arxiv: v1 [math.cv] 4 Dec 2018

Transcription

1 ON THE DE BRANGES LEMMA ALEKSEI KULIKOV arxiv: v1 [math.cv] 4 Dec 218 Abstract. It is known that famous de Branges lemma about minimum of two entire functions of minimal type does not etend to functions of finite eponential type. We study in detail pairs of two entire functions f,g of finite eponential type with bounded minimum sup z C min{ f(z), g(z) } <. It turns out that functions f and g have to be bounded on some rotating half-planes. We also obtained very close upper and lower bounds for possible rotation function of these half-planes. 1. Introduction and main results In 196 s Louis de Branges has proved that if two entire functions f and g of minimal eponential type are such that (1.1) supmin{ f(z), g(z) } 1, z C then at least one of them must be constant, see [3, Lemma 8, p. 17]. This result plays a crucial role in the proof of de Branges Ordering Theorem [3, Theorem 35] and has many applications in function theory and spectral theory of differential operators, see e.g. [1, 2]. First of all we prove a small refinement of de Branges Lemma. Theorem 1.1. Let f, g be entire functions of minimal and finite eponential type, respectively, which satisfy (1.1). Then either f or g is constant. This theorem obviously fails in the case of both functions having finite eponential type (consider functions f(z) = e z,g(z) = e z ). Nevertheless something can be said about domainswhere these functionsaresmall. Themainaimofthispaperistostudy geometric properties of such domains. A careful analysis of the proof of de Branges Lemma gives us that the sets { f(z) 1} and { g(z) 1} have to be close to half-planes. Theorem 1.2. Let f, g be nonconstant entire functions of finite eponential type which satisfy (1.1). Then for any ε > and for all τ > ecept for some set of finite measure The work was supported by the Russian Science Foundation grant

2 2 ALEKSEI KULIKOV (i.e.τ R + \E, E < ) the sets { f(z) 1} and { g(z) 1} intersect circle of radius e τ by two opposite semicircles modulo subset of the circle of angular measure at most ε, i.e. there eists a semicircle C { z = e τ } and a set B of angular measure at most ε such that f(z) 1, g(z) > 1,z C\B, f(z) > 1, g(z) 1,z ( C)\B. In view of this theorem it is reasonable to ask whether orientation of these semicircles can change when radius tends to infinity. We are able to answer this question in an affirmative way by constructing entire function of finite eponential type which is bounded in some rotating half-plane and we also give very close upper and lower bounds on possible rotation function of this half-plane. Definition 1. Let s : R + R be a non-decreasing continuous function. We will say that Ω s is the rotating half-plane with rotation function s if Ω s = {re iθ r >, s(r) < θ < s(r)+π}. Note that interior of complement of rotating half-plane Ω s is rotating half-plane with rotation function s(r) + π. Hence, if entire function f is bounded on rotating half-plane Ω s, then sup z C min{ f(z), f( z) } <. Now we are ready to formulate two main results of our paper. Theorem 1.3. There eists a nonconstant entire function f of finite eponential type bounded on rotating half-plane Ω s, where s satisfies lim inf r s(r) log log(r) logr >. Theorem 1.4. Let Ω s be a rotating half-plane with rotation function s and let f be an entire function of finite eponential type bounded on Ω s. If function s is such that then f is constant. lim sup r s(r) logr >, The proof of Theorem 1.4 is based on estimates of harmonic measure in a semi-strip. Acknowledgments. The author would like to thank Yurii Belov and Aleander Borichev for many helpful discussions.

3 ON THE DE BRANGES LEMMA 3 2. Functions of minimal and finite eponential type In this section we prove Theorems 1.1 and Functions of minimal eponential type. For the proof of Theorem 1.1 we need the following variant of Lemma 27 from [5] (its proof is the same as in [5]): Lemma 2.1. Let u : C R be a continuous subharmonic function satisfying the following conditions: (i) u(z) and u() >, (ii) u is smooth in some neighbourhood of, (iii) u is not constant in any neighbourhood of. Put V u = {z u(z) > }, m u (R) = sup{ I /(2π) : I open interval, Re i V u, I}, η u (s) = 1 m u (e s ). Then there eists C = C(u) > such that for all τ > (2.1) u 2( e τ e iθ) dθ C τ ep τ η u (s)ds dτ. We tacitly assume that m u (R) =, η u (logr) = when RT V u. Proof of Theorem 1.1. Suppose that neither f nor g is constant. Put f 1 (z) = f(z) f(), g 1 (z) = g(z) g(). Since f and g are nonconstant, f 1 and g 1 are not identically zero and so for some k,n N and C 1 > functions f 2 (z) = C 1 f 1 (z)/z k and g 2 (z) = C 1 g 1 (z)/z n are entire and f 2 (), g 2 () > 1. Since min{ f(z), g(z) } 1, for some C 2 > 1 we have min{ f 2 (z), g 2 (z) } C 2 z, z > 1. So, if we consider f 3 (z) = f 2 (C 2 z) and g 3 (z) = g 2 (C 2 z) then they will satisfy min{ f 3 (z), g 3 (z) } 1 z < 1, z > 1. On the other hand, f 3 (), g 3 () > 1. It is easy to see from the maimum principle that neither f 3 nor g 3 is constant. Put u(z) = ma{,log f 3 (z) } and v(z) = ma{,log g 3 (z) }. Now we apply Lemma 2.1 for u and v.

