
2724: \begin{remark}
2725: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame for $H$.
2726: Let $T$ be the analysis operator and $S = T^* T$ the frame operator,
2727: and $\tFc = \set{\tf_i}_{i \in I}$ the canonical dual frame.
2728:
2729: \medskip
2730: (a) $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized
2731: if and only if its Gram operator $V = T T^* = [\ip{f_i}{f_j}]_{i,j \in I}$
2732: lies in~$\Bc_1(I,a)$.
2733:
2734: \medskip
2735: (b) The Gram operator of $\tFc$ is
2736: $\tilde{V} = [\ip{\tf_i}{\tf_j}]_{i,j \in I} = T S^{-2} T^*$.
2737: Since $V \tilde{V} = T S^{-1} T^* = P_V$,
2738: the orthogonal projection onto the range of $V$,
2739: we have that $\tilde{V} = V^\dagger$ is the pseudo-inverse of $V$.
2740:
2741: \medskip
2742: (c) $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-localized with respect to its
2743: canonical dual frame $\tFc$ if and only if the cross-Grammian matrix
2744: $P_V = T S^{-1} T^* = [\ip{f_i}{\tf_j}]_{i,j \in I}$
2745: lies in $\Bc_1(I,a)$.
2746: Further, by Remark~\ref{selfremark}(b), this occurs if and only if
2747: $(S^{-1/2}(\Fc),a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized, where
2748: $S^{-1/2}(\Fc)$ is the canonical Parseval frame.
2749: \end{remark}
2750:
2751: \begin{proposition} \label{matrixdecay}
2752: Let $I$ be a countable index set and $a \colon I \to G$ an associated
2753: map such that $D^+(I,a) < \infty$,
2754: and let $K = \sup_{n \in G} |a^{-1}(n)|$.
2755: Then the following statements hold.
2756:
2757: \smallskip
2758: \begin{enumerate}
2759: \item[(a)]
2760: If $V$ has $\ell^1$-decay and $r$ is an associated sequence, then
2761: $V$ maps $\ell^2(I)$ boundedly into itself, with operator norm
2762: $\norm{V} \le K \, \norm{r}_{\ell^1}$.
2763:
2764: \medskip
2765: \item[(b)]
2766: The following statements hold:
2767:
2768: \smallskip
2769: \begin{enumerate}
2770: \item[i.]
2771: $\Bc_1(I,a)$ is closed under addition and multiplication,
2772:
2773: \smallskip
2774: \item[ii.] the following is a norm on $\Bc_1(I,a)$:
2775: $$\norm{V}_{\Bc_1}
2776: \EQ \inf\set{\norm{r}_{\ell^1} : r \text{ is a sequence associated to } V},$$
2777:
2778: \smallskip
2779: \item[iii.]
2780: $\Bc_1(I,a)$ is complete with respect to this norm, and
2781:
2782: \smallskip
2783: \item[iv.]
2784: we have
2785: \begin{equation} \label{matrixnorm}
2786: \norm{VW}_{\Bc_1} \LE K \, \norm{V}_{\Bc_1} \, \norm{W}_{\Bc_1}.
2787: \end{equation}
2788: \end{enumerate}
2789:
2790: \smallskip\noindent
2791: In particular, if $K=1$ then $\Bc_1(I,a)$ is a Banach algebra.
2792:
2793: \medskip
2794: \item[(c)]
2795: If $V \in \Bc_1(I,a)$ and $r$ is an associated sequence, then for any
2796: polynomial $p(x) = c_0 + c_1 x + \cdots + c_n x^N$
2797: we have $p(V) \in \Bc_1(I,a)$, and an associated sequence is
2798: $$|c_0| \, \delta + |c_1| \, r + K |c_2| \, (r*r) + \cdots +
2799: K^{n-1} |c_n| \, (r * \cdots * r),$$
2800: where $\delta = (\delta_{0k})_{k \in G}$.
2801:
2802: \end{enumerate}
2803: \end{proposition}
2804:
2805: \begin{proof}
2806: (a) Given a sequence $c = (c_i)_{i \in I} \in \ell^2(I)$, define
2807: $d \in \ell^2(G)$ by
2808: $$d_n \EQ \sum_{j \in a^{-1}(n)} |c_j|,$$
2809: where we define the sum to be zero if $a^{-1}(n) = \emptyset$.
