Spectra for finite unions of line segments

From Proposition 1, for any positive integer k, we can find a line L such that the length of the gap between the orthogonal projections of [a_1, a_1+T_1]\times\{h_1\} and [a_2, a_2+T_2]\times\{h_2\} onto the line L is k times the sum of the lengths of their projections. Combining this with Theorem 8 and [laba2001, Theorem 1.1], we can deduce the result.

The necessity part of the theorem can be deduced from Theorem 11. Combining Lemma 9, Theorem 8 and [laba2001, Theorem 1.1], we can obtain the sufficiency part. Moreover, if 0\in\Lambda is a spectrum, then from Theorem 10, \Lambda must be a straight line spectrum, and the spectrum must be contained in the line y=x or y=-x as described in (2) or (2).

The result follows from Propositions 5 and 6.

According to Theorem 12, our goal is to prove that there exists a constant C>0 and R_0\ge 1 such that for all R\geq R_0\geq1

Let us write B_R:=B_R(0), and define

For every R>0, we have the following three basic properties for \psi_R.

1. 0\leq\psi_R\leq1 and {\rm supp\,}\psi_R \subset B_R;

2. For all x\in \mathbb{R}^d we have

   \begin{aligned} \hat{\psi}_R(x) &= \frac{1}{|B_{R/2}|}\,\Big| \hat{\mathbf{1}}_{B_{R/2}}(x)\Big|^2\\ &= \frac{ 1 }{|B_{R/2}|}\cdot\left(\frac{R}{2 }\right)^{2d}\cdot\,\Big| \hat{\mathbf{1}}_{B_{1}}\left(\frac{R}{2}x\right)\Big|^2\\ &\ge 0; \end{aligned}

   \hat{\psi}_R(x) = \frac{1}{|B_{R/2}|}\,\Big| \hat{\mathbf{1}}_{B_{R/2}}(x)\Big|^2 = \frac{ 1 }{|B_{R/2}|}\cdot\left(\frac{R}{2 }\right)^{2d}\cdot\,\Big| \hat{\mathbf{1}}_{B_{1}}\left(\frac{R}{2}x\right)\Big|^2 \ge 0;

3. Since \hat{\mathbf{1}}_{B_{1}} is continuous and \hat{\mathbf{1}}_{B_{1}}(0)=|B_{1}|, there exist constants \varepsilon_0\in(0,1) and \omega_d>0 (depending only on d) such that \hat{\psi}_R(x) \ \ge \omega_d R^d for all |x|\le \frac{\varepsilon_0}{R}.

Hence, we have

Moreover, since {\rm supp\,}\psi_R \subset B_R,

For any curve \Gamma_0 in \Gamma the restriction \rho|_{\Gamma_0} is the arc-length measure on \Gamma_0. Write \gamma_0:[0,L_0]\to\mathbb{R}^d for the arc-length parametrization of \Gamma_0 with 0<L_0<\infty.

We have

Since \gamma_{k_0} is arc-length parametrizations of curve segments, we have |\gamma'_{k_0}(s)|\equiv1 and |\gamma_{k_0}(s)-\gamma_{k_0}(t)|\le \frac{\varepsilon_0}{R} when |s-t|\le \frac{\varepsilon_0}{R}. By simple calculation, we can get

When R>\frac{\varepsilon_0}{L_{k_0}}, we can obtain

Taking R_0=\max\{1, \frac{\varepsilon_0}{L_{k_0}}\} and C=\omega_d \varepsilon_0 L_{k_0}, we have \int_{|t|<R}|\widehat{\rho}(t)|^2 d t\geq CR^{d-1} for all R\geq R_0. This completes the proof.

Since translation of the plane does not change parallelism, lengths, nor the shape of orthogonal projections, we may assume without loss of generality that a_1=-\frac{T_1}{2} and h_1=0. Let \gamma =(1,0), then

where w=(a_2+\frac{T_2}{2}, h_2 ). Let L be a line through the origin with unit direction vector v and \langle \gamma, v \rangle \neq 0. Then the projections of I_{1} and I_{2} onto the line L have lengths \ell_1 = T_1|\langle \gamma,v\rangle| and \ell_2 = T_2|\langle \gamma,v \rangle|. Hence the sum of the projected lengths is \ell_1+\ell_2=2|\langle \gamma,v\rangle|. (Refer to Fig. Proof.)