4 4 ALEKSEI KULIKOV We consider some function q : R + R + which we choose later and sum estimates (2.1) for u and v with weights q(τ) and 1. q(τ)u 2 (e τ e iθ )+v 2 (e τ e iθ )dθ C τ q(τ)ep τ η u (s)ds +ep τ η v (s)ds dτ. Applying inequality between arithmetic and geometric means to the right-hand side, we get (2.2) q(τ)u 2 (e τ e iθ )+v 2 (e τ e iθ )dθ 2C τ τ q(τ) ep η u (s)+η v (s) ds dτ. 2 We claim that η u (s)+η v (s) 4 for all s >. From the definition of u and v we have f 3 (z) 1,z V u and g 3 (z) 1,z V v. Let I,J R be intervals such that e s e i V u, I and e s e i V v, J. Since min{ f 3 (e s e i ), g 3 (e s e i ) } < 1, R either I + J 2π or oneof these intervals has length more than 2π. But if, for eample, I > 2π, then g 3 (e s e i ) < 1, R. This contradicts to the maimum principle. Hence, I + J 2π. Taking supremum over I and J we get (2.3) m u (e s )+m v (e s ) 1. The claim now follows from inequality between arithmetic and harmonic means. From η u (s)+η v (s) 4 and (2.2) we get (2.4) q(τ)u 2 (e τ e iθ )+v 2 (e τ e iθ )dθ C q(τ)(e 2τ 1). Now, since f 3 is of minimal eponential type and g 3 is of finite eponential type, we have u(e τ e iθ ) = o(e τ ) and v(e τ e iθ ) = O(e τ ) and so we can choose q such that q(τ) as τ and q(τ)u 2 (e τ e iθ ) = O(e 2τ ). But for this choice of q left-hand side of (2.4) is O(e 2τ ) while right-hand side is not. We arrive to a contradiction Functions of finite eponential type. We fi two entire functions f and g of finite eponential type satisfying (1.1). Lemma 2.2. We have ( ) ηu(s)+η v(s) 2 ds <. 2

5 Proof. We consider estimate (2.2) with q(τ) = 1 (2.5) Suppose that u 2 (e τ e iθ )+v 2 (e τ e iθ )dθ C ON THE DE BRANGES LEMMA 5 τ ep τ η u (s)+η v (s) 2 ds dτ. ( ) ηu(s)+η v(s) 2 ds =. Since ηu(s)+ηv(s) 2 (see proof of Theorem ), we have that for any C 3 > there eists τ > such that τ Thus, for τ > τ we have ( ηu (s)+η v (s) 2 ) ds > 2τ +C 3, τ > τ. (2.6) u 2 (e τ e iθ )+v 2 (e τ e iθ )dθ C τ τ ep(2τ +C 3 )dτ = C 2 ec 3 (e 2τ e 2τ ). The left hand side of (2.6) is bounded by ce 2τ for some c = c(f,g) >. We can choose C 3 such that c < C 2 ec 3. We arrive to a contradiction for big enough τ. Lemma 2.3. If,y >, +y 1 and 1 2 > ε then 1 +1 y > 4+δ for some δ = δ(ε) >. Proof. If 1 y > ε, then y 4 +y > 4 1 ε. Otherwise y = 4 (+y) (+y 2)2 +y > 4 1 ε 2, Hence, if δ = min{ 4 4 4, 4} we get the desired estimate. 1 ε 2 1 ε Lemma 2.4. For any ε > there eists E ε R +, E ε < such that for any τ R + \E ε the set {z : z = e τ, f 3 (z) 1} contains an arc of angular measure at least π ε. Proof. We know that m u (e τ )+m v (e τ ) 1 (see (2.3)). From Lemmas 2.2 and 2.3 it follows that for all τ > ecept for the set of finite measure m u (e τ ) > 1 ε. By definition it 2 2π means that V u {z : z = e τ } contains an arc of angular measure at least π ε. Lemma 2.5. For any ε > there eists E ε R +, E ε < such that for any τ R + \E ε the set { z = e τ, f(z) > 1} contains an arc of angular measure at least π ε.

