arxiv:math/ v1 [math.fa] 14 Sep 2003

Transcription

1 arxiv:math/ v [math.fa] 4 Sep 2003 RANK-ONE DECOMPOSITION OF OPERATORS AND CONSTRUCTION OF FRAMES KERI A. KORNELSON AND DAVID R. LARSON Abstract. The construction of frames for a Hilbert space H can be equated to the decomposition of the frame operator as a sum of positive operators having rank one. This realization provides a different approach to questions regarding frames with particular properties and motivates our results. We find a necessary and sufficient condition under which any positive finite-rank operator B can be expressed as a sum of rank-one operators with norms specified by a sequence of positive numbers {c i}. Equivalently, this result proves the existence of a frame with B as it s frame operator and with vector norms { c i}. We further prove that, given a non-compact positive operator B on an infinite dimensional separable real or complex Hilbert space, and given an infinite sequence {c i} of positive real numbers which has infinite sum and which has supremum strictly less than the essential norm of B, there is a sequence of rank-one positive operators, with norms given by {c i}, which sum to B in the strong operator topology. These results generalize results by Casazza, Kovačević, Leon, and Tremain, in which the operator is a scalar multiple of the identity operator (or equivalently the frame is a tight frame), and also results by Dykema, Freeman, Kornelson, Larson, Ordower, and Weber in which {c i} is a constant sequence. Introduction The existence and characterization of frames with a variety of additional properties is an area of active research which has resulted in recent papers including [], [2], and [6]. These questions can also be phrased in terms of the expression of positive operators as sums of rank-one positive operators. Therefore, although motivated by applications in signal processing, the results have independent interest to operator theory. Throughout this paper, H will be a real or complex separable Hilbert space. For J a real or countably infinite index set, the collection of vectors 2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 42C5, 47N40; Secondary 47C05, 46B28. Key words and phrases. frames,tight frames, rank-one operators, positive operators, rank-one decomposition. The research of the first author was supported in part by an NSF VIGRE postdoctoral fellowship. The research of the second author was supported in part by a grant from the NSF.

2 2 KERI A. KORNELSON AND DAVID R. LARSON {x j } j J H is a frame if there exist positive constants D C > 0 such that for every x H : C x 2 j J x,x j 2 D x 2 A frame is called a tight frame if C = D, and a Parseval frame if C = D =. We use elementary tensor notation for a rank-one operator on H. Given u,v,x H, the operator u v is defined by (u v)x = x,v u for x H. The operator u u is a projection if and only if u =. Given a frame {x i } for H, the frame operator is defined to be the map S : H H taking x i x,x i x i. We can write S in the form: () S = i x i x i where the convergence is in the strong operator topology (SOT). It is a wellknown result that {x i } is a tight frame with frame bound λ if and only if S = λi, where I is the identity operator on H. (see [8]) Therefore, finding a tight frame is equivalent to decomposing a scalar multiple of the identity as a sum of rank-one operators. Given H a finite dimensional Hilbert space, and {c i } a sequence of positive real numbers, Casazza, Kovačević, Leon, and Tremain found in [2] a necessary and sufficient condition (called the Fundamental Frame Inequality) for the existence of a tight frame for H with the norms of the vectors given by {c i }. As stated above, this is equivalent to decomposing a scalar multiple of the identity as a sum of rank-one positive operators with prescribed norms. In Section, we generalize this result to the case where the scalar is replaced with an arbitrary positive invertible operator on H (in fact, we state the result for positive operators which are not necessarily invertible), thus obtaining the condition for the existence of non-tight frames with specified norms. In Section 2, H is an infinite dimensional separable real or complex Hilbert space. Recall that the essential norm of an operator on H is defined to be B ess = inf{ B K } where K is a compact operator on H. We prove that, given B a non-compact positive operator on H and given {c i } a sequence of positive real numbers which sum to infinity and for which sup i {c i } < B ess, B can be expressed as a sum of rank-one operators having norms given by {c i }, with convergence in the SOT. This implies that every positive invertible operator with essential norm strictly greater than sup i {c i } is the frame operator for a frame with prescribed norms { c i }. This result is the generalization of the infinite-dimensional result in [2], which restricts to tight frames. It also generalizes the results in [6] regarding ellipsoidal tight frames, in which the sequence {c i } is a constant sequence.

