Definition 2.1 (Admissible weights)
QLF0An admissible weight is an infinite increasing sequence \mu^{|\infty}=(\mu_j)_{j \ge 1} of elements in \mathbb{R}_{>0}, i.e., 0< \mu_1 \le \mu_2 \le \cdots.
For functions f : [0,1] \to [0,1] in quasianalytic Denjoy-Carleman classes \mathcal C_M, we establish explicit bounds for the number of intersection points of the graph \Gamma(f) with algebraic curves of degree at most d. The bounds are given in terms of the Bang degree determined by the weight sequence M, the degree d, and the norming constant of \Gamma(f) with respect to the space of real bivariate polynomials of degree at most d. We give instances, where the bounds are at most polynomial in d and, consequently, the graph \Gamma(f) contains few rational points: the number of rational points of height at most H is bounded by a polynomial in \log H.
An admissible weight is an infinite increasing sequence \mu^{|\infty}=(\mu_j)_{j \ge 1} of elements in \mathbb{R}_{>0}, i.e., 0< \mu_1 \le \mu_2 \le \cdots.
An admissible weight \mu^{|\infty} = (\mu_j)_{j \ge 1} is called quasianalytic if
Let \mu^{|\infty} = (\mu_j)_{j\ge 1} be an admissible weight and M_0>0. Let N \in \mathbb{N}_{\ge 1} \cup \{\infty\}. A function f : I \to \mathbb{R}, defined on a compact interval I \subseteq \mathbb{R}, is called (\mu^{|N},M_0)-smooth if f is of class \mathcal{C}^{N} and
Let \mu^{|\infty}= (\mu_j)_{j\ge 1} be an admissible weight and M_0,a,b>0. We say that (\mu^{|\infty},M_0,a,b) is admissible, if
In that case, we define the integer
and say that \mathbf{N} is the degree associated with (\mu^{|\infty},M_0,a,b).
(1) By definition, for r,s>0, (r\, \mu^{|\infty},s\, M_0,a,b) is admissible if and only if (\mu^{|\infty},M_0,r\, a, \frac{b}{s}) is admissible, and
(2) Assuming admissibility, the integer \mathbf{N}(\mu^{|\infty},M_0,a,b) is increasing in a and decreasing in b.
Let \mu^{|\infty} = (\mu_j)_{j\ge 1} be an admissible weight satisfying (?) with constant H\ge 1. Let M_0>0, B_0\ge b_0 > 0, and d \in \mathbb{N}_{\ge 1}. Assume that (\mu^{|\infty},\tfrac{1}{2} e^{4H\overline m}\, d^{2d} B_0,2,b_0) is admissible and let
Let f : [0,1] \to [0,1] be (\mu^{|\mathbf{N}},M_0)-smooth and p \in \mathcal{P}_2^d satisfy \|p\|_{\Gamma(f)} \ge b_0 and \|p\|_{[0,1]^2} \le B_0. Then
where \mathbf{z}(p,f) denotes the total number of zeros of p(x,f(x)), for x \in [0,1], counted with multiplicities.
Let I \subseteq \mathbb{R} be a compact interval. Let \mu^{|\infty} = (\mu_j)_{j \ge 1} be an admissible weight and M_0>b_0>0. Assume that (\mu^{|\infty},M_0,|I|,b_0) is admissible and let
Let f : I \to \mathbb{R} be a (\mu^{|\mathbf{N}}, M_0)-smooth function satisfying \|f\|_I \ge b_0. Then the total number of zeros of f in I (counted with multiplicities) is finite and bounded by \mathbf{N}.
Let \mu^{|\infty} = (\mu_j)_{j\ge 1} be an admissible weight satisfying (?) with constant H\ge 1. Let M_0>0. If f : [0,1] \to [0,1] is (\mu^{|N},M_0)-smooth and p \in \mathcal{P}_2^d, then h := p \circ \overline f : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R}, where \overline f : [0,1] \to [0,1]^2, \overline f(x) = (x,f(x)), is (2\, \mu^{|N}, \tfrac{1}{2} e^{4H\overline m}\, d^{2d}\, \|p\|_{[0,1]^2})-smooth.
Let \mu^{|\infty} = (\mu_j)_{j\ge 1} be an admissible weight satisfying (?) with constant H\ge 1. Then the sequence b_j :=a_j^j satisfies
whenever j_1 + \cdots + j_\ell = k and j_i \ge 1 for all 1 \le i \le \ell.
