Arxiv:2102.03217V1 [Math.FA] 5 Feb 2021 O Eesrl Oi I H Es F[3) Aua Xml Fanon a of Example That Natural out Systema a Point a [13])

Home , Modulation space

arXiv:2102.03217v1 [math.FA] 5 Feb 2021 o eesrl oi i h es f[3) aua xml fanon a of example that natural out systema A point a [13]). to for of important [9]) sense is also the It (in (see DTMIB). solid [10] (called necessarily to duals not modulatio refer their and We and translation TMIB the bounded. of polynomially norms are operator the and invariant, es otnosinclusions continuous dense nain aahsaeo tmee)distributions (tempered) of space Banach invariant aahfnto pcs[3.I 1]anwcaso aahsae wa spaces inv Banach translation of via class space – new Banach a spaces A [10] coorbit spaces: In of modulation context [13]. define spaces the function in Banach – generally more r of account an for s spaces. [19] monograph operators; modulation the A pseudo-differential of to mod refer of frames. We the study Gabor therein. of ou the ences via feature turned in fashion key also e.g., discrete have A applications, a characterisations in 26]. such described 7, significance, ge inherent 6, be can more [1, they e.g. indispen the an that see in as analysis; accepted often of widely 18], tho are branches they were 15, Nowadays, properties 14, spaces. Their coorbit 13, Gröchenig [12, analysis. and time-frequency Feichtinger in objects pal ahsae fdsrbtos mla spaces. amalgam distributions; of spaces nach sal,mdlto pcsaedfie i egtdmxdnr spac mixed-norm weighted via defined are spaces modulation Usually, o one are 1983, in [12] Feichtinger by introduced spaces, Modulation e od n phrases. and words Key 2010 .Dbowr a upre yFOVanee hog h po the through FWO-Vlaanderen by supported was Debrouwere A. AO RM HRCEIAIN FGENERALISED OF CHARACTERISATIONS FRAME GABOR ahmtc ujc lsicto.Primary. Classification. Subject Mathematics ncobtsaeter)fi norstigadw eeo eeanew a here develop we and convolution. setting twisted our the in on fail theory) space coorbit in hs ouainsae,temtosue o h spaces the for used methods the spaces, modulation these idw.Ti eeaie eea udmna eut o h cla the sp for large results a fundamental construct several we spaces generalises Furthermore, This coefficients. su windows. by Gabor characterised are their they atom of an that admit and spaces expansions these Gabor that show through We dist [10]. of in spaces introduced Banach invariant recently translation-modulation of class a via Abstract. M w p,q u oteasneo oiiyasmtoso h aahsae d spaces Banach the on assumptions solidity of absence the to Due . NRA ERUEEADBJNPRANGOSKI BOJAN AND DEBROUWERE ANDREAS eoti ao rm hrceiain fmdlto pcsdefi spaces modulation of characterisations frame Gabor obtain We ao rms ouainsae;tasainmdlto invarian translation-modulation spaces; modulation frames; Gabor OUAINSPACES MODULATION S ( R 2 n 1. ) ֒ → Introduction F ֒ S → 1 F ′ 21,4B5 46H25 42B35, 42C15, ( ssi ob a be to said is R 2 n ), TI)on (TMIB) F stasainadmodulation and translation is M w p,q totrlgat12T0519N. grant stdoctoral mblt properties mmability o,mr generally, more (or, translation-modulation slsadapplications and esults iuin htwas that ributions sclmodulation ssical c fadmissible of ace ob eyueu in useful very be to t R cdecomposition ic Secondary. e[]adterefer- the and [7] ee prahbased approach al oli various in tool sable 2 ogl tde by studied roughly n prtr on operators n if lto pcsis spaces ulation ea etn of setting neral atfo their from part sldTI is TMIB -solid F rpsdto proposed s efining h princi- the f i td of study tic aifisthe satisfies ratsolid ariant s[9 or, [19] es 61 . 46F12 MBare TMIB ned Ba- t F 2 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

p p F given by L ⊗πL , 1

Banach space on Λ [13, Deﬁnition 3.4]

Λ Fd(Λ) = c =(cλ)λ∈Λ ∈ C cλ1λ+U ∈ F , ( ) λ∈Λ X where 1λ+U is the characteristic function of the set λ + U, with norm kckFd(Λ) = F k λ∈Λ |cλ|1λ+U kF . The modulation space M admits the following characterisation in terms of Gabor frames [13, 18] (see [19, Section 12.2] for the classical modulation p,q P p,q Lw spaces Mw = M ). Theorem 1.1. Let F be a solid TMIB on R2n. Set 2n ωF (x, ξ)= kT(x,ξ)kL(F ), (x, ξ) ∈ R . Let ψ,γ ∈ M 1,1 . Then, the analysis operator max{ωF ,ωˇF } F Cψ : M → Fd(Λ), f 7→ (Vψf(λ))λ∈Λ and the synthesis operator F Dγ : Fd(Λ) →M , (cλ)λ∈Λ 7→ cλπ(λ)γ Xλ∈Λ are well-deﬁned and continuous, and the series λ∈Λ cλπ(λ)γ is unconditionally convergent in F for each c ∈ Fd(Λ). If in addition (ψ,γ) is a pair of dual windows on Λ, then there are A,B > 0 such that P F F F AkfkM ≤k(Vψf(λ))λ∈ΛkFd(Λ) ≤ BkfkM , f ∈M , and the following expansions hold F f = Vψf(λ)π(λ)γ = Vγ f(λ)π(λ)ψ, f ∈M , Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 3 where both series are unconditionally convergent in F . In fact, Theorem 1.1 holds for more irregular samplings sets than lattices [13, 18]. The standard proof of Theorem 1.1 [13, 18, 19] is based on the following two fundamental properties of the STFT: 1 (1.1) |Vψ(π(x, ξ)f)| = |T(x,ξ)Vψf| and |Vψf| ≤ |Vψf| ∗|Vψγ|, |(γ, ψ)L2 | 2 n where f,ψ,γ ∈ L (R ) with (γ, ψ)L2 =6 0; (1.1) may be extended to other spaces. Hence, Theorem 1.1 essentially reduces to prove that the mappings

F → Fd(Λ), G 7→ (G ∗ Φ(λ))λ∈Λ and Fd(Λ) → F, (cλ)λ∈Λ 7→ cλTλΨ Xλ∈Λ are well-deﬁned and continuous, and that the series λ∈Λ cλTλΨ is unconditionally convergent in F for each c ∈ Fd(Λ), where Φ, Ψ belong to suitable function spaces on R2n. P Our aim is to extend Theorem 1.1 to general TMIB. However, the properties (1.1) are no longer applicable in this setting. The basic idea to overcome this problem is to view the STFT on L2(Rn) as the voice transform of the projective representation [4, 5] π :(R2n, +) →L(L2(Rn)). The twisted translation and the twisted convolution associated to π are given by σ −2πix·(η−ξ) T(x,ξ)f(t, η)= f(t − x, η − ξ)e and f#g(t, η)= f(x, ξ)g(t − x, η − ξ)e−2πix·(η−ξ)dxdξ. R2n ZZ Then,

σ 1 (1.2) Vψ(π(x, ξ)f)= T(x,ξ)Vψf and Vψf = Vψf#Vψγ, (γ, ψ)L2 2 n where f,ψ,γ ∈ L (R ) with (γ, ψ)L2 =6 0; (1.2) may be extended to other spaces. From this point of view, it seems natural to deﬁne the discrete space associated to a TMIB F via the twisted translation T σ, i.e.,

σ CΛ σ Fd (Λ) = c ∈ cλTλ χ ∈ F , ( ) Xλ∈Λ σ σ where χ ∈ D(U)\{0}, with norm kck B = k cλT χkF . Then, F (Λ) is a Fd (Λ) λ∈Λ λ d Banach space that is independent of χ ∈D(U)\{0} (Theorem 5.2). Moreover, Fd(Λ) = σ P Fd (Λ) if F is solid. We shall determine the discrete space associated to various TMIB n for lattices Λ = Λ1 × Λ2, where Λ1 and Λ1 are lattices in R (Subsection 5.4). Most notably, 2 2 σ 1 2 (1.3) (L ⊗πL )d (Λ1 × Λ2)= ℓ (Λ1; ℓ (Λ2)), 2 2 σ 2 (L ⊗ǫL )d (Λ1 × Λ2)= c0(Λ1; ℓ (Λ2)). b b 4 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

The main results of this paper (Theorem 6.6 and Corollary 6.7) show that Theorem σ 1.1 holds for general TMIB F provided that Fd(Λ) is replaced by Fd (Λ), the function ωF deﬁning the admissible window class is changed to σF , where

σF (x, ξ)= kT(x,ξ)kL(F ) max{kM(0,x)kL(F ), 1}, and the notion of unconditional convergence is weakened to convergence in the Césaro sense. Note that σF = ωF if F is solid. Furthermore, an example (Proposition 5.17) shall show that unconditional convergence cannot longer be expected in the setting of TMIB. We will also prove an analogue of Theorem 1.1 for DTMIB. Similarly as in the solid case, but now by (1.2) instead of (1.1), the essential problem becomes to show that the mappings σ σ σ F → Fd (Λ), G 7→ (G#Φ(λ))λ∈Λ and Fd (Λ) → F, (cλ)λ∈Λ 7→ cλTλ Ψ Xλ∈Λ are well-defined and continuous, and that the series λ∈Λ cλTλΨ is Césaro summable σ R2n in F for each c ∈ Fd (Λ), where Φ, Ψ belong to suitable function spaces on . As an application, we mention that our main resultsP may be used to give explicit descriptions of modulation spaces associated to TMIB and DTMIB. For example, (1.3) 2 b 2 implies that ML ⊗πL = FM 2,1 (cf. Corollary 6.10). This identity and various related statements were recently shown in [16] via different methods. We believe that our work might be used to improve some of the results from [16] and we plan to investigate this in the future (see also Problem 5.29). The paper is organised as follows. In the preliminary Sections 2 and 3, we fix the notation and collect several results concerning TMIB and DTMIB. In Section 4, we define and discuss the twisted translation and the twisted convolution with respect to a real-valued n × n-matrix; although we are mainly interested in T σ and #, it will turn out that this general setting is technically more convenient. In Section 5, the technical core of this paper, we introduce and thoroughly study discrete spaces defined via a twisted translation and associated to a TMIB or DTMIB. Finally, in Section 6, we show our main results and discuss some applications.

2. Notation We use standard notation from distribution theory [25]. For a compact set K ⋐ Rn n we denote by DK the Fréchet space of smooth functions ϕ on R with supp ϕ ⊆ K. Given an open set U ⊆ Rn, we define D(U) := lim D . −→ K K⋐U We write S(Rn) for the Fréchet space of rapidly decreasing smooth functions on Rn and use the following family of norms on S(Rn) α N N kϕkSN := max sup |∂ ϕ(x)|(1 + |x|) , N ∈ . |α|≤N x∈Rn The dual spaces D′(Rn) and S′(Rn) are the space of distributions on Rn and the space of tempered distributions on Rn, respectively. Unless stated otherwise, we endow these spaces with their strong topology. GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 5

The constants in the Fourier transform are fixed as follows F(f)(ξ)= f(ξ) := f(x)e−2πix·ξdx, f ∈ L1(Rn). Rn Z The Fourier transform is a topologicalb isomorphism from S(Rn) onto itself and extends via duality to a topological isomorphism from S′(Rn) onto itself. Given a Banach space X ⊂ S′(Rn), we define its associated Fourier space as the Banach space FX := {f ∈ ′ n −1 −1 S (R ) |F f ∈ X} with norm kfkFX := kF fkX . The translation and modulation operators are defined as Txf(t) = f(t − x) and 2πit·ξ n n n Mξf(t) = f(t)e , x, ξ ∈ R . They act continuously on D(R ) and S(R ), and, by duality, therefore also on D′(Rn) and S′(Rn). We have that 2πix·ξ MξTx = e TxMξ, FTx = M−xF, FMξ = TξF. Furthermore, we write fˇ(t)= f(−t) for reflection about the origin. Let Ω be a locally compact, σ-compact Hausdorff space and let (Ω, Σ,µ) be a measure space with µ a positive locally finite Borel measure. A Banach space E is called a solid 1 Banach function space on Ω (cf. [13]) if E ⊂ Lloc(Ω) with continuous inclusion and E satisfies the following condition: 1 ∀f ∈ E ∀g ∈ Lloc(Ω) : |g|≤|f| a.e. ⇒ g ∈ E and kgkE ≤kfkE. Throughout the article, C,C′,... denote absolute constants that may vary from place to place.

3. Translation-modulation invariant Banach spaces of distributions and their duals 3.1. Definition and basic properties. We start with the following basic definition from [10]. Definition 3.1. A Banach space E is called a translation-modulation invariant Banach space of distributions (TMIB) on Rn if the following three conditions hold: .(i) E satisfies the dense continuous inclusions S(Rn) ֒→ E ֒→ S′(Rn) n (ii) Tx(E) ⊆ E and Mξ(E) ⊆ E for all x, ξ ∈ R .

(iii) There exist τj,Cj > 0, j =0, 1, such that

τ0 τ1 (3.1) ωE(x) := kTxkL(E) ≤ C0(1 + |x|) and νE(ξ) := kM−ξkL(E) ≤ C1(1 + |ξ|) ; n for x, ξ ∈ R ﬁxed, the mappings Tx : E → E and Mξ : E → E are continuous by the closed graph theorem.