3 SUMS OF RANK-ONE OPERATORS 3 The authors would like to thank Eric Ricard for his helpful comments during the Linear Analysis Workshop at Texas A&M University in August, Finite Dimensions The following lemma was shown to us by Marc Ordower. It was a key step in the proof of Proposition 6 in [6]. Lemma. Let B be a positive operator with rank n and nonzero eigenvalues b b 2 b n > 0 and with a corresponding orthonormal set of eigenvectors {e i } n i=. If c is a positive number with b j c b j+ for some j n, then there is a unit vector x in span{e j,e j+ } such that B c(x x) is positive and has rank n. Proof. If A is a finite-rank self-adjoint operator and c A is a constant, then the least eigenvalue of A is given by (A+cI) c. It follows that the function giving the least eigenvalue is continuous on the set of finite-rank self-adjoint operators. Let A x = B c(x x) for x an arbitrary unit vector in span{e j,e j+ }. The least eigenvalue of A x is nonnegative for x = e j and nonpositive for x = e j+, hence span{e j,e j+ } contains a unit vector x for which the least eigenvalue of A x is zero. Therefore, A x is positive of rank n. Remark. Since the trace of A x is ( n b i) c, and eigenvalues other than b j and b j+ are unchanged, the remaining nonzero eigenvalue must be b = bj + b j+ c Moreover, the new eigenvalue maintains the j th position in the ordering of all the eigenvalues: b b j b b j+2 b n Theorem 2. Let B be a positive operator with rank n and nonzero eigenvalues b b 2 b n > 0. Let {c i } k i= ; k n be a nonincreasing sequence of positive numbers such that k i= c i = n j= b j. There exist unit vectors {x i } k i= such that B = c i (x i x i ) i= if and only if for each p, p n, p p (2) c i i= Note: When a positive invertible operator B can be written in the form of this theorem, we say that B admits a rank-one decomposition corresponding to {c i }. i= b i

4 4 KERI A. KORNELSON AND DAVID R. LARSON Remark 2. The hypotheses in Theorem 2 reduces to exactly the Fundamental Frame Inequality from [2] when b = b 2 = = b n. Thus, an immediate corollary of Theorem 2 is the result from [2] that the Fundamental Frame Inequality is a necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a tight frame for R n consisting of vectors with norms c i ; i =,...,k. We include this as Corollary 5. Proof of Theorem 2. Assuming the property (2) holds, we use strong induction on the rank n of the operator. The case n = when B is already a rank-one operator is clear. Let {e i } n be an orthonormal set of eigenvectors for b,b 2,...,b n, respectively. Case : If b c b n, there exists an index l ; l n such that b l c b l+. By Lemma, there exists a unit vector x in the span of e l and e l+ such that B c (x x) has rank n and eigenvalues in nonincreasing order b,...,b l, b,b l+2,...,b n, where b = b l + b l+ c. Let x = x. It remains to check that the inequalities (2) hold for the operator B c (x x ) and the sequence {c 2,,c k }. Clearly, for r l, we have For l + r n, c c r c + + c r b + b r c + + c l + c l+ + + c r b + + b l + b l+ + + b r c c l + c l+ + + c r b + + (b l + b l+ c ) + + b r c c l + c l+ + + c r b + + b + + b r Since we have reduced to an operator of rank n which satisfies the hypotheses of the theorem, induction gives the remaining elements of the rank-one decomposition of B corresponding to the sequence {c i } k. Case 2: If c < b n, then we are unable to use Lemma. We select rankone operators to subtract from B which preserve the rank and decrease the smallest eigenvalue until the Case property is attained. Let p be the largest integer such that c + c c p < b n. Note that Case 2 can only occur for k > n. Since the sums of each sequence are equal, c p+ + +c k > b + +b n, but because c p+ c b n b n, the sum on the left must have more terms. Therefore, k p > n, or alternatively, p k n. Let x i = e n for each i =,2,...,p. The operator B p i= c i(x i x i ) still has rank n and the eigenvalues in decreasing order are b,b 2,...,b n, b, where b = b n p i= c i. By the selection of p, c p+ exceeds or equals b, the smallest eigenvalue of B p i= c i(x i x i ). The method of Case can now be applied to the operator B p i= c i(x i x i ) and the remaining sequence c p+,...,c k. Conversely, assume B has a rank-one decomposition corresponding to {c i }. Given a fixed j with j k, define P to be the orthogonal projection onto the span of {x i } j i=. Clearly, rank P j. For each i, define