2810: Note that $\norm{d}_{\ell^2} \le K^{1/2} \, \norm{c}_{\ell^2}$.
2811: Given $i \in I$, we have
2812: \begin{align*}
2813: |(Vc)_i|
2814: \LE \sum_{j \in I} |v_{ij}| \, |c_j|
2815: & \LE \sum_{j \in I} r_{a(i) - a(j)} \, |c_j|
2816: \\[1 \jot]
2817: & \EQ \sum_{n \in G} \, \sum_{j \in a^{-1}(n)} r_{a(i) - n} \, |c_j|
2818: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
2819: & \EQ \sum_{n \in G} r_{a(i) - n} \, d_n
2820: \\[1 \jot]
2821: & \EQ (r*d)_{a_i}.
2822: \end{align*}
2823: Therefore,
2824: $$\norm{Vc}_{\ell^2}^2
2825: \LE \sum_{i \in I} |(r*d)_{a(i)}|^2
2826: \LE K \, \norm{r*d}_{\ell^2}^2
2827: \LE K \, \norm{r}_{\ell^1}^2 \, \norm{d}_{\ell^2}^2
2828: \LE K^2 \, \norm{r}_{\ell^1}^2 \, \norm{c}_{\ell^2}^2.$$
2829:
2830:
2831: \medskip
2832: (b) Let $\set{\delta_i}_{i \in I}$ be the standard basis for $\ell^2(I)$.
2833: Suppose $V$, $W \in \Bc_1(I,a)$ with associated sequences $r$, $s$,
2834: and let $c \in \C$.
2835: Then
2836: $$\bigabs{\bigip{(cV+W)\delta_i}{\delta_j}}
2837: \LE |c| \, r_{a(i)-a(j)} + s_{a(i)-a(j)}
2838: \EQ (|c| \, r + s)_{a(i) - a(j)}$$
2839: and
2840: \begin{align*}
2841: |\ip{WV\delta_i}{\delta_j}|
2842: \EQ |\ip{V\delta_i}{W^*\delta_j}|
2843: & \EQ \biggabs{\sum_{k \in I}
2844: \ip{V\delta_i}{\delta_k} \, \ip{\delta_k}{W^*\delta_j}}
2845: \\[1 \jot]
2846: & \LE \sum_{k \in I} |\ip{V\delta_i}{\delta_k}| \, |\ip{W\delta_k}{\delta_j}|
2847: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
2848: & \LE \sum_{k \in I} r_{a(i) - a(k)} \, s_{a(k) - a(j)}
2849: \allowdisplaybreaks \\[1 \jot]
2850: & \LE K \, \sum_{n \in G} r_{a(i) - n} \, s_{n - a(j)}
2851: \\[1 \jot]
2852: & \EQ K \, (r*s)_{a(i) - a(j)}.
2853: \end{align*}
2854: These facts show that $\Bc_1(I,a)$ is an algebra and establish the
2855: norm inequality in \eqref{matrixnorm}.
2856: It is easy to see that $\norm{\cdot}_{\Bc_1}$ is indeed a norm on
2857: $\Bc_1(I,a)$, so it only remains to show that $\Bc_1(I,a)$
2858: is complete with respect to this norm.
2859:
2860: Assume that $V_n = [v_{ij}^n]_{i,j \in I}$ for $n \in \N$
2861: forms a Cauchy sequence of matrices in $\Bc_1(I,a)$.
2862: Then, for every $\eps > 0$ there is $N_\eps > 0$ so that for every
2863: $m$, $n \ge N_\eps$ there is a sequence $r^{m,n} \in \ell^1(G)$ such that
2864: $$|v_{ij}^n - v_{ij}^m| \le r^{m,n}_{a(i)-a(j)}
2865: \qquad\text{and}\qquad
2866: \norm{r^{m,n}}_{\ell^1} < \eps.$$
2867: Then for each fixed $i$, $j$, the sequence of entries
2868: $(v_{ij}^n)_{n \in \N}$ is Cauchy, and
2869: hence converges to some finite scalar $v_{ij}$.
2870: Set $V = [v_{ij}]_{i,j \in I}$.
2871:
2872: Consider now $\eps_k = \frac{1}{2^k}$ for $k > 0$, and let
2873: $N_k = N_{\eps_k}$ be as above.
