Discrete Zak Transform and Multi-window Gabor Systems on Discrete Periodic Sets

Let s\in \mathbb{N}_q and t\in \mathbb{N}_p. We have:

On the other hand, we have Z_f(j,\theta)_{s,t}=z_{pM}f(j+tM-sN,\theta)=\displaystyle{\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}f(j+tM-sN+kpM)e^{2\pi i k\theta)}}=\displaystyle{\sum_{k\in \mathbb{Z}}f(j+tM-sN+kqN)e^{2\pi i k\theta}} since pM=qN. Then, if t\notin \mathcal{K}_j, j+tM\notin \mathbb{S}, then, for all k\in \mathbb{Z}, j+tM-sN+kqN\notin \mathbb{S} by the N\mathbb{Z}-periodicity of \mathbb{S}, thus f(j+tM-sN+kqN)=0 for all k\in \mathbb{Z}. Hence Z_f(j,\theta)_{s,t}=0 if t\notin \mathcal{K}_j. The proof is completed.

Let j\in\mathbb{Z}. We have:

And

Let j\in \mathbb{Z}, \, \theta\in \mathbb{R}. Given an arbitrary s\in \mathbb{Z}. By lemma 4, there exists a unique (k_0,m_0,r_0)\in \mathbb{N}_p\times \mathbb{Z}\times \mathbb{N}_q such that s=k_0q+(m_0q+r_0)p. Then:

Hence:

The 1-periodicity with respect to \theta is simply due to the 1-periodicity of the Zak transform with respect to \theta. On the other hand, if k\notin \mathcal{K}_j, i.e. k is such that j+kM\notin \mathbb{S}, then, by N\mathbb{Z}-periodicity of \mathbb{S}, for all r\in \mathbb{Z}, j+kM-rN\notin \mathbb{S}, and thus for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L and for all r\in \mathbb{N}_q, z_{pM}g_l(j+kM-rN,\theta)=0 since pM=qN. Then the k-th column of Z_g(j,\theta) is identically zero. Hence rank(Z_g(j,\theta))\leq card(\mathcal{K}_j).

Let j\in \mathbb{Z}, \theta \in \mathbb{R}. Denote by C_k(j,\theta) the k-th column of Z_g(j,\theta).
We have for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L and for all r\in \mathbb{N}_q, z_{pM}g_l((j+k'M)+kM-rN,\theta)=\\z_{pM}g_l(j+(k+k_0)M-rN,\theta). If 0\leq k\leq p-k'-1, then C_k(j+k_0M,\theta)=C_{k+k_0}(j,\theta). Otherwise (p-k'\leq k\leq p-1), we have by quasi-periodicity of the Zak transform z_{pM}g_l((j+k'M)+kM-rN,\theta)=e^{-2\pi i \theta}.z_{pM}g_l(j+(k+k'-p)M-rN,\theta). Then C_k(j+k'M,\theta)=e^{-2\pi i\theta}.C_{k+k'-p}(j,\theta).
Consider the map:

We show, easily, that \phi is injective. It is, then, bijective. Hence:

Denote by R_r(j,\theta) the r-th row of Z_g(j,\theta). Then there exists a unique (l,r_0)\in \mathbb{N}_L\times \mathbb{N}_q such that r=lq+r_0. Then (\forall j_0\in \mathbb{Z}) R_r(j_0,\theta) is the r_0-th row of Z_{g_l}(j_0,\theta). We have z_{pM}g_l((j+r'N)+kM-r_0N,\theta)=z_{pM}g_l(j+kM-(r_0-r')N,\theta).
If r'\leq r_0\leq q-1, then R_r(j+r'N,\theta) is the (r_0-r')-th row of Z_{g_l}(j,\theta), thus R_r(j+r'N,\theta)=R_{r-r'}(j,\theta). Otherwise (0\leq r_0\leq r'-1), since pM=qN and by quasi-periodicity of the Zak transform, we have: z_{pM}g_l((j+r'N)+kM-r_0N,\theta)=z_{pM}g_l(j+kM-(r_0-r'+q)N,\theta). Then R_r(j+r'N,\theta) is the (r_0-r'+q)-th row of Z_{g_l}(j,\theta), thus R_r(j+r'N,\theta)=R_{r-r'+q}(j,\theta).
Consider the map:

It is easy to show that \psi is injective. Then it is bijective. Hence:

Hence For all j\in \mathbb{Z}, \theta \in \mathbb{R}, k'\in \mathbb{N}_p and r'\in \mathbb{N}_q, we have:

We have:
f is orthogonal to \mathcal{G}(g,L,M,N) \Longleftrightarrow f is orthogonal to \mathcal{G}(g_l,M,N) for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L.
And we have:
Z_g(j,\theta)F(j,\theta)=0 \Longleftrightarrow Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)F(j,\theta)=0 for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L.
These equivalences together with lemma 3.1 in [4] complete the proof.

By proposition 2, rank(Z_g(j,\theta)) is \displaystyle{\frac{M}{q}}-periodic with repect to j and 1-periodic with respect to \theta. And by remark 1, card(\mathcal{K}_j) is \displaystyle{\frac{M}{q}}-periodic. Hence (2)\Longleftrightarrow (3).
We will use the notations in lemma 11. It is obvious that for f\in \ell^2(\mathbb{Z}), F(j,\theta)=0 for all j\in \mathbb{N}_M and a.e \theta\in [0,1[ if and only if f=0. Then by lemma 11, (1) is equivalent to the fact that: for f\in \ell^2(\mathbb{S}),
(\forall j\in \mathbb{N}_M, a.e \theta\in [0,1[, Z_g(j,\theta)F(j,\theta)=0)\Longrightarrow (\forall j\in \mathbb{N}_M, a.e \theta\in [0,1[,\; F(j,\theta)=0).

