On extensions of wavelet systems to dual pairs of frames (Q273678): Difference between revisions

Let \(\varphi\), \(\tilde{\varphi}\in L^2(\mathbb R)\) be refinable/scaling functions satisfying \(\hat{\varphi}(2\gamma)=m_0(\gamma)\hat{\varphi}(\gamma)\) and \(\hat{\tilde{\varphi}}(2\gamma)=\tilde{m}_0(\gamma)\hat{\tilde{\varphi}}(\gamma)\) for some 1-periodic trigonometric polynomials \(m_0\) and \(\tilde{m}_0\) with \(m_0(1/2)=\tilde{m}_0(1/2)=0\). Let \(m_\ell\) and \(\tilde{m_\ell}\), \(\ell=1,\ldots, n\) be 1-periodic trigonometric polynomials with \(m_\ell(0)=\tilde{m}_\ell(0)=0\). Define \(\hat{\psi}_\ell(\gamma):=m_\ell(\gamma/2)\hat{\varphi}(\gamma/2)\) and \(\hat{\tilde \psi}_\ell(\gamma):=\tilde{m}_\ell(\gamma/2)\hat{\tilde{\varphi}}(\gamma/2)\). The extensions of wavelet systems to dual pairs of wavelet frames can be formulated as follows: For given \(m_0,\tilde{m}_0\) and \(m_1,\tilde{m}_1\), one has a pair of Bessel sequences \((\{2^{j/2}\psi_1(2^j\cdot-k)\}_{j,k\in \mathbb Z}, \{2^{j/2}\tilde{\psi}_1(2^j\cdot-k)\}_{j,k\in \mathbb Z})\). The extension problem is whether there exist 1-periodic trigonometric polynomials \(m_2,\ldots, m_n, \tilde{m}_2,\ldots, \tilde{m}_n\), with the smallest possible integer \(n\), so that the pair \((\psi_1,\tilde{\psi}_1)\) can be extended into \((\{\psi_1,\ldots,\psi_n\},\{\tilde{\psi}_1,\ldots, \tilde{\psi}_n\})\), which generates a pair of dual wavelet frames. For \(n=2\), under the conditions (a)--(c) in Lemma 4, the authors show in Theorem 6 that this claim holds if and only if the identity \(\tilde{M}_\alpha(\gamma)\tilde{M}_\alpha(\gamma+1/2) =\tilde{M}_\beta(\gamma)\tilde{M}_\beta(\gamma+1/2)\) holds for all \(\gamma\in \mathbb T\), where \(\tilde{M}_\alpha(\gamma):=1-\overline{m_0(\gamma)}\tilde{m}_0(\gamma) -\overline{m_1(\gamma)}\tilde{m}_1(\gamma)\) and \(\tilde{M}_\beta(\gamma):=-\overline{m_0(\gamma)}\tilde{m}_0(\gamma+1/2) -\overline{m_1(\gamma)}\tilde{m}_1(\gamma+1/2)\). Several interesting examples are presented for the case \(n=2\). For \(n=3\), under the conditions (a)--(c) in Lemma 4, the authors prove in Theorem 11 that the claim is always possible.