Skip to main content

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Front. Phys., 24 June 2022
Sec. Statistical and Computational Physics

Stability of Woven Frames

Xue-Bin Li
Xue-Bin Li1*Yu-Can ZhuYu-Can Zhu2
  • 1Department of Mathematics and Statistics, Zhoukou Normal University, Zhoukou, China
  • 2Department of Mathematics and Computer Science, Fuzhou University, Fuzhou, China

This article studies the stability of woven frames by introducing some special limits. We show that there exist certain relations among the different types of convergence of frames and obtain some new and more general stability results. As an application of these results, we provide a method for constructing woven frames.

1 Introduction

Woven frames with some applications in coding and decoding [6, 9], distributed signal processing [6], and wireless sensor networks [1, 4] were first introduced in 2015 by Bemrose, Casazza, Grochenig, Lammers, and Lynch [1, 4]. Right now, it has been generalized to g-frames [10], K-frames [5, 11], fusion frames [8], etc.

Definition 1.1. A family {fi}i=1 for separable Hilbert space H is said to be a frame if there exist 0 < AB < ∞ such that

Af2i=1|f,fi|2Bf2,fH,

where A, B are the lower frame bound and upper frame bound, respectively.If only the second inequality is required, it is called a Bessel sequence, and the B is called the Bessel sequence bound. For a Bessel sequence {fi}i=1, the synthesis operator is defined by

T:l2NH,Tc=i=1cifi,c=cii=1l2N

is bounded. Its adjoint operator T is called the analysis operator. The composite operator S = TT is bounded, positive, and self-adjoint, and it is called the frame operator while {fi}i=1 is a frame for H.

Definition 1.2. The frames family {{fij}i=1|j[m]} for separable Hilbert space H is woven, if there are universal constants 0 < AB < ∞ such that

Af2j=1miσj|f,fij|2Bf2,fH,

for every partition {σj}j[m] of N. The family {fij}iσj,j[m] is called a weaving for every partition {σj}j[m] of N.We note that i,j,k,mN and m ≥ 2, [m] = {1, 2, … , m}, σ={σj}j[m] is a partition of N, Ω=σ|σ={σj}j[m] is any partition of N. H is a separable Hilbert space, {fij}i=1 and {fij(k)}i=1 are the Bessel sequences for H, F={{fij}i=1|j[m]} and Fk={{fij(k)}i=1|j[m]} are the families of Bessel sequences. The synthesis operators of {fij(k)}i=1, {fij}i=1, {fij(k)}iσj, {fij}iσj are listed as follows:

Tjkc=i=1cifijk,Tjc=i=1cifij,c=cii=1l2N;Tσjkc=iσjcifijk,Tσjc=iσjcifij,c=ciiσjl2σj.

Moreover, Sσj(k)=Tσj(k)Tσj(k),Sσj=TσjTσj,Sσ(k)=j=1mSσj(k) and Sσ=j=1mSσj for any fH and σ={σj}j[m]Ω.This article focuses on the stability of woven frames, i.e., answers the following question: Suppose that the frames family {{fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with universal lower and upper bounds A and B. We want to find some conditions about {{fijgij}i=1|j[m]} such that the family {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H. In m = 2 case, this question was first considered by Bemrose, Casazza, Grochenig, Lammers, and Lynch [1, 4], after that it was reconsidered by Ghobadzadeh, Najati, Anastassiou, and Park [7], right now their results have been generalized to K-frames, fusion frames, g-frames, and so on. Analyzing the existing results, it is not difficult to find that they are all based on sufficiently small perturbation. In order to explore the relations among them and generalize them from m = 2 to 2 ≤ m < , we introduce four types of convergence of frames FkF.

1.1 Strong Convergence

In this case, the limit F is unique. Naturally, if the frames family F is woven for H, then all Fk in a sufficiently small neighborhood of F is woven for H.

1.2 Convergence in Terms of Synthesis Operator or Analysis Operator

Note that the two types of convergence are equivalent. In both cases, the limit F is not necessarily unique, but the synthesis operators of frames in F are unique, this means that the corresponding analysis operators are also unique. Similarly to the first case, if the frames family F is woven for H, then Fk is woven for all sufficiently big k.