In what follows, the constants τj,Cj > 0, j =0, 1, will always refer to those occurring in (3.1). Let E be a TMIB. Then, E is separable and, for e ∈ E ﬁxed, the mappings n n (3.2) R → E, x 7→ Txe and R → E, ξ 7→ Mξe are continuous. The functions ωE and νE are Borel measurable (as E is separable) and submultiplicative. 6 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

An interesting feature of TMIB is that they are stable under taking completed tensor nj products with respect to the π- and ǫ-topology [24]. Namely, let Ej be a TMIB on R for j =1, 2. Let τ denote either π or ǫ. Then, [10, Theorem 3.6] (and [16, Lemma 2.3] Rn1+n2 b for τ = π) yields that E1⊗τ E2 is a TMIB on with ωE1⊗τ E2 = ωE1 ⊗ ωE2 and b νE1⊗τ E2 = νE1 ⊗ νE2 . Next, we introduce dualb translation-modulation invariant Banach spaces of distributions [10]. Definition 3.2. A Banach space is called a dual translation-modulation invariant Ba- nach space of distributions (DTMIB) on Rn if it is the strong dual of a TMIB on Rn. Let E be a DTMIB. Then, E satisfies the continuous inclusions S(Rn) → E → ′ Rn ′ S ( ) and the conditions (ii) and (iii) from Definition 3.1. If E = E0, where E0 is a TMIB, then ωE =ω ˇE0 and νE = νE0 , whence ωE and νE are Borel measurable. Moreover, for e ∈ E fixed, the mappings in (3.2) are continuous with respect to the weak-∗ topology on E. In general, E is not a TMIB. More precisely, the inclusion S(Rn) → E need not be dense and the mappings in (3.2) may fail to be continuous; consider, e.g., E = L∞. However, if E is reflexive, then E is in fact a TMIB [9, Proposition 3.14] (see also [10, p. 827]). We now give some examples of TMIB and DTMIB; see also [10, Section 3]. Examples 3.3. (i) A Banach space E is called a solid TMIB (DTMIB) on Rn if E is both a TMIB (DTMIB) and a solid Banach function space on Rn (with respect to the n Lebesgue measure). Then, kMξekE = kekE for all e ∈ E and ξ ∈ R . A measurable function w : Rn → (0, ∞) is called a polynomially bounded weight function on Rn if there are C,τ > 0 such that w(x + y) ≤ Cw(x)(1 + |y|)τ , x,y ∈ Rn. p p Rn For 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞ we define Lw = Lw( ) as the Banach space consisting of all (equiv- n R p p alence classes of) measurable functions f on such that kfkLw := kfwkL < ∞. Rn ∞ Rn We define C0,w = C0,w( ) as the closed subspace of Lw consisting of all f ∈ C( ) p p such that lim|x|→∞ f(x)w(x) = 0. Then, Lw, 1 ≤ p < ∞, is a solid TMIB, Lw, 1 < p ≤ ∞, is a solid DTMIB, and C0,w is a TMIB. Similarly, we may consider weighted mixed-norm spaces. Let w be a polynomially bounded weight function on Rn1+n2 p1,p2 p1,p2 Rn1+n2 . For 1 ≤ p1,p2 ≤ ∞ we define Lw = Lw ( ) as the Banach space consisting of all (equivalence classes of) measurable functions f on Rn1+n2 such that p1,p2 p1,p2 p1,p2 kfkLw := kfwkL . Then, Lw is a solid TMIB if 1 ≤ p1,p2 < ∞ and a solid DTMIB if 1

If E′ satisfies the Radon-Nikodým property (in particular, if E is reflexive), then (cf. [3, Theorem 3.5]) p ′ q ′ Lw(E )=(L1/w(E)) , 1

1 (3.5) e ∗ f = Txef(x)dx, e ∈ E, f ∈ LωE , Rn Z and

−1 1 (3.6) e · f = M−xeF f(x)dx, e ∈ E, f ∈FLνE , Rn Z where the integrals should be interpreted as E-valued Bochner integrals [10, Proposition ′ 3.2]. Next, suppose that E is a DTMIB with E = E0, where E0 is a TMIB. The 1 convolution and multiplication on E are deﬁned via duality, namely, for e ∈ E, f ∈ LωE , 1 and g ∈FLνE , we set ˇ he ∗ f,gi := he, g ∗ fi, g ∈ E0, and he · f,gi := he, g · fi, g ∈ E0. Then, the inequalities (3.3) and (3.4) hold true and the integral representations (3.5) and (3.6) are valid if the integrals are interpreted as E-valued Pettis integrals with respect to the weak-∗ topology on E [10, Corollary 3.5]. Hence, TMIB and DTMIB may be viewed as Banach spaces of distributions having two module structures in the sense of [2]. The goal of this subsection is to extend the previous results by showing that TMIB and DTMIB are in fact Banach convolution and multiplication modules over a certain weighted space of Radon measures and its associated Fourier space, respectively. Our 1 L1 A The Wiener-Beurling algebra F νE is sometimes denoted as νE . 8 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI approach is based on the integral representations (3.5) and (3.6). The following lemma will allow us to treat TMIB and DTMIB simultaneously. Its proof is standard and therefore we omit it.

′ Lemma 3.4. Let X0 be a separable Banach space and set X = X0. Let (Ω, Σ,µ) be a measure space with µ a complex measure. Let f : Ω → X be weak-∗ measurable, i.e., the function Ω → C, x 7→ hf(x),gi is measurable for every g ∈ X0. Furthermore, suppose that

(3.7) kf(x)kX d|µ|(x) < ∞. ZΩ Then, f : Ω → X is Pettis integrable with respect to the weak-∗ topology on X and

(3.8) f(x)dµ(x) ≤ kf(x)kX d|µ|(x). ZΩ X ZΩ

We will use Lemma 3.4 without explicitly referring to it.

Let ω : Rn → [1, ∞) be a Borel measurable submultiplicative polynomially bounded 1 1 Rn function. We denote by Mω = Mω( ) the Banach space consisting of all complex n 1 R 1 Radon measures µ on such that kµkMω := Rn ω(x)d|µ|(x) < ∞. The space Mω ⊂ ′ Rn 1 S ( ) is a Banach convolution module and its associated Fourier space FMω is a Banach multiplication module if the multiplicationR is defined via the Fourier transform 1 1 1 1 and the convolution in Mω. Since Mω ⊆ M , the elements of FMω are bounded continuous functions and the multiplication defined above coincides with the ordinary multiplication of continuous functions. Let E be a TMIB or a DTMIB and set ωE = max{1,ωE}. We define the convolution of e ∈ E and µ ∈M1 as ωeE e e ∗ µ := Txe dµ(x) ∈ E, Rn Z where the integral should be interpreted as an E-valued Bochner integral if E is a TMIB and as an E-valued Pettis integral with respect to the weak-∗ topology on E if E is a DTMIB; hereafter, for DTMIB E, E-valued Pettis integrals will always be meant with respect to the weak-∗ topology on E (cf. Lemma 3.4). Hence, ∗ : E ×M1 → E ωeE is a continuous bilinear mapping such that

1 1 ke ∗ µkE ≤kekEkµkMe , e ∈ E, µ ∈MωeE . ωE If dµ(x)= f(x)dx with f ∈ L1 , this deﬁnition of convolution coincides with the one ωeE given at the beginning of the subsection. Furthermore, if

(1 + |x|)N d|µ|(x) < ∞, ∀N ∈ N, Rn Z ′ Rn then µ ∈ OC ( ) [25, p. 244] and he ∗ µ,ϕi = he, ϕ ∗ µˇi, ϕ ∈ S(Rn), GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 9

′ Rn ′ Rn whence e ∗ µ is equal to the S ( ) × OC ( )-convolution of e and µ [25, Theor`eme XI, p. 247]. Next, we consider multiplication. Set νE = max{1, νE}. We deﬁne the multiplication of e ∈ E and f ∈FM1 as νeE e −1 e · f := M−xe dF f(x); Rn Z the integral should be interpreted as an E-valued Bochner integral if E is a TMIB and as an E-valued Pettis integral if E is a DTMIB. Hence, · : E ×FM1 → E is a νeE continuous bilinear mapping such that

1 1 ke · fkE ≤kekEkfkFMe , e ∈ E, f ∈FMνeE . νE If f ∈ FL1 , this deﬁnition of multiplication coincides with the one given at the νeE beginning of the subsection. Furthermore, if

(1 + |x|)N d|F −1f|(x) < ∞, ∀N ∈ N, Rn Z n then f ∈ OM (R ) [25, p. 243] and he · f,ϕi = he, ϕ · fi, ϕ ∈ S(Rn),

′ n n whence e · f is equal to the S (R ) × OM (R )-multiplication of e and f [25, Theor`eme ′ X, p. 246]. Suppose that E is a DTMIB with E = E0, where E0 is a TMIB. For e ∈ E, µ ∈M1 , and f ∈ FM1 it holds that ωeE νeE

he ∗ µ,gi = he, g ∗ µˇi and he · f,gi = he, g · fi, g ∈ E0. Every solid Banach function space is a Banach multiplication module over L∞. We now use the previous observations to formulate a result that, for our purposes, will turn out to be the suitable analogue of this fact for TMIB and DTIMB. We first need to introduce some terminology. A lattice Λ is a discrete subgroup of Rn that spans the n n real vector space R . There is a unique invertible n×n-matrix AΛ such that Λ = AΛZ . ⊥ t −1Zn Rn Z The dual lattice of Λ is defined as Λ =(AΛ) = {µ ∈ | λ · µ ∈ , ∀λ ∈ Λ}. We n define IΛ := AΛ[0, 1) and vol(Λ) := |IΛ| = | det AΛ|. Lemma 3.5. Let ω : Rn → [1, ∞) be a Borel measurable submultiplicative polynomially bounded function. Let Λ be a lattice in Rn. Then, for every y ∈ Rn, the bilinear mapping 1 Rn 1 2πiy·λ FLω × S( ) →FMω, (f,ϕ) 7→ e Tλ(fϕ), Xλ∈Λ is well-defined and continuous. Furthermore, there are C > 0 and N ∈ N such that

2πiy·λ 1 n 1 N R sup e Tλ(fϕ) ≤ CkfkFLω kϕkS , f ∈FLω, ϕ ∈ S( ). y∈Rn λ∈Λ 1 FMω X

10 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

1 Rn Rn Proof. Let f ∈ FLω, ϕ ∈ S( ), and y ∈ be arbitrary. The Poisson summation formula implies that

1 (3.9) F −1 e2πiy·λT (fϕ) = fϕ(µ + y)T δ in S′(Rn). λ vol(Λ) −µ−y ! ⊥ Xλ∈Λ µX∈Λ c Hence,

1 e2πiy·λT (fϕ) = |f ∗ ϕ(µ + y)|ωˇ(µ + y) λ vol(Λ) λ∈Λ 1 µ∈Λ⊥ FMω X X 1 b b ≤ |f(y − x)|ωˇ(y − x) |ϕ(µ + x)|ωˇ(µ + x)dx vol(Λ) Rn ⊥ Z µX∈Λ ≤ CkϕkL∞ b kFfk 1 . b (1+|·|)n+1ωˇ Lωˇ Rn As the Fourier transform is an isomorphism from S( ) onto itself and kFfkL1 = b ωˇ 1 kfkFLω , this completes the proof. Corollary 3.6. Let Λ be a lattice in Rn and let ϕ ∈ S(Rn). Then, for every y ∈ Rn, the bilinear mapping

1 2πiy·λ E ×FLνeE → E, (e, f) 7→ e · e Tλ(fϕ), Xλ∈Λ is well-deﬁned and continuous. Furthermore, there is C > 0 such that

2πiy·λ 1 1 sup e · e Tλ(fϕ) ≤ CkekEkfkFLe , e ∈ E, f ∈FLνeE . y∈Rn νE λ∈Λ E X

3.3. Amalgam spaces. In this subsection, we define amalgam spaces which have a TMIB or a DTMIB as local component. These spaces will play an important technical role in the rest of this article. We refer to [11, 16] for more information. ′ n n Let E be a TMIB or DTMIB. We define Eloc = {f ∈D (R ) | χf ∈ E, ∀χ ∈D(R )}. Rn 1 Rn Since D( ) ⊂ FLνE , the function → E, x 7→ fTxχ is continuous for all f ∈ Eloc and χ ∈ D(Rn). Let w be a polynomially bounded weight function on Rn and let Rn p 1 ≤ p ≤∞. Fix χ ∈D( )\{0}. We define the amalgam space W (E, Lw) as the space consisting of all f ∈ Eloc such that (cf. [11], [16, Section 3])

1/p p p p kfkW (E,Lw) := kfTxχkEw(x) dx < ∞ Rn Z p (with the obvious modification for p = ∞). Then, W (E, Lw) is a Banach space whose definition is independent of the choice χ ∈D(Rn)\{0} and different non-zero elements Rn p of D( ) induce equivalent norms on W (E, Lw) (cf. [16, Lemma 3.4], [11, Theorem 1]). p p By [16, Lemma 3.2], W (E, Lw), 1 ≤ p < ∞, is a TMIB if E is so, while W (E, Lw), 1 ≤ p ≤∞, is a DTMIB if E is so. GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 11

4. The twisted translation an the twisted convolution Fix a real-valued n × n-matrix B. For x ∈ Rn we deﬁne the twisted translation with respect to B as B −2πiBx·(t−x) ′ Rn Tx f(t) := TxM−Bxf(t)= f(t − x)e , f ∈D ( ). 0 Rn ′ Rn ∞ Rn Note that Tx = Tx. For all x, y ∈ , f ∈D ( ), and ϕ ∈ C ( ) it holds that B Bt Bt B (i) Tx Ty = Ty Tx . B B B (ii) Tx (f · ϕ)= Tx f · Txϕ = Txf · Tx ϕ. B −B (iii) Tx f · Tx ϕ = Tx(f · ϕ). We deﬁne the twisted convolution with respect to B of f,g ∈ L1 as

B f ∗B g(t) := f(x)Tx g(t)dx. Rn Z Note that f ∗0 g = f ∗ g. Deﬁne 2πiBx·x ′ n θB(f)(x) := e f(x), f ∈D (R ). For all f,g ∈ L1, h ∈ L1 ∩ L∞, it holds that

(i) f ∗B g = g ∗Bt f. −B (ii) f ∗B g(t)= f(x)Tt (θB (ˇg))(x)dx. Rn Z (iii) f ∗B g(t)h(t)dt = f(t)h ∗−B θB(ˇg)(t)dt. Rn Rn Z Z Deﬁnition 4.1. Consider the real-valued 2n × 2n-matrix 0 0 B := . 0 I 0 Following the notation used in the introduction, we set σ B0 −2πix·(η−ξ) R2n T(x,ξ)f(t, η) := T(x,ξ)f(t, η)= f(t − x, η − ξ)e , (x, ξ) ∈ , and for f,g ∈ L1(R2n)