5 P i = x i x i. We then have: PBP = SUMS OF RANK-ONE OPERATORS 5 c i PP i P i= j c i PP i P = i= j c i P i ( j ) and therefore trace(p BP) trace i= c ip i = c + c 2 + c j. We next show that trace(pbp) b + b b n, which will complete the proof. Let {e i } n i= be as above, and for notational purposes, set b n+ = 0. For i n, define Q i = e e + + e i e i. A calculation verifies that B can be written n B = (b i b i+ )Q i i= Then, PBP = n i= (b i b i+ )PQ i P. Observe that trace(pq i P) = trace (PQ i ) min{rankp, rankq i } min{j,i}. Therefore, n trace (PBP) = (b i b i+ )trace (PQ i P) i= j (b i b i+ )i + j i= i= n (b i b i+ ) i=j+ = (b + b b j jb j+ ) + j (b j+ b n+ ) = b + b b j Theorem 2 will be used in the proof of Proposition 7. To demonstrate the theorem, we have included the following example for the case where H = R Example. Let B =. We find the rank-one decomposition of B 0 4 corresponding to {c i } 4 i= = 3,3,2,. [ Since c < b 2 (Case 2), we take x =. This leaves B 3(x 0] x ) = 5 0 to decompose. We now have c 0 2 between the two eigenvalues 5 and (Case ). Let x(t) = [ t + 0] [ [ 0 t = t ]. We wish to find t ] t 5 0 such that 3(x(t) x(t)) has rank one, i.e. the determinant is zero. 0 Straightforward calculation shows the solution t = 6. Take x 2 = x( 6 ) = 5 [ ] The remainder 3(x 0 2 x 2 ) = has rank one

6 6 KERI A. KORNELSON AND DAVID R. LARSON 5 6 and it s range is spanned by the unit vector z =. We then must 6 have x 3 = x 4 = z, which completes the decomposition. ] [ ] [ (2 + ) = = B The next example demonstrates that a rank-one decomposition is impossible when property (2) does not hold. Example 2. The operator B = does not have a rank-one decomposition corresponding to the sequence {c i } 3 i= = {4,4,}. To see this, assume that we can find unit vectors x,x 2,x 3 such that B = 4(x x ) + 4(x 2 x 2 ) + (x 3 x 3 ). Let P be the projection onto the span of {x,x 2 }. Then trace(pbp) = 3 i= c i trace P(x i x i )P = 8, because P(x i x i )P = x i x i, which has trace. Given P any projection with rank two, using the argument from the last paragraph of Theorem 2, we have trace (PBP) less than or equal to 7, i.e. the sum of the largest two eigenvalues. The contradiction implies B does not have a rank-one decomposition corresponding to {4,4,}. The following proposition lends insight into the underlying geometry of tight frames. We include it for independent interest. Proposition 3 (Alternate Version of R 2 Case). Let B be a positive invertible operator on R 2, and express B as diag(b,b 2 ), where b b 2 > 0. Let {c i } k i= be positive constants such that c c 2 c k and c i = b + b 2 i= 6 If c b, then there exist unit vectors {x i } k i= such that: Proof. Let x i = cos θi sin θ i B = c i (x i x i ) i= [ cos so x i x i = 2 ] θ i cos θ i sin θ i cos θ i sin θ i sin 2 θ i Then let B = diag(b,b 2 ) and {c i } k i= a sequence of positive numbers such that k c i = b + b 2 and c c 2 c k. Then B = k i= c i (x i x i ) if

7 and only if the following equations hold: (3) SUMS OF RANK-ONE OPERATORS 7 c cos 2 θ + c 2 cos 2 θ c k cos 2 θ k = b c sin 2 θ + c 2 sin 2 θ c k sin 2 θ k = b 2 c cos θ sinθ + c 2 cos θ 2 sinθ c k cos θ k sin θ k = 0 These equations, under the condition that k c i = b +b 2, are equivalent to: c i cos(2θ i ) = b b 2 (4) c i sin(2θ i ) = 0 cos 2θi By defining y i = c i, the above equations become the vector sin 2θ i equation: (5) y i i= [ b b 2 0 = 0 0] Using the tip-to-tail method of adding vectors, we can solve this equation by finding a polygon with k+ sides having lengths c,c 2,...,c k,b b 2. We must place the side with length b b 2 along the x-axis, but all of the angles between sides are variable. Such a polygon always exists for k 2 provided the greatest side length is less than or equal to the sum of the lengths of the remaining sides. Since the longest vector has either length c or b b 2, there is a solution when c b : c b 2c (b b 2 ) + (b + b 2 ) = (b b 2 ) + i= c (b b 2 ) + (c 2 + c c k ) + + c k and b b 2 b + b 2 = c + c 2 c i The following is the frame version of Theorem 2. Corollary 4. Let H be a Hilbert space with finite dimension n. Let B be a positive invertible operator on H with eigenvalues b b 2 b n > 0, and for k n let {c i } k i= be a sequence of positive numbers with c c 2