1.3 Convergence in Terms of Frame Operator Sσ

In this case, the limit F, the corresponding synthesis operators, and the analysis operators of frames in limit F are not necessarily unique, but the universal infimum and supremum of F are unique. This implies that the judgment theorem about Fk still holds.

It can be proved that type 1 implies type 2 and 3, type 2 and 3 imply type 4, but the reverse is not true. More generally, we conjecture that there probably exist other types of convergence and some different results about the stability of woven frames can be obtained from the new type of convergence.

This article is organized as follows: In Section 2, we introduce some special limits for woven frames and show the relations among different types of convergence of frames. In Section 3, we show some new results about the stability of woven frames.

2 Convergence for Woven Frames

In this section, we introduce four types of convergence for woven frames and discuss the relations among them.

Definition 2.1. We say a point sequence {Fk}k=1 strongly converges to the point F if limkmaxj[m]i=1fij(k)fij2=0.

Definition 2.2. We say a point sequence {Fk}k=1 converges to the point F in terms of synthesis operator if limkmaxj[m]Tj(k)Tj=0.

Definition 2.3. We say a point sequence {Fk}k=1 converges to the point F in terms of analysis operator if limkmaxj[m]Tj(k)Tj=0.It is known that Tj(k)Tj=Tj(k)Tj, thus {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of synthesis operator if and only if {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of analysis operator.

Definition 2.4. We say a point sequence {Fk}k=1 converges to the point F in terms of frame operator Sσ if limksupσΩSσ(k)Sσ=0.Next, we show the relations among the four types of convergence in Theorem 2.5 and Theorem 2.6.

Theorem 2.5. While {Fk}k=1 strongly converges to F or {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of analysis operator or synthesis operator, we have limkfij(k)fij=0 for all iN,j[m].Proof. From

fijkfij2i=1fijkfij2,fijkfijTjkTj=TjkTj

for all i,kN and j ∈ [m], we can obtain this theorem.

Theorem 2.6. If {Fk}k=1 strongly converges to F then {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of analysis operator; {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of analysis operator if and only if {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of synthesis operator; If {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of synthesis operator then {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of frame operator Sσ.Proof. It is obvious that {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of synthesis operator if and only if {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of analysis operator. For all fH and ‖f‖ = 1, we compute

TjkfTjf2=i=1|f,fijkfij|2i=1f2fijkfij2=i=1fijkfij2.

From limkmaxj[m]i=1fij(k)fij2=0, we have limkmaxj[m]Tj(k)Tj=0. This means that if {Fk}k=1 strongly converges to F then {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of analysis operator. We compute

SσjkSσj=TσjkTσjkTσjTσj=TσjkTσjkTσjkTσj+TσjkTσjTσjTσjTσjkTσjkTσj+TσjkTσjTσjTσjkTσjkTσj+TσjkTσjTσj=Tσjk+TσjTσjkTσj.

Note that

TσjkTjk,TσjTj,TσjkTσjTjkTj,

so

SσjkSσjTjk+TjTjkTjMjTjkTj

for some positive Mj. Furthermore,

SσkSσ=jmSσjkjmSσjjmSσjkSσjjmMjTjkTj.

From limkmaxj[m]Tj(k)Tj=0, we have limksupσΩSσj(k)Sσj=0. It means that if {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of synthesis operator then {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of frame operator Sσ.The following Example 2.7 and Example 2.8 show that the inverse proposition of Theorem 2.6 is untenable.

Example 2.7. Let {ei}i=1 be an orthonormal basis for H. If fij(k)=(1+1k+i)ei,fij=ei for all i,kN,j[m], then {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of analysis operator, but {Fk}k=1 does not strongly converge to F.Proof. From

TjkTjf2=i=1f,1k+iei21k+1f2,fH,

we have limkmaxj[m]Tj(k)Tj=0, i.e., {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of analysis operator. From

i=1fijkfij2=i=1eik+i2=i=1ei2k+i=i=11k+i=,

we have that {Fk}k=1 does not strongly converge to F.