2874: Set $N_0 = 0$ and $V^0 = 0$.
2875: Define
2876: $r = \sum_k r^{N_{k+1},N_k}$.
2877: Then $r \in \ell^1(G)$, and
2878: $$|v_{ij}|
2879: \EQ \lim_{k \to \infty} |v^{N_k}_{ij}|
2880: \LE \sum_{k=0}^{\infty} |v^{N_{k+1}}_{ij} - v^{N_k}_{ij}|
2881: \LE r_{a(i)-a(j)}.$$
2882: Hence $V \in \Bc_1(I,a)$,
2883: and it similarly follows that $V^n \to V$ in $\Bc_1(I,a)$.
2884:
2885: \medskip
2886: (c) Follows by part~(b) and induction.
2887: \end{proof}
2888:
2889: The key to proving Theorem~\ref{selflocthm} is the following fundamental
2890: extension of Wiener's Lemma.
2891: This theorem was proved by Baskakov in \cite{Bas90}
2892: and by Sj\"{o}\-strand in \cite{Sjo95}
2893: (see also \cite{Kur90}, \cite{Bas97}).
2894:
2895: \begin{theorem} \label{sjostrand}
2896: If $V \in \Bc_1(G)$ is an invertible mapping of $\ell^2(G)$ onto itself
2897: then $V^{-1} \in \Bc_1(G)$.
2898: \end{theorem}
2899:
2900: \begin{remark}
2901: (a) Sj\"{o}strand proves this result for the case $G = \Z^d$,
2902: but the same technique can be easily applied to the more general groups
2903: we consider in this paper.
2904: Also, Kurbatov proves a more general result for bounded operators
2905: on $\ell^p(\Z^d)$.
2906:
2907: \medskip
2908: (b) Theorem~\ref{sjostrand} is similar to Jaffard's Lemma \cite{Jaf90},
2909: which states that if $V$ is invertible on $\ell^2(G)$
2910: and satisfies
2911: $|V_{ij}| \le C \, (1+|i-j|)^{-s}$ for some $C$, $s>0$,
2912: then $V^{-1}$ has the same decay, i.e.,
2913: $|V^{-1}_{ij}| \le C' \, (1+|m-n|)^{-s}$ for some $C'>0$.
2914: Jaffard's Lemma was used by Gr\"{o}chenig
2915: in his development of localized frames in \cite{Gro04}.
2916: ~\qed
2917: \end{remark}
2918:
2919: Next we define an embedding of the set $\mathbb{F}(I)$ of all frames for $H$
2920: indexed by $I$ into the set $\mathbb{F}(G \times \Z_K)$ of all frames indexed
2921: by $G \times \Z_K$.
2922:
2923: \begin{notation} \label{embedding}
2924: Let $I$ be a countable index set and $a \colon I \to G$ and associated
2925: map such that $D^+(I,a) < \infty$.
2926: Let $K = \sup_{n \in G} |a^{-1}(n)| < \infty$.
2927: For each $n \in G$ let $K_n = |a^{-1}(n)|$, and write
2928: $a^{-1}(n) = \set{i_{nk}}_{k=0}^{K_n-1}$
2929: (it may be the case that $a^{-1}(n)$ is the empty set).
2930: Given a sequence $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$, for each $n \in G$ we set
2931: $$f'_{nk}
2932: \EQ \begin{cases}
2933: f_{i_{nk}}, & k = 0, \dots, K_n-1, \\
2934: 0, & k = K_n, \dots, K-1,
2935: \end{cases}$$
2936: and define $\Fc' = \set{f'_{nk}}_{n \in G, k \in \Z_K}$.
2937: Define $a' \colon G \times \Z_K \to G$ by $a'(i,j) = i$.
2938: \qed
2939: \end{notation}
2940:
2941: The following properties are immediate.
2942:
2943: \begin{lemma} \label{embedprop}
2944: Let $I$ be a countable index set and $a \colon I \to G$ and associated
2945: map such that $D^+(I,a) < \infty$.
2946: Let $\Fc = \set{f_i}_{i \in I}$ be a frame for $H$.
2947: Then the following statements hold.
2948:
2949: \smallskip
2950: \begin{enumerate}
2951: \item[(a)]
2952: $\Fc'$ is a frame for $H$.
