15

Consider an exponential polynomial $$f(t)=\sum_{k=1}^na_k\exp(i\lambda_kt),$$ where $a_k$ are complex and $\lambda_k, t$ real. The usual form of the Mean Motion Theorem says that the limit $$\lim_{t\to+\infty}\frac{\arg f(t)}{t}$$ exists. (If $f$ has real zeros one defines $\arg f$ by bypassing them along small half-circles in the upper half-plane).

All books that I know mention that this was conjectured by Lagrange, and proved by P. Bohl for $n=3$ and by B. Jessen and H. Tornehave (1945) in general, after earlier incomplete proofs by H. Weyl and P. Hartman. However in the paper of Bohl, a much more subtle question is actually studied, namely whether we have $$\arg f(t)=ct+O(1).$$ He shows that for $n=3$ this is sometimes the case, sometimes not, and gives an exact condition in terms of $a_k,\lambda_k$. My question is:

Has anyone ever continued this line of inquiery? Can $$\arg f(t)=ct+o(t)$$ be improved: a) in general, b) under some additional conditions on $a_k,\lambda_k$?

Of course one such condition is known since Lagrange: if $|a_1|>\sum_{k=2}^n|a_k|$, then the error term is $O(1)$.

Ref. P. Bohl, "Über ein in der Theorie der säkularen Störungen vorkommendes Problem", J. reine angew Math. 135 (1909) 189-283. There is a Russian translation in P. Bohl, Collected Works, Riga, Znanie, 1974.

  • @მამუკა ჯიბლაძე: Thanks for the editing. I am unable to remember how to type foreign language accents and umlauts in html. And Math Jack only handles the formulas. – Alexandre Eremenko Aug 18 '17 at 19:39
  • Should the formula be $\sum a_k \exp(i \lambda_k t)$? (This differs from the stated formula by an $i$ in the argument of $\exp$.) – David E Speyer Dec 17 '18 at 16:11
  • @David E Speyer: Yes, thanks. I corrected. – Alexandre Eremenko Dec 17 '18 at 16:46
  • Something with the last sentence is wrong because $|a_1| > \sum_{k=1}^{n}|a_k|$ makes no sense. – Sam Hopkins Dec 18 '18 at 00:53
  • I don't think the result can be improved in general except for the Lagrangian case. Already for $N=2$ it was shown by Bernstein that in "most cases" the remainder is generally unbouded. There is a fairly extensive review by Jessen and Tornehave that you are probably aware of, but I'm not sure if they address your question there. – lcv Dec 19 '18 at 02:18
  • @Icv: Bohl's result shows that for n=3 it can be improved in cases, different from Lagrange's case. Look in Bohl's paper! – Alexandre Eremenko Feb 25 '24 at 13:17

0 Answers0