Example 2.8. Let {fi}i=1 be a Parseval frame for H. If fij(k)=fij=fi for all i,kN,j[m], then {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of frame operator Sσ, but {Fk}k=1does not converge to F in terms of synthesis operator.Proof. We compute

limkfijkfij=limk2fi>0

for all iN,j[m] and

limksupσΩSσkSσ=limksupσΩ0=0.

From Definition 2.4 and Theorem 2.5, we complete the proof.

3 Stability of Woven Frames

This section discusses the stability of woven frames by limits in Section 2. We generalize the existing results from m = 2 to 2 ≤ m < . Moreover, many new woven frames can be obtained by using the limits.

In Theorem 3.1, Corollary 3.2, and Theorem 3.4, we discuss the stability of woven frames in terms of frame operator Sσ.

Theorem 3.1. Suppose that the frames family F is woven for H with universal bounds A and B. If {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of frame operator Sσ then for any non-negative number ɛ < A there exists a natural number N such that supσΩSσ(k)Sσε for every k > N, this implies that Fk is woven for H with universal bounds Aɛ and B + ɛ for every k > N.Proof. If {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of frame operator Sσ, from the Definition 2.4, for any ɛ < A there exists a natural number N such that supσΩSσ(k)Sσε for all k > N. Hence,

SσkfSσfSσkfSσfSσfSσkSσfAεf

and

SσkfSσf+SσkfSσfSσf+SσkSσfB+εf,

i.e., (Aε)fSσ(k)f(B+ε)f for all fH and σ ∈ Ω. This implies that the bounded linear operator Sσ(k) is an injection. It is known that the operator Sσ(k) is self-adjoint, thus Sσ(k) is also a surjection. From Sσ(k)=Tσ(k)Tσ(k) we have Tσ(k) is a surjection, this implies that {fij(k)}iσj,j[m] is a frame for H with the frame operator Sσ(k). Hence Fk is woven with universal bounds Aɛ and B+ ɛ for every k > N.

Corollary 3.2. Suppose that the frames family {{fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with universal bounds A, B and {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is a family of Bessel sequences for H. If there exist non-negative numbers αj, μj satisfied ε=j=1m(αjB+μj)<A such that

iσjf,fijfijiσjf,gijgijαji=1f,fijfij+μjf,fH,

for any j ∈ [m] and σ ∈ Ω, then {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds Aɛ and B+ ɛ.Proof. Since

j=1miσjf,fijfijj=1miσjf,gijgijj=1miσjf,fijfijiσjf,gijgij

and

j=1mαji=1f,fijfij+μjfj=1mαjB+μjf,fH,

combing with the inequality in Corollary 3.2, we have

j=1miσjf,fijfijj=1miσjf,gijgijj=1mαjB+μjf<Af,fH.

Take ε=j=1m(αjB+μj)<A and {{gij}i=1|j[m]} can be regarded as Fk for some k > N, from Theorem 3.1, we obtain Corollary 3.2.

Example 3.3. Suppose that the frames family {{fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal bounds A, B and {ei}i=1 is an orthonormal basis for H. If the number λ, δ satisfied

1m1AB1<λ1,0δ<m1A+2λ21BλB,

then the family {{δeiλfij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds Am[(1λ2)B+2λδB+δ2],B+m[(1λ2)B+2λδB+δ2].Proof. Let gij = δeiλfij for all iN,j[m]. Then {gij}iσj,j[m] is a Bessel sequence for H with bound (δ+λB)2 and λfij + gij = δei for iN,j[m].Let

M1=iσjf,λfijλfijiσjf,gijgij,M=iσjf,fijfijiσjf,gijgij,fH.

Then,

M1=iσjf,λfijλfij+gijiσjf,λfij+gijgij=iσjf,λfijδeiiσjf,δeigijiσjf,λfijδei+iσjf,δeigijλδBf+δδ+λBf=2λδB+δ2f,

and furthermore,

M=1λ2iσjf,fijfij+M11λ2iσjf,fijfij+M1,

where

1m1AB1<λ1,0δ<m1A+2λ21BλB,

i.e.,

ε=m1λ2B+m2λδB+δ2<A,

and by Corrolary 3.2, we have {{δeiλfij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds

Am1λ2B+2λδB+δ2,B+m1λ2B+2λδB+δ2.