By (?), we have b_i \le H \, b_{j}^{i/j} if i\le j. Thus, if j_1 + \cdots + j_\ell = k and j_i \ge 1 for all 1 \le i \le \ell, then
as claimed.
For all p \in \mathcal{P}_n^d and j \in \mathbb{N},
Markov’s inequality implies
for all \alpha \in \mathbb{N}^n. Then, for v^i= (v^i_1,\ldots,v^i_n) \in \mathbb{R}^n with |v^i|\le 1 and x \in [0,1]^n,
The lemma is proved.
Let f : U \to V and g : V \to W be \mathcal{C}^k maps, where U,V,W are open subsets of normed spaces. Then, for x \in U,
where j = j_1+ \cdots+j_k, the sum is taken over all j_1,\ldots,j_k such that j_1 + 2j_2 + \cdots + kj_k = k, and \operatorname{sym} denotes symmetrization of a multilinear operator.
In the setting of ?, the composite h = p \circ \overline f : [0,1] \to \mathbb{R} is (2\, \mu^{|N}, \tfrac{1}{2} (4 d^2 H \hat m)^d\, \|p\|_{[0,1]^2})-smooth, where
It suffices to modify the estimate (?) in the following way:
Then the proof of ? implies the statement.
An example, where d is small, is the number of fixed points of f. Indeed, the polynomial p(X,Y) = X-Y satisfies \|p\|_{[0,1]^2} = 1 and \deg p =1. Assume that (\mu^{|\infty},M_0(1+\frac{1}{M_1}),1,b_0) is admissible and let
Let f : [0,1] \to [0,1] be (\mu^{|\mathbf{N}},M_0)-smooth with \sup_{x\in [0,1]} |x-f(x)|\ge b_0. By a direct computation, the composite function h(x) = p(x,f(x)) = x-f(x), x \in [0,1], is (\mu^{|\mathbf{N}}, M_0(1+\tfrac{1}{M_1}))-smooth. (Alternatively, one can use ? which however gives weaker bounds in this case.) Moreover, \|h\|_{[0,1]}\ge b_0. By ?, the total number of fixed points of f (counted with multiplicities) is finite and bounded by \mathbf{N}.
Let \mathcal{V} \subseteq C^0([0,1]^n,\mathbb{R}) be a finite dimensional subspace. A compact subset Z \subseteq [0,1]^n is said to be \mathcal{V}-norming if there is a constant C>0 such that
The infimum of all such constants C is denoted by N_{\mathcal{V}}(Z) and called the \mathcal{V}-norming constant of Z. This is an inequality of Remez type on a set of zero measure.
Let \mu^{|\infty} = (\mu_j)_{j\ge 1} be an admissible quasianalytic weight satisfying (?) with constant H\ge1. Let M_0>0. If f : [0,1] \to [0,1] is a transcendental (\mu^{|\infty},M_0)-smooth function, then, for each p \in \mathcal{P}_2^d\setminus \{0\},
Consequently,
By (the proof of) ?,
Now, by the properties of \mathbf{N} (see ?),
implying (4.2). Since \eta_{\mu^{|\infty}} is increasing, (4.2) is immediate from (4.2).
Let f : [0,1] \to [0,1] be real analytic and transcendental. There exist C,\rho>0 (depending on f) such that
In this case, H=1, M_0 = C, and M_1 = C\rho. The bound follows from (4.2) and (?).
Let f : [0,1] \to [0,1] be transcendental and the restriction of an entire function. There exists C=C(f)>0 such that
Choose \tau>0 such that 2e\tau +1 \le \log 3 and apply (4.3) for \rho = \tau.
Let f be a non-polynomial entire function on \mathbb{C}^n that is real on \mathbb{R}^n. Assume that the graph \Gamma(f|_{\mathbb{R}^n}) of f|_{\mathbb{R}^n} intersects [0,1]^{n+1} in a subset Z of real dimension n. Then there exists a sequence of positive integers d_j \to \infty and a sequence of positive reals \epsilon_j \to 0 such that
The sequence (d_j) depends only on f and the sequence (\epsilon_j) only on f, n, and the n-dimensional Hausdorff measure of Z.