For any k>0 we can choose v_k to satisfy the equation

that is, v_k is perpendicular to w-(2k+1)\gamma. So

that is, |\langle w, v_k\rangle|-\frac{1}{2}(\ell_1+\ell_2)= k (\ell_1+\ell_2). Note that |\langle w, v_k\rangle|-\frac{1}{2}(\ell_1+\ell_2) is the length of the gap between the orthogonal projections of I_1 and I_2 onto the line L.

We first prove (I). Suppose that \Lambda does not have at most one point on each vertical line. Then, since the difference of these two points of \Lambda must be a zero of \widehat{\rho}, it follows from (?) that there exist (\lambda_1, \lambda_2)\in\Lambda and (\lambda_1, \lambda_2')\in\Lambda with \lambda_2\neq\lambda_2' such that

which means {\left|{\frac{\sin \pi T_2(\lambda_2-\lambda_2')}{\pi T_2(\lambda_2-\lambda_2')}}\right|}=\frac{T_1 }{T_2}. Note that {\left|{\frac{\sin \pi T_2(\lambda_2-\lambda_2')}{\pi T_2(\lambda_2-\lambda_2')}}\right|}<1\leq\frac{T_1}{T_2}, which is a contradiction. For (II), we also arrive at this conclusion through a proof similar to (I).

Let

and H_2:=\frac{\mathbb{Z}}{T_1}\times\frac{\mathbb{Z}}{T_2}. H_1 and H_2 are both subgroups of {\mathbb R}^2. It follows from Lemma 11.4 in [GL17] that \Lambda \subseteq H_1 or \Lambda \subseteq H_2. Suppose that \Lambda \subseteq H_2.

If T_1\geq T_2, then we take the function f \in L^2(\rho) which is 1 on the horizontal segment and 0 on the vertical segment. Notice that it does not matter if the two segments of \rho intersect as they will intersect on at most one point which has \rho-measure 0. Then, for any \lambda=(\lambda_1, \lambda_2 )\in\Lambda, we have \lambda_1\in\frac{\mathbb{Z}}{T_1} and

Moreover, Lemma 1 (I) implies that there is at most one point of \Lambda with \lambda_1=0, so this point is the origin, which means f=\sum_{\lambda \in \Lambda}\left\langle f, e_\lambda\right\rangle e_\lambda is constant \rho-almost everywhere (the series has one term only), a contradiction. Thus \Lambda \subset H_1.

If T_1\leq T_2, then we take the function f \in L^2(\rho) which is 1 on the vertical segment and 0 on the horizontal segment and we can obtain the conclusion by a proof similar to the case T_1\geq T_2.

It follows from Lemma 2 that we have

Moreover, [kolountzakis2025non, Theorem 1] shows 2 t_1+T_1 and 2 t_2+T_2 cannot both be equal to zero. Otherwise, \rho is not a spectral measure. So \Lambda is distributed on equidistant parallel lines. (Refer to Fig. Proof.)

Assume first that \Lambda has at most one point on each vertical line. Consider the function f \in L^2(\rho) which is 0 on the y-axis and equal to g(x)=e^{2 \pi i x \frac{s}{T_1}} on [t_1, t_1+T_1] \times\{0\} . It follows from Parseval’s theorem and f(x, y) \in L^2\left(\rho \right) that

which gives

Therefore,

By Lemma 2 and Lemma 3, we know \Lambda \not\subseteq \frac{\mathbb{Z}}{T_1}\times\frac{\mathbb{Z}}{T_2} and \Lambda is distributed on equidistant parallel lines. Following the arguments in the proofs of Lemmas 5.1, 5.3 and 5.4 in the recent paper [kolountzakis2025spectrality] of the first and third author of this paper, we obtain that there exists a constant K>1 such that for all \lambda = (\lambda_1, \lambda_2) \in \Lambda \setminus \{(0,0)\} we have K^{-1}\left|\lambda_1\right| \leq\left|\lambda_2\right| \leq K\left|\lambda_{1}\right| and \Lambda_x is a set of finite complexity, so \Lambda_x is a periodic set.

The proof for the case when \Lambda has at most one point on each horizontal line is essentially identical.

Since \Lambda is a discrete periodic multiset there exists A>0 such that \Lambda=\Lambda+A and the number of points of \Lambda in any interval of length A is finite. Hence, there exists a positive integer m such that \{\lambda^{1}, \lambda^{2},\cdots, \lambda^{m}\}\subset[0, A) with 0=\lambda^{1}\leq\lambda^{2}\leq\cdots\leq\lambda^{m}<A. So \Lambda=\bigcup_{i=1}^{m}(\lambda^{i}+ A\mathbb{Z}) and

This means that A= \frac{mT}{2w} and \Lambda=\{\lambda^{1}, \lambda^{2},\cdots, \lambda^{m}\}+\frac{mT}{2w}\mathbb{Z}.