• (1)\Longrightarrow(3): Assume that \mathcal{G}(g,L,M,N) is complete in \ell^2(\mathbb{S}) and suppose, by contradiction, that (3) fails. Then by proposition 2, there exist j_0\in \mathbb{N}_M and E_0\subset [0,1[ with positive measure such that for all \theta\in E_0:

  rank(Z_g(j_0,\theta))< card(\mathcal{K}_{j_0}).

  For a.e \theta \in [0,1[, denote \mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta):\mathbb{C}^p\rightarrow \mathbb{C}^p the orthogonal projection onto the kernel of Z_g(j_0,\theta). Let \{e_k\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}_p} be the standard orthonormal basis of \mathbb{C}^p. Suppose that F=span\{e_k:\,k\in \mathcal{K}_j\}\subset N(\mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta)) for some \theta \in E_0. Then F\oplus N(Z_g(j_0,\theta)) is an orthogonal sum. Thus:

  \begin{array}{rcl} p&\geqslant&dim(F\oplus N(Z_g(j_0,\theta))\,)\\ &=&dim F+dim (N(Z_g(j_0,\theta))\,)\\ &=& card(\mathcal{K}_j)+(p-rank(Z_g(j_0,\theta))\,). \end{array}

  Hence rank(Z_g(j_0,\theta)\,)\geqslant card(\mathcal{K}_j). Contradiction. Then there exist k_0\in \mathcal{K}_{j_0} and E_0'\subset E_0 with positive measure such that e_{k_0}\notin N(\mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta)\,) for a.e \theta\in E_0'. i.e. \mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta)e_{k_0}\neq 0 for \theta \in E_0'. Define for all j\in \mathbb{N}_M, a.e \theta \in [0,1[, F(j,\theta)=\delta_{j,j_0}.\mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta)e_{k_0}. Observe that if k\in \mathbb{N}_p-\mathcal{K}_{j_0}, then e_k\in N(Z_g(j_0,\theta)\,) for a.e \theta \in [0,1[. Then for all k\in \mathbb{N}_p-\mathcal{K}_{j_0}, a.e \theta \in [0,1[, \mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta)e_k=e_k. Thus for k\in \mathbb{N}_p-\mathcal{K}_j, F(j_0,\theta)_k=\langle F(j_0,\theta),e_k\rangle=\langle \mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta)e_{k_0},e_k\rangle=\langle e_{k_0},\mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta) e_k\rangle=\langle e_{k_0},e_k\rangle=0.
  Define f\in \ell^2(\mathbb{Z}) by z_{pM}f(j+kM,\theta)=F(j,\theta)_k for all j\in \mathbb{N}_M, a.e \theta\in [0,1[. Then by lemma 1, f\in \ell^2(\mathbb{S}). Since F(j_0,\theta)=\mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta)e_{k_0}\neq 0 for all \theta \in E_0' which is with positive measure, then f\neq 0.
  On the other hand, we have Z_g(j,\theta)F(j,\theta)=0 for all j\in \mathbb{N}_M and a.e \theta\in [0,1[. In fact, if j\neq j_0, then, by definition of F, for a.e \theta\in [0,1[, F(j,\theta)=0, hence Z_g(j,\theta)F(j,\theta)=0. Otherwise, F(j_0,\theta)=\mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta)e_{k_0}, then Z_g(j_0,\theta)F(j_0,\theta)=Z_g(j_0,\theta)\mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta)e_{k_0}=0 since \mathbb{P}(j_0,\theta)e_{k_0}\in N(Z_g(j_0,\theta)\,). Then, by lemma 11, f is orthogonal to \mathcal{G}(g,L,M,N) but f\neq 0. Contradiction with (1).

• (2)\Longrightarrow (1): Assume (3) and let f\in \ell^2(\mathbb{S}) such that for all j\in \mathbb{N}_M and a.e \theta\in [0,1[,

  Z_g(j,\theta)F(j,\theta)=0.

  Let’s prove that F(j,\theta)=0 for all j\in \mathbb{N}_M, a.e \theta\in [0,1[. Let j\in \mathbb{N}_M. If \mathcal{K}_j=\emptyset, then by the definition of z_{pM}f and since pM=qN, F(j,\theta)=0 for a.e \theta\in [0,1[. Otherwise, i.e. \mathcal{K}_j\neq \emptyset. Let k\in \mathbb{N}_p-\mathcal{K}_j, then, by the definition of the Zak transform and since pM=qN, the k-th column of Z_g(j,\theta) is identically zero and we also have z_{pM}f(j+kM,\theta)=0 for a.e \theta \in [0,1[. From (3), the submatrix of Z_g(j,\theta) of size qL\times card(\mathcal{K}_j) obtained by removing all the columns with indices not in \mathcal{K}_j has the same rank than Z_g(j,\theta) which is card(\mathcal{K}_j). Then this submatrix is injective, thus, by equality (2), z_{pM}f(j+kM,\theta)=0 for a.e \theta \in [0,1[. Then for all k\in \mathbb{N}_p, z_{pM}f(j+kM,\theta)=0 for a.e \theta \in [0,1[. Hence F(j,\theta)=0 for a.e \theta \in [0,1[. Hence \mathcal{G}(g,L,M,N) is complete in \ell^2(\mathbb{S}).