Let f : [0,1] \to [0,1] be transcendental and the restriction of an entire function that is real on \mathbb{R}. There exists a sequence of positive integers d_j \to \infty, a sequence of positive reals \epsilon_j \to 0, and a constant C>0 such that
Combine ? with ?.
For each \zeta \in (0,1), there exists an analytic function f defined in a neighborhood of [0,1] and a sequence of positive integers d_j \to \infty satisfying
See [Comte:2018aa, Remark 5.3]. In view of (4.3), we conclude that
for constants c_1 = c_1(f) \in (0,1) and C_2 = C_2(f) >0.
Let s\in [0,\infty) and set k = \lceil s\rceil \in \mathbb{N} and \sigma = k-s \in [0,1). We define
Then \mu_s^{|\infty} := ((\mu_s)_j)_{j \ge 1} is an admissible quasianalytic weight for all s \in [0,\infty). (Quasianalyticity follows from the integral test, in view of (Proof).) Since (\mu_s)_j/j is increasing, so is the sequence a_j defined in (?), i.e., (?) holds with H=1.
The sequences \mu_s^{|\infty} are called Denjoy weights. Note that \mu_0^{|\infty} coincides with the analytic weight \mu_{\operatorname{an}}^{|\infty}.
Let s \ge 0 and a\ge 1. Then \eta_{a\,\mu_s^{|\infty}} : \mathbb{N}_{\ge 1} \to \mathbb{N} is bounded by a polynomial if and only if s \in [0,1].
For s=k \in \mathbb{N} and m \in \mathbb{N}_{\ge 1},
where f_k(a,m) := 2a e+ L_{k+1}(e_k(m+1)). In particular,
Let us first prove (4.9). Set A^k_n := \sum_{j=1}^n \frac{1}{(\mu_k)_j}, for n \ge 1, and A^k_0 := 0. Consider g(t) = L_{k+1}(e_k t), for t \ge 1. Then
is decreasing, i.e., g is concave. Thus
where the left inequality holds for j\ge 1 and the right for j \ge 2. Summing over j, we find
which implies
For x > 1 define the positive integer n(x) by
By (Proof) and (?),
By (?), we have
so that, setting x = 2ae +A^k_{m}, we get
with n=n(2ae + A^k_{m}), since 2ae+ A^k_{m}> 1. Thus, by (Proof) and (?),
This implies (4.9), since n=\frac{1}{2} \eta_{a\,\mu_k^{|\infty}}(m).
Now (?) and (?) easily follow from (4.9). Since (\mu_{s})_j \le (\mu_{t})_j for all j if s \le t and thus \eta_{a\, \mu_{s}^{|\infty}} \le \eta_{a\, \mu_{t}^{|\infty}}, we conclude that \eta_{a\, \mu_{s}^{|\infty}} is bounded by a polynomial, for all s\in [0,1].
To see that \eta_{a\, \mu_{s}^{|\infty}} cannot be bounded by a polynomial if s>1 it is enough to show this for s \in (1,2) and a=1. Fix such s, let \sigma = 2 -s \in (0,1), and consider g(t) = (\log\log(e^e t))^{\sigma}, for t\ge 1. Since
and g is concave, we find similarly to (Proof),
where A^s_n = \sum_{j=1}^n \frac{1}{(\mu_s)_j} and noting that A^s_1 = \frac{1}{e}. As above, let n(x), for x>1, be the positive integer satisfying A^s_{n(x)} < x \le A^s_{n(x)+1}. Then, by (?),
and, setting n = n(2e + A^s_m) =\frac{1}{2} \eta_{\mu_{s}^{|\infty}}(m), we find
Suppose for contradiction that n can be bounded by a polynomial in m. Then there exist C\ge 1 and N \in \mathbb{N}_{\ge 1} such that, for all m,
or equivalently,
Setting z=e_2(m+1), we have
as z \to \infty. By the mean value theorem, the right-hand side of (?) equals
for some \zeta between \log\log z + \log N + o(1) and \log\log z. Since \sigma \in (0,1), (?) tends to zero as z \to \infty which contradicts (?).
Let s \in [0,1]. If f : [0,1] \to [0,1] is a transcendental (\mu_s^{|\infty},M_0)-smooth function, then \mathbf{z}_d(f) is bounded by a polynomial in d and \mathbf{e}_d(f).