The proof is completed.Similarly to the classical perturbations of frames, we have the following Theorem 3.4.

Theorem 3.4. Suppose that the frames family {{fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal bounds A, B and {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is a family of Bessel sequences for H. If there exist non-negative numbers α, β, μ satisfied maxα+μA,β<1 such that

j=1miσjf,fijfijj=1miσjf,gijgijαj=1miσjf,fijfij+βj=1miσjf,gijgij+μf

for any fH and σ ∈ Ω, then {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds ((1 − α)Aμ)(1 + β)−1 and ((1 + α)B+ μ)(1 − β)−1Proof. Let

Sσf=j=1miσjf,fijfij,Sσf=j=1miσjf,gijgij,fH,σΩ.

Then,

SσfSσf+SσfSσf1+αSσf+βSσf+μf1+αB+μf+βSσf,fH,σΩ,

and this implies that Sσf((1+α)B+μ)(1β)1f for any fH, σ ∈ Ω. On the other hand,

SσfSσfSσfSσf1αSσfβSσfμf1αAμfβSσf,fH,σΩ,

and this implies that Sσf((1α)Aμ)(1+β)1f for any fH, σ ∈ Ω.Since Sσ=TσTσ is self-adjoint and maxα+μA,β<1, we have Sσ is a surjection, i.e., the synthesis operator Tσ is a surjection. This means that {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H. Furthermore, we can obtain the universal lower and upper bounds ((1 − α)Aμ)(1 + β)−1 and ((1 + α)B+ μ)(1 − β)−1 by the frame operator Sσ.

Example 3.5. Suppose that the frames family {{fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal bounds A, B and {ei}i=1 is an orthonormal basis for H. If the number λ, η, δ satisfied

0<λ21,0<η21,0δ2<λ2A+BB2,

then the family {{δη1eiλη1fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds

λ2A2|λδ|B+δ22η2,2λ2B+2|λδ|B+δ2η2.

Proof. Let gij = δη−1eiλη−1fij for all iN,j[m]. Then, λfij + ηgij = δei for all iN,j[m] and {gij}iσj,j[m] is a Bessel sequence for H with the bound (|δ||η1|+|λ||η1|B)2 from

j=1miσjcigijj=1miσjciδη1ei+j=1miσjciλη1fij|δ||η1|+|λ||η1|Bc

for all c={ci}i=1l2(N) and ‖c‖ = 1. Let

M1=j=1miσjf,λfijλfijj=1miσjf,ηgijηgij,fH

and

M=j=1miσjf,fijfijj=1miσjf,gijgij,fH.

Then,

M1=j=1miσjf,λfijλfij+ηgijj=1miσjf,λfij+ηgijηgij=j=1miσjf,λfijδeij=1miσjf,δeiηgijj=1miσjf,λfijδei+j=1miσjf,δeiηgij|λδ|Bf+|δη||δ||η1|+|λ||η1|Bf=2|λδ|B+δ2f,

and further more,

M=1λ2j=1miσjf,fijfij1η2j=1miσjf,gijgij+M11λ2j=1miσjf,fijfij+1η2j=1miσjf,gijgij+M1,

where

0<λ2,η21,0δ2<λ2A+BB2,

i.e.,

max1λ2+2|λδ|B+δ2A,1η2<1,

and by Theorem 3.4, we have {{δη1eiλη1fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds

λ2A2|λδ|B+δ22η2,2λ2B+2|λδ|B+δ2η2.

The proof is completed.Lemma 3.6 is a remarkable result on the perturbation of frames.

Lemma 3.6. [2] Suppose that {fi}i=1 is a frame for H with the bounds A and B, {gi}i=1H. If there exist non-negative numbers α, β, μ satisfied maxα+μA,β<1 such that for any c1,c2,,cn(nN), we have

i=1ncifii=1ncigiαi=1ncifi+βi=1ncigi+μi=1n|ci|212

then {gi}i=1 is a frame for H with bounds A(1α+β+μ/A1+β)2 and B(1+α+β+μ/B1β)2.From this lemma, we can obtain the following theorem.