1. (1)\Longrightarrow (3): Assume that \mathcal{G}(g,L,M,N) is a frame for \ell^2(\mathbb{S}). Then for all f\in \Delta,

   \begin{array}{rcl} \displaystyle{\frac{A}{M} \sum_{j=0}^{M-1} \int_{0}^{1} \|F(j, \theta)\|^2 \, d\theta} &\leq& \displaystyle{\sum_{l=0}^{l-1}\sum_{j=0}^{M-1} \int_{0}^{1} \| Z_{g_l}(j, \theta) F(j, \theta)\|^2 \, d\theta } \\ &\leq& \displaystyle{\frac{B}{M} \sum_{j=0}^{M-1} \int_{0}^{1} \|F(j, \theta)\|^2 \, d\theta.} \end{array}

   Fix x:=\{x_k\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}_p}\in \mathbb{C}^p, j_0\in \mathbb{N}_M and h\in L^{\infty}([0,1[), and define for all j\in \mathbb{N}_M and a.e \theta\in [0,1[, F(j,\theta):=\{\delta_{j,j_0}\,\chi_{\mathcal{K}_j}(k)\,x_k\, h(\theta) \}_{k\in \mathbb{N}_p}.
   Then: \displaystyle{ \sum_{j=0}^{M-1} \int_{0}^{1} \|F(j, \theta)\|^2 \, d\theta=\|\mathcal{K}(j_0)x\|^2\int_0^1 \vert h(\theta)\vert^2 \,d\theta=}
   \displaystyle{\langle \mathcal{K}(j_0)x,x\rangle \int_0^1 \vert h(\theta)\vert^2\,d\theta} (lemma 9). On the other hand, we have:

   \begin{array}{rcl} \displaystyle{\sum_{l=0}^{l-1}\sum_{j=0}^{M-1} \int_{0}^{1} \| Z_{g_l}(j, \theta) F(j, \theta)\|^2 \, d\theta }&=&\displaystyle{\sum_{l=0}^{l-1} \int_{0}^{1} \| Z_{g_l}(j_0, \theta) F(j_0, \theta)\|^2 \, d\theta} \\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{l=0}^{l-1} \int_{0}^{1} \sum_{r=0}^{q-1} \left\vert \left(Z_{g_l}(j_0, \theta) F(j_0, \theta)\right)_r \,\right\vert^2 \, d\theta} \\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{l=0}^{l-1} \int_{0}^{1} \sum_{r=0}^{q-1} \left\vert \sum_{k=0}^{p-1} Z_{g_l}(j_0, \theta)_{r,k} F(j_0, \theta)_k \,\right\vert^2 \, d\theta} \\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{l=0}^{l-1} \int_{0}^{1} \sum_{r=0}^{q-1} \left\vert \sum_{k=0}^{p-1} Z_{g_l}(j_0, \theta)_{r,k} \,\chi_{\mathcal{K}_{j_0}}(k)\,x_k\, h(\theta)\,\right\vert^2 d\theta }\\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{l=0}^{l-1} \int_{0}^{1} \sum_{r=0}^{q-1}\left \vert \sum_{k=0}^{p-1} Z_{g_l}(j_0, \theta)_{r,k} (\mathcal{K}(j_0)x)_k \right\vert^2 \vert h(\theta)\vert^2 d\theta} \\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{l=0}^{l-1} \int_{0}^{1} \sum_{r=0}^{q-1} \left\vert \left(Z_{g_l}(j_0, \theta)\mathcal{K}(j_0)x\right)_r \right\vert^2 \vert h(\theta)\vert^2 d\theta}\\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{l=0}^{l-1} \int_{0}^{1} \left\|Z_{g_l}(j_0,\theta)\mathcal{K}(j_0)x \right\|^2 \vert h(\theta)\vert^2 d\theta} \\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{l=0}^{l-1} \int_{0}^{1} \left\|Z_{g_l}(j_0,\theta)x \,\right\|^2 \vert h(\theta)\vert^2 d\theta}\;\;\; \text{ by lemma }\ref{lem2.8} \\ &=&\displaystyle{\int_{0}^{1} \left\langle \sum_{l=0}^{l-1} Z_{g_l}(j_0,\theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j_0,\theta)x,x\right\rangle \vert h(\theta)\vert^2 d\theta}. \\ \end{array}

   Then for all j\in \mathbb{N}_M, x\in \mathbb{C}^p and h\in L^{\infty}([0,1[), we have:

   \begin{array}{rcl} \displaystyle{\frac{A}{M}.\langle \mathcal{K}(j)x,x\rangle \,\int_0^1\vert h(\theta)\vert^2 \,d\theta} &\leq& \displaystyle{\int_{0}^{1} \left\langle \sum_{l=0}^{l-1} Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)x,x\right\rangle \,\vert h(\theta)\vert^2 \, d\theta} \\ &\leq& \displaystyle{\frac{B}{M}.\langle \mathcal{K}(j)x,x\rangle \int_0^1\vert h(\theta)\vert^2\, d\theta.} \end{array}

   For j\in \mathbb{N}_M and x\in \mathbb{C}^p fixed, denote C=\displaystyle{\frac{A}{M}.\langle \mathcal{K}(j)x,x\rangle} and D=\displaystyle{\frac{B}{M}.\langle \mathcal{K}(j)x,x\rangle}. Assume, by contradiction, that

   C>\displaystyle{\left\langle \sum_{l=0}^{L-1}Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)x,x\right\rangle} ,

   on a subset of [0,1[ with a positive measure. Denote D=\{\theta \in [0,1[:\; (8) \text{ holds}\}.
   For all k\in \mathbb{N}, denote:

   D_k:=\left\{\theta\in [0,1[:\; C-\displaystyle{\frac{C}{k+1}}\leq \displaystyle{\langle \sum_{l=0}^{L-1}Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)x,x\rangle} \leq C-\displaystyle{\frac{C}{k}}\right\}.