2953:
2954: \smallskip
2955: \item[(b)]
2956: $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized if and only if
2957: $(\Fc',a')$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized.
2958:
2959: \smallskip
2960: \item[(c)]
2961: $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-localized with respect to its canonical dual frame
2962: if and only if
2963: $(\Fc',a')$ is $\ell^1$-localized with respect to its canonical dual frame.
2964:
2965: \smallskip
2966: \item[(d)]
2967: If $\tFc$ and $\widetilde{\Fc'}$ denote the canonical duals of
2968: $\Fc$ and $\Fc'$, respectively, then $\widetilde{\Fc'} = (\tFc)'$.
2969: \end{enumerate}
2970: \end{lemma}
2971:
2972: Now we can prove Theorem~\ref{selflocthm}.
2973:
2974: \begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{selflocthm}]
2975: By Lemma~\ref{embedprop}, it suffices to consider the case where $I$
2976: is a group of the form given in \eqref{group}, i.e., we can without
2977: loss of generality take $I=G$.
2978: Assume that $\Fc$ is a frame for $H$ such that $(\Fc,a)$
2979: is $\ell^1$-self-localized.
2980: Let $V = [\ip{f_i}{f_j}]_{i,j \in G}$ denote its Gram matrix.
2981: With respect to the algebra $\Bc(\ell^2(G))$ of bounded operators mapping
2982: $\ell^2(G)$ into itself, the spectrum
2983: $\spectrum_{\Bc(\ell^2(G))}(V)$
2984: of $V$ is a closed set contained in
2985: $\set{0} \cup [A,B]$, where $A$, $B$ are the frame bounds of $\Fc$.
2986: On the other hand $V$ belongs to the algebra $\Bc_1(G)$,
2987: and since $\Bc_1(G) \subset \Bc(\ell^2(G))$,
2988: we have the inclusion of spectra
2989: $$\spectrum_{\Bc(\ell^2(G))}(V) \SUBSET \spectrum_{\Bc_1(G)}(V).$$
2990: Theorem~\ref{sjostrand} implies that the converse
2991: inclusion holds true as well, for if
2992: $z \notin \spectrum_{\Bc(\ell^2(G))}(V)$
2993: then $z Id - V$ is an invertible mapping of $\ell^2(G)$ into itself,
2994: and therefore $(z Id - V)^{-1} \in \Bc_1(G)$ by Theorem~\ref{sjostrand}.
2995: Thus
2996: $\spectrum_{\Bc_1(G)}(V)
2997: = \spectrum_{\Bc(\ell^2(G))}(V)
2998: \subset \set{0} \cup [A,B]$.
2999: Let $\Gamma$ denote the circle of radius $B/2$ centered at $(A+B)/2$
3000: in the complex plane.
3001: Then by standard holomorphic calculus \cite{RN90},
3002: the operator
3003: $$V^{\dagger}
3004: \EQ \frac{1}{2\pi i} \int_\Gamma \frac{1}{z} (z Id - V)^{-1} \, dz$$
3005: belongs to $\Bc_1(G)$.
3006: However, the same formula in $\Bc(\ell^2(G))$ defines the pseudoinverse
3007: of~$V$.
3008: Hence $V^{\dagger} \in \Bc_1(G)$, so
3009: $(\tilde{\Fc},a)$ is $\ell^1$-self-localized.
3010: Additionally,
3011: $P_V = V V^\dagger \in \Bc_1(G)$, so
3012: $(\Fc,a)$ is $\ell^1$-localized with respect to its canonical dual
3013: and the associated Parseval frame is $\ell^1$-self-localized.
3014: \end{proof}
3015:
3016:
3017: \section*{Acknowledgments}
3018: We gratefully acknowledge conversations with Karlheinz Gr\"ochenig and
3019: Massimo Fornasier on localization of frames, and thank them for providing
3020: us with preprints of their articles.
3021: We thank
3022: Hans Feichtinger,
3023: Norbert Kaiblinger,
3024: Gitta Kutyniok,
3025: and
3026: Henry Landau
3027: for conversations regarding the details of our arguments.
3028: We thank Thomas Strohmer and Joachim Toft for bringing the
3029: paper \cite{Sjo95} to our attention,
3030: and Ilya Krishtal for pointing out the paper \cite{Bas97}.