6 6 ALEKSEI KULIKOV Proof. We can consider only those τ > logc 2 for which statement of Lemma 2.4 is fulfilled with τ = τ logc 2. If f(e τ e iθ ) 1 then f 3 (e τ e iθ ) < 1 and so {θ : f 3 (e τ e iθ ) 1} {θ : f(e τ e iθ ) > 1}. From Lemma 2.4 we get the result. Now we are ready to prove Theorem 1.2. We will prove a slightly more general result. Theorem 2.6. For any ε > there eists E ε R +, E ε < and two disjoint arcs I, J of angular measure at least π ε on the circle { z = e τ } such that f(z) > 1 and g(z) 1 on I and g(z) > 1 and f(z) 1 on J for τ R + \E ε. Proof. In view of Lemma 2.5 we can consider only those τ > for which there eist arcs I, J of angular measure at least π ε such that for f(z) > 1, z I and for g(z) > 1, z J. From min{ f(z), g(z) } 1 we get that I J = and moreover f(z) 1,z J and g(z) 1,z I. 3. Rotating half-planes In this section we prove Theorems 1.3, Proof of Theorem 1.3. We will construct function f in two steps. First of all, we will construct unbounded analytic function g : Ω C of finite eponential type which is bounded on Ω for suitable domain Ω. After that we construct function f as a Cauchy integral of g over boundary of Ω. It turns out that the function f is bounded on the complement of Ω, which, as we will show, contains some rotating half-plane. Put V = {a+bi a > M, < b < π} for some big number M > 1 9. Let r,h : V C be two analytic functions satisfying the following conditions: (i) r,h are real on the real line, (ii) r (z), h (z) 1, (iii) h () >,r () <, R, (iv) 1 1 r () < h () 2 < 1 r (), h (+iy) r (),,y R (v) r(z) 1, R(r(z)) >, (vi) if z w < 1 then r (z) r (w) r (z) 1 and h (z) h (w) h (z) 1, (vii) r () 1 2, R. For eample, functions r(z) = 1 and h(z) = z satisfy (i)-(vii) if M is sufficiently big. logz logz Put ψ(z) = z + εr(z), ψ : V C, where < ε < 1 9. It is easy to see that ψ is a conformal mapping from V to some domain U = ψ(v). Moreover, U = ψ( V) thus to understand geometry of U we have to understand images of rays {Iz =,Rz > M} and

7 ON THE DE BRANGES LEMMA 7 {Iz = π,rz > M}. Since r is real on R we have that ψ([m,+ )) R. For z = +iπ we have ψ(+iπ) = +iπ +εr(+iπ) = +iπ +ε(r()+ So, Rψ(+iπ) 1ε < 1 and +iπ r (z)dz). Iψ(+iπ) = π +εi(iπr ()+ Hence, U is contained in the set +iπ (r (z) r ())dz) π +2εr (). U := {a+bi a > M, < b < π +εr (a)}. Put ϕ(z) = z +iεh(z), ϕ : Ū C. Function ϕ is a conformal mapping and again we are going to investigate image of U. We have Put z = +iπ +iεr (), Rϕ() =, Iϕ() = εh(). ϕ(z) = +iπ +iεr ()+ε(ih()+(z )ih ()+ We can estimate the right-hand side via the second derivative of h Hence, ε z i(h (w) h ())dw = ε z w z i(h (z) h ())dw). h (t)dtdw ε (). 1 5 r Iϕ(z) π +εh()+εr () ε 1 5r () π +εh()+ ε 2 r (), Rϕ(z) επh ()+ ε 1 5r () 2επh (). Put W = ϕ(u) {Rz > M +1}. We have W W = ϕ(u ) {Rz > M +1}. We claim that W is a subset of W := {a+bi a > M +1,εh(a) < b < εh(a)+π ε 1a 2}.

8 8 ALEKSEI KULIKOV Put a() = Rϕ(+iπ +iεr ()). It is easy to see that to prove this claim it is enough to show that Iϕ(+iπ +iεr ()) εh(a()) π ε. 1a 2 () We have Iϕ(+iπ +iεr ()) εh(a()) π +ε(h()+ 1 2 r () h() π + ε 2 r ()+1ε 2 h 2 () π ε 1 2. Since a() 1, the right-hand side is not greater than π proved. a() h (t)dt) ε. The claim is 1a 2 () Put Ω = ep(w). Since intersection of W with every vertical line is contained in the segment of length less than 2π, eponential map will be a conformal mapping from W to Ω. Let g = e i ϕ 1 ψ 1 log, where e i (z) = ep( iz). Since we have log : Ω W,ψ 1 : W Ū,ϕ 1 : Ū V, the function g is defined for z Ω. Moreover, since Rψ(z) Rz and Rϕ(z) Rz 1 we have an estimate g(z) e e z. Now we define function f as a Cauchy integral of g over Ω f(z) = Ω g(w) (z w) 2dw. Function f is analytic on C\ Ω. Moreover, by shifting contour from Ω to ( Ω C\RD) ( RD Ω) we can analytically etend f to the disk RD. Since R can be chosen arbitrary large function f is in fact entire and of finite eponential type because we have bound g(z) e e z. It remains to prove that f is nonconstant and that it is bounded on some rotating half-plane. It is obvious that for any z with z < 1 value f(z ) = f ε (z ) depends continuously on ε for ε < 1 9. For ε = the resulting function does not depend on functions r,h and number M. Direct computation shows that it is not constant. Hence, for small enough ε > function f ε would be nonconstant as well. From inclusion W W we get Ω Ω = { } re iθ r > e M+1 ε,εh(logr) θ π +εh(logr) 1log 2. r

