The Sharp Scale Inequality for the Schatten Trace Class

Step I. Finite dimensional self-adjoint case. Suppose that f:\mathbb{Z}_m^n\to M_d^{\mathrm{sa}} and equip \mathbb{T}_m^n=(\mathbb{R}/m\mathbb{Z})^n with normalized Lebesgue measure d\nu(z)=m^{-n}\,dz on [0,m)^n. In the sequel, integer vectors in the argument of f are reduced coordinatewise modulo m. Define

It is clear that F is measurable and has finite range such that

In the sequel, we view F as the function defined on \mathbb{T}^{n}_{m} taking values in M^{\mathrm{sa}}_{d}. For any integrable function h:\mathbb{T}^{n}_{m}\to \mathbb{R}, by the decomposition of the cube \mathbb{T}^{n}_{m}, we have the following

Let x be uniform on \{0,\ldots,m-1\}^n, and let U, W be independent of x and of each other such that U is uniform on [0,1)^n and W is as in Lemma 5.1. Then by the definition of F, it is clear that

We claim here that the variable \lfloor U+W\rfloor is a random variable which is independent of x such that the distribution of \lfloor U+W\rfloor is uniform on \{-1,0,1\}^n. Indeed, for each j\in \{1,\cdots,n\}, we have

For other cases, it is also easy to compute that

This completes the proof of our claim. Hence, (Proof) yields that

We now apply the smoothing approximation argument as follows. Let g be defined by (?). By Proposition 5.2, the function g is C^{1} and periodic. For every z, the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality gives

Hence, applying Proposition 5.2 and (?) we obtain that

and

For an integer vector h\in \mathbb{N}^{n} and the fact F(x+u+h)=f(x+h) for each u\in [0,1)^{n}, we have

Since m is even, it follows from (?) that

For each j, by g\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n};M^{\mathrm{sa}}_{d}), the fundamental theorem of calculus gives

Hence, the Minkowski inequality yields

where we used the fact that uniform measure on \mathbb{T}^{n}_{m} is translation invariant. Applying (?), we obtain

Due to (?), we now apply Proposition 5.2 and (?) to (?) and obtain that

for every f:\mathbb{Z}^{n}_{m}\to M^{\mathrm{sa}}_{d}. This completes the proof for the self-adjoint matrices setting.

Step II. Finite dimensional case. For a matrix A\in M_{d}, we define the Hermitian dilation of A by

It is easy to see that

By the Hermitian dilation of matrices, we now define the Hermitian dilation of a function f:\mathbb{Z}^{n}_{m}\to M_{d} as follows

Hence, for a given f:\mathbb{Z}^{n}_{m}\to M_{d}, we apply (?) to \widetilde{f} to obtain

This proves the assertion for mappings taking values in arbitrary finite dimensional matrices.

Step III. Infinite dimensional case via approximation. For each x\in\mathbb{Z}_m^n, by the singular value decomposition of f(x), we have

with

and u\otimes v denotes the operator h\mapsto\langle h,v\rangle u. For each N\in \mathbb{N}, let

By the definition of the Schatten trace class norm, it follows that \left\lVert f_N(x)-f(x)\right\rVert_{1}=\sum_{k>N}s_k(x)\to 0 as N\to \infty. Since \mathbb{Z}^{n}_{m} is a finite set, we have \eta_N\to0. By Step II, it follows that for each N\in \mathbb{N}

Taking N\to \infty on the both sides of (?) yields the desired result.

Let

viewed as an operator from \mathbb{C}^{d}\oplus\mathbb{C}^{d} to \mathbb{C}^{d}. Then

Consequently \left\lVert L\right\rVert_{\infty}\leq1 and 0\leq L^{*}L\leq I_{2d}. The eigenvalues of L^{*}L lie in [0,1], so

For u,v\in\mathbb{C}^{d}, block multiplication gives

Taking the supremum over unit vectors proves (3.1).

Interchanging B,C in (?) interchanges its two summands and leaves D unchanged. To interchange A,B, subtract the two defining formulas. Since |A-B|=|B-A|, this gives

The last equality follows from D^{\dagger}D=P_{D} and (B-A)P_{D}=B-A, by (?). The transpositions of the first two and the last two arguments generate every permutation, proving symmetry.

For fixed B,C, define, with D=D(A,B,C),

The spectral functions |C-B|^{1/2} and \operatorname{sgn}(C-B) commute and satisfy

Therefore

Adding the adjoint, using \operatorname{Re}(T^{*})=\operatorname{Re}T and the definition in (?) proves (3.2).

By (3.1), applied to |A-B|+|C-B|\leq D,

By (?) and (?), we have

which verifies (3.2). Applying (?) to (3.2) now gives

as required.

By independence of X and C for fixed B, followed by the scalar Cauchy–Schwarz inequality,

Consequently, (3.2) and the triangle inequality give

This proves (4.1).

Assume without loss of generality that \kappa>0. For fixed B,C, use V_{B,C}(X) from Lemma 3.2 and define only the coefficients needed for the orthogonality argument:

The subscript \omega means that B,C remain fixed. Expanding the Hilbert–Schmidt norm, using that the \xi_j are real and \mathbb{E}(\xi_i\xi_j)=\kappa^2\delta_{ij}, gives

In particular, (3.2) implies

The equality defining Y_j averages \xi_j jointly with X; the last expectation in (?) only uses the marginal distribution of X.