8 8 KERI A. KORNELSON AND DAVID R. LARSON c k such that k i= c i = n j= b j. There exists a frame for H with k vectors {x i } k i= having frame operator B and such that x i = c i, i k, if and only if condition (2) from Theorem 2 is satisfied. Proof. B has a rank-one decomposition corresponding to {c i } k i= if and only if there exist unit vectors {y i } k i= such that B = c i (y i y i ) = ci y i c i y i i= From the expression () of the frame operator, {x i } k i= = { c i y i } k i= is a frame with frame operator B and x i = c i. An immediate corollary is Theorem 5. from [2], which finds the Fundamental Frame Inequality as the necessary and sufficient condition for the existence of a tight frame with lengths of the vectors prescribed by the sequence. We state this result here. Corollary 5. [2] Let H be a Hilbert space with finite dimension n, and for some k n, let {a i } k i= be a sequence of positive numbers such that a a 2 a k > 0. If a 2 a 2 i (Fund. Frame Inequality) n i= then there exist unit vectors {x i } k i= such that the vectors i= y i = a i x i form a tight frame for H. The frame bound will be λ = a 2 i n Proof. This case satisfies the hypotheses of Corollary 4 for B = λi and c i = a 2 i, i =,...,k since each b i = λ, and a 2 λ implies the remaining inequalities. i= 2. Infinite Dimensions The main result, Theorem 6, of this section (or more particularly Corollary 2) is a generalization of Theorem 5.4 from [2], which we list here as Corollary 8. We will use Proposition 7, the operator-theoretic formulation of Corollary 8, in the proof of Theorem 6. Corollary 2 is also a generalization of Theorem 2 from [6]. This theorem states that, given B a positive operator with B ess >, there exists an ellipsoidal tight frame for B with frame bound. This is equivalent to the existence of a frame of unit vectors with frame operator B 2, which is the special case of Corollary 2 with {c i } the constant sequence in which each c i =.

9 SUMS OF RANK-ONE OPERATORS 9 Theorem 6. Let B be a positive non-compact operator in B(H ) for H a real or complex Hilbert space with infinite dimension. If {c i } i= is a bounded sequence of positive numbers with sup i c i < B ess and i c i =, then there is a sequence of rank-one projections {P i } B(H ) such that B = c i P i where convergence is in the SOT. i= Example 3. The condition that sup i {c i } be strictly less than B ess cannot be dropped in general. For instance, if B = I the identity, and {c i } i= = {2 3,,,, } then there is no series {P i } of projections with i c ip i = I. Equivalently, there is no sequence of vectors forming a Parseval frame in which the norms of the vectors {x i } are each x i = c i. If, in fact, such a frame did exist, the vectors {x 2,x 2,...} would necessarily form an orthonormal set. The assumption that the frame is Parseval then implies that x is a unit vector, which is a contradiction. We will prove Theorem 6 in a series of steps, using the finite dimensional Theorem 2. The first step is Proposition 7, which, as we previously stated, is a reformulation of Theorem 5.4 from [2]. The result is theirs, but our operator-theoretic proof is different from the one given in [2]. Proposition 7. Let H be an infinite-dimensional separable Hilbert space. Let {c i } i= be a sequence of numbers with 0 < c i, and suppose i c i = and i ( c i) =. Then there is a sequence of rank-one projections {P i } i= such that I = c i P i i= with the sum converging in the strong operator topology. An immediate corollary is the precise statement of Theorem 5.4 from [2], which gives the existence of a Parseval frame for H with norms of the frame elements coming from the sequence. Corollary 8. [2] If H is an infinite-dimensional real or complex Hilbert space, and if {a i } is a sequence of real numbers with 0 < a i such that i a2 i = and i ( a2 i ) =, then there is a Parseval frame {x i} for H such that x i = a i for all i. Proof of Proposition 7. For each n N, let s(n) denote the smallest integer such that c + c c s(n) > n