   It is clear that \{D_k\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}} forms a partition for D. Since mes(D)>0, then there exists k\in \mathbb{N} such that mes(D_k)>0. Let h:=\chi_{D_k}, we have:

   \begin{array}{rcl} \displaystyle{\int_{0}^{1} \left\langle \sum_{l=0}^{l-1} Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)x,x\right\rangle \,\vert h(\theta)\vert^2 \, d\theta}&=&\displaystyle{\int_{D_k} \left\langle \sum_{l=0}^{l-1} Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)x,x\right\rangle d\theta}\\ &\leq&(C-\displaystyle{\frac{C}{k}}). mes(D_k)\\ &<&C.mes(D_k)\\ &=&C\displaystyle{\int_0^1 \vert h(\theta)\vert^2\,d\theta}. \end{array}

   Contradiction with (7). Suppose, again by contradiction, that

   D<\displaystyle{\left\langle \sum_{l=0}^{L-1}Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)x,x\right\rangle},

   on a subset of [0,1[ with a positive measure. Denote D'=\{\theta \in [0,1[:\; (9) \text{ holds}\}.
   For all k\in \mathbb{N}, m\in \mathbb{N}, denote

   D_{k,m}':=\left\{\theta\in [0,1[:\; D(k+\displaystyle{\frac{1}{m+1}})\leq \displaystyle{\langle \sum_{l=0}^{L-1}Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)x,x\rangle} \leq D(k+\displaystyle{\frac{1}{m}})\right\}.

   It is clear that \{D_{k,m}'\}_{k\in \mathbb{N}} forms a partition for D'. Since mes(D')>0, then there exist k\in \mathbb{N} and m\in \mathbb{N} such that mes(D_{k,m}')>0. Let h:=\chi_{D_{k,m}'}, we have:

   \begin{array}{rcl} \displaystyle{\int_{0}^{1} \langle \sum_{l=0}^{l-1} Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)x,x\rangle \,\vert h(\theta)\vert^2 \, d\theta}&=&\displaystyle{\int_{D_{k,m}'} \langle \sum_{l=0}^{l-1} Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)x,x\rangle \, d\theta}\\ &\geqslant&D(k+\displaystyle{\frac{1}{m+1}}). mes(D_{k,m}')\\ &>&D.mes(D_{k,m}')\\ &=&D\displaystyle{\int_0^1 \vert h(\theta)\vert^2\,d\theta}. \end{array}

   Contradiction with (7). Hence for all j\in \mathbb{N}_M, and a.e \theta \in [0,1[, we have:

   \frac{A}{M}.\mathcal{K}(j) \leq \sum_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L} Z_{g_l}^*(j, \theta)Z_{g_l}(j, \theta) \leq \frac{B}{M}.\mathcal{K}(j).

2. (3)\Longrightarrow(1): Assume (3). For f\in \Delta, j\in \mathbb{N}_M and a.e \theta\in [0,1[, the k-th component of F(j,\theta) is zero if k\notin \mathcal{K}_j. Then \mathcal{K}(j)F(j,\theta)=F(j,\theta). Then:

   \frac{A}{M}\|F(j,\theta)\|^2\leq \left \langle \sum_{l=0}^{L-1} Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)F(j,\theta),F(j,\theta)\right \rangle\leq \frac{B}{M}\|F(j,\theta)\|^2.

   Hence:

   \frac{A}{M}\sum_{j=0}^{M-1}\int_0^1\|F(j,\theta)\|^2\leq \sum_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum_{j=0}^{M-1}\int_0^1 \| Z_{g_l}(j,\theta)F(j,\theta)\|^2\leq \frac{B}{M}\sum_{j=0}^{M-1}\int_0^1\|F(j,\theta)\|^2.

   Then lemma 12 implies (1).

3. (3)\Longrightarrow (2): Since \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}\subset \mathbb{N}_M.

4. (2)\Longrightarrow (3): Assume (2). Then the inequality (3) holds for all j \in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}} and a.e. \theta \in [0, 1[. Let’s prove that it holds for all j \in \mathbb{N}_M and a.e. \theta \in [0, 1[. Let j \in \mathbb{N}_M. By Lemma 5, there exists a unique (j', r', k', \ell') \in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}} \times \mathbb{N}_q \times \mathbb{N}_p \times \mathbb{Z} such that j = j' + k'M - r'N + \ell'qN. Then, by the quasiperiodicity of the discrete Zak transform, we have, for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L, after a simple calculation:

   (Z_{g_l}(j, \theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j, \theta))_{k_1, k_2} =
   \displaystyle{\sum_{r=0}^{q-1} (\overline{Z_{qN} g_l) (j' + (k_1 + k')M - (r + r')N, \theta)} (Z_{qN}g) (j' + (k_2 + k')M - (r + r')N, \theta)}