3031:
3032:
3033: \begin{thebibliography}{BCHL03b}
3034:
3035:
3036:
3037:
3038:
3039: \bibitem[BCHL03]{BCHL03}
3040: R.~Balan, P.~G.~Casazza, C.~Heil, and Z.~Landau,
3041: Deficits and excesses of frames,
3042: \textsl{Adv.\ Comput.\ Math.}, \textbf{18} (2003), 93--116.
3043:
3044:
3045: \bibitem[BCHL05a]{BCHL05a}
3046: R.~Balan, P.~G.~Casazza, C.~Heil, and Z.~Landau,
3047: Density, overcompleteness, and localization of frames, II. Gabor frames,
3048: preprint (2005).
3049:
3050: \bibitem[BCHL05b]{BCHL05b}
3051: R.~Balan, P.~G.~Casazza, C.~Heil, and Z.~Landau,
3052: Density, overcompleteness, and localization of frames,
3053: research announcement (2005).
3054:
3055:
3056: \bibitem[Bas90]{Bas90}
3057: A.~G.~Baskakov,
3058: Wiener's theorem and asymptotic estimates for elements of inverse matrices,
3059: \textsl{Funktsional.\ Anal.\ i Prilozhen.}, \textbf{24} (1990), 64--65;
3060: translation in
3061: \textsl{Funct.\ Anal.\ Appl.}, \textbf{24} (1990), 222--224.
3062:
3063: \bibitem[Bas97]{Bas97}
3064: A.~G.~Baskakov,
3065: Estimates for the entries of inverse matrices and the spectral analysis
3066: of linear operators,
3067: \textsl{Izv.\ Ross.\ Akad.\ Nauk Ser.\ Mat.}, \textbf{61} (1997), 3--26;
3068: translation in
3069: \textsl{Izv.\ Math.}, \textbf{61} (1997), 1113--1135.
3070:
3071:
3072:
3073:
3074: \bibitem[BS04]{BS04}
3075: M.~Bownik and D.~Speegle,
3076: Feichtinger conjecture for wavelet frames, Gabor frames and frames
3077: of translates, preprint (2004).
3078:
3079:
3080:
3081: \bibitem[Cas00]{Cas00}
3082: P.~G.~Casazza,
3083: The art of frame theory,
3084: \textsl{Taiwanese J. Math.}, \textbf{4} (2000), 129--201.
3085:
3086: \bibitem[CCLV03]{CCLV03}
3087: P.~G.~Casazza, O.~Christensen, A.~Lindner, and R.~Vershynin,
3088: Frames and the Feichtinger conjecture,
3089: \textsl{Proc.\ Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.}, \textbf{133} (2005), 1025--1033.
3090:
3091:
3092: \bibitem[CT05]{CT05}
3093: P.~G.~Casazza and J.~C.~Tremain,
3094: The Kadison--Singer problem in mathematics and engineering, preprint (2005).
3095:
3096: \bibitem[CV03]{CV03}
3097: P.~G.~Casazza and R.~Vershynin,
3098: Kadison--Singer meets Bourgain--Tzafriri, preprint.
3099:
3100: \bibitem[Chr03]{Chr03}
3101: O.~Christensen,
3102: ``An Introduction to Frames and Riesz Bases,''
3103: Birkh\"auser, Boston, 2003.
3104:
3105: \bibitem[CDH99]{CDH99}
3106: O.~Christensen, B.~Deng, and C.~Heil,
3107: Density of Gabor frames,
3108: \textsl{Appl.\ Comput.\ Harmon.\ Anal.}, \textbf{7} (1999), 292--304.
3109:
3110:
3111:
3112:
3113: \bibitem[Dau92]{Dau92}
3114: I. Daubechies,
3115: ``Ten Lectures on Wavelets,'' SIAM, Philadelphia, 1992.
3116:
3117:
3118:
3119:
3120:
3121:
3122:
3123:
3124:
3125: \bibitem[For03]{For03}
3126: M.~Fornasier,
3127: Constructive methods for numerical applications in signal processing
3128: and homogenization problems, Ph.D.\ Thesis, U.~Padua, 2003.
3129:
3130:
3131: \bibitem[Gr\"o01]{Gro01}
3132: K.~Gr\"ochenig,
3133: ``Foundations of Time-Frequency Analysis,'' Birkh\"auser, Boston, 2001.