10 0 KERI A. KORNELSON AND DAVID R. LARSON (Such a value exists for every n since i c i =.) Denote what we will call the residual by r(n) = c + c c s(n) n and denote the integer gap by g(n) = s(n) n Then 0 < r(n), and clearly g(n) g(n + ) for all n N. Denote δ i = c i, and let d(n) = δ + δ δ n. We have g(n) = s(n) n > s(n) (c + c s(n) ) = d(s(n)) d(n) By hypothesis, i δ i =, so d(n) and thus g(n). We can therefore inductively choose an increasing sequence {n i } i= of natural numbers such that for all i 2, (6) g(n i ) g(n i ) + and (7) d(s(n i ) + n i n i + ) d(s(n i )) > 2 Note that condition 6 implies that s(n i ) s(n i ) n i n i +, and condition 7 implies that: (8) c (s(ni +)) + + c (s(ni )+n i n i +) < n i n i Let {e i } be an orthonormal basis for H, and let E i = e i e i for all i N. Let B = E + E E n + r(n )E n + and for i 2, let B i = (( r(n i ))E ni + + [ E ni E ni ] + r(ni )E ni + This gives and for i 2, trace (B ) = c + + c s(n ) trace (B i ) = [ r(n i )] + [n i n i ] + r(n i ) = [r(n i ) + n i ] [r(n i ) + n i ] = = s(n i ) j= s(n i ) c j s(n i ) j=s(n i )+ j= c j We have rank(b ) = n +, and for i 2, we have rank(b i ) n i n i +. When i 2, at least the first n i n i (in decreasing order) of the c j

11 SUMS OF RANK-ONE OPERATORS eigenvalues of B i are. (That is, all but the last two eigenvalues of B i are.) This, together with the condition (8), implies that B i and the sequence {c s(ni )+,...,c s(ni )} satisfy the hypotheses of Theorem 2. To see this, for p n i n i, the inequalities (2) in Theorem 2 are trivially satisfied. For p = n i n i, the inequality (8) implies that the sum of the first n i n i of the terms in {c s(ni )+,...,c s(ni )} is less than n i n i, which is less than or equal to the sum of the first n i n i eigenvalues of B i. Therefore, for i 2, there exist rank-one projections {P s(ni )+,...,P s(ni )} in the range of B i such that B i = c s(ni )+P s(ni )+ + + c s(ni )P s(ni ) For the special case B, since there is at most one eigenvalue different from, the hypotheses of Theorem 2 are clearly satisfied, and so there exist rank-one projections P,...P s(n ) such that For all i N, B = s(n ) j= c j P j B + + B i = E + + E ni + r(n i )E ni + Since {r(n i )} is bounded, the sum i= B i converges strongly to the identity I. It follows that i= c ip i converges strongly to I. Corollary 9. Let E be an infinite rank projection in B(H ), and let {c i } be a sequence of real numbers with 0 < c i such that i c i = and i ( c i) =. Then E has a rank-one decomposition corresponding to {c i }: E = c i P i i= Proof. Apply Proposition 7 to the subspace EH and the result follows immediately. In [6], it was proven (Theorem 2) that if B is a positive operator with essential norm strictly greater that, then B has a projection decomposition. That is, B = i P i, where {P i } are self-adjoint projections and convergence is in the strong operator topology. Clearly {P i } can be taken to be rank-one. We need here a stronger result, that each of the projections can be required to have infinite rank. Proposition 0. Let B be a positive operator in B(H ) for H a real or complex separable Hilbert space with infinite dimension, and suppose B ess >. Then B has an infinite-rank projection decomposition. Proof. The hypothesis that B ess > implies there exists a sequence {Q i } i= of mutually orthogonal infinite-rank projections commuting with