Applying the Fourier transform to both sides of the equation

and the distributional Poisson summation formula, we get

Since \hat{ \mathbf{1}}_{\left[0, T\right]}* \tilde{ \mathbf{1}}_{\left[0, T\right]} > 0 in (-T, T) and T\geq 1, we conclude that

Let u_j=e^{2 \pi i \frac{\alpha_j}{m}} and denote by p_k\left(u_1, \ldots, u_{2m}\right) the k-th power sum

Then we have

The polynomial with roots u_j may be expanded as

where (these are the so-called Newton identities)

Here e_j is the j-th elementary symmetric function of the numbers u_1, \ldots, u_{2m}.

By (Proof), we have e_1 =e_2 = \cdots =e_{m-1}=0. This means

Moreover, P\left(\frac{1}{x}\right) =\prod_{i=1}^{2m}\left(\frac{1}{x}-u_i\right)=\sum_{j=0}^{2m}(-1)^j e_j x^{j-2m} and

Note that since the roots of P(x) are u_1, u_2,\cdots u_{2m} and the roots of x^{2m}P(\frac{1}{x}) are \overline{u_1}, \overline{u_2},\cdots \overline{u_{2m}}, it follows that

for C = e_{2m} and u_1, u_2,\cdots u_{2m} are the roots of

Since u_1=1 it follows that the numbers u_1, \ldots, u_{2m} are precisely the numbers

for some \alpha\in(0, 1). It follows that the numbers a_1, \ldots, a_{2m} are exactly the numbers

and therefore \Lambda=\{0, \alpha\}+\mathbb{Z}.

Moreover, if T>1, then

So

and e_1=e_2=\cdots=e_m=0. From the proof above, we can obtain u_1, u_2,\cdots u_{2m} are the roots of x^{2m}+C=0. Since u_1=1, this means that C=-1 and the numbers u_1, \ldots, u_{2m} are precisely the numbers

It follows that the numbers a_1, \ldots, a_{2m} are the numbers 0, \frac12, 1, \ldots, m-\frac12 and therefore \Lambda = \frac12{\mathbb Z}.

(I). By Lemma 2, we have T(\lambda_1, \lambda_2 )\in \mathbb{Z}, which means {\left|{\frac{\sin \pi T_1\lambda_1 }{ \pi T_1 \lambda_1}}\right|} = {\left|{\frac{\sin \pi T_1\lambda_2}{\pi T_1\lambda_2}}\right|}. The function f(x)=\frac{\sin \pi x }{ \pi x } shown in the following Figure Proof takes each value only twice when {\left|{x}\right|}\le 1/2. It follows from T_1=T_2=1 that |\lambda_2|=|\lambda_1|.

(II). If (\lambda_1, \lambda_2)\in(\Lambda-\Lambda)\setminus\{0\} with |\lambda_1|=\frac{1}{2}, by Lemma 2, we have T(\frac12, \lambda_2 ) or T(-\frac12, \lambda_2 )\in \mathbb{Z}, and in any case we get {\left|{\frac{\sin \frac{ 1}{2} \pi T_1 }{ \frac{ 1}{2}\pi }}\right|} = {\left|{\frac{\sin \pi T_2\lambda_2}{\pi \lambda_2}}\right|}. Since T_1+T_2=2, we have {\left|{\frac{\sin \frac{1}{2} \pi T_2 }{\frac{1}{2}\pi T_2 }}\right|} = {\left|{\frac{\sin \pi T_2\lambda_2}{\pi T_2\lambda_2}}\right|}. Hence, from 0<\frac{ T_2 }{2}\leq\frac{ 1 }{2}, we can obtain |\lambda_2|=|\lambda_1|=\frac{1}{2}.

(III). Its proof is similar to (II), so we omit it here.

(I). If T_1=T_2, we can get the conclusion from Lemma 1. If T_1>T_2, then \Lambda_x= \frac{\mathbb{Z}}{2} and \Lambda has at most one point on each vertical line by Theorem 9 and Lemma 1. Hence, for any (\lambda_1, \lambda_2)\in\Lambda and (\lambda_1', \lambda_2)\in\Lambda, we have \lambda_1'-\lambda_1'\in\frac{{\mathbb Z}}{2} and

which means \lambda_1= \lambda_1'. So \Lambda also has at most one point on each horizontal line. Therefore, \Lambda has multiplicity one. If T_1<T_2, we also have that \Lambda has multiplicity one using similar proof methods.