Theorem 3.7. Suppose that the frames family F is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds A and B. If {Fk}k=1 converges to F in terms of analysis operator or synthesis operator then for any non-negative number ε<A there exists a natural number N such that j=1mTj(k)Tj=j=1mTj(k)Tjε for every k > N, this implies that Fk is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2 for every k > N.Proof. For any σ={σj}j=1mΩ and c={ci}i=1l2(N), we compute

j=1miσjcifijj=1miσjcifijkj=1miσjcifijiσjcifijkj=1mTσjTσjkiσj|ci|212.

Combining with

TσjTσjkf=f,fijfijkiσj,TjTjkf=f,fijfijki=1

for fH and

TσjTσjk=supf=1iσj|f,fijfijk|212supf=1i=1|f,fijfijk|212=TjTjk,

we have

j=1mTσjTσjkiσj|ci|212j=1mTjTjki=1|ci|212εi=1|ci|212

for c={ci}i=1l2(N). Let {gi}i=1={fij(k)}iσj,j[m] and {fi}i=1={fij}iσj,j[m], then i=1cifii=1cigiεi=1|ci|212, this implies that i=1ncifii=1ncigiεi=1n|ci|212. From Lemma 3.6, the frames family Fk is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2 for every k > N.

Corollary 3.8. Suppose that F is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds A and B. If {Fk}k=1 strongly converges to F then for any non-negative number ε<A there exists a natural number N such that j=1mi=1fij(k)fij212ε for every k > N, this implies that Fk is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2 for every k > N.Proof. From the proof of Theorem 2.6, we have

j=1mTjk*Tj*=j=1mTjkTjj=1mi=1fijkfij212ε<A.

By Theorem 3.7, we have that Fk is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2 for every k > N.

Example 3.9. Suppose that F is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds A, B and {ei}i=1 is an orthonormal basis for H. If

fijk=fij+2k+im1AeiiN,jm

then Fk is woven for H for every kN.Proof. From

j=1mi=1fijkfij212<j=1mm1A=A,

we complete the proof.

Corollary 3.10. Suppose that the frames family {{fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds A, B and {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is a family of sequences for H. If there exist non-negative numbers αj, βj, μj satisfied ε=j=1m(αj+βj)B+μj(1βj)1<A such that for any c1,c2,,cn(nN) and j ∈ [m], we have

i=1ncifiji=1ncigijαji=1ncifij+βji=1ncigij+μji=1n|ci|212,

then {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2.Proof. By Lemma 3.6, we have that for any j ∈ [m], {gij}i=1 is a frame for H with bounds A(1αj+βj+μj/A1+βj)2 and B(1+αj+βj+μj/B1βj)2. Hence,

i=1ncifiji=1ncigijαji=1ncifij+βji=1ncigij+μji=1n|ci|212αjB+βjB1+αj+βj+μj/B1βj+μji=1n|ci|212=αj+βjB+μj1βj1i=1n|ci|212,αj+βjB+μj1βj1i=1|ci|212,

and let n; then, we have

i=1cifiji=1cigijαj+βjB+μj1βj1i=1|ci|212,

i.e., Tj(k)Tj(αj+βj)B+μj(1βj)1, where

Tjcii=1=i=1cifij,Tjkcii=1=i=1cigij,cii=1l2N.

Computing

j=1mTjkTjj=1mαj+βjB+μj1βj1=ε<A,

from Theorem 3.7, the frames family {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2.

Example 3.11. Suppose that the frames family {{fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal bounds A, B and {ei}i=1 is an orthonormal basis for H. If the number λ, η, δ satisfied

1AmB<λ1,m2λBmB+A<η1,0δ<m1ηA2ληB,

then the family {{λη1fijδη1ei}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds

A1m2ληB+mδηA2,B1+m2ληB+mδηB2.

Proof. Let gij = λη−1fijδη−1ei, i.e. λfijηgij = δeij for iN,j[m]. Then

i=1ncifiji=1ncigij=1λi=1ncifij1ηi=1ncigij+δi=1nciei1λi=1ncifij+1ηi=1ncigij+δi=1n|ci|212,

where

1AmBλ1,m2λBmB+A<η1,0δ<m1ηA2ληB

satisfied

ε=j=1m1λ+1ηB+δη1=m2ληB+mδη1<A.