This is a consequence of ? and ?.
Let s \in [0,1] and let f : [0,1] \to [0,1] be a transcendental function of class \mathcal{C}_{M_s} associated with the Denjoy weight \mu_s^{|\infty} (with (M_s)_0=1) such that \mathbf{e}_d(f) is bounded by a polynomial in d. Then the number of rational points of height at most H on the graph of f is bounded by a polynomial in \log H.
By [Pila:2006ab, Proposition 2.4], the set \Gamma(f)(\mathbb{Q};H) of rational points of height at most H in \Gamma(f) is contained in the union of at most 6B (\frac{(d+1)(d+2)}{2})^C\, H^{8/(d+3)} algebraic curves of degree d, where d \ge 5 and B,C are constants depending on the class of f. (The Denjoy–Carleman class \mathcal{C}_{M_s} is contained in the class M(B,C) of mild functions used in [Pila:2006ab].)
Let d = \lfloor \log H \rfloor, assuming that H \ge e. Then \Gamma(f)(\mathbb{Q};H) is contained in the union of at most
algebraic curves of degree d, using that \frac{(d+1)(d+2)}{2} \le 3 (\log H)^2 and H^{8/(d+3)} \le e^8. Thus, the number of points in \Gamma(f)(\mathbb{Q};H) is bounded by
which is bounded by a polynomial in \log H, by ?, provided that \mathbf{e}_d(f) is bounded by a polynomial in d. Thus ? is proved.
Let \mu^{|\infty} = (\mu_j)_{j \ge 1} be any admissible weight (not necessarily quasianalytic) and M_0=1 such that the associated function
satisfies \omega_M(t) = o(t) and \omega_M(2t) = O(\omega_M(t)) as t \to \infty. Let \xi = (\xi_n)_{n \ge 1} be a sequence of independent random variables, each uniformly distributed on [-1,1]. Define
Note that \omega_M(t) = o(t) as t \to \infty means that \mathcal{C}_M contains the real analytic functions as a proper subclass. This condition is satisfied if the associated sequence a_j (see (?)) tends to \infty. Moreover, \omega_M(2t) = O(\omega_M(t)) as t \to \infty is a technical condition which holds provided that \liminf_{j \to \infty} \frac{\mu_{\ell j}}{\mu_j} >1 for some positive integer \ell; see [BMM07, Lemma 12]. Clearly, these conditions are satisfied by all Denjoy weights. Moreover, \log t = o(\omega_M(t)) as t \to \infty by definition.
The family \{f_\xi\} has the following properties:
f_\xi : [0,1] \to [0,1] belongs to \mathcal{C}_M.
Almost surely, f_\xi is not real analytic. More generally, almost surely f_\xi does not belong to any class \mathcal{C}_{L} with \omega_M(t) = o(\omega_L(t)) as t \to \infty, where L is any weight sequence as in ?.
Almost surely, \mathbf{e}_d(f_\xi) is bounded by a polynomial in d of degree 7 (whose coefficients depend on \xi).
Let M = M_s a Denjoy weight for s \in (0,1] with (M_s)_0 =1. Then, for the family \{f_\xi\}, the number of rational points of height at most H on the graph of f_\xi is almost surely bounded by a polynomial in \log H.
This follows from ? and ?. Note that f_\xi is almost surely transcendent, because if there exists a nonzero polynomial p \in \mathbb{R}[X,Y] such that p(x,f_\xi(x)) = 0, for all x \in [0,1], then f_\xi is real analytic. Indeed, the 1-periodic function f_\xi belongs to \mathcal{C}_{M_s}(\mathbb{R}) and, by quasianalyticity, p(x,f_\xi(x))=0, for all x \in \mathbb{R}. By [Siciak70, Theorem 2] or [Malgrange66, Proposition VI.3.11], f_\xi is real analytic.
The text on this page is from arXiv:2610.21725v1 by Armin Rainer, under the licence CC BY 4.0. The corpus made these changes: it read the items out of the LaTeX source, it expanded the macros of the paper, it put each proof after its statement, and it converted the text to HTML. The formulas are the TeX of the paper, and KaTeX renders them. A formula or a reference can look different from the PDF. The page is published under CC BY 4.0.
The record of each item is in analysis/objects/2610/2610.21725.jsonl.