   = \begin{cases} (Z_{g_l}(j', \theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j', \theta))_{k_1+k', k_2+k'}, & \text{if } k_1 + k' < p, \; k_2 + k' < p \\ e^{-2\pi i\theta} (Z_{g_l}(j', \theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j', \theta))_{k_1+k', k_2+k'-p}, & \text{if } k_1 + k' < p, \; k_2 + k' \geq p \\ e^{2\pi i\theta} (Z_{g_l}(j', \theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j', \theta))_{k_1+k'-p, k_2+k'}, & \text{if } k_1 + k' \geq p, \; k_2 + k' < p \\ (Z_{g_l}(j', \theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j', \theta))_{k_1+k'-p, k_2+k'-p}, & \text{if } k_1 + k' \geq p, \; k_2 + k' \geq p. \end{cases}

   for k_1, k_2 \in \mathbb{N}_p and a.e. \theta \in [0, 1[.
   Define V: \mathbb{C}^p \to \mathbb{C}^p by Vx = y = (y_0, y_1, \ldots, y_{p-1})^t, where:

   y_k = \begin{cases} e^{-2\pi i \theta}x_{k-k'+p}, & \text{if } 0 \leq k < k' \\ x_{k-k'}, & \text{if } k' \leq k < p, \end{cases}

   for x \in \mathbb{C}^p. Then V is a unitary operator, and

   \langle Z_{g_l}(j, \theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j, \theta)x, x \rangle = \langle Z_{g_l}(j', \theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j', \theta)Vx, Vx \rangle,

   for a.e. \theta \in [0, 1[ and all x \in \mathbb{C}^p. Then, by (2), we have:

   \frac{A}{M} \langle V^*\mathcal{K}(j') Vx, x \rangle \leq \left\langle \sum_{l=0}^{L-1}Z_{g_l}(j, \theta)^*Z_{g_l}(j, \theta)x, x \right\rangle \leq \frac{B}{M}\langle V^*\mathcal{K}(j') Vx, x \rangle,

   for a.e. \theta \in [0, 1) and each x \in \mathbb{C}^p. When k+k' < p, k+k' \in \mathcal{K}_{j'} if and only if j'+(k+k')M \in\mathbb{S}, equivalently, j' + k'M - r'N + \ell'qN + kM \in\mathbb{S}, i.e. j + kM \in \mathbb{S}. Therefore, k + k' \in \mathcal{K}_j if and only if k \in \mathcal{K}_j when k + k' < p. Similarly, k + k' - p \in \mathcal{K}_{j'} if and only if k \in \mathcal{K}_j when k + k' \geq p. It follows that:

   V^*\mathcal{K}(j')V = \mathcal{K}(j).

   Which together with (10) gives (3). The proof is completed.

By density of L^{\infty}(\mathbb{S}_{pM}\times [0,1[) in L^2(\mathbb{S}_{pM}\times [0,1[) and by the unitarity of z_{pM} from \ell^2(\mathbb{S}) onto L^2(\mathbb{S}_{pM}\times [0,1[) (Since pM=qN, then \mathbb{S} is qN\mathbb{Z}-periodic in \mathbb{Z}), \Delta is dense in \ell^2(\mathbb{S}). Hence \mathcal{G}(g,L,M,N) is a frame for \ell^2(\mathbb{S}) with frame bounds A\leq B if and only if for all f\in \Delta, A\|f\|^2\leq \displaystyle{\sum_{l=0}^{L-1}\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}\left\vert \langle f, e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}g_l(.-nN)\rangle\right\vert^2}\leq B\|f\|^2. Let f\in \Delta, it is clear that for all r\in \mathbb{N}_q, Z_{g_l}(j,.)F(j,.)_r\in L^2([0,1[). We have:

By a simple calculation, we obtain that for all j\in \mathbb{Z} and a.e \theta\in \mathbb{R}:

Then:

Observe that T is M-periodic. Since \{\displaystyle{\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M} is an orthonormal basis for \ell^2(\mathbb{N}_M); the space of M-periodic sequences, then we have:

Since \{e^{2\pi i n\theta}\}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}} is an orthonormal basis for L^2([0,1[), then we have:

Hence:

The norm in the last line is the 2-norm in \mathbb{C}^q. Thus:

Hence:

On the other hand, we have by unitarity of z_{pM}:

The norm in the last line is the 2-norm in \mathbb{C}^p. Thus:

Then, combining (5) and (6), the proof is completed.

1. Assume that card(\mathcal{K}_j)\leq \,qL for all j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}. We have:

   \begin{array}{rcl} card(\mathbb{S}_N)&=&\displaystyle{\sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}\chi_{\mathbb{S}_N}(j)}\\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}}\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\chi_{\mathbb{S}_N}(j+\displaystyle{\frac{M}{q}}n)}\\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}}card(\mathcal{K}_j)}\;\;\; \text{ by remark }\ref{rem1}\\ &\leq& \displaystyle{\frac{M}{q}.qL=LM}. \end{array}

2. Assume that card(\mathcal{K}_j)\leq qL for all j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}.
   Assume that card(\mathcal{K}_j)=qL for all j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}. Then by the proof of (1), we have:

   \begin{array}{rcl} card(\mathbb{S}_N)&=&\displaystyle{\sum_{j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}}card(\mathcal{K}_j)}\\ &=&\displaystyle{\frac{M}{q}.qL=LM}. \end{array}

   Conversely, assume that card(\mathbb{S}_N)=\, LM. Again by the proof of (1), we have \displaystyle{\sum_{j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}}card(\mathcal{K}_j)}=card(\mathbb{S}_N)=LM=\displaystyle{\frac{M}{q}.qL}. Since card(\mathcal{K}_j)\leq \,qL for all j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}, then card(\mathcal{K}_j)=\,qL for all j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}.