(II). We can get (II) by (I) and Lemma 4.

(I). If T_1> T_2, according to Remark 6 and Theorem 9, we have \Lambda_x=\{0, \frac{1}{2}\}+\mathbb{Z}. And by Proposition 2, we have (\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2})\in \Lambda or (\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2})\in \Lambda. Suppose that (\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2})\in \Lambda, then from Proposition 2 and Proposition 3, we have (-\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2}), (1, 1) \ \text{and}\ (- 1, -1) \in\Lambda. By induction, assume (\frac{m}{2}, \frac{m}{2})\in \Lambda for all |m|\leq n. If |m|=n+1, there exists \gamma such that (\frac{m}{2}, \gamma)\in\Lambda. Since (\frac{m-1}{2}, \frac{m-1}{2})\in\Lambda, from Proposition 3, we have \gamma=\frac{m}{2}. Hence, \Lambda= \{(\frac{n}{2}, \frac{n}{2} ): n\in \mathbb{Z}\}. Similarly, for the case where (\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2})\in \Lambda, we can get \Lambda= \{(\frac{n}{2}, -\frac{n}{2} ) : n\in \mathbb{Z}\}.

If T_1< T_2, we can obtain similarly that \Lambda= \{(\frac{n}{2}, \frac{n}{2} ): n\in \mathbb{Z}\} or \Lambda= \{(\frac{n}{2}, -\frac{n}{2} ) : n\in \mathbb{Z}\}.

(II). According to Remark 6 and Theorem 9, \Lambda_x and \Lambda_y can be represented as \Lambda_x =\{0, \alpha_1\}+\mathbb{Z} and \Lambda_y =\{0, \alpha_2\}+\mathbb{Z} for some \alpha_1, \alpha_2\in(-\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}]\setminus\{0\}.

Suppose that \alpha_1=\frac{1}{2} or \alpha_2=\frac{1}{2}, then from (I), we have \Lambda= \{(\frac{n}{2}, \frac{n}{2} ): n\in \mathbb{Z}\} or \Lambda= \{(\frac{n}{2}, -\frac{n}{2} ) : n\in \mathbb{Z}\}.

Suppose that \alpha_1\neq\frac{1}{2} and \alpha_2\neq\frac{1}{2}. From Proposition 2, we have \alpha_1=\alpha_2 or \alpha_1=-\alpha_2, and for any (n, \lambda_2), (n+\alpha_1, \lambda_2')\in\Lambda with n\in{\mathbb Z}, we have \lambda_2=m for some m\in{\mathbb Z} and |\lambda_2'-\lambda_2|=\alpha_1, which means \lambda_2'=m+\alpha_1 or \lambda_2'=m-\alpha_1. Moreover,

so \lambda_2'=n+\alpha_1 or \lambda_2'=-n-\alpha_1, which means \lambda_2=n or \lambda_2=-n. Hence, |\lambda_2|=|n|.

If \alpha_1=\alpha_2, then for any (n, \lambda_2)\in\Lambda, we have

Combining (?) with |\lambda_2|=|n|, we have \lambda_2=n. These imply that \{(n, n): n\in{\mathbb Z}\}\cup\{(\alpha_1, \alpha_1)\}\subset\Lambda. So for any n\in{\mathbb Z}, we have (n, n), (n+\alpha_1 , \beta) \in\Lambda for some \beta\in{\mathbb R}. From Proposition 2, we have \beta= n+\alpha_1 or \beta=n-\alpha_1. Suppose that \beta=n-\alpha_1, we have

which contradicts \alpha_1\notin\frac{{\mathbb Z}}{2}. Therefore, \Lambda= \{(n, n ), (n+\alpha,n+\alpha): n\in \mathbb{Z}\}, where \alpha=\alpha_1.

If \alpha_1\neq\alpha_2, similar to \alpha_1=\alpha_2, we can obtain \Lambda= \{(n, -n ), (n+\alpha, -(n+\alpha)): n\in \mathbb{Z}\}.

Combining the above, we have completed the proof.

First, we prove that T (\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2}) , T(\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}) \in 2\mathbb{Z}+1. Suppose that T (\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2})\in 2\mathbb{Z} or T(\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2}) \in 2\mathbb{Z}. Then

which is a contradiction.

