1 Erratum to: J Fourier Anal Appl DOI 10.1007/s00041-015-9442-x
The line between the displayed formulas (16) and (17) was copied incorrectly from [41, Theorem 1]. It should read as follows: “Suppose that there exist trigonometric polynomials \({\widetilde{P}}_1({\mathbf {t}}), \ldots , {\widetilde{P}}_M(\mathbf{t})\) such that”. In addition, in the proof of Lemma 3 we overlooked to prove that the functions \({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(j)}(\mathbf{t})\) are \({\mathbb {Z}}^n\)-periodic. This makes it necessary to reformulate Lemma 3. The statement and proof of Theorem 3 remain the same, but we wish to emphasize that the polynomials \(L_{0}(A^T{\mathbf {t}})\) and \(L_{1}(A^T{\mathbf {t}})\) are generated by the algorithm described in Theorem E.
Lemma 3
Let \(\Omega := \{0,1/2\}^d\setminus \varvec{\Gamma }_{A^T}\), let \(u_{n,m}(t)\) and \(h_{n,m}(t)\) be trigonometric polynomials that satisfy (19), let \(P_{n,m}(\mathbf {t})\) be defined by (11), let \({\mathbf{u}} \in {\mathbb {Z}}^d\) be such that \(r_1(A) \cdot {\mathbf{u}} =1/2\), let \(K=2^d-2\), and let \(\rho : \Omega \rightarrow \{ d+1,\ldots , K + d \}\) be a bijection. Let
-
\({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(j)}(A^T{\mathbf {t}}) := h_{n,m}( t_j)\prod _{s={j+1}}^d u_{n,m}( t_s), \ j=1,\ldots , d - 1\),
-
\({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(d)}(A^T{\mathbf {t}}) := h_{n,m}( t_d),\)
and
then \({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(j)}({\mathbf {t}})\), \(j=1\ldots , K+d\), are trigonometric polynomials and
Proof
We start by showing that the \({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(j)}({\mathbf {t}})\) are \({\mathbb {Z}}^d\)-periodic polynomials. Assume first that \(1 \le j \le d-1\). Since \(g_{n,2m}(t ) + g_{n,2m}(t + 1/2 )\) has period 1 / 2 we readily see that also the polynomials \(h_{n,m}(t)\) and \(u_{n,m}(t)\) have period 1 / 2. This in turn implies that \(P_{n,m}(A^T{\mathbf {t}})\) is \((1/2){\mathbb {Z}}^d\)-periodic. It will therefore suffice to show that if \(\mathbf {k} \in {\mathbb {R}}^d\) and \(\mathbf {x} = (A^T)^{-1} \mathbf {k}\), then \(\mathbf {x} \in (1/2){\mathbb {Z}}^d\). Since the determinant of \(A^T\) equals \(\pm 2\) and the columns of \(A^T\) are in \({\mathbb {Z}}^d\) this readily follows by an application of Cramer’s rule.
From the definition it is also obvious that \({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(d)}({\mathbf {t}})\) is \({\mathbb {Z}}^d\)-periodic.
We now establish the \({\mathbb {Z}}^d\)-periodicity of the functions \({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(\rho ({\mathbf {r}})) }({\mathbf {t}})\). Let \(k \in {\mathbb {Z}}^d\). If \(\mathbf {k}= A^T(\mathbf {k}_1)\) for some \(\mathbf {k}_1 \in {\mathbb {Z}}^d\), then the \({\mathbb {Z}}^d\)-periodicity of the polynomials \(P_{n,m}({\mathbf {t}})\) readily imply that \({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(j)}({\mathbf {t}} + \mathbf {k}) = {\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(j)}({\mathbf {t}})\). On the other hand, if \(\mathbf {k}= A^T(\mathbf {r}_1(A)+ \mathbf {k}_2)\) for some \(\mathbf {k}_2 \in {\mathbb {Z}}^d\), the assertion follows by observing that \(2 \mathbf {r}_1(A) \in {\mathbb {Z}}^n\) and \(e^{i 2\pi ({\mathbf {t}} + \mathbf {r}_1(A)) \cdot {\mathbf{u}} } = - e^{i 2\pi {\mathbf {t}} \cdot {\mathbf{u}} }\).
Let \(\varvec{\Gamma }=\varvec{\Gamma }_{A^T}\). We claim that for \(\mathbf {r}\in \Omega \) there exists an unique \(\widetilde{\mathbf {r}} \in \Omega \), \(\widetilde{\mathbf {r}} \ne \mathbf {r}\), such that \(\mathbf {r}+ \mathbf {r}_1(A) + \mathbf {k}_3 = \widetilde{\mathbf {r}}\) for some \(\mathbf {k}_3 \in {\mathbb {Z}}^d\). Let us verify this assertion. Since \(\mathbf {r}+ \mathbf {r}_1(A) \in \{ 0,{\frac{1}{2}}, 1 \}^d\), there exists an unique \(\mathbf {k}_3 \in {\mathbb {Z}}^d\) such that \( \mathbf {r}+ \mathbf {r}_1(A) + \mathbf {k}_3 \in \{ 0,{\frac{1}{2}}\}^d\). Let \(\widetilde{\mathbf {r}} := \mathbf {r}+ \mathbf {r}_1(A) + \mathbf {k}_3\). We need to show that \(\widetilde{\mathbf {r}}\) is neither \((0,\ldots , 0)\) nor \(\mathbf {r}_1(A)\) nor r. If \(\widetilde{\mathbf {r}} = (0,\ldots , 0) \) then \( \mathbf {r}+ \mathbf {r}_1(A) \in \{ 0, 1 \}^d\). This implies that \(\mathbf {r}= \mathbf {r}_1(A)\), which contradicts the hypothesis that \(\mathbf {r}\in \Omega \). In similar fashion we can see that \(\widetilde{\mathbf {r}}\) is neither \(\mathbf {r}_1(A)\) nor \(\mathbf {r}\).
Conversely, there exists an unique \({\mathbf {k}}_4 \in {\mathbb {Z}}^d\) such that \(\widetilde{\mathbf {r}}+ \mathbf {r}_1(A) + {\mathbf {k}}_4 = \mathbf {r}\). Indeed, repeating the preceding argument we conclude that there exists an unique \({\mathbf {k}}_5 \in {\mathbb {Z}}^d\) such that \(\widetilde{\mathbf {r}}+ \mathbf {r}_1(A) + {\mathbf {k}}_5 \in \{ 0, {\frac{1}{2}}\}^d\). Let \({\mathbf {k}}_4 := {\mathbf {k}}_5\). Since \(\widetilde{\mathbf {r}}= \mathbf {r}+ \mathbf {r}_1(A) + {\mathbf {k}}_3\), it follows that \(\mathbf {r}+ 2 \mathbf {r}_1(A) + {\mathbf {k}}_3 + {\mathbf {k}}_4 \in \{ 0, {\frac{1}{2}}\}^d.\) Bearing in mind that \(2 \mathbf {r}_1(A) \in {\mathbb {Z}}^d\) and \(\mathbf {r}\in \Omega \), we have \( 2 \mathbf {r}_1(A) + {\mathbf {k}}_3 + {\mathbf {k}}_4 = \mathbf{0}\). Thus
We have therefore shown that there exist two disjoint sets \(\Omega _1, \Omega _2 \subset \Omega \), such that \(\Omega = \Omega _1 \cup \Omega _2\) and for any \(\mathbf {r}\in \Omega _1\) there exists an unique \(\widetilde{\mathbf {r}} \in \Omega _2\) such that \(\widetilde{\mathbf {r}} = \mathbf {r}+ \mathbf {r}_1(A) + \mathbf {k}\) and \(\mathbf {r}= \widetilde{\mathbf {r}}+ \mathbf {r}_1(A) + {{\mathbf m}} \) for some \(\mathbf {k}, {{\mathbf m}} \in {\mathbb {Z}}^d\). Since, moreover, \({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(\rho ({\mathbf {r}})) }(A^T{\mathbf {t}})\) and \({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(\rho (\widetilde{\mathbf {r}})) }(A^T{\mathbf {t}})\) are complex conjugates of each other, we readily see that
Therefore
The remainder of the proof is a repetition of the argument used in the original version of this lemma. \(\square \)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Communicated by Stephan Dahlke.
The online version of the original article can be found under doi:10.1007/s00041-015-9442-x.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
San Antolín, A., Zalik, R.A. Erratum to: Some Smooth Compactly Supported Tight Wavelet Frames with Vanishing Moments. J Fourier Anal Appl 24, 1681–1683 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00041-017-9549-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00041-017-9549-3