1. (1)\Longrightarrow (2): Assume (1). Fix l_0\in \mathbb{N}_L and let f\in \ell^2(E_{l_0}) be orthogonal to \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_{l_0}}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M}. Define \overline{f}\in \ell^2(E) by \overline{f}(j)=f(j) if j\in E_{l_0} and 0 otherwise. It is clear that if l\neq l_0, \overline{f} is orthogonal to \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M}. And we have:

   \begin{array}{rcl} \langle \overline{f},e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_{l_0}}\rangle&=&\displaystyle{\sum_{j\in E}\overline{f}(j)e^{-2\pi i \frac{m}{M}j}\chi_{E_{l_0}}(j)}\\ &=& \displaystyle{\sum_{j\in E_{l_0}}f(j)e^{-2\pi i \frac{m}{M}j}\chi_{E_{l_0}}(j)}\\ &=&0\;\;\; \text{ since } f\text{ is orthogonal to } \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_{l_0}}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M}. \end{array}

   Then \overline{f} is orthogonal to \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M, l\in \mathbb{N}_L} which is complete in \ell^2(E), thus \overline{f}=0 on E, and then f=0 on E_l.

2. (2)\Longrightarrow(1): Assume (3) and let h\in \ell^2(E) be orthogonal to \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M, l\in \mathbb{N}_L}. For all l\in \mathbb{N}_L, define h_l\in \ell^2(E_l) as the restriction of h on E_l, i.e. h_l:=h|_{E_l}. Let l\in \mathbb{N}_L. Fix l\in \mathbb{N}_L. Since h is orthogonal to \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M}, then \displaystyle{\sum_{j\in E}h(j) e^{-2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}(j)=0}, then \displaystyle{\sum_{j\in E_l}h(j) e^{-2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}(j)=0}, thus \displaystyle{\sum_{j\in E_l}h_l(j) e^{-2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}(j)=\langle h_l,e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\rangle =0}. Hence h_l is orthogonal to \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M} which is complete in \ell^2(E_l). Hence h_l=0 on E_l. This for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L, therfore h=0 on E. Hence \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M,l\in \mathbb{N}_L} is complete in \ell^2(E).

1. (1)\Longrightarrow (2): Assume (1). Fix l_0\in \mathbb{N}_L and let f\in \ell^2(E_{l_0}). Define \overline{f}\in \ell^2(E) by \overline{f}(j)=f(j) if j\in E_{l_0} and 0 otherwise. It is clear that \langle \overline{f},e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\rangle=0 if l\neq l_0 and that \|\overline{f}\|=\|f\|. Together with the fact that \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M, \, l\in \mathbb{N}_L} is a tight frame for \ell^2(E) with frame bound M, we have:

   \begin{array}{rcl} M\|f\|^2&=&\displaystyle{\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}\left\vert \sum_{j\in E}\overline{f}(j)e^{-2\pi i \frac{m}{M}j}\chi_{E_{l_0}}(j)\right\vert^2}\\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}\left\vert\sum_{j\in E_{l_0}}f(j)e^{-2\pi i \frac{m}{M}j}\chi_{E_{l_0}}(j)\right\vert^2}\\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{m=0}^{M-1}\left\vert\langle f,e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_{l_0}}\rangle\right\vert^2}. \end{array}

   Hence \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_{l_0}}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M} is a tight frame for \ell^2(E_{l_0}) with frame bound M. And this for all l_0\in \mathbb{N}_L.

2. (2)\Longrightarrow (1): Assume (2). Let h\in \ell^2(E). For all l\in \mathbb{N}_L, define h_l\in \ell^2(E_l) as the restriction of h en E_l, i.e h_l=h|_{E_l}. We have \displaystyle{\sum_{j\in E}\vert h(j)\vert^2=\sum_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L}\sum_{j\in E_l} \vert h_l(j)\vert^2}, then \|h\|^2=\displaystyle{\sum_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L}\|h_l\|^2}. It is also clear that \langle h,e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\rangle=\langle h_l,e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\rangle. Since For all l\in \mathbb{N}_L, \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M} is a tight frame for \ell^2(E_l) with frame bound M, then for all l\in \mathbb{N}_l, we have M\|h_l\|^2=\displaystyle{\sum_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M}\vert \langle h_l,e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\rangle \vert^2}. Hence:

   M\|h\|^2=\displaystyle{\sum_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L}\sum_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M}\vert \langle h,e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\rangle \vert^2}.

   This for all h\in \ell^2(E_l). Hence \{e^{2\pi i \frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M, \, l\in \mathbb{N}_L} is a tight frame for \ell^2(E) with frame bound M.

It is a direct result of lemma 6, lemma 14 and lemma 15 together.

By remark 1, card(\mathcal{K}_j) is \displaystyle{\frac{M}{q}}-periodic. Then (2)\Longleftrightarrow (3).

1. (1)\Longrightarrow (2): Assume (1). Let j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}. Then by Theorem 1, card(\mathcal{K}_j)=rank(Z_g(j,\theta)\,)\leq qL since Z_g(j,\theta)\in \mathcal{M}_{qL,p}.