Since \mathbb{E}\xi_j=0 and \xi_j is real, (3.2) yields

For any integrable finite family of random matrices (T_j)_{j=1}^n,

Indeed, \left\lVert \mathbb{E} T_j\right\rVert_{1}\leq\mathbb{E}\left\lVert T_j\right\rVert_{1}, and the Euclidean triangle inequality for integrals gives the remaining inequality. Applying (?), then (?) and (?), we obtain

For the penultimate line, Cauchy–Schwarz is applied only to C, with B fixed. The last equality holds because C and X have the same distribution.

The function and its derivative vanish at \pm1, and the factor |t|^5 makes the derivative continuous at zero. Hence \psi\in C_c^1(\mathbb{R}). For 0<t<1,

Evenness and integration give

Since \{\psi(W_j)=0\} has probability zero,

For i\ne j, independence yields \mathbb{E}[\xi_i(W)\xi_j(W)]=\mathbb{E}\xi_i(W)\mathbb{E}\xi_j(W)=0, which proves the assertion (5.1).

Fix w\in[-1,1]. The subsets of [0,1) on which \lfloor u+w\rfloor equals 1,-1,0 have lengths, respectively,

Therefore, by evenness and (5.1),

and the remaining probability is 1-\mathbb{E}|W_j|=1/3. The pairs (U_j,W_j) are independent across j. Thus, for every \varepsilon\in\{-1,0,1\}^n,

Suppose without loss of generality that \mathrm{rang}(F)=\{A_{1},\cdots,A_{q}\}\subseteq M^{\mathrm{sa}}_{d}. Define density as follows

Changing variables gives p_a(z)=\mathbb{P}(F(z+W)=A_a) for each a\in \{1,\cdots, q\}. In particular, p_a\geq0 and \sum_{a\in \{1,\cdots,q\}} p_a=1.

By independence of the three copies and the fact that F has finite range, we have

We next prove that p_{a}\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n}) for every a\in\{1,\ldots,q\}. Recall that

By Lemma 5.1, \psi\in C_{c}^{1}(\mathbb{R}) is supported in [-1,1]. Consequently, \rho=\prod_{i=1}^n\psi(w_i)\in C_{c}^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n}), and

In particular, both \rho and its first partial derivatives vanish outside [-1,1]^{n}.

Fix z_{0}\in\mathbb{R}^{n} and j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}, and consider the cube

For 0<|v|<1, we have

Since \rho is continuously differentiable, the fundamental theorem of calculus gives

For every t\in[0,1] and |v|<1, the support of the function y\mapsto \partial_{j}\rho(y-z_{0}-tve_{j}) is contained in z_{0}+tve_{j}+[-1,1]^{n} \subseteq K. Therefore we have

where K is a compact subset in \mathbb{R}^{n}. Moreover, for every fixed y\in\mathbb{R}^{n},

the dominated convergence entails that

Since z_{0} and j were arbitrary, we obtain

for every z\in\mathbb{R}^{n} and j\in\{1,\ldots,n\}.

It remains to verify the continuity of these partial derivatives. Suppose that \{z^{(k)}\}_{k=1}^{\infty}\subseteq \mathbb{R}^{n} such that z^{(k)}\to z_{0}. For all sufficiently large k, we have z^{(k)}\in z_{0}+[-1,1]^{n}, and therefore

On the other hand, the continuity of \partial_{j}\rho implies that

for every y\in\mathbb{R}^{n}. We apply the dominated convergence theorem again to obtain

Thus every first partial derivative of p_{a} is continuous, proving that p_{a}\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n}).

We now express these derivatives in terms of the random variables \xi_{j}. Since \psi is nonnegative and continuously differentiable, \psi'(t)=0 whenever \psi(t)=0. Hence, by the definition of \xi_{j} in (5.3), we have

Furthermore, we have \mathbb{E}_{W}|\xi_{j}(W)|=\int_{\mathbb{R}^{n}}|\xi_{j}(w)|\rho(w)\,dw= \int_{\mathbb{R}}|\psi'(t)|\,dt<\infty, where the last inequality follows from \psi\in C_{c}^{1}(\mathbb{R}). Changing variables y=z+w in the integral representation (?), we obtain

Since each p_{a} belongs to C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n}), (?) implies that g\in C^{1}(\mathbb{R}^{n};M_{d}^{\mathrm{sa}}). Applying the product rule to (?), we obtain

By Lemma 3.2, \Phi_{\mathrm{mix}} is invariant under every permutation of its arguments. Hence,

Finally, by (?) and the independence of W^{(1)},W^{(2)},W^{(3)}, we have

Substituting (?) into (?) yields

For each fixed z, we apply (4.1) to the three independent matrices F(z+W^{(1)}),F(z+W^{(2)}),F(z+W^{(3)}), with A_0=F(z). This verifies (5.2). Combining (4.1), (5.1) with (?) gives

where the last step follows from the triangle inequality and the same distribution of W^{(1)} and W^{(2)}. This proves (5.2). Finally, any identity F(z+me_j)=F(z) for all z holds in each argument of (?), and gives g(z+me_j)=g(z).