9 Put Ω = { re iθ r > e M ε,εh(logr)+π 2log 2 r ON THE DE BRANGES LEMMA 9 θ 2π +εh(logr) ε } 2log 2. r We have Ω Ω = and moreover dist(ω,ω ) = δ >. From this it is easy to see that the function f is bounded in Ω. Hence, f is bounded in the rotating half-plane Ω s with ε the function s : R + R defined as s(r) = εh(logr)+π for r > 2log 2 r em. If r(z) = 1 and h(z) = z, then rotation function s(r) ε logr for some ε > and logz logz loglogr so Theorem 1.3 is proved Proof of Theorem 1.4. We will need the following estimate for harmonic measure in bounded simply connected domain: Theorem 3.1. [4, Theorem 5.3] Let G be a simply connected domain bounded by rectifiable Jordan curve and let E G be an arc. If σ is any curve connecting point z G and G\E which lies entirely inside of G then (3.1) ω(z,e,g) 8 π e πλ(σ,e,g), where ω(z,e,g) is harmonic measure of E in z and λ(σ,e,g) = dist(σ,e)2 A(G), where A(G) is the area of G and dist(σ,e) is the infimum of length of paths connecting point on σ with E and lying entirely inside of G. Put h() = s(ep()) + π, V = {a + bi a >,h(a) < b < h(a) + π}. Function g(z) = f(e z ) is defined on V, bounded on V and satisfies estimate g(a+bi) ep(a+ Cep(a)) for some A,C >. Without loss of generality we may assume that g(z) 1 on V. Put G t = V {Rz < t} for some t R and u(z) = Cep(t)ω(z,E,G t ) with E = [t + h(t)i,t + (h(t) + π)i]. Obviously, we have A + u(z) logg(z), z G t. Since logg(z) is a subharmonic function this estimate holds for z G t as well. Thus, if for all z = a + b i V we can prove that u(z ), t, then we would have g(z ) ep(a) from which it follows that f is bounded on C\Ω s. Since f is also bounded on Ω s, by Liouville Theorem f is constant. So it remains to prove that u(z ), t. Putσ = [a +h(a )i,a+bi]. Byassumption oftheorem, thereeistssequence ofnumbers t k tending to infinity such that h(t k ) c t k for some c >. Moreover, we may assume that h(t k+1) > h(t 2 k )+π + c2 and that t 8 1 > a. We have n dist(σ,e) (t t n+1 )+ (tk+1 t k ) 2 +(h(t k+1 ) h(t k ) π) 2 k=1

10 1 ALEKSEI KULIKOV (t t n+1 )+ n (t k+1 t k ) 2 + c2 4 t k+1 + c4 64 (t t n+1)+ k=1 where n+1 is the number of t k not greater than t. Using (3.1) we get ( (3.2) u(z ) 8C π ep π (t t ) 1 + c2 n 8 )2 8Cπ ( tπ ep 2π n k=1 ) (t k+1 t k + c2 = t t 1 + c2 n 8 8, ( )) t 1 c2 n. 8 Obviously, when n tends to infinity right-hand side of (3.2) tends to and since n as t we have that u(z ) as t. References [1] E. Abakumov, A. Baranov, Y. Belov, Localization of zeros for Cauchy transforms, Int. Math. Res. Notices, 215, (215), , [2] E. Abakumov, A. Baranov, Y. Belov, Krein-type theorems and ordered structure for Cauchy-de Branges spaces, to appear in Journal of Functional Analysis, [3] L. de Branges, Hilbert Spaces of Entire Functions, Prentice Hall, Engelwood Cliffs, 1968 [4] J. B. Garnett, D. E. Marshall, Harmonic Measure, Cambridge Univ. Press, 28, [5] R. Romanov, Canonical systems and de Branges spaces, arxiv: Aleksei Kulikov, St. Petersburg State University, St. Petersburg, Russia, lyosha.kulikov@mail.ru