2. (2)\Longrightarrow (1): Assume (2). By Theorem 1, it suffices to find a matrix-valued function Z:\mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}\times [0,1[\rightarrow \mathcal{M}_{qL,p} such that Z(j,.)_{r,k}\in L^2([0,1[) for all (j,r,k)\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}\times \mathbb{N}_{qL}\times \mathbb{N}_p and for all j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}, if k\notin \mathcal{K}_j, the k-th column of Z(j,.) is identically zero, and such that rank(Z(j,\theta)\,)=card(\mathcal{K}_j). Indeed, in this case, for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L, define Z_l as the matrix-valued function Z_l:\mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}\times [0,1[\rightarrow \mathcal{M}_{q,p} defined for all j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}, \theta\in[0,1[ by Z_l(j,\theta):=Z(j,\theta)_{lq\leq r\leq (l+1)q-1,\, 0\leq k\leq p-1}. Then by lemma 10, there exists a unique g_l\in \ell^2(\mathbb{S}) such that Z_{g_l}=Z_l. Denote g=\{g_l\}_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L}, then for all j\in\mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}, \,\theta\in [0,1[, Z(j,\theta)=Z_g(j,\theta), hence by Theorem 1, \mathcal{G}(g,L,M,N) is complete in \ell^2(\mathbb{S}) since rank(Z_g(j,\theta)\,)=card(\mathcal{K}_j).
   For the existence of a such matrix-valued function: Let j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}} and a.e \theta \in [0,1[. Define a qL\times p constant matrix-valued function Z(j,.):=(Z^0(j,.),Z^1(j,.),\ldots, Z^{p-1}(j,.)\,) on [0,1[, where Z^k(j,.) is the k-th column of Z(j,.) for k\in \mathbb{N}_p, such that Z^k(j,.)=0 if k\notin \mathcal{K}_j and \{Z^k(j,.),\; k\in \mathcal{K}_j\} is linearly independent in \mathbb{C}^{qL}. This is possible since card(\mathcal{K}_j)\leq qL. Then for a.e \theta \in [0,1[, rank(Z(j,\theta)\,)=card(\mathcal{K}_j). Hence we obtain the desired matrix-valued function Z.

By remark 1, card(\mathcal{K}_j) is \displaystyle{\frac{M}{q}}-periodic. Then (2)\Longleftrightarrow (3).

1. (1)\Longrightarrow (2): By Theorem 3.

2. (2)\Longrightarrow (1): It suffices to find E_0,E_1, \ldots, E_{L-1}\subset\mathbb{Z} mutually disjoint such that for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L, E_l is M\mathbb{Z}-congruent to a subset of \mathbb{N}_M and E:=\displaystyle{\bigcup_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L}E_l} is N\mathbb{Z}-congruent to \mathbb{S}_N. In fact, in this case, we have \ell^2(\mathbb{S})=\displaystyle{\bigoplus_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\ell^2(E+nN)} and, by lemma 16, \{e^{2\pi i\frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M,l\in \mathbb{N}_L} is a tight frame for \ell^2(E) with frame bound M. Then for all n\in \mathbb{Z}, \{e^{2\pi i\frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}(.-nN)\}_{m\in \mathbb{N}_M,l\in \mathbb{N}_L} is a tight frame for \ell^2(E+nN) with frame bbound M. Hence, by similar arguments used in the proof of lemma 15, \mathcal{G}(\,\{\chi_{E_l}\}_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L}\,,L,M,N):=\{e^{2\pi i\frac{m}{M}.}\chi_{E_l}(.-nN)\}_{n\in \mathbb{Z}, m\in \mathbb{N}_M,l\in \mathbb{N}_L} is a tight frame for \displaystyle{\bigoplus_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\ell^2(E+nN)}=\ell^2(\mathbb{S}) with frame bound M.
   For the construction of the desired E_l: Let j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}. Let K be the maximal integer satisfying Kq\leq card(\mathcal{K}_j). For all l\in \mathbb{N}_K, define \mathcal{K}_j^l as the set of the (l+1)-th q elements of \mathcal{K}_j, \mathcal{K}_j^K as the set of the rest elements of \mathcal{K}_j and for l\in \mathbb{N}_L-\mathbb{N}_{K+1}, take \mathcal{K}_j^l=\emptyset. For all l\in \mathbb{N}_L such that \mathcal{K}_j^l\neq \emptyset, write \mathcal{K}_j^l:=\{k_{l,j,i}:\; i\in \mathbb{N}_{card(\mathcal{K}_j^l)}\} and choose \{r_{l,j,i}:\; i\in \mathbb{N}_{card(\mathcal{K}_j^l)}\}\subset \mathbb{N}_q such that r_{l,j,i}\neq r_{l,j,i'} if i\neq i'. This choice is guaranteed since car(\mathcal{K}_j^l)\leq q for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L. For all l\in \mathbb{N}_L, define:

   E_j^l=\left\lbrace \begin{array}{rcl} &\emptyset&\;\; \text{ if }\mathcal{K}_j^l=\emptyset,\\ &\{j+k_{l,j,i}M-r_{l,j,i}N:\; i\in \mathbb{N}_{card(\mathcal{K}_j^l)}\}& \;\; \text{ otherwise}. \end{array} \right.

   Take for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L, E_l:=\displaystyle{\bigcup_{j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}}E_j^l}.

   1. \rightarrow Let’s show that for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L, E_l is M\mathbb{Z}-congruent to a subset of \mathbb{N}_M. Let l\in \mathbb{N}_L. For this, it suffices to show that for all j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}},\, i\in \mathbb{N}_{card(\mathcal{K}_j^l)}, we have:

      M|\, (j+k_{l,j,i}M-r_{l,j,i}N)-(j'+k_{l,j',i'}M-r_{l,j',i'}N)\;\Longrightarrow\; j=j' \text{ and }i=i'.