12 2 KERI A. KORNELSON AND DAVID R. LARSON B such that B Qi H ess > for all i, and with i Q i = I. Let A i = B Qi H. By Theorem 2 in [6], each A i has a projection decomposition: A i = j= Here we can assume without loss of generality that for each i, {E i,j } j= is an infinite sequence of nonzero projections because A i is not finite rank. Note that for each j, the projections {E,j,E 2,j,..., } are mutually orthogonal. Let E ij E j = E,j + E 2,j + with the sum converging strongly. Then E j is an infinite-rank projection, and we have j= E j = B, as required. Remark 3. If E is a countably infinite set of positive numbers, then it is well-known that λ E λ makes sense as an extended real number, independent of enumeration. It is also clear that if λ E λ =, then there exists a partition {E i } i= of E into infinitely many subsets such that for each i, λ E i λ =. Similarly, if {c i } i= is a sequence of positive numbers such that i c i =, there exists a partition of the sequence into infinite subsequences Λ i = {c i,j } j= such that j= a i,j = for each i. We will use this partition in the proof of the next theorem. The reader will note that Theorem is an alternate restatement of Theorem 6. We include it because it has a simpler form and has independent interest. We prove it first and then obtain Theorem 6 by a simple scaling argument. Theorem. Let B be a positive operator in B(H ) for H with B ess >. Let {c i } i= be any sequence of numbers with 0 < c i such that i c i =. Then there exists a sequence of rank-one projections {P i } i= such that B = c i P i i= Proof. Choose α, 0 < α < such that αb ess >. Using Proposition 0, write αb = n Q n, a projection decomposition with each Q n having infinite rank. Next, let γ i = αc i for all i, and partition the sequence {γ i } into subsequences Λ n as described in Remark 3. Note that for each n, sup j {γ n,j } <. Apply Corollary 9 to each operator Q n with the subsequence Λ n, obtaining rank-one projections {F n,j } j= with Q n = γ n,j F n,j j=

13 SUMS OF RANK-ONE OPERATORS 3 Scaling by α, we have the rank-one decomposition of B: B = γ n,j F n,j = c n,j F n,j α n= j= n= j= Proof of Theorem 6. We apply Theorem. Given B non-compact, we have m := B ess > 0 and sup i c i < m. Take α = m ǫ for some ǫ > 0, so that we have αb ess >, and let γ i = αc i, which gives sup i γ i <. By Theorem, there is a rank-one decomposition for αb corresponding to the sequence {γ i }: αb = γ i P i i= Scaling the above by m ǫ gives the final result. The following is the frame-theoretic version of Theorem 6. It is now clear that Theorem 5.4 from [2] is the special case of Corollary 2 in which B is the identity operator, and Theorem 2 from [6] is the case where {c i } is a constant sequence. Corollary 2. Let H be a real or complex separable Hilbert space of infinite dimension, and let B be any bounded positive invertible operator on H. Let {a i } be an arbitrary sequence of positive numbers with infinite sum and with sup i {a 2 i } < B ess. Then there is a frame {z i } for H with frame operator B such that z i = a i for all i. Proof. Let c i = a 2 i, and let α = sup i{a 2 i } = sup i{c i }. Then α < B ess, so by Theorem 6, B has a rank-one decomposition corresponding to {c i }. Let {x i } be unit vectors in the range of the rank-one operators of this decomposition, and let z i = c i x i for all i. B = i c i (x i x i ) = i z i z i By the expression () of the frame operator, {z i } is the desired frame. References [] John J. Benedetto and Matthew Fickus. Finite normalized tight frames. Preprint, 200. [2] Peter G. Casazza, Jelena Kovačević, Manuel Leon, and Janet C. Tremain. Custom built tight frames. Preprint, [3] Ingrid Daubechies. Ten Lectures on Wavelets. CBMS-NSF Regional Conference Series in Applied Mathematics. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics (SIAM), Philadelphia, PA, 992. [4] Ingrid Daubechies, A. Grossmann, and Y. Meyer. Painless nonorthogonal expansions. J. Math. Phys., 27(5):27 283, May 986. [5] R.J. Duffin and A.C. Schaeffer. A class of nonharmonic Fourier series. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc., 72(2):34 366, March 952.

14 4 KERI A. KORNELSON AND DAVID R. LARSON [6] Ken Dykema, Dan Freeman, Keri Kornelson, Dave Larson, Marc Ordower, and Eric Weber. Ellipsoidal tight frames and projection decomposition of operators. Preprint, [7] Vivek K. Goyal, Jonathan A. Kelner, and Jelena Kovačević. Quantized frame expansions with erasures. Appl. Comput. Harmon. Anal., 0: , 200. [8] Deguang Han and David R. Larson. Frames, bases, and group representations. Mem. Amer. Math Soc., 47(697): 94, September [9] Eugenio Hernández and Guido Weiss. A First Course in Wavelets. CRC Press, LLC, Boca Raton, FL, 996. [0] R. Horn and C. Johnson. Topics in Matrix Analysis. Cambridge University Press, 99. [] Kadison and Ringrose. Fundamentals of the Theory of Operator Algebras, Volume, volume 5 of Graduate Studies in Mathematics. American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 997. Texas A&M University address: keri@math.tamu.edu Texas A&M University address: larson@math.tamu.edu