By Corollary 3.10, the family {{λη1fijδη1ei}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds

A1m2ληB+mδηA2,B1+m2ληB+mδηB2.

We complete the proof.From Theorem 3.7 or Corollary 3.10, we can obtain Theorem 3.2, Theorem 3.3, Proposition 3.4, and Corollary 3.5 in [7], and obtain Theorem 6.1 in [1]. The following corollary is obvious from Corollary 3.10.

Corollary 3.12. Suppose that the frames family {{fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds A, B and {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is a family of sequences for H. If there exist non-negative numbers αj, μj satisfied ε=j=1m(αjB+μj)<A such that for any c1,c2,,cn(nN) and j ∈ [m], we have

i=1ncifiji=1ncigijαji=1ncifij+μji=1n|ci|212,

and then, {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2.

Corollary 3.13. Suppose that the frames family {{fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with universal lower and upper bounds A, B and {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is a family of Bessel sequences for H. If there exist non-negative numbers αj, μj satisfied ε=j=1m(αjB+μj)<A such that for any j ∈ [m], we have

i=1|f,fijgij|212αji=1|f,fij|212+μjf,fH,

and then, {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2.Proof. We compute

i=1|f,fijgij|212αji=1|f,fij|212+μjfαjB+μjf,fH,

i.e., Tj(k)Tj(αjB+μj), where

Tjf=f,fiji=1,Tjkf=f,giji=1,fH.

Hence j=1mTj(k)Tjj=1m(αjB+μj)=ε<A. From Theorem 3.7, we have that {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2.

Corollary 3.14. Suppose that the frames family {{fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds A, B and {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is a family of Bessel sequences for H. If there exist non-negative numbers αj, μj satisfied ε=j=1mαjB+μj<A such that for any j ∈ [m], we have

i=1|f,fijgij|2αji=1|f,fij|2+μjf2,fH,

and then, {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2.Proof. We compute

i=1|f,fijgij|2αji=1|f,fij|2+μjf2αjB+μjf2,fH,

i.e., Tj(k)TjαjB+μj, where

Tjf=f,fiji=1,Tjkf=f,giji=1,fH.

Hence, j=1mTj(k)Tjj=1mαjB+μj=ε<A. From Theorem 3.7, we have that {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2.

Example 3.15. Suppose that {fi}i=1 is a Parseval frame for H and fij = fi for all iN,j[m], then {{fij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H with the universal lower and upper bounds 1. Take gij=fi+1m2fi for all iN,j[m], we have {{gij}i=1|j[m]} is woven for H.Proof. Computing

iσjf,fijfijiσjf,gijgij=2m21m4iσjf,fjfj2m21m4f

and

j=1miσjf,fijfijj=1miσjf,gijgij=2m21m4i=1f,fjfj=2m21m4f

for fH, j ∈ [m] and σ ∈ Ω, from Theorem 3.1, Corollary 3.2, or Theorem 3.4, we have {{gij}i=1|j[m]} that is woven for H. Furthermore, we can obtain that the universal lower and upper bounds (11m2)2 and 1+2m21m4.Note that Example 3.15 can be proved by Theorem 3.1, Corollary 3.2, or Theorem 3.4, but it cannot be proved from Theorem 3.7.

Example 3.16. Let {ψj}j[m],{φj}j[m]L2(R) and a > 1, b > 0 be given, and assume that the wavelet frames family {an/2ψj(anxkb)}n,kZj[m] is woven for L2(R) with the universal lower and upper bounds A, B. If

R1bmaxjmsup|γ|1,an,kZψ̂jφ̂jajγψ̂jφ̂jajγ+k/b<Am2,

then {an/2φj(anxkb)}n,kZj[m] is woven for L2(R) with the universal lower and upper bounds

A1mRA2,B1+mRB2.

Proof. From {ψj}j[m],{φj}j[m]L2(R), we have {ψjφj}j[m]L2(R). Since

R=1bmaxjmsup|γ|1,an,kZψ̂jφ̂jajγψ̂jφ̂jajγ+k/b<Am2,

i.e.,

1bsup|γ|1,an,kZψ̂jφ̂jajγψ̂jφ̂jajγ+k/bR<A

for all j ∈ [m], by Theorem 15.2.3 and Theorem 22.5.1 in [3], {an/2(ψjφj)(anxkb)}n,kZ is a Bessel sequence for L2(R) with bound R and {an/2φj(anxkb)}n,kZ is a wavelet frame for L2(R) for all j ∈ [m]. Let Tj and Tj be the synthesis operators of {an/2ψj(anxkb)}n,kZ and {an/2φj(anxkb)}n,kZ respectively. Then, TjTj is the synthesis operators of {an/2(ψjφj)(anxkb)}n,kZ and

ε=jmTjTjmR<mAm2=A.

It is known that there is a one-to-one correspondence between N and Z2, by Theorem 3.7 or Corollary 3.14, we have that {an/2φj(anxkb)}n,kZj[m] is woven for L2(R) with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2. We compute

A1mRA2=AmR2Aε2

and

B1+mRB2=B+mR2B+ε2,

and this implies that {an/2φj(anxkb)}n,kZj[m] has the universal lower and upper bounds

A1mRA2,B1+mRB2.

We complete the proof.

Example 3.17. Let {ψj}j[m],{φj}j[m]L2(R) and a, b > 0 be given, and assume that the Gabor frames family EmbTnaψjm,nZj[m] is woven for L2(R) with the universal lower and upper bounds A, B. If

R1bmaxjmsupx0,akZnZψjφjxnaψjφjxnak/b̄<Am2,

then the family EmbTnaφjm,nZj[m] is woven for L2(R) with the universal lower and upper bounds

A1mRA2,B1+mRB2.

Proof. From {ψj}j[m],{φj}j[m]L2(R), we have {ψjφj}j[m]L2(R). Since

R=1bmaxjmsupx0,akZnZψjφjxnaψjφjxnak/b̄<Am2,

i.e.,

1bsupx0,akZnZψjφjxnaψjφjxnak/b̄R<A

for all j ∈ [m], by Theorem 11.4.2 and Theorem 22.4.1 in [3], {EmbTna(ψjφj)}m,nZ is a Bessel sequence for L2(R) with bound R and {EmbTnaφj}m,nZ is a Gabor frame for L2(R) for all j ∈ [m]. Let Tj and Tj be the synthesis operators of {EmbTnaψj}m,nZ and {EmbTnaφj}m,nZ respectively. Then, TjTj is the synthesis operators of {EmbTna(ψjφj)}m,nZ and

ε=jmTjTjmR<mAm2=A.

It is known that there is a one-to-one correspondence between N and Z2, by Theorem 3.7 or Corollary 3.14, we have that EmbTnaφjm,nZj[m] is woven for L2(R) with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2. Computing

A1mRA2=AmR2Aε2

and

B1+mRB2=B+mR2B+ε2

implies that EmbTnaφjm,nZj[m] has the universal lower and upper bounds

A1mRA2,B1+mRB2.

We complete the proof.Considering the Wiener space

Wg:RCg measurable and kZgχka,k+1a<

which is a Banach space with respect to the norm

gW,a=kZgχka,k+1a],

we can obtain the following example.

Example 3.18. Let {ψj}j[m],{φj}j[m]L2(R) and a, b > 0 be given, and assume that the Gabor frames family EmbTnaψjm,nZj[m] is woven for L2(R) with the universal lower and upper bounds A, B. If ab ≤ 1 and

R:=2bmaxjmψjφjW,a<Am2,

then the family EmbTnaφjm,nZj[m] is woven for L2(R) with the universal lower and upper bounds (AmR)2 and (B+mR)2.Proof. From {ψj}j[m],{φj}j[m]L2(R), we have {ψjφj}j[m]L2(R). Since

R=2bmaxjmψjφjW,a<Am2,

i.e.,

2bψjφjW,aR<A,jm

by Proposition 11.5.2 and Theorem 22.4.1 in [3], {EmbTna(ψjφj)}m,nZ is a Bessel sequence for L2(R) with bound R2 and {EmbTnaφj}m,nZ is a Gabor frame for L2(R) for all j ∈ [m]. Let Tj and Tj be the synthesis operators of {EmbTnaψj}m,nZ and {EmbTnaφj}m,nZ respectively. Then, TjTj is the synthesis operators of {EmbTna(ψjφj)}m,nZ and

ε=jmTjTjmR<mAm2=A.

It is known that there is a one-to-one correspondence between N and Z2, by Theorem 3.7 or Corollary 3.14, we have that EmbTnaφjm,nZj[m] is woven for L2(R) with the universal lower and upper bounds (Aε)2 and (B+ε)2. Computing

AmR2Aε2,B+mR2B+ε2

implies that EmbTnaφjm,nZj[m] has the universal lower and upper bounds (AmR)2 and (B+mR)2.

Data Availability Statement

The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article/Supplementary Material. Further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.

Author Contributions

All authors listed have made a substantial, direct, and intellectual contribution to the work and approved it for publication.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Publisher’s Note

All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors, and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphy.2022.873955/full#supplementary-material

References

1. Bemrose T, Casazza PG, K. Lammers MC, Lynch RG. Weaving Frames. Oper Matrices (2016) 10(4):1093–116. doi:10.7153/oam-10-61

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Christensen O. A Paley-Wiener Theorem for Frames. Proc Amer Math Soc (1995) 123(7):2199–201. doi:10.1090/s0002-9939-1995-1246520-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. Christensen O. An Introduction to Frames and Riesz Bases. In: Applied and Numerical Harmonic Analysis. 2nd ed. Basel, Switzerland: Birkhäuser/Springer (2016). doi:10.1007/978-3-319-25613-9

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Casazza PG, Lynch RG. Weaving Properties of Hilbert Space Frames. In: The 2015 International Conference on Sampling Theory and Applications (SampTA 2015); 25-29 May 2015; Washington, DC. New York: IEEE (2015). p. 110–4. doi:10.1109/sampta.2015.7148861

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Deepshikha B, Vashisht LK. Weaving K-Frames in Hilbert Spaces. Results Math (2018) 73:20. doi:10.1007/s00025-018-0843-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Bibak Hafshejani A, Dehghan MA. P-woven Frames. J Math Anal Appl (2019) 479:673–87. doi:10.1016/j.jmaa.2019.06.044

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Ghobadzadeh F, Najati A, Anastassiou GA, Park C. Woven Frame in Hilbert C* Modules. J Comp Anal Appl (2018) 25:1220–32.

Google Scholar

8. Khosravi A, Banyarani JS. Weaving G-Frames and Weaving Fusion Frames. Bull Malays Math Sci Soc (2019) 42(6):3111–29. doi:10.1007/s40840-018-0647-4

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Leng J, Han D. Optimal Dual Frames for Erasures II. Linear Algebra its Appl (2011) 435:1464–72. doi:10.1016/j.laa.2011.03.043

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Vashisht LK, Garg S, Deepshikha B, Das PK. On Generalized Weaving Frames in Hilbert Spaces. Rocky Mountain J Math (2018) 48(2):661–85. doi:10.1216/rmj-2018-48-2-661

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

11. Xiao XC, Yan K, Zhao GP, Zhu Y. Tight K-Frames and Weaving of K-Frames. J Pseudo-differ Oper Appl (2021) 12:14. doi:10.1007/s11868-020-00371-x

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Keywords: frames, woven frames, convergence of frames, stability, weaving frames

Citation: Li X-B and Zhu Y-C (2022) Stability of Woven Frames. Front. Phys. 10:873955. doi: 10.3389/fphy.2022.873955

Received: 11 February 2022; Accepted: 25 April 2022;
Published: 24 June 2022.

Edited by:

Kh S. Mekheimer, Al-Azhar University, Egypt

Reviewed by:

Arran Fernandez, Eastern Mediterranean University, Turkey
Saikat Mukherjee, National Institute of Technology Meghalaya, India

Copyright © 2022 Li and Zhu. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Xue-Bin Li, 1531388050@qq.com

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.