      Let j,j'\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}} and i,i'\in \mathbb{N}_{card(\mathcal{K}_j^l)} and suppose that M|\, (j+k_{l,j,i}M-r_{l,j,i}N)-(j'+k_{l,j',i'}M-r_{l,j',i'}N). Then M|\, j-j'+(k_{l,j,i}-k_{l,j',i'})M-(r_{l,j,i}-r_{l,j',i'})N.
      Put s=\displaystyle{\frac{M}{q}}, then M=sq and N=sp. Thus sq|\, j-j'+(k_{l,j,i}-k_{l,j',i'})sq-(r_{l,j,i}-r_{l,j',i'})sp, then s|j-j', hence j=j' since j,j'\in \mathbb{N}_s. On the other hand, we have sq|(r_{l,j,i}-r_{l,j,i'})sp, then q|(r_{l,j,i}-r_{l,j,i'})p, thus q|r_{l,j,i}-r_{l,j,i'} since p\wedge q=1, hence r_{l,j,i}=r_{l,j,i'} since r_{l,j,i},r_{l,j,i'}\in \mathbb{N}_q. And then i=i'.
      Hence for all l\in \mathbb{N}_L, E_l is M\mathbb{Z}-congruent to a subset of \mathbb{N}_M.

   2. \rightarrow Let’s prove now that E=\displaystyle{\bigcup_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L}E_l} is N\mathbb{Z}-congruent to \mathbb{S}_N. We show first that E is N\mathbb{Z}-congruent to a subset of \mathbb{N}_N. For this, let (l,j,i),\, (l',j',i')\in \mathbb{N}_L\times \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}\times \mathbb{N}_{card(\mathcal{K}_j)} and suppose that N| (j-j')+(k_{l,j,i}-k_{l',j',i'})M-(r_{l,j,i}-r_{l',j',i'})N. Put s=\displaystyle{\frac{M}{q}}, then M=sq and N=sp. Thus sp|\, j-j'+(k_{l,j,i}-k_{l',j',i'})sq-(r_{l,j,i}-r_{l',j',i'})sp, then s|j-j', hence j=j' since j,j'\in \mathbb{N}_s. On the other hand, we have sp|(k_{l,j,i}-k_{l',j,i'})sq, then p|k_{l,j,i}-k_{l',j,i'}, hence k_{l,j,i}=k_{l',j,i'} since k_{l,j,i},k_{l',j,i'}\in \mathbb{N}_p. Then l=l' and i=i' by definition of the elements k_{l,j,i}. Thus E is N\mathbb{Z}-congruent to a subset of \mathbb{N}_N. Observe that E\subset \mathbb{S}, then E is N\mathbb{Z}-congruent to a subset of \mathbb{S}_N. By what above, we have, in particular, that the E_j^l are mutually disjoint (and also the E_l are mutually disjoint). Then

      \begin{array}{rcl} card(E)&=&\displaystyle{\sum_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L}\sum_{j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}}card(\mathcal{K}_j^l)}\\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}} card(\mathcal{K}_j)}\\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}}}\sum_{n\in \mathbb{Z}}\chi_{\mathbb{S}_N}(j+\displaystyle{\frac{M}{q}}n)}\;\; \text{ remark }\ref{rem1}\\ &=&\displaystyle{\sum_{j\in \mathbb{Z}}\chi_{\mathbb{S}_N}(j)}\\ &=&card(\mathbb{S}_N). \end{array}

      Hence E is N\mathbb{Z}-congruent to \mathbb{S}_N.

We have (1) impies (2). And since a frame is in particular a complete sequence, then (2) implies (3) by Theorem \ref{prop4.5}. And by proposition \ref{prop4.6}, (3) implies the existence of \emptyset\neq E_0,E_1,\ldots,E_{L-1}\subset \mathbb{Z} such that \mathcal{G}(\,\{\chi_{E_l}\}_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L},\, L,M,N) is a tight frame for \ell^2(\mathbb{S}) with frame bound M. Hence \mathcal{G}(\,\{\displaystyle{\frac{1}{\sqrt{M}}}.\chi_{E_l}\}_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L},\, L,M,N) is a Parseval frame for \ell^2(\mathbb{S}).

It is well known that (1) implies (2). Assume that \mathcal{G}(g,L,M,N) is a Riesz basis for \ell^2(\mathbb{S}), then by Theorem 4 we have for all j\in \mathbb{N}_{\frac{M}{q}} (\forall j\in \mathbb{Z}) card(\mathcal{K}_j)\leq qL. And by proposition 1, we have card(\mathbb{S}_N)=LM. Then by lemma \ref{lem4.1}, we have card(\mathcal{K}_j)= qL. Hence (2) implies (3). Assume that card(\mathcal{K}_j)= qL. Then by Theorem 4, There exists g:=\{g_l\}_{l\in \mathbb{N}_L}\subset \ell^2(\mathbb{S}) such that \mathcal{G}(g,L,M,N) is Parseval frame for \ell^2(\mathbb{S}). By lemma 13, we have that card(\mathbb{S}_N)=LM and then by proposition 1, \mathcal{G}(g,L,M,N) is a Riesz basis for \ell^2(\mathbb{S}), then is an orthonormal basis for \ell^2(\mathbb{S}) (lemma 7). Hence (3) implies (1).