(I). If (\frac{1}{2}, -\frac{1}{2})\in\Lambda, we have

Since T_1+T_2=2, we have t_1+ t_2 \in 2\mathbb{Z}.

(II). If (\frac{1}{2}, \frac{1}{2})\in\Lambda, we have

So t_1- t_2- T_2 \in 2\mathbb{Z}.

(I). By Theorem 10, we have (\alpha, -\alpha),(\alpha-1, -(\alpha-1)) \in\Lambda for some \alpha. By (?), we can get T(\alpha, -\alpha) , (\alpha-1, -(\alpha-1)) \in 2\mathbb{Z}+1. Hence,

which implies t_1+t_2\in{\mathbb Z}. Similarly, we can get (II).

In fact, in (I), (II) and (III), the measure \rho is symmetric. See Figure Proof. The conclusion can be directly derived from [kolountzakis2025non, Theorem 1] and [kolountzakis2025spectrality].

Combining Theorem 10, Lemma 6, Lemma 7 and Lemma8, we can obtain this conclusion.

These conclusions can be obtained through some simple calculations, which we will omit here.

Notice that the sums in L+M are all distinct by our assumptions and that we may assume that \mu_1, \nu_1 are probability measures. We will verify that

for almost all x \in {\mathbb R}^d.

We have, writing x=(x_1, x_2) with x_1 \in {\mathbb R}^k, x_2 \in {\mathbb R}^{d-k},

Assume that \pi_L is not injective \mu-almost everywhere on {\rm supp\,}\mu, then there exist two disjoint measurable subsets E, F \subset {\rm supp\,}\mu such that \pi_L(E)=\pi_L(F)=J. We have

for some constants c_j,c_k>0. Define

Then f\neq 0 in L^2(\mu). For any \lambda\in\Lambda\subset L, the exponential e_\lambda(x)=e^{2\pi i\langle \lambda,x\rangle} depends only on \pi_L x. Therefore,

Thus f is orthogonal to \{e_\lambda:\lambda\in\Lambda\}, contradicting the completeness of \Lambda in L^2(\mu). Hence \pi_L must be injective \mu-almost everywhere on {\rm supp\,}\mu.

See Figure Proof.

To prove that \mu is spectral we apply Theorem 4 with \nu_1 being arc-length on I and \mu_1 = \delta_{(0, 0)} + \delta_{(0, 1)} + \delta_{(\alpha, 2)}. Notice that \mu_1 has the set {\left\{{(0, 0), (0, 1/3), (0, 2/3)}\right\}} as a spectrum.

To show that it does not have a line spectrum, first notice that for {\rm supp\,}\mu to project injectively on the line S, the line S must be almost vertical. If this happens it projects to three intervals of equal length, but the two gaps among them have incommensurable lengths because \alpha is irrational. But if this union of three intervals of S is to be spectral each gap they define must be a multiple of the common length of the intervals [ducasse2025spectral, kolountzakis2025geometric], therefore the projection measure is never spectral.

See Figure Proof.

To prove that \mu is spectral we use Theorem 4 with \mu_1 being the arc-length on the first two line segments above and \nu_1 = \delta_{(0, 0)} + \delta_{(1, 1)}. (Here we remember [lai2021spectral] that \mu_1 has a spectrum contained in the line y=-x.)

To show that \mu does not have a line spectrum we observe that there is no straight line S onto which {\rm supp\,}\mu projects injectively.

Notice that

Let h>0. Then there exists a positive integer n_h such that 2^{n_h-1}< h\le 2^{n_h}. Let \epsilon>0 and let \delta=\delta(\epsilon, \mu), which is defined in Lemma 10. Let \varrho be the minimal integer such that 2^{-\varrho}<\delta. For any t\in \mathbb{R}^d and any D\in \mathcal{D}_{n_h+\varrho}, noticing that

by Lemma 10, we have

The last inequality is due to Lemma 11. Since \sum_{D\in \mathcal{D}_{n_h+\varrho}}\mu(D)=1 and (?) holds for all D\in \mathcal{D}_{n_h+\varrho} with \mu(D)>0, we have

The proof is complete.

We prove it for an Ahlfors–David regular measure \mu of dimension s\ge 0. For any such measure there exist constants c, C > 0 such that for every n-th dyadic set D \subset {\mathbb R}^d with center in {\rm supp\,} \mu, we have

By \sum_{D\in \mathcal{D}_{n}}\mu(D)=1, we have

for some constant \hat{C}. Then by Theorem 13, we have \# (\Lambda\cap B(t, h))=O(h^s).