3134:
3135: \bibitem[Gr\"o03]{Gro03}
3136: K.~Gr\"ochenig,
3137: Localized frames are finite unions of Riesz sequences,
3138: \textsl{Adv.\ Comput.\ Math.}, \textbf{18} (2003), 149--157.
3139:
3140: \bibitem[Gr\"o04]{Gro04}
3141: K.~Gr\"ochenig,
3142: Localization of frames, Banach frames, and the invertibility of the frame
3143: operator, \textsl{J. Fourier Anal.\ Appl.}, \textbf{10} (2004), 105--132.
3144:
3145: \bibitem[GF04]{GF04}
3146: K.~Gr\"ochenig and M.~Fornasier,
3147: Intrinsic localization of frames, preprint (2004).
3148:
3149:
3150:
3151: \bibitem[GR96]{GR96}
3152: K.~Gr\"ochenig and H.~Razafinjatovo,
3153: On Landau's necessary density conditions for sampling and
3154: interpolation of band-limited functions,
3155: \textsl{J. London Math.\ Soc.\ (2)}, \textbf{54} (1996), 557--565.
3156:
3157:
3158:
3159:
3160: \bibitem[HW89]{HW89}
3161: C.~E.~Heil and D.~F.~Walnut,
3162: Continuous and discrete wavelet transforms,
3163: \textsl{SIAM Review}, \textbf{31} (1989), 628--666.
3164:
3165: \bibitem[HK03]{HK03}
3166: C.~Heil and G.~Kutyniok,
3167: Density of weighted wavelet frames,
3168: \textsl{J. Geometric Analysis}, \textbf{13} (2003), 479--493.
3169:
3170: \bibitem[HS98]{HS98}
3171: N.~Hindman and D.~Strauss,
3172: Algebra in the Stone-\v{C}ech Compactification,
3173: de Gruyter Expositions in Mathematics Vol.~27,
3174: Walter de Gruyter and Co., Berlin, 1998.
3175:
3176: \bibitem[Jaf90]{Jaf90}
3177: S.~Jaffard,
3178: Propri\'{e}t\'{e}s des matrices ``bien localis\'{e}es'' pr\`{e}s de leur
3179: diagonale et quelques applications,
3180: \textsl{Ann.\ Inst.\ H.\ Poincar\'{e}\ Anal.\ Non Lin\'{e}aire},
3181: \textbf{7} (1990), 461--476.
3182:
3183:
3184:
3185:
3186:
3187:
3188: \bibitem[Kur90]{Kur90}
3189: V.~G.~Kurbatov,
3190: Algebras of difference and integral operators,
3191: \textsl{Funktsional.\ Anal.\ i Prilozhen.}, \textbf{24} (1990), 87--88;
3192: translation in
3193: \textsl{Funct.\ Anal.\ Appl.}, \textbf{24} (1990), 156--158.
3194:
3195:
3196:
3197:
3198:
3199: \bibitem[RS95]{RS95}
3200: J. Ramanathan and T. Steger,
3201: Incompleteness of sparse coherent states,
3202: \textsl{Appl.\ Comput.\ Harmon.\ Anal.}, \textbf{2} (1995), 148--153.
3203:
3204:
3205: \bibitem[RN90]{RN90}
3206: F.~Riesz and B.~Sz.-Nagy,
3207: ``Functional Analysis'', Dover Publications, New York, 1990.
3208:
3209:
3210:
3211: \bibitem[Sj\"o95]{Sjo95}
3212: J.~Sj\"{o}strand,
3213: Wiener type algebras of pseudodifferential operators,
3214: S\'eminaire sur les \'Equations aux D\'eriv\'ees Partielles, 1994--1995,
3215: Exp.\ No.\ IV, \'Ecole Polytech., Palaiseau, 1995.
3216:
3217: \bibitem[SZ02]{SZ02}
3218: W.~Sun and X.~Zhou,
3219: Irregular wavelet/Gabor frames,
3220: \textsl{Appl.\ Comput.\ Harmon.\ Anal.}, \textbf{13} (2002), 63--76.
3221:
3222:
3223:
3224: \bibitem[You01]{You01}
3225: R.~Young,
3226: ``An Introduction to Nonharmonic Fourier Series,'' Revised First Edition,
3227: Academic Press, San Diego, 2001.
3228:
3229: \end{thebibliography}
3230:
3231: \end{document}
3232: