Erratum to: Some Smooth Compactly Supported Tight Wavelet Frames with Vanishing Moments
- 426 Downloads
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
-
\({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(j)}(A^T{\mathbf {t}}) := h_{n,m}( t_j)\prod _{s={j+1}}^d u_{n,m}( t_s), \ j=1,\ldots , d - 1\),
-
\({\widetilde{P}}_{n,m}^{(d)}(A^T{\mathbf {t}}) := h_{n,m}( t_d),\)
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 \(\mathbf {r}\).