−2πix·(η−ξ) f#g(t, η) := f ∗B0 g(t, η)= f(x, ξ)g(t − x, η − ξ)e dxdξ. R2n ZZ Next, we extend the twisted convolution to S′(Rn). The proof of the following lemma is straightforward and we omit it. Lemma 4.2. B Rn Rn Rn (i) The mapping Tx : S( ) → S( ) is continuous for each x ∈ . More precisely, B N 2N Rn N kTx ϕkSN ≤ (1+2πkBk) kϕkSN (1 + |x|) , ϕ ∈ S( ), N ∈ , where kBk denotes the operator norm of B. Rn Rn B Rn (ii) The mapping → S( ), x 7→ Tx ϕ is continuous for each ϕ ∈ S( ). n n ′ n ′ n (iii) The mappings θB : S(R ) → S(R ) and θB : S (R ) → S (R ) are continuous. n n n (iv) The bilinear mapping ∗B : S(R ) × S(R ) → S(R ) is continuous. 12 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

We deﬁne the twisted convolution of f ∈ S′(Rn) and ϕ ∈ S(Rn) as −B (4.1) f ∗B ϕ(x) := hf, Tx θB(ˇϕ)i. n ′ n Then, f ∗B ϕ ∈ C(R ) and kf ∗B ϕkL∞ < ∞ for some N ∈ N. If A ⊂ S (R ) is (1+|·|)−N bounded, the previous estimate holds uniformly for f ∈ A. Since S′(Rn) is bornological, this implies that the mapping ′ n ′ n S (R ) → S (R ), f 7→ f ∗B ϕ is continuous. As L1 is dense in S′(Rn), we have that n hf ∗B ϕ, ψi = hf, ψ ∗−B θB(ˇϕ)i, ψ ∈ S(R ), for all f ∈ S′(Rn) and ϕ ∈ S(Rn). Finally, we discuss the twisted convolution on TMIB and DTMIB. Let E be a TMIB B Rn or a DTMIB. Then, Tx : E → E is continuous for each x ∈ and

B B τ0+τ1 (4.2) ρE (x) := kTx kL(E) ≤ ωE(x)νE(Bx) ≤ C2(1 + |x|) ,

τ1 B where C2 = C0C1 max{1, kBk }. Note that ρE is submultiplicative and polynomially bounded. For e ∈ E fixed, the mapping Rn B (4.3) → E, x 7→ Tx e, is continuous if E is a TMIB and continuous with respect to the weak-∗ topology on B E if E is a DTMIB. Consequently, ρE is Borel measurable when E is a TMIB (as E ′ is separable). If E is a DTMIB with E = E0, where E0 a TMIB, the bipolar theorem B −B B yields that ρE =ρ ˇE0 , whence ρE is Borel measurable in this case as well. Given a Banach space X ⊂ S′(Rn), we define the Banach spaces Xˇ := {f ∈ ′ Rn ˇ ˇ ′ Rn S ( ) | f ∈ X} with norm kfkXˇ := kfkX and θBX = {f ∈ S ( ) | θ−Bf ∈ X} with norm kfkθBX := kθ−BfkX . Furthermore, given a polynomially bounded weight Rn Rn ∞ Rn function w on , we denote by Cw = Cw( ) the space Lw ∩ C( ); of course, it is ∞ a closed subspace of Lw . ′ Assume that E is a TMIB. The twisted convolution of e ∈ E and g ∈ (θ−BE )ˇis defined as −B e ∗B g(x) := Ehe, Tx θB(ˇg)iE′ . ′ Similarly, we define the twisted convolution of e ∈ E and g ∈ (θ−BE)ˇas −B e ∗B g(x) := E′ he, Tx θB(ˇg)iE. Obviously, these definitions coincide with the one given in (4.1) if g ∈ S(Rn). Note that the bilinear mappings ′ ′ ∗B : E × (θ−BE )ˇ→ C1/ρˇB and ∗B : E × (θ−BE)ˇ→ C1/ρˇB E E′ are well-defined and continuous.

5. Discrete spaces associated to TMIB and DTMIB Throughout this section, E always stands for a TMIB or a DTMIB. We also ﬁx a real-valued n × n-matrix B, a lattice Λ in Rn, and a bounded open neighbourhood U of the origin such that the family of sets {λ + U | λ ∈ Λ} is pairwise disjoint. GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 13

5.1. Definition and basic properties. The following fundamental definition is in- spired by [13, Definition 3.4], where a discrete space is associated to a solid Banach function space. Definition 5.1. Let χ ∈D(U)\{0}. We define the discrete space associated to E with respect to B as

B B CΛ B Ed (Λ) = Ed,χ(Λ) := c =(cλ)λ∈Λ ∈ Sχ(c) := cλTλ χ ∈ E ( ) λ∈Λ X and endow it with the norm kck B = kck B := kSχ(c)k . Ed (Λ) Ed,χ(Λ) E B We start by showing that Ed (Λ) is a Banach space whose definition is independent of χ ∈D(U)\{0}. Theorem 5.2. B (i) Ed (Λ) is a Banach space. B (ii) The definition of Ed (Λ) is independent of the choice χ ∈D(U)\{0} and differ- B ent non-zero elements of D(U) induce equivalent norms on Ed (Λ). B Proof. (i) Let (cj)j∈N be a Cauchy sequence in Ed (Λ). Since E is continuously included ′ Rn B CΛ CΛ in D ( ), the inclusion mapping Ed (Λ) → is continuous. Hence, there is c ∈ Λ such that limj→∞ cj = c in C . As(Sχ(cj))j∈N is a Cauchy sequence in E, there is ′ n e ∈ E such that limj→∞ Sχ(cj) = e in E. Note that e = Sχ(c) in D (R ). Therefore, B B c ∈ Ed (Λ) and limj→∞ cj = c in Ed (Λ). (ii) We divide the proof into three steps. STEP I: Let χ ∈ D(U)\{0} be such that χ = 1 on some non-empty open subset V B B of U. Then, Ed,χe(Λ) is continuously included into Ed,χ(Λ) for all χ ∈D(U)\{0}. n Let x0 ∈ U ande r > 0 be such that [x0 −er, x0 + r] ⊂ V . Pick ψ ∈ D[−r,r]n such Rn N that m∈Zn Trmψ =1 on . Hence, there is N ∈ such that |m|≤N Trmψ = 1 on supp χ. For all c ∈ EB (Λ) it holds that P d,χe P B B cλTλ χ = cλTλ (χTrmψ) Xλ∈Λ |mX|≤N Xλ∈Λ 2πiBλ·(x0−rm) B = cλe Trm−x0 Tλ (Tx0 ψTx0−rmχ) |mX|≤N Xλ∈Λ

t 2πiB (x0−rm)·λ B = Trm−x0 cλe Tλ (χTx0 ψTx0−rmχ) ! |mX|≤N Xλ∈Λ

t e ′ B 2πiB (x0−rm)·λ ′ = Trm−x0 cλTλ χ · e Tλ (Tx0−rmχTx0 ψ) . ′ ! |mX|≤N Xλ∈Λ λX∈Λ The result is therefore a consequence of Corollarye 3.6. STEP II: Let χ ∈D(U)\{0}. Choose χ ∈D(U) such that supp χ ⊂{x ∈ U | χ(x) =6 B B 0} and χ =1 on some non-empty open subset V of U. Then, Ed,χ(Λ) = Ed,χe(Λ) with equivalent norms. e e e 14 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

B B By STEP I, Ed,χe(Λ) is continuously included in Ed,χ(Λ). We now show the converse B inclusion. Set ϕ = χ/χ ∈D(U). For all c ∈ Ed,χ(Λ) it holds that B B B cλTλ χ = cλTλ (χϕ)= cλTλ χ · Tλ′ ϕ, e ′ Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ λX∈Λ whence the result follows frome Corollary 3.6. B B STEP III: Let χ1, χ2 ∈ D(U)\{0}. Then, Ed,χ1 (Λ) = Ed,χ2 (Λ) with equivalent norms. Choose χ1, χ2 ∈D(U) as in STEP II. Then, B B B B Ed,χ1 (Λ) = Ed,χe1 (Λ) = Ed,χe2 (Λ) = Ed,χ2 (Λ) e e with equivalent norms, where the first and third equality follow from STEP II and the second equality follows from STEP I. B Remark 5.3. An immediate consequence of Theorem 5.2 is that Ed (Λ) also does not depend on the bounded open set U as long as the family of sets {λ + U | λ ∈ Λ} is pairwise disjoint. The next result, which will be used later on, follows from an inspection of the proof of Theorem 5.2. Lemma 5.4. Let A ⊂D(U)\{0} be a bounded subset of D(U). (i) For every χ ∈D(U)\{0} there is C > 0 such that B sup kckEB (Λ) ≤ CkckEB (Λ), c ∈ Ed (Λ). ϕ∈A d,ϕ d,χ (ii) Suppose that there is a non-empty open subset V of U such that inf inf |ϕ(x)| > 0. ϕ∈A x∈V Then, for every χ ∈D(U)\{0} there is C > 0 such that B kckEB (Λ) ≤ C inf kckEB (Λ), c ∈ Ed (Λ). d,χ ϕ∈A d,ϕ Consider the following discrete spaces CΛ N N Sd(Λ) := {c ∈ |kckSN (Λ) := sup |cλ|(1 + |λ|) < ∞, ∀N ∈ } d λ∈Λ and ′ CΛ N −N Sd(Λ) := {c ∈ | ∃N ∈ : kckS−N (Λ) := sup |cλ|(1 + |λ|) < ∞}, d λ∈Λ and endow them with their natural Fréchet space and (LB)-space topology, respec- ′ tively. The strong dual of Sd(Λ) may be topologically identified with Sd(Λ). We then have: Proposition 5.5. The following continuous inclusions hold B ′ Sd(Λ) → Ed (Λ) → Sd(Λ). In view of the continuous inclusions S(Rn) → E → S′(Rn), Proposition 5.5 is a direct consequence of the next lemma. GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 15

Lemma 5.6. Let ϕ ∈ S(Rn). (i) The mapping Rn B Sd(Λ) → S( ), c 7→ cλTλ ϕ λ∈Λ X B is well-deﬁned and continuous, and the series λ∈Λ cλTλ ϕ is absolutely summable in S(Rn). (ii) The mapping P ′ ′ Rn B (5.1) Sd(Λ) → S ( ), c 7→ cλTλ ϕ Xλ∈Λ B is well-deﬁned and continuous, and the series λ∈Λ cλTλ ϕ is absolutely summable in S′(Rn). CΛP ′ (iii) Suppose that ϕ ∈ D(U)\{0}. Then, c ∈ belongs to Sd(Λ) if and only B ′ Rn if λ∈Λ cλTλ ϕ ∈ S ( ). Moreover, the mapping in (5.1) is a topological embedding. P Proof. Parts (i) and (ii) are easy consequences of Lemma 4.2 and we omit their proofs. CΛ B ′ Rn We now show (iii). Let c ∈ be such that λ∈Λ cλTλ ϕ ∈ S ( ). Hence, there are N ∈ N and C > 0 such that P B Rn cλTλ ϕ, ψ ≤ CkψkSN , ψ ∈D( ). * + λ∈Λ X Pick ψ ∈D(U) such that n ϕ(x)ψ(x )dx = 1. Then, R

B −RB B −B cλ′ Tλ′ ϕ, Tλ ψ = cλ Tλ ϕ(x)Tλ ψ(x)dx = cλ, λ ∈ Λ. Rn * ′ + λX∈Λ Z Lemma 4.2(i) now implies that, for all λ ∈ Λ,

B −B −B N 2N |cλ| = cλ′ Tλ′ ϕ, Tλ ψ ≤ CkTλ ψkSN ≤ C(1+2πkBk) kψkSN (1 + |λ|) , * ′ + λX∈Λ ′ whence c ∈ Sd(Λ). Finally, we show that the continuous mapping (5.1) is a topological embedding. It is clear that this mapping is injective and, by what we have just shown, it also has closed range. Since S′(Rn) is a (DFS)-space and a closed subspace of a (DFS)-space is again a (DFS)-space, we obtain that the range of the mapping (5.1) is a (DFS)-space. Hence, the result follows from the De Wilde open mapping theorem [23, Theorem 1, p. 59] (cf. [23, Theorem 8, p. 63]). Next, we give two results that will play a crucial role in the rest of the article. The following result is the analogue of [13, Proposition 5.2] in our setting (see also the proof of [19, Theorem 12.2.4]). Proposition 5.7. The bilinear mapping B Rn B Ed (Λ) × S( ) → E, (c,ϕ) 7→ Sϕ(c), with Sϕ(c)= cλTλ ϕ, Xλ∈Λ 16 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI is well-deﬁned and continuous and uniquely extends to a continuous bilinear mapping B 1 1 (5.2) Ed (Λ) × W (FLνeE , LωE ) → E, (c,ϕ) 7→ Sϕ(c). ′ Furthermore, if E is a DTMIB with E = E0, where E0 is a TMIB, there is χ ∈ D(U)\{0} such that for every g ∈ E and ϕ ∈ W (FL1 , L1 )ethere is h ∈ E such that 0 νeE ωE 0 B (5.3) hSϕ(c),gi = hSχ(c), hi , c ∈ Ed (Λ). n Proof. Let r > 0 be such that [−4r, 4r] ⊂ U and let χ ∈ D[−r,r]n be such that Rne n m∈Zn Trmχ = 1 on . Choose ψ ∈ D[−2r,2r]n such that ψ = 1 on [−r, r] and n B 1 1 ψ ∈D n such that ψ = 1 on [−2r, 2r] . Let c ∈ E (Λ) and ϕ ∈ W (FL , L ) 1 [−3r,3r] 1 d νeE ωE beP arbitrary. For each m ∈ Zn, we infer B −2πiBλ·rm B (5.4) cλTλ (ϕTrmχ)= cλe TrmTλ ((T−rmϕ)χ) Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ −2πiBtrm·λ B = Trm cλe Tλ (χ(T−rmϕ)ψ) Xλ∈Λ B −2πiBtrm·λ′ = Trm cλTλ χ · e Tλ′ ((ψT−rmϕ)ψ1) . ′ ! Xλ∈Λ λX∈Λ B Hence, Corollary 3.6 yields that λ∈Λ cλTλ (ϕTrmχ) ∈ E and that

B P B 1 cλTλ (ϕTrmχ) ≤ CkckE (Λ) ωE(rm)kψT−rmϕkFLe d νE Zn Zn m∈ λ∈Λ E m∈ X X X B 1 = CkckE (Λ) ωE(rm)kϕTrmψkFLe . d νE Zn mX∈ n Choose ψ2 ∈D[−4r,4r]n such that ψ2 = 1 on [−3r, 3r] . Then,

−n ωE(rm)kϕTrmψk 1 = r kϕTrmψk 1 ωE(rm)dx FLνe FLνe E n E Zn Zn rm+[−r/2,r/2] mX∈ mX∈ Z ′ −n ≤ C r kϕTxψ2Trmψk 1 ωE(x)dx FLνe n E Zn rm+[−r/2,r/2] mX∈ Z ′ −n ≤ C r kψk 1 kϕTxψ2k 1 ωE(x)dx FLνe FLνe E n E m∈Zn Zrm+[−r/2,r/2] ′ −n X 1 1 1 = C r kψkFLe kϕkW (FLe ,Lω ). νE νE E We deduce that

B ′′ B 1 1 (5.5) cλTλ (ϕTrmχ) ≤ C kckE (Λ)kϕkW (FLe ,Lω ). d νE E Zn m∈ λ∈Λ E X X Now suppose that ϕ ∈ S(Rn). Since the double series

B cλTλ (ϕTrmχ) Zn m∈X, λ∈Λ GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 17 is absolutely summable in S′(Rn), we have that (cf. Lemma 5.6(ii)) B B ′ Rn B Rn (5.6) cλTλ ϕ = cλTλ (ϕTrmχ) in S ( ), c ∈ Ed (Λ),ϕ ∈ S( ). Zn Xλ∈Λ mX∈ Xλ∈Λ As S(Rn) is dense in W (FL1 , L1 ), the ﬁrst statement is therefore a consequence of νeE ωE (5.5). Moreover, we obtain that B B 1 1 (5.7) Sϕ(c)= cλTλ (ϕTrmχ), c ∈ Ed (Λ), ϕ ∈ W (FLνeE , LωE ). Zn mX∈ Xλ∈Λ ′ Next, supposee that E is a DTMIB with E = E0, where E0 is a TMIB. Let g ∈ E0 and ϕ ∈ W (FL1 , L1 ) be arbitrary. Similarly as in the proof of (5.5), one can show that νeE ωE the series

−2πiBtrm·λ′ T−rmg · e Tλ′ (ψT−rmϕ) Zn ′ ! mX∈ λX∈Λ is absolutely summable in E0; denote it by h ∈ E0. Then, (5.4) and (5.7) give (5.3). Corollary 5.8. The space W (FL1 , L1 ) is continuously included into E. Conse- νeE ωE quently, W (FL1 , L1 ) ⊂ E′ continuously if E is a TMIB and W (FL1 , L1 ) ⊂ E νeE ωˇE νeE ωˇE 0 ′ continuously if E is a DTMIB and E = E0, where E0 is a TMIB. 0 CΛ 0 0 Rn Proof. Let c ∈ be such that c0 = 1 and cλ = 0 for λ ∈ Λ\{0}. Since S( ) is dense in W (FL1 , L1 ), Proposition 5.7 yields that S (c0) = ϕ for all ϕ ∈ W (FL1 , L1 ). νeE ωE ϕ νeE ωE The result now follows from another application of Proposition 5.7. e Remark 5.9. From now on, we will denote the continuous extension Sϕ(c) simply by Sϕ(c). We emphasise that, at the moment, we do not claim that Sϕ(c) is given by c T Bϕ for general ϕ ∈ W (FL1 , L1 ) as we do not give any meaning to this λ∈Λ λ λ νeE ωE e series for such ϕ. Later on, we will prove that the series c T Bϕ converges to P λ∈Λ λ λ Sϕ(c) in the Césaro sense (see Corollary 5.23 below). P We now show a sampling inequality for the twisted translation; it should be compared with [19, Lemma 3.9(a) and Proposition 5.2] and [19, Proposition 11.1.4]. Corollary 5.8 implies that the bilinear mapping 1 1 (5.8) ∗B : E × (θ−BW (FLe , L ))ˇ→ C B νE ωˇE 1/ρˇE is well-defined and continuous (cf. the last part of Section 4). Proposition 5.10. The bilinear mapping 1 1 B E × (θ−BW (FLνeE , LωˇE ))ˇ→ Ed (Λ), (e, ϕ) 7→ Rϕ(e) := (e ∗B ϕ(λ))λ∈Λ, is well-defined and continuous. The proof of Proposition 5.10 is based on the identity shown in the next lemma. Lemma 5.11. For all f ∈ S′(Rn), ϕ ∈ S(Rn) and χ ∈D(U), it holds that

B −2πiBtx·λ ′ Rn (5.9) f ∗B ϕ(λ)Tλ χ = Txf · e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ)dx in S ( ), Rn Xλ∈Λ Z Xλ∈Λ 18 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI where the integral should be interpreted as an S′(Rn)-valued Pettis integral with respect to the weak-∗ topology on S′(Rn). Proof. Note that the mapping

n n −2πiBtx·λ R →DL∞ (R ), x 7→ e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ) (1+|·|)−1 Xλ∈Λ is continuous. This implies that the mapping

n ′ n −2πiBtx·λ R → S (R ), x 7→ Txf · e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ) Xλ∈Λ is continuous with respect to the weak-∗ topology on S′(Rn). Hence, by Lemma 5.6(ii), we only need to show that

B −2πiBtx·λ f ∗B ϕ(λ)Tλ χ(x)ψ(x)dx = Txf · e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ), ψ dx Rn Rn * + Xλ∈Λ Z Z Xλ∈Λ for all ψ ∈ S(Rn). We have that

B f ∗B ϕ(λ)Tλ χ(x)ψ(x)dx Rn Xλ∈Λ Z −B B = hf(t), Tλ (θB(ˇϕ))(t)i Tλ χ(x)ψ(x)dx Rn Xλ∈Λ Z −B B = f(t), Tλ (θB(ˇϕ))(t)Tλ χ(t + x)ψ(t + x)dx . Rn Xλ∈Λ Z As the function R2n C −B B → , (t, x) 7→ Tλ (θB(ˇϕ))(t)Tλ χ(t + x)ψ(t + x), belongs to S(R2n), we infer that

B f ∗B ϕ(λ)Tλ χ(x)ψ(x)dx Rn Xλ∈Λ Z −B B = hf(t) ⊗ 1(x), Tλ (θB(ˇϕ))(t)Tλ χ(t + x)ψ(t + x)i Xλ∈Λ −B B = hf(t), Tλ (θB(ˇϕ))(t)Tλ χ(t + x)ψ(t + x)idx Rn Xλ∈Λ Z −B B = hf, Tλ (θB(ˇϕ))T−x(Tλ χψ)idx Rn Z Xλ∈Λ −B B = hTxf, TxTλ (θB(ˇϕ))Tλ χψidx Rn Z Xλ∈Λ −2πiBtx·λ = hTxf, e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ)ψidx Rn Z Xλ∈Λ GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 19

−2πiBtx·λ = Txf · e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ), ψ dx. Rn * + Z Xλ∈Λ This completes the proof of the lemma.

Proof of Proposition 5.10. As e ∗B ϕ is continuous, we can evaluate it at λ ∈ Λ. Fix χ ∈D(U)\{0}. Since S(Rn) is dense in W (FL1 , L1 ), Lemma 5.11 and the continuity νeE ωˇE of the mapping (5.8) imply that it suﬃces to show that the bilinear mapping 1 1 E × (θ−BW (FLνeE , LωˇE ))ˇ→ E,

−2πiBtx·λ (5.10) (e, ϕ) 7→ Txe · e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ)dx Rn Z Xλ∈Λ is well-deﬁned and continuous, where the integral should be interpreted as an E-valued Bochner integral if E is a TMIB and as an E-valued Pettis integral if E is a DTMIB. Let e ∈ E and ϕ ∈ (θ W (FL1 , L1 ))ˇbe arbitrary. Choose χ ∈ D(U) such that −B νeE ωˇE 1 χ1 = 1 on supp χ. Then,

−2πiBtx·λ −2πiBtx·λ n e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ)= e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χχ1), x ∈ R . Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ Hence, Corollary 3.6 verifies that, for x ∈ Rn fixed, the integrand in (5.10) is a well- defined element of E.

Claim. The mapping

n −2πiBtx·λ (5.11) R → E, x 7→ Txe · e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ), Xλ∈Λ is strongly measurable if E is a TMIB and weak-∗ measurable if E is a DTMIB.

Assuming the validity of the claim, Corollary 3.6 gives the bound

−2πiBtx·λ Txe · e Tλ((Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ)χ1) dx Rn Z λ∈Λ E X

≤ CkekE ωE(x)kTx(θB(ˇϕ))χk 1 dx = CkekEkϕk 1 1 , FLνe (θ−B W (FLνe ,Lωˇ ))ˇ Rn E E E Z whence the mapping (5.10) is well-deﬁned and continuous. It remains to prove the claim. First suppose that ϕ ∈ S(Rn). For each x ∈ Rn, it holds that −2πiBtx·λ Rn −Bt Rn e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ) ∈DL∞ ( ) and Tλ(Tx (θB(ˇϕ))χ) ∈DL∞ ( ). Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ We infer that, for all ψ ∈ S(Rn) and x ∈ Rn,

−2πiBtx·λ Txe · e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ), ψ * + Xλ∈Λ 20 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

−2πiBtx·λ = Txe, ψ e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ) * + Xλ∈Λ 2πiBtx·x −Bt = Txe, e M−Btx ψ Tλ(Tx (θB(ˇϕ))χ) * !+ Xλ∈Λ Bt −Bt = Tx e · Tλ(Tx (θB(ˇϕ))χ), ψ , * + Xλ∈Λ and, consequently, −2πiBtx·λ Bt −Bt (5.12) Txe · e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕ))χ)= Tx e · Tλ(Tx (θB(ˇϕ))χ). Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ Lemma 3.5 implies that −Bt −Bt 1 Tλ(Tx (θB(ˇϕ))χ)= Tλ(Tx (θB(ˇϕ))χχ1) ∈FMνeE Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ and therefore the multiplication on the right-hand side in (5.12) may be interpreted as the multiplication on E ×FM1 . Since the mapping Rn →FL1 , x 7→ T −Bt (θ (ˇϕ)), νeE νeE x B is continuous, Lemma 3.5 gives the continuity of the mapping Rn 1 −Bt →FMνeE , x 7→ Tλ(Tx (θB(ˇϕ))χ), Xλ∈Λ which, in turn, yields that the mapping Rn Bt −Bt → E, x 7→ Tx e · Tλ(Tx (θB(ˇϕ))χ), Xλ∈Λ is continuous if E is a TMIB and continuous with respect to the weak-∗ topology on E if E is a DTMIB. Thus, if ϕ ∈ S(Rn), the mapping (5.11) is continuous if E is a TMIB and continuous with respect to the weak-∗ topology on E if E is a DTMIB. Now 1 1 n let ϕ ∈ (θ W (FL , L ))ˇbe arbitrary. Choose a sequence (ϕ ) N ⊂ S(R ) that −B νeE ωˇE j j∈ converges to ϕ in (θ W (FL1 , L1 ))ˇ. Since the mapping W (FL1 , L1 ) → FL1 , −B νeE ωˇE νeE ωˇE νeE ψ 7→ ψχ, is continuous, Corollary 3.6 implies that the mappings n −2πiBtx·λ R → E, x 7→ Txe · e Tλ(Tx(θB(ˇϕj))χχ1), j ∈ N, Xλ∈Λ converge pointwise to the mapping (5.11) in E if E is a TMIB and in the weak-∗ topology of E if E is a DTMIB. This implies the claim.

Corollary 5.12. Let χ, ψ ∈ D(U)\{0} be such that (θB(ψ), χ)L2 =6 0. Then, the mappings B B Sχ : Ed (Λ) → E and Rψˇ : E → Ed (Λ) are continuous and

(5.13) R ˇ ◦ Sχ =(θB(ψ), χ) 2 id B . ψ L Ed (Λ) B In particular, Sχ(Ed (Λ)) is a complemented subspace of E. GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 21

B B Proof. The mapping Sχ : Ed (Λ) → E is continuous by deﬁnition of Ed (Λ) and the B continuity of the mapping Rψˇ : E → Ed (Λ) has been shown in Proposition 5.10. The identity (5.13) follows from a straightforward computation. We end this subsection by giving two examples; further examples shall be discussed in Subsection 5.4 below. Examples 5.13. (i) Let E be a solid TMIB or DTMIB. Fix a bounded open neighbourhood of the origin W with W ⊂ U. We deﬁne the Banach space

Λ Ed(Λ) := c ∈ C cλ1λ+W ∈ E ( ) Xλ∈Λ B with norm kck := k λ∈Λ |cλ|1λ+W kE. Note that Ed(Λ) is solid. We have that Ed (Λ) = Ed(Λ) topologically for all real-valued n × n-matrices B. Hence, in the solid case, our definition coincidesP with the standard one (cf. [13, Definition 3.4]). Let w be a poly- Rn p nomially bounded weight function on . For 1 ≤ p ≤ ∞ we define ℓw(Λ) as the Λ C p p Banach space consisting of all c ∈ such that kckℓw(Λ) := k(cλw(λ))λ∈Λkℓ (Λ) < ∞. ∞ ∞ We define c0,w(Λ) as the closed subspace of ℓw (Λ) consisting of all c ∈ ℓw (Λ) satisfying the following property: For every ε > 0 there is a finite subset Λ(0) of Λ such that p p B supλ∈Λ\Λ(0) |cλ|w(λ) ≤ ε. Then, (Lw)d(Λ) = ℓw(Λ); furthermore, (C0,w)d (Λ) = c0,w(Λ) for all real-valued n×n-matrices B. A similar statement holds for the weighted mixed- norm spaces considered in Example 3.3(i).

0 (ii) Let E be a solid TMIB or DTMIB. We wish to determine (FE)d(Λ). We de- n ⊥ ⊥ fine E(R /Λ ) as the Banach space consisting of all Λ -periodic elements f ∈ Eloc with norm kfk Rn ⊥ := kf1 k . E( /Λ ) IΛ⊥ E 1 Rn Rn ⊥ 1 Rn ⊥ Since E ⊂ Lloc( ), we have that E( /Λ ) ⊂ L ( /Λ ). As customary, we define the Fourier coefficients of an element f ∈ L1(Rn/Λ⊥) as

1 −2πiλ·x cλ(f)= ⊥ f(x)e dx, λ ∈ Λ. vol(Λ ) I Z Λ⊥ We then have: Proposition 5.14. Let E be a solid TMIB or DTMIB. Then, Rn ⊥ 0 (5.14) E( /Λ ) → (FE)d(Λ), f 7→ (cλ(f))λ∈Λ is a topological isomorphism. Rn ⊥ ∞ ′ Proof. Let f ∈ E( /Λ ) be arbitrary. Note that (cλ(f))λ∈Λ ∈ ℓ (Λ) ⊂ Sd(Λ). Hence, 2πiλ·ξ ′ n f(ξ)= cλ(f)e in S (R ). Xλ∈Λ Let χ ∈D(U)\{0}. By Lemma 5.6(ii), we infer that −1 −1 −1 2πiλ·ξ F (Sχ((cλ(f))λ∈Λ))(ξ)= cλ(f)F (Tλχ)(ξ)= F (χ)(ξ) cλ(f)e Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ 22 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

= F −1(χ)(ξ)f(ξ)= F −1(χ)(ξ)f(ξ)1 (ξ). µ+IΛ⊥ ⊥ µX∈Λ For each µ ∈ Λ⊥ it holds that kF −1(χ)f1 k ≤ ω (µ)kT (F −1(χ))f1 k µ+IΛ⊥ E E −µ IΛ⊥ E τ0 −1 ≤ C (1 + |µ|) kT F (χ)k ∞ kfk Rn ⊥ 0 −µ L (IΛ⊥ ) E( /Λ ) −n−1 ≤ C(1 + |µ|) kfkE(Rn/Λ⊥), whence the mapping (5.14) is well-deﬁned and continuous. This mapping is injective 1 n ⊥ because for all f ∈ L (R /Λ ) it holds that f = 0 if and only if cλ(f) = 0 for 0 ′ all λ ∈ Λ. Next, let c ∈ (FE)d(Λ) be arbitrary. By Proposition 5.5, c ∈ Sd(Λ). 2πiλ·ξ ⊥ ′ Rn Hence, f(ξ)= λ∈Λ cλe is a well-deﬁned Λ -periodic element of S ( ). Choose ϕ ∈ S(Rn) such that F −1(ϕ)(ξ) =6 0 for all ξ ∈ Rn. By Lemma 5.6(ii) and Proposition 5.7, we have thatP

−1 −1 −1 E ∋F (Sϕ(c)) = cλF (Tλϕ)= F (ϕ)f, Xλ∈Λ which implies that f ∈ E(Rn/Λ⊥) and, in view of Proposition 5.7, −1 −1 kfk Rn ⊥ = kf1 k ≤k1/F (ϕ)k ∞ kF (ϕ)fk ≤ Ckck 0 . E( /Λ ) IΛ⊥ E L (IΛ⊥ ) E FEd(Λ) Clearly, c is equal to the image of f under the mapping (5.14). Therefore, this mapping is surjective and its inverse is continuous.

p 0 p 0 Corollary 5.15. Let 1 ≤ p ≤∞. Then, (FLw)d(Λ) = (FL )d(Λ) for all polynomially bounded weight functions w on Rn. 5.2. Convergence properties. In this subsection we address the following question: B B Let χ ∈ D(U)\{0} and c ∈ Ed (Λ). In which sense does the series λ∈Λ cλTλ χ converge in E? When E is solid, we can give a quick answer to this question (cf. [13, Proposition 5.2]). P

B Lemma 5.16. Let E be solid and let χ ∈ D(U)\{0}. For each c ∈ Ed (Λ) the series B λ∈Λ cλTλ χ converges unconditionally in E if E is a TMIB and converges unconditionally with respect to the weak-∗ topology on E if E is a DTMIB. P Proof. We only consider the case when E is a TMIB as the case when E is a DTMIB can n be treated similarly. Let ε> 0 be arbitrary. Pick ψ ∈D(R ) such that kSχ(c)−ψkE ≤ (0) ε. Let Λ be a ﬁnite subset of Λ such that supp ψ ∩ ( λ∈Λ\Λ(0) (λ + U)) = ∅. For (0) ′ ′ any Λ ⊆ Λ ⊂ Λ,Λ ﬁnite, denote by gΛ′ the characteristic function of the set B S supp ψ ∪ ( λ∈Λ′ (λ + U)). Since λ∈Λ′ cλTλ χ = gΛ′ Sχ(c) and (1 − gΛ′ )ψ = 0, we infer that S P B Sχ(c) − cλTλ χ = k(1 − gΛ′ )(Sχ(c) − ψ)kE ≤kSχ(c) − ψkE ≤ ε. ′ λ∈Λ E X

GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 23

However, for general TMIB and DTMIB this question is far more subtle, as the following observation shows. 1 1 Proposition 5.17. Let χ ∈ D((− 2 , 2 ))\{0}. For 1 ≤ p < ∞, p =6 2, there exists p 0 Z an element c ∈ (FL )d( ) such that the series λ∈Z cλTλχ is not unconditionally convergent in FLp(R). For p = 1 there even exists an element c ∈ (FL1)0(Z) such P d that the sequence of symmetric partial sums |λ|≤N cλTλχ does not converge in N∈N 1 R FL ( ). P Proof. In view of Proposition 5.14, this is a consequence of the following two classical facts about Fourier series: For 1 ≤ p< ∞, p =6 2, there exists an element in Lp(R/Z) whose Fourier series is not unconditionally convergent in Lp(R/Z) [21, Exercise 6.5]; there exists an element in L1(R/Z) such that the sequence of symmetric partial sums of its Fourier series does not converge in L1(R/Z) [17, Example 4.1.4]. We will now formulate a positive answer to the above question by using the concept of C´esaro summability.

Definition 5.18. Let X be a Hausdorff topological vector space and let (xλ)λ∈Λ ⊂ X. Zn The series λ∈Λ xλ is said to be Césaro summable to x ∈ X if (recall that Λ = AΛ ) P |m1| |mn| lim 1 − ··· 1 − xA m = x. N→∞ N N Λ m∈Zn |mXj |

B B Theorem 5.19. Let χ ∈ D(U)\{0}. For each c ∈ Ed (Λ), the series λ∈Λ cλTλ χ is C´esaro summable in E if E is a TMIB and C´esaro summable with respect to the weak-∗ topology on E if E is a DTMIB. P

We need some preparation for the proof of Theorem 5.19. A sequence (kN )N∈Z+ ⊂ L1(Rn/Zn) is called an approximate identity on Rn/Zn [17, Deﬁnition 1.2.15] if Z (i) 1 1 n kN (x)dx = 1 for all N ∈ +. [− 2 , 2 ] 1 1 (ii) supN∈Z+ n |kN (x)|dx< ∞. R [− 2 , 2 ] (iii) For all δR > 0 it holds that

lim |kN (x)|dx =0. N→∞ [− 1 , 1 ]n\[−δ,δ]n Z 2 2 Set |m | |m | F (x)= 1 − 1 ··· 1 − n e2πim·x, N ∈ Z . N N N + m∈Zn |mXj |

1 1 n (i) Let X be a Banach space. Suppose that f :[− 2 , 2 ] → X is continuous. Then,

(5.15) lim f(x)kN (x)dx = f(0), N→∞ [− 1 , 1 ]n Z 2 2 where the above integrals should be interpreted as X-valued Bochner integrals. ′ 1 1 n (ii) Let X0 be a separable Banach space and set X = X0. Suppose that f :[− 2 , 2 ] → X is continuous with respect to the weak-∗ topology on X. Then, (5.15) holds with respect to the weak-∗ topology on X if the integrals are interpreted as X- valued Pettis integrals with respect to the weak-∗ topology on X.

B Proof of Theorem 5.19. Choose ψ ∈D(U) such that ψ = 1 on supp χ. Let c ∈ Ed (Λ) be arbitrary. For each N ∈ Z+, it holds that

|m1| |mn| B 1 − ··· 1 − cA mT χ N N Λ AΛm |mXj |

|m | |m | F −1 1 − 1 ··· 1 − n T ψ (ξ)= ψ(−ξ)F (At ξ).  N N AΛm  N Λ |mXj |

|m1| |mn| B t 1 − ··· 1 − cAΛmTAΛmχ = M−ξSχ(c)ψ(−ξ)FN (AΛξ)dξ, N N Rn |mXj |

|m1| |mn| B lim 1 − ··· 1 − cAΛmTA mχ N→∞ N N Λ |mXj |

1 t −1 = M t −1 S (c)ψ((A ) m) (AΛ) m χ Λ vol(Λ) Zn mX∈ 1 b = M S (c)ψ(µ) vol(Λ) µ χ ⊥ µX∈Λ b = Sχ(c) · Tλψ Xλ∈Λ = Sχ(c), where the last equality follows from the fact that ψ = 1 on supp χ.

B Remark 5.21. Let χ ∈D(U)\{0} and let c ∈ Ed (Λ). Instead of the C´esaro means, we can also consider the Bochner-Riesz means of order α, α ≥ 0, of the series Sχ(c) = B λ∈Λ cλTλ χ, namely, 2 α P α |m| B B (Sχ(c)) = 1 − cA mT χ, N ∈ Z+. N N 2 Λ AΛm m∈Zn |mX|≤N Set |m|2 α Lα (x)= 1 − e2πim·x, N ∈ Z . N N 2 + m∈Zn |mX|≤N α Rn Zn Then, (LN )N∈Z+ is an approximate identity on / if α > (n − 1)/2 [17, Proof of Proposition 4.1.9]. Hence, by using the exact same argument as in the proof Theorem 5.19, one can show that, for α> (n − 1)/2, α lim BN (Sχ(c)) = Sχ(c) N→∞ in E if E is a TMIB and with respect to the weak-∗ topology on E if E is a DTMIB.

Λ We denote by c00(Λ) the space consisting of all elements of C with only ﬁnitely many non-zero entries. We have the following consequence of Theorem 5.19.

B Corollary 5.22. Let E be a TMIB. The space c00(Λ) is dense in Ed (Λ). With the help of Theorem 5.19, we can also describe the bilinear mapping (5.2) from Proposition 5.7. Corollary 5.23. For all c ∈ EB(Λ) and ϕ ∈ W (FL1 , L1 ), it holds that d νeE ωE

B (5.16) Sϕ(c)= cλTλ ϕ Xλ∈Λ where the series is Césaro summable in E if E is a TMIB and Césaro summable with respect to the weak-∗ topology on E if E is a DTMIB. Proof. Since S(Rn) is dense in W (FL1 , L1 ), Proposition 5.7 yields that (5.16) holds νeE ωE true for all c ∈ c (Λ) and ϕ ∈ W (FL1 , L1 ). Let c ∈ EB(Λ) be arbitrary. We define 00 νeE ωE d 26 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

(N) c ∈ c00(Λ), N ∈ Z+, by

|m1| |mn| (N) 1 − ··· 1 − c , if |m | < N, c = N N AΛm j AΛm ( 0, otherwise. (N) If E is a TMIB, Proposition 5.7 and Theorem 5.19 imply that Sϕ(c ) converges to Sϕ(c) in E, which completes the proof in this case. Now suppose that E is a DTMIB ′ with E = E0, where E0 is a TMIB. Let χ ∈ D(U)\{0} be as in the second part of Proposition 5.7. Then, for every g ∈ E0 there is h ∈ E0 satisfying

|m1| |mn| B 1 − ··· 1 − cAΛmTAΛmϕ,g * N N + |mXj |

|m1| |mn| B = 1 − ··· 1 − cAΛmTAΛmχ, h . * N N + |mXj |

B Proposition 5.24. Let E be a TMIB. The strong dual of Ed (Λ) may be topologically ′ −B identiﬁed with (E )d (Λ) via the dual pairing ′ ′ ′ ′ −B B hc ,ci = cλcλ, c ∈ (E )d (Λ), c ∈ Ed (Λ). Xλ∈Λ ′ C Furthermore, the series λ∈Λ cλcλ is C´esaro summable in .

Proof. Let χ, ψ ∈D(U)\{P0} be such that Rd χ(x)ψ(x)dx = 1. Note that R ′ ′ −B B ′ ′ −B cλcλ = cλTλ ψ, cλTλ χ , c ∈ (E )d (Λ), c ∈ c00(Λ). * + Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ Hence, Theorem 5.19 implies that the mapping

′ −B B ′ ′ ′ (E )d (Λ) → (Ed (Λ))b, c 7→ c 7→ cλcλ , ! Xλ∈Λ ′ is well-deﬁned and continuous, and that the series λ∈Λ cλcλ is C´esaro summable in C. This mapping is clearly injective. We now show that it is also surjective; the result then follows from the open mapping theorem. Pick χP∈D(U)\{0} such thatχ ˇ ∈D(U) ′ B ′ ′ CΛ and set ψ = θ−B(ˇχ) ∈ D(U)\{0}. Let x ∈ (Ed (Λ)) be arbitrary. There is c ∈ such that ′ ′ hx ,ci = cλcλ, c ∈ c00(Λ). Xλ∈Λ GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 27

B Since the space c00(Λ) is dense in Ed (Λ) (Corollary 5.22), it suﬃces to show that ′ ′ −B B c ∈ (E )d (Λ). Consider the continuous linear mapping Rψ : E → Ed (Λ) from t n Proposition 5.10 and denote its transpose by Rψ. For all ϕ ∈D(R ) it holds that

t ′ ′ h Rψ(x ),ϕi = cλϕ ∗B ψ(λ) Xλ∈Λ ′ −B = cλ ϕ(x)Tλ χ(x)dx Rn Xλ∈Λ Z ′ −B = cλTλ χ (x)ϕ(x)dx. Rn ! Z Xλ∈Λ ′ −B t ′ ′ ′ ′ −B Hence, λ∈Λ cλTλ χ = Rψ(x ) ∈ E and, thus, c ∈ (E )d (Λ). Our nextP goal is to show that the completed tensor product of the discrete spaces associated to two TMIB is canonically isomorphic to the discrete space associated to the completed tensor product of the two TMIB.

nj Proposition 5.25. Let Ej be a TMIB on R , let Bj be a real-valued nj × nj-matrix, nj and let Λj be a lattice in R for j = 1, 2. Let τ denote either π or ǫ. Then, B1 B2 B1⊕B2 (E1)d (Λ1)⊗τ (E2)d (Λ2) is canonically isomorphic to (E1⊗τ E2)d (Λ1 × Λ2).

Proof. Set n = n1 + n2, B = B1 ⊕ B2, and Λ = Λ1 × Λ2. Choose a bounded open b nj b neighbourhood Uj of the origin in R such that the families of sets {λ + Uj | λ ∈ Λj}, j = 1, 2, are pairwise disjoint. Set U = U1 × U2. Choose χj ∈ D(Uj)\{0} such that B1 χˇj ∈ D(Uj), j = 1, 2, and set χ = χ1 ⊗ χ2 ∈ D(U)\{0}. Denote by ι : (E1)d (Λ1) ⊗τ B2 B (E2)d (Λ2) → (E1⊗τ E2)d (Λ) the canonical inclusion mapping. We need to show that B1 B2 this mapping extends to a topological isomorphism from (E1)d (Λ1)⊗τ (E2)d (Λ2) onto B (E1⊗τ E2)d (Λ). Byb the identity Sχ1 ⊗ Sχ2 = Sχ ◦ ι and Corollary 5.12, it suﬃces to show that the mapping b b B1 B2 Sχ1 ⊗τ Sχ2 :(E1)d (Λ1)⊗τ (E2)d (Λ2) → E1⊗τ E2 B is a topological embedding with range equal to Sχ((E1⊗ˆ τ E2) (Λ)). The mappings b b b d Sχj , j = 1, 2, are topological embeddings. Hence, by deﬁnition of the ǫ-topology, the mapping Sχ1 ⊗ǫSχ2 is a topological embedding as well (cf. [24, p. 47]). For the π-topology, Corollary 5.12 and [24, Proposition 2.4] imply that also the mapping

Sχ1 ⊗πSχ2 is a topologicalb embedding. The identity Sχ1 ⊗ Sχ2 = Sχ ◦ ι and the fact that B Sχ((E1⊗τ E2)d (Λ)) is closed in E1⊗τ E2 imply that the range of Sχ1 ⊗τ Sχ2 is included in B B1 B2 Sχ((bE1⊗τ E2)d (Λ)). As the space c00(Λ) = c00(Λ1)⊗c00(Λ2) ⊂ (E1)d (Λ1)⊗(E2)d (Λ2) B is denseb in (E1⊗τ E2)d (Λ) (Corollaryb 5.22) and Sχ1 ⊗τ Sχ2 is a topologicalb embedding, B we concludeb that the range of Sχ1 ⊗τ Sχ2 is equal to Sχ((E1⊗τ E2)d (Λ)). b b 5.4. Examples. As explained in the introduction, the 2n × 2n-matrix B from Deﬁni- b b 0 tion 4.1 is the most important for our purposes. In this subsection, we determine the discrete space associated to various TMIB and DTMIB with respect to B0. We start with the spaces considered in Example 3.3(iii). 28 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

Let Λ be a lattice in Rn and let B be a real-valued n × n matrix. For c ∈ CΛ we set 2πiBλ·λ Λ θB(c)=(cλe )λ∈Λ. Given a Banach space X ⊂ C , we deﬁne the Banach space CΛ θBX := {c ∈ | θ−B(c) ∈ X} with norm kckθB X := kθ−B(c)kX . Proposition 5.26. Let E be a TMIB on Rn and let w be a polynomially bounded n n weight function on R . Let Λ1 and Λ2 be two lattices in R . (i) It holds that

p Rn B0 p 0 (Lw( ξ ; Ex))d (Λ1,x × Λ2,ξ)= ℓw(Λ2; Ed (Λ1)), 1 ≤ p< ∞, Rn B0 0 (C0,w( ξ ; Ex))d (Λ1,x × Λ2,ξ)= c0,w(Λ2; Ed (Λ1)), topologically. (ii) Suppose that νE =1. Then, p Rn B0 p 0 (Lw( x; Eξ))d (Λ1,x × Λ2,ξ)= θ−B0 ℓw(Λ1; Ed (Λ2)), 1 ≤ p< ∞, Rn B0 0 (C0,w( x; Eξ))d (Λ1,x × Λ2,ξ)= θ−B0 c0,w(Λ1; Ed (Λ2)), topologically.

p Proof. We only show the statements for Lw as the proofs for C0,w are similar. Set Λ=Λ1 × Λ2. Choose a bounded open neighbourhood U of the origin such that the families of sets {λj + U | λj ∈ Λj}, j =1, 2, are pairwise disjoint. Fix χj ∈D(U) with χj(0) =6 0, j =1, 2, and set χ = χ1 ⊗ χ2 ∈D(U × U)\{0}.

p Rn B0 p 0 (i) Since c00(Λ) is dense in both (Lw( ξ ; Ex))d (Λ1 ×Λ2) and ℓw(Λ2; Ed (Λ1)) (Corollary 5.22), it suﬃces to show that these spaces induce the same topology on c00(Λ). For all c =(cλ1,λ2 )(λ1,λ2)∈Λ ∈ c00(Λ) it holds that p

p −2πiλ1(ξ−λ2) p kSχ(c)k p n = Tλ χ2(ξ) cλ ,λ e Tλ χ1 w(ξ) dξ Lw(R ;Ex) 2 1 2 1 ξ Rn Z λ2∈Λ2 λ1∈Λ1 E X X p

−2πiλ1(ξ−λ2) p p = cλ1,λ2 e Tλ1 χ1 |Tλ2 χ2(ξ)| w(ξ) dξ Rn Z λ2∈Λ2 λ1∈Λ1 E X X p

p p = M−(ξ−λ2) cλ1,λ2 Tλ1 Mξ−λ2 χ1 |Tλ2 χ2(ξ)| w(ξ) dξ. Rn Z λ2∈Λ2 λ1∈Λ1 E X X Since the set {M χ | η ∈ U} is bounded in D(U) and χ =6 0, Lemma 5.4 implies that η 1 1 there is C > 0 such that, for all η ∈ U and c ∈ c00(Λ),

−1 C cλ1,λ2 Tλ1 χ1 ≤ cλ1,λ2 Tλ1 Mηχ1 ≤ C cλ1,λ2 Tλ1 χ1 .

λ1∈Λ1 E λ1∈Λ1 E λ1∈Λ1 E X X X Hence,

p p p p kS (c)k p n ≤ c T M χ |T (χ ν )(ξ)| w(ξ) dξ χ L (R ;Ex) λ1,λ2 λ1 ξ−λ2 1 λ2 2 E w ξ Rn λ2∈Λ2 Z λ1∈Λ1 E X X

GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 29

p p p p p ≤ C cλ1,λ2 Tλ1 χ1 |χ2(ξ)| νE(ξ) w(ξ + λ2) dξ U λ2∈Λ2 λ1∈Λ1 E Z X X p

′ p ′ p ≤ C cλ1,λ2 Tλ1 χ1 w(λ2) = C kckℓp (Λ ;E0(Λ )) w 2 d 1 λ2∈Λ2 λ1∈Λ1 E X X for all c ∈ c00(Λ). Next, choose an open neighbourhood V of 0 such that infξ∈V |χ2(ξ)| > 0. Then, p p p p kSχ(c)k p n ≥ cλ ,λ Tλ Mξ−λ χ1 |Tλ (χ2/νˇE)(ξ)| w(ξ) dξ Lw(R ;Ex) 1 2 1 2 2 ξ Rn λ2∈Λ2 Z λ1∈Λ1 E X X p

−p p −p p ≥ C cλ1,λ2 Tλ1 χ1 |χ2(ξ)| νˇE(ξ) w(ξ + λ2) dξ V λ2∈Λ2 λ1∈Λ1 E Z X X p

′−1 p ′−1 p ≥ C cλ1,λ2 Tλ1 χ1 w(λ2) = C kckℓp (Λ ;E0(Λ )) w 2 d 1 λ2∈Λ2 λ1∈Λ1 E X X for all c ∈ c00(Λ). This shows the result.

p Rn B0 (ii) As in part (i), it suﬃces to show that the spaces (Lw( x; Eξ))d (Λ1,x × Λ2,ξ) and p 0 θ−B0 ℓw(Λ1; Ed (Λ2)) induce the same topology on c00(Λ). Let c ∈ c00(Λ) be arbitrary and setc ˜ = θB0 (c). Then,

Sχ(c)= Tλ1 χ1 ⊗ M−λ1 c˜λ1,λ2 Tλ2 χ2 ! λX1∈Λ1 λX2∈Λ2 and thus p p p kSχ(c)kLp (Rn;E ) = kTλ1 χ1kLp M−λ1 c˜λ1,λ2 Tλ2 χ2 . w x ξ w λ1∈Λ1 λ2∈Λ2 E X X

We infer that −1 p p p p n p C kc˜k 0 ≤kSχ(c)kLw(R ;Eξ) ≤ Ckc˜k 0 , ℓw(Λ1;Ed(Λ2)) x ℓw(Λ1;Ed(Λ2)) from which the result follows.

Remark 5.27. If E, w,Λ1 and Λ2 are as in Proposition 5.26(i), the exact same argument as in its proof shows that

p Rn −B0 p 0 (Lw( ξ ; Ex))d (Λ1,x × Λ2,ξ)= ℓw(Λ2; Ed (Λ1)), 1 ≤ p< ∞, topologically. Proposition 5.28. Let E be a DTMIB with the Radon-Nikod´ym property and let w n n be a polynomially bounded weight function on R . Let Λ1 and Λ2 be two lattices in R . 30 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

(i) It holds that p Rn B0 p 0 (Lw( ξ ; Ex))d (Λ1,x × Λ2,ξ)= ℓw(Λ2; Ed (Λ1)), 1

For τ = π and p1 = 1 we have the following (trivial) answer to Problem 5.29 (cf. [24, Section 2.3]): b

1 p2 B0 1 p2 B0 1 p2 (L ⊗πL )d (Λ1 × Λ2)=(L (L ))d (Λ1 × Λ2)= ℓ (Λ1; ℓ (Λ2)), where the second equality follows from Example 5.13(i). We now provideb an answer to Problem 5.29 for p2 = 2 and p1 varying in a certain range. In fact, we are able to show the following more general result. n Proposition 5.30. Let Λ1 and Λ2 be two lattices in R , let w1 and w2 be two polyno- n mially bounded weight functions on R , and let 1 ≤ p1,p2 < ∞. Then, p1 p2 B0 1 p2 0 −1 −1 (i) (Lw1 ⊗πFLw2 )d (Λ1 × Λ2)= θ−B0 ℓw1w2 (Λ1;(FL )d(Λ2)) if p1 + p2 ≥ 1, p1 p2 B0 p2 0 −1 −1 (ii) (Lw1 ⊗ǫFLw2 )d (Λ1 × Λ2)= θ−B0 c0,w1w2 (Λ1;(FL )d(Λ2)) if p1 + p2 ≤ 1, topologically.b b n Proof. Set Λ = Λ1 × Λ2. Let U ⊂ R be a bounded open neighbourhood of the origin such that the families {λj + U | λj ∈ Λj}, j = 1, 2, are pairwise disjoint. Choose κj n Aj, κj > 0 such that wj(x + y) ≤ Ajwj(x)(1 + |y|) , j = 1, 2, for all x, y ∈ R . We write qj for the H¨older conjugate index to pj, j = 1, 2. By the closed graph theorem, it suﬃces to show that the identities in (i) and (ii) hold algebraically. GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 31

1 p2 0 p1 p2 B0 (i) We ﬁrst show that θ−B0 ℓw1w2 (Λ1;(FL )d(Λ2)) ⊆ (Lw1 ⊗πFLw2 )d (Λ). Pick χ1, χ2 ∈ 1 p2 0 D(U)\{0} and set χ = χ1 ⊗ χ2 ∈D(U × U)\{0}. Let c ∈ θ−B0 ℓw1w2 (Λ1;(FL )d(Λ2)) 1 p2 0 be arbitrary and setc ˜ = θB0 (c) ∈ ℓw1w2 (Λ1;(FL )d(Λ2)).b We have that

(5.17) Sχ(c)= Tλ1 χ1 ⊗ M−λ1 c˜λ1,λ2 Tλ2 χ2 . ! λX1∈Λ1 λX2∈Λ2 p2 0 Corollary 5.15 implies that, for λ1 ∈ Λ1 ﬁxed, (˜cλ1,λ2 )λ2∈Λ2 ∈ (FLw2 )d(Λ2) and that

p M−λ1 c˜λ1,λ2 Tλ2 χ2 ≤ A2w2(λ1)k(˜cλ1,λ2 )λ2∈Λ2 k(FL 2 )0 (Λ ) (1+|·|)κ2 d 2 λ2∈Λ2 p2 FLw2 X p 0 ≤ Cw2(λ1)k(˜cλ1,λ2 )λ2∈Λ2 k(FL 2 ) (Λ ). d 2 We obtain that the series in the right-hand side of (5.17) (over Λ1) is absolutely p1 p2 summable in Lw1 ⊗πFLw2 . This shows the desired inclusion. Next, we prove that p1 p2 B0 1 p2 0 n (Lw1 ⊗πFLw2 )d (Λ) ⊆ θ−B0 ℓw1w2 (Λ1;(FL )d(Λ2)). Let r > 0 be such that [−2r, 2r] ⊂ U. Pick ψ ∈D[−r,rb]n \{0} and set b −2πix·ξ ψ1(x, ξ)= e ψ(x)ψ(ξ) and ψ2 =(ψ1 ∗B0 ψ1)ˇ.

We choose ψ so that ψ2 is not the zero function. Then, ψ1 ∈ D[−r,r]2n \{0} and ψ2 ∈ 2 D(U × U)\{0}. Furthermore, choose χ ∈ D(U × U) such that (θB0 (ψ2), χ)L = 1. Corollary 5.12 implies that

p1 p2 p1 p2 B0 (5.18) c = Rψˇ2 (Sχ(c)) ∈ Rψˇ2 (Lw1 ⊗πFLw2 ), c ∈ (Lw1 ⊗πFLw2 )d (Λ). We claim that

1 bp2 p1 bp2 (5.19) F ∗B0 ψ1 ∈ Lw1w2 (FL ), F ∈ Lw1 ⊗πFLw2 .

p1 p2 Before we prove (5.19), let us show how it entails the result. For all F ∈ Lw1 ⊗πFLw2 , we have that b b Rψˇ2 (F )=(F ∗B0 (ψ1 ∗B0 ψ1)(λ))λ∈Λ = ((F ∗B0 ψ1) ∗B0 ψ1(λ))λ∈Λ = Rψ1 (F ∗B0 ψ1). Hence, in view of (5.18) and (5.19), the desired inclusion follows from Proposition 5.10 p1 p2 and Proposition 5.26(ii). It remains to prove (5.19). Let F ∈ Lw1 ⊗πFLw2 be arbitrary. Then, ∞ b (5.20) F = ajfj ⊗ gj, j=0 X n p R N 1 N where fj,gj ∈ S( ) are such that (fj)j∈ is bounded in Lw1 and (gj)j∈ is bounded ∞ p2 C in FLw2 , and aj ∈ are such that j=0 |aj| < ∞ (cf. [24, Proposition 2.8]). For all f,g ∈ S(Rn) it holds that P −2πit·(η−ξ) (5.21) (f ⊗ g) ∗B0 ψ1(t, η)= f(x)g(ξ)ψ(t − x)ψ(η − ξ)e dxdξ R2n ZZ = f ∗ ψ(t)g ∗ (M−tψ)(η). 32 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

We estimate as follows

1 p k(f ⊗ g) ∗B0 ψ1kL (FL 2 ) w1w2

−1 −1 = |f ∗ ψ(t)|w1(t)w2(t)k(F g)(TtF ψ)kLp2 dt Rn Z 1/p2 −1 p2 p2 −1 p2 κ2p2 q2 ≤ A2kf ∗ ψkLw |F g(ξ)| w2(ξ) |F ψ(ξ − t)| (1 + |t − ξ|) dtdξ 1 R2n ZZ = A2kf ∗ ψkLq2 kgkFLp2 kψkFLp2 w1 w2 (1+|·|)κ2

≤ Ckfk p1 kgk p2 , Lw1 FLw2 where the last inequality follows from Young’s inequality (note that q2 ≥ p1). The 1 p2 representation (5.20) and the above estimate yield that F ∗B0 ψ1 ∈ Lw1w2 (FL ).

(ii) The assumption on p1 and p2 implies that 1 < p1,p2 < ∞ and thus also 1 < p2 0 p1 p2 B0 q1, q2 < ∞. First we prove that θ−B0 c0,w1w2 (Λ1;(FL )d(Λ2)) ⊆ (Lw1 ⊗ǫFLw2 )d (Λ). Choose χ1, χ˜2 ∈D(U)\{0} such that χ2 =χ ˜2 ∗ χ˜2 ∈D(U)\{0} and set χ = χ1 ⊗ χ2 ∈ p2 0 D(U × U)\{0}. Let c ∈ θ−B0 c0,w1w2 (Λ1;(FL )d(Λ2)) be arbitrary andb setc ˜ = θB0 (c). Then, the representation (5.17) holds true and, as in part (i), Corollary 5.15 implies that

p2 gλ1 = M−λ1 c˜λ1,λ2 Tλ2 χ2 ∈FLw2 , λ1 ∈ Λ1. λX2∈Λ2 We now show that the series in the right-hand side of (5.17) (over Λ1) is unconditionally convergent in Lp1 ⊗ FLp2 . Denote by K and K the closed unit balls in Lq1 =(Lp1 )′ w1 ǫ w2 1 2 1/w1 w1 and FLq2 =(FLp2 )′, respectively. Set 1/wˇ2 w2 b 1/q2

κ1 q2 κ2q2 A3 = sup(1 + |x|) , A4 = sup |χ˜2(x + λ1)| (1 + |x + λ1|) . x∈U x∈Rn ! λX1∈Λ1 b p2 0 (0) Let ε> 0 be arbitrary. Asc ˜ ∈ c0,w1w2 (Λ1;(FL )d(Λ2)), there is a ﬁnite subset Λ1 of (0) Λ1 such that, for all λ1 ∈ Λ1\Λ1 ,

−1 p w1(λ1)w2(λ1) c˜λ1,λ2 Tλ2 χ˜2 ≤ (2kχ1kL 1 A1A2A3A4) ε =: ε1.

λ2∈Λ2 FLp2 X (0) ′ ′′ ′ ′′ For any Λ1 ⊆ Λ1, Λ1 ⊂ Λ1,Λ1 and Λ1 ﬁnite, and f1 ∈ K1, f2 ∈ K2, we have that

f1 ⊗ f2, Tλ1 χ1 ⊗ gλ1 − Tλ1 χ1 ⊗ gλ1 ′ ′′ * λ1∈Λ λ1∈Λ + X1 X1

≤ |hf1, Tλ χ1i||hf2,gλ i| + |hf1, Tλ χ1i||hf2,gλ i|. 1 1 1 1 λ ∈Λ′ \Λ(0) λ ∈Λ′′\Λ(0) 1 X1 1 1 X1 1 GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 33

Denote these sums by I′ and I′′, respectively. We estimate I′ as follows

′ p q ˇ q I ≤kχ1kL 1 kf1kL 1 (λ1+U)k(M−λ1 f2) ∗ χ˜2kFL 2 c˜λ1,λ2 Tλ2 χ˜2 (0) ′ λ2∈Λ2 p2 λ1∈Λ1\Λ1 FL X X q −1 q kf1kL 1 (λ1+U) kF f2T−λ1 χ˜2kL 2 ≤ ε1kχ1kLp1 · w1(λ1) w2(λ1) λ ∈Λ′ \Λ(0) 1 X1 1 b p 1/p2 1/q2 2 −1 q2 kf1k q L 1 (λ1+U) kF f2T−λ1 χ˜2kLq2 p ≤ ε1kχ1kL 1 p q . w1(λ1) 2 w2(λ1) 2 λ ∈Λ ! λ ∈Λ ! X1 1 X1 1 b Since q1 ≤ p2, we infer that

p2 1/p2 1/p2 kf1k q L 1 (λ1+U) p2 ≤ A1A3 kf1k q1 p2 L (λ1+U) w1(λ1) ! 1/w1 ! λX1∈Λ1 λX1∈Λ1 ≤ A1A3kf1kLq1 ≤ A1A3. 1/w1 Furthermore,

−1 q2 kF f2T−λ1 χ˜2kLq2 q w2(λ1) 2 λ ∈Λ X1 1 b −1 q2 q2 |F f2(ξ)| q2 κ2q2 ≤ A2 q |χ˜2(ξ + λ1)| (1 + |ξ + λ1|) dξ Rn wˇ2(ξ) 2 Z λ1∈Λ1 q2 q2 q2 Xq2 q2 q b ≤ A2 A4 kf2kFL 2 ≤ A2 A4 . 1/wˇ2 Plugging these bounds into the above estimate for I′, we deduce that I′ ≤ ε/2. Anal- ogously, we ﬁnd that I′′ ≤ ε/2. Hence,

sup sup f1 ⊗ f2, Tλ1 χ1 ⊗ gλ1 − Tλ1 χ1 ⊗ gλ1 ≤ ε, f1∈K1 f2∈K2 ′ ′′ * λ1∈Λ λ1∈Λ + X1 X1 from which the statement and therefore also the desired inclusion f ollows. Finally, p1 p2 B0 p2 0 we prove that (Lw1 ⊗ǫFLw2 )d (Λ) ⊆ θ−B0 c0,w1w2 (Λ1;(FL )d(Λ2)). Let ψ, ψ1 and ψ2 be as in the second part of the proof of part (i). Pickχ ˜1, χ2 ∈ D(U)\{0} such that χ1 =χ ˜1 ∗ χ˜1 ∗ χ˜1 ∈Db (U)\{0} and set χ = χ1 ⊗ χ2 ∈D(U × U)\{0}. Chooseχ ˜1 and 2 χ2 such that (θB0 (ψ2), χ)L = 1. Corollary 5.12 implies that

p1 p2 B0 (5.22) c = Rψˇ2 (Sχ(c)), c ∈ (Lw1 ⊗ǫFLw2 )d (Λ). Arguing as in the proof of part (i), we see that it suﬃces to show that b p2 p1 p2 B0 (5.23) Sχ(c) ∗B0 ψ1 ∈ C0,w1w2 (FL ), c ∈ (Lw1 ⊗ǫFLw2 )d (Λ).

Without loss of generality, we may assume that w1 and w2 are continuous. Then, (cf. [24, Section 3.1]) b

p2 p2 (5.24) C0,w1 (FLw2 )= C0,w1 ⊗ǫFLw2 .

b 34 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

n Given a continuous polynomially bounded weight function w on R , we denote by Jw t ′ 1 the isometrical isomorphism Jw : C0 → C0,w, ϕ 7→ ϕ/w. Then, Jw : (C0,w) → M is an isometrical isomorphism. Setχ ˜ =χ ˜1 ⊗ χ2 ∈ D(U × U)\{0}. Let c ∈ c00(Λ) be ′ p2 ′ arbitrary. For all f1 ∈ (C0,w1 ) and f2 ∈ (FLw2 ) , it holds that

(5.25) hf1 ⊗ f2,Sχ(c)i = h(f1 ∗ χ˜ˇ1 ∗ χ˜ˇ1) ⊗ f2,Sχ˜(c)i. By Young’s inequality, we infer that

ˇ ˇ q1 ˇ q1 ˇ 1 k(f1 ∗ χ˜1) ∗ χ˜1kL ≤ A1kχ˜1kL κ kf1 ∗ χ˜1kL 1/w1 (1+|·|) 1 1/w1 2 t 2 ˇ 1 ˇ q1 1 ˇ 1 ˇ q1 ′ ≤ A1kχ˜1kL κ kχ˜1kL k Jw1 f1kM = A1kχ˜1kL κ kχ˜1kL kf1k(C0,w ) . (1+|·|) 1 (1+|·|)κ1 (1+|·|) 1 (1+|·|)κ1 1

p1 p2 B0 Hence, in view of (5.24), (5.25) and the fact that c00(Λ) is dense in (Lw1 ⊗ǫFLw2 )d (Λ) (Corollary 5.22), we deduce that the mapping

p1 p2 B0 p2 b (Lw1 ⊗ǫFLw2 )d (Λ) → C0,w1 (FLw2 ), c 7→ Sχ(c), is well-defined and continuous. Consequently, to prove (5.23), it suffices to show that the mapping b p2 p2 C0,w1 (FLw2 ) → C0,w1w2 (FL ), F 7→ F ∗B0 ψ1, is well-defined and continuous. Let F ∈ S(R2n) be arbitrary. Note that (cf. (5.21))

−1 2πiξ·η id ⊗F (F ∗B0 ψ1)(t, η)= F (x, ξ)ψ(t − x)ψ(t − η)e dxdξ R2n ZZ b = ψ(t − η) id ⊗F −1(Fb)(x, η)ψ(t − x)dx. Rn Z We infer that b b

kF ∗B ψ1kL∞ (FLp2 ) 0 w1w2 p2 1/p2 p2 −1 ≤ sup w1(t)w2(t) |ψ(t − η)| | id ⊗F (F )(x, η)||ψ(t − x)|dx dη Rn Rn Rn t∈ Z Z ≤ A1A2kψkL∞ kψkL∞ × (1+|·|)κ1 b(1+|·|)κ2 b

p2 1/p2 −1 p2 sup | idb⊗F (F )(x, η)|w1(x)dx w2(η) dη Rn Rn t∈ Z Zt−U 1/q2 ≤ A1A2|U| kψkL∞ kψkL∞ × (1+|·|b )κ1 (1+|·|)κ2

1/p2 −1 p2 p2 p2 sup | id ⊗F (Fb)(x, η)| w1(x) w2(η) dxdη Rn Rn t∈ Z Zt−U −1 ∞ ∞ p ≤ A1A2|U|kψkL κ kψkL κ k id ⊗F (F )kL∞ (L 2 ) (1+|·|b) 1 (1+|·|) 2 w1 w2

∞ ∞ p = A1A2|U|kψkL κ kψkL κ kF kL∞ (FL 2 ). (1+|·|) 1 b (1+|·|) 2 bw1 w2 The statement now follows from the density of S(R2n) in C (FLp2 ). b 0,w1 w2 n Corollary 5.31. Let Λ1 and Λ2 be two lattices in R and let w be a polynomially bounded weight function on Rn. Then, GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 35

p 2 B0 1 2 (i) (Lw⊗πL )d (Λ1 × Λ2)= ℓw(Λ1; ℓ (Λ2)) if 1 ≤ p ≤ 2, p 2 B0 2 (ii) (Lw⊗ǫL )d (Λ1 × Λ2)= c0,w(Λ1; ℓ (Λ2)) if 2 ≤ p< ∞, topologically.b b 6. Gabor frame characterisations of modulation spaces defined via TMIB and DTMIB 6.1. The short-time Fourier transform and Gabor frames on S′(Rn). We start with a brief discussion of the short-time Fourier transform (STFT) and Gabor frames on L2(Rn); we refer to the book [19] for more information. Recall that for z =(x, ξ) ∈ R2n 2 n 2 n we write π(z)= MξTx. The STFT of f ∈ L (R ) with respect to a window ψ ∈ L (R ) is deﬁned as

−2πiξ·t Vψf(x, ξ) := (f, π(x, ξ)ψ)L2 = f(t)ψ(t − x)e dt. Rn Z 2 2n 2n Then, Vψf ∈ L (R ) ∩ C(R ) and the following orthogonality relation holds

(6.1) (Vψf,Vγϕ)L2 =(f,ϕ)L2 (γ, ψ)L2 , where also ϕ,γ ∈ L2(Rn). Furthermore, it holds that σ (6.2) Vψ(π(x, ξ)f)= T(x,ξ)Vψf. 2 n Let ψ,γ ∈ L (R ) be such that (γ, ψ)L2 =6 0. The equations (6.1) and (6.2) imply the reproducing formula 1 (6.3) Vϕf = Vψf#Vϕγ, (γ, ψ)L2 where f,ϕ ∈ L2(Rn). Next, we discuss Gabor frames. Fix a lattice Λ in R2n. Let ψ ∈ L2(Rn) and suppose that the analysis operator 2 n 2 Cψ : L (R ) → ℓ (Λ), f 7→ (Vψf(λ))λ∈Λ, is continuous; this is e.g. the case if ψ ∈ W (L∞, L1) [19, Corollary 6.2.3]. The adjoint operator of Cψ, called the synthesis operator, is given by

2 2 n Dψ : ℓ (Λ) → L (R ), c 7→ cλπ(λ)ψ, Xλ∈Λ 2 Rn 2 Rn and the series λ∈Λ cλπ(λ)ψ converges unconditionally in L ( ). Let ψ,γ ∈ L ( ) be windows such that Cψ and Cγ are continuous. We deﬁne P 2 n 2 n Sψ,γ := Dγ ◦ Cψ : L (R ) → L (R ) and call (ψ,γ) a pair of dual windows on Λ if Sψ,γ = idL2(Rn). In such a case, also Sγ,ψ = idL2(Rn) and thus

2 n f = Vψf(λ)π(λ)γ = Vγ f(λ)π(λ)ψ, f ∈ L (R ), Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ where both series converge unconditionally in L2(Rn). 36 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

Given a window ψ ∈ L2(Rn), the set of time-frequency shifts

G(Λ, ψ) := {π(λ)ψ | λ ∈ Λ} is called a Gabor frame if there are A,B > 0 such that

2 n AkfkL2 ≤k(Vψf(λ))λ∈Λkℓ2(Λ) ≤ BkfkL2 , f ∈ L (R ).

2 n ◦ Then, S = Sψ,ψ is a bounded positive invertible linear operator on L (R ). Set γ = S−1ψ ∈ L2(Rn). Since S and π commute on Λ, (ψ,γ◦) is a pair of dual windows on Λ. We call γ◦ the canonical dual window on Λ of ψ. We now discuss the STFT and Gabor frames on S′(Rn) (cf. [19, Section 11.2] and n n 2n [22]). Let ψ ∈ S(R ). Then, the mapping Vψ : S(R ) → S(R ) is continuous. The STFT of f ∈ S′(Rn) with respect to ψ is deﬁned as

2n (6.4) Vψf(x, ξ) := hf, π(x, −ξ)ψi, (x, ξ) ∈ R .

2n ′ n Then, Vψf ∈ C(R ) and kVψfkL∞ < ∞ for some N ∈ N. If A ⊂ S (R ) (1+|·|)−N is bounded, then the previous estimate holds uniformly for f ∈ A. Since S′(Rn) is ′ n ′ 2n bornological, this implies that the mapping Vψ : S (R ) → S (R ) is continuous. Let n 2 n ′ n ψ,γ ∈ S(R ) be such that (γ, ψ)L2 =6 0. As L (R ) is dense in S (R ), (6.1) implies that

1 n (6.5) hf,ϕi = Vψf(x, ξ)Vγϕ(x, −ξ)dxdξ, ϕ ∈ S(R ), (γ, ψ) 2 R2n L ZZ whereas (6.3) yields that

1 ′ n n (6.6) Vϕf = Vψf#Vϕγ, f ∈ S (R ), ϕ ∈ S(R ). (γ, ψ)L2 Clearly, (6.2) remains true for f ∈ S′(Rn) and ψ ∈ S(Rn). Finally, we discuss Gabor frames on S′(Rn). Let ψ ∈ S(Rn). The mappings

′ Rn ′ Cψ : S ( ) → Sd(Λ), f 7→ (Vψf(λ))λ∈Λ, and ′ ′ Rn Dψ : Sd(Λ) → S ( ), c 7→ cλπ(λ)ψ, Xλ∈Λ are well-deﬁned and continuous, and the series λ∈Λ cλπ(λ)ψ is absolutely summable in S′(Rn). Let ψ,γ ∈ S(Rn) be such that (ψ,γ) is a pair of dual windows on Λ. Then, P ′ n f = Vψf(λ)π(λ)γ = Vγf(λ)π(λ)ψ, f ∈ S (R ), Xλ∈Λ Xλ∈Λ where both series are absolutely summable in S′(Rn). GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 37

6.2. Continuity of the Gabor frame operators on modulation spaces associated to TMIB and DTMIB. Fix a TMIB or a DTMIB F on R2n. We start by defining the modulation space associated to F [10]. Definition 6.1. Let ψ ∈ S(Rn)\{0}. We define the modulation space associated to F as F ′ n M := {f ∈ S (R ) | Vψf ∈ F } and endow it with the norm kfkMF := kVψfkF . We sometimes employ the alternative notation M[F ] for MF . The space MF is a Banach space whose definition is independent of the window ψ ∈ S(Rn)\{0} and different non-zero windows induce equivalent norms on MF [10, Corollary 4.5 and Corollary 4.6]. Furthermore, if F is a TMIB, then MF is a TMIB [10, Theorem 4.8(i)]. We define

′ 2n Fˇ2 := {f ∈ S (R ) | fˇ2(x, ξ) := f(x, −ξ) ∈ F } ˇ ˇ and endow it with the norm kfkFˇ2 := kf2kF . It is clear that F2 is again a TMIB (DTMIB). The following duality result holds. Proposition 6.2. [10, Theorem 4.8(iii)] Suppose that F is a TMIB. Then, MF ′ = Fˇ2 ′ n (M ) . Moreover, for ψ,γ ∈ S(R ) with (γ, ψ)L2 =06 , it holds that (cf. (6.5))

′ 1 F Fˇ2 hf,gi = hVψf(x, ξ),Vγg(x, −ξ)i, f ∈M , g ∈M . (γ, ψ)L2 Consequently, MF is a DTMIB if F is so. Remark 6.3. The identity (6.2) implies that

B0 R2n kπ(x, ξ)kL(MF ) ≤ ρF (x, ξ), (x, ξ) ∈ . Hence, [19, Theorem 12.1.9] gives the continuous inclusion

1,1 F (6.7) M B0 ⊆M , ρF which improves [10, Corollary 4.11]. For the main result of this article we need to enlarge the class of windows for the STFT of the elements of MF in such a way that its range consists of continuous functions on R2n. Given a Banach space X ⊂ S′(Rn), we deﬁne the Banach space ′ Rn X := {f ∈ S ( ) | f ∈ X} with norm kfkX := kfkX . Assume that F is a TMIB. For F ′ f ∈M and ψ ∈ M[(F )ˇ2] we deﬁne

′ Vψf(x, ξ) := MF hf, π(x, −ξ)ψiM(F )ˇ2 .

F ′ Similarly, for f ∈M and ψ ∈ M[Fˇ2] we deﬁne

′ ˇ Vψf(x, ξ) := MF hf, π(x, −ξ)ψiMF2 . 38 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

Obviously, these definitions coincide with the one given in (6.4) if ψ ∈ S(Rn). Since B0 −B0 ˇ ′ R2n (T(x,−ξ)G)ˇ2 = T(x,ξ) G2 for all G ∈ S ( ), Proposition 6.2 together with (6.2) imply that the sesquilinear mappings F ′ R2n M × M[(F )ˇ2] → C B0 ( ), (f, ψ) 7→ Vψf 1/ρˇF and F ′ 2n ˇ B R M × M[F2] → C1/ρˇ 0 ( ), (f, ψ) 7→ Vψf F ′ are well-defined and continuous. Now suppose again that F is either a TMIB or a DTMIB. Since ′ Rn Rn (6.8) Vψf =(Vψf)ˇ2, f ∈ S ( ), ψ ∈ S( ), 1 1 1 1 (6.9) W (FLˇ , Lωˇ )= W (FLe , L ), νeF F νF ωˇF 1 1 ′ Corollary 5.8 implies that M[W (FLˇ , L )] ⊂ M[(F )ˇ2] continuously if F is a TMIB νeF ωˇF 1 1 ′ and M[W (FLˇ , L )] ⊂ M[(F0)ˇ2] continuously if F is a DTMIB with F = F , where νeF ωˇF 0 F0 is a TMIB. Hence, the sesquilinear mapping F 1 1 2n B R (6.10) M ×M[W (FLeˇ , LωˇF )] → C 0 ( ), (f, ψ) 7→ Vψf νF 1/ρˇF is well-defined and continuous. Remark 6.4. Although we will not need this, we would like to point out that it is also possible to enlarge the class of windows for the STFT of the elements in MF in such a way that its range is in F :

F n Proposition 6.5. The sesquilinear mapping M × S(R ) → F , (f, ψ) 7→ Vψf, uniquely F 1,1 extends to a continuous sesquilinear mapping M × M Bt → F , (f, ψ) 7→ Vψf. 0 ρˇF Proof. For all G ∈ S′(R2n) and Φ ∈ S(R2n), it holds that

t B0 (6.11) G#Φ = Φ(x, ξ)T(x,ξ)Gdxdξ, R2n ZZ where the integral should be interpreted as an S′(Rn)-valued Pettis integral with respect to the weak-∗ topology on S′(Rn). If G ∈ F , then the above integral exists as an F - valued Bochner integral if F is a TMIB and as an F -valued Pettis integral if F is a DTMIB. Consequently, G#Φ ∈ F and R2n (6.12) kG#ΦkF ≤kGkF kΦkL1 , G ∈ F, Φ ∈ S( ). Bt ρ 0 F n F n Now ﬁx γ ∈ S(R ) with kγkL2 = 1. Let f ∈ M and ψ ∈ S(R ) be arbitrary. Note that Vψγ =(θ−B0 (Vγ ψ))ˇ. Hence, the reproducing formula (6.6) and (6.12) yield that

kVψfkF = kVγf#VψγkF ≤kVγfkF kVψγkL1 = kVγfkF kVγψkL1 , Bt Bt ρ 0 ρˇ 0 F F n 1,1 whence the result follows from the density of S(R ) in M t . B0 ρˇF GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 39

Fix a lattice Λ in R2n and a bounded open neighbourhood U of the origin in R2n such that the family of sets {λ + U | λ ∈ Λ} is pairwise disjoint. We are ready to establish the continuity of the analysis and synthesis operators on MF . Recall that σ B0 Fd (Λ) = Fd (Λ). Theorem 6.6. 1 1 F σ (i) Let ψ ∈ M[W (FLˇ , L )]. The mapping Cψ : M → F (Λ) is well-defined νeF ωˇF d and continuous. (ii) Let ψ ∈ M[W (FL1 , L1 )]. For each c ∈ F σ(Λ) the series c π(λ)ψ is νeF ωF d λ∈Λ λ Césaro summable in MF if F is a TMIB and Césaro summable with respect to P the weak-∗ topology on MF if F is a DTMIB (cf. Proposition 6.2). Further- σ F more, the mapping Dψ : Fd (Λ) →M is well-defined and continuous. F Proof. (i) Let f ∈M be arbitrary. As Vψf is continuous, we can evaluate it at λ ∈ Λ. n Pick γ ∈ S(R ) such that kγkL2 = 1. Note that, by (6.9), 1 1 Vψγ =(θ−B0 (Vγψ))ˇ∈ (θ−B0 W (FLνeF , LωˇF ))ˇ. Rn 1 1 Since S( ) is dense in M[W (FLˇ , L )], the reproducing formula (6.6) and the νeF ωˇF continuity of the mappings in (5.8) and (6.10) imply that Vψf = Vγ f#Vψγ. Hence, the result follows from Proposition 5.10. (ii) In view of (6.2), this is a consequence of Proposition 5.7 and Corollary 5.23 (and Proposition 6.2 if F is a DTMIB).

1 1 2 1 1 2 Corollary 6.7. Let ψ ∈M[W (FLˇ , L )] ∩ L and γ ∈M[W (FLe , L )] ∩ L be νeF ωˇF νF ωF such that (ψ,γ) is a pair of dual windows on Λ. Then,

F (6.13) f = Vψf(λ)π(λ)γ, f ∈M , Xλ∈Λ where the series is C´esaro summable in MF if F is a TMIB and C´esaro summable with respect to the weak-∗ topology on MF if F is a DTMIB. Furthermore, there are A,B > 0 such that F Akfk F ≤k(V f(λ)) k σ ≤ Bkfk F , f ∈M . M ψ λ∈Λ Fd (Λ) M n Proof. Note that Dγ ◦ Cψ restricts to the identity on S(R ). Hence, if F is a TMIB, the result follows from the density of S(Rn) in MF and Theorem 6.6. Assume now that F is a DTMIB. Theorem 6.6 and (6.8) imply that for all χ ∈ S(Rn) and f ∈MF

|m1| |m2n| hDγCψ(f), χi = lim f, 1 − ··· 1 − Vγχ(AΛm)π(AΛm)ψ , N→∞ * N N + |mXj |

Remark 6.8. Let ω and ν be submultiplicative polynomially bounded weight functions R2n 1 1 on and set X = W (FLν, Lω). Then, ωX (x, ξ) ≤ Cω(x, ξ) and νX (x, ξ) ≤ Cν(x, ξ). Hence, (4.2) and (6.7) gives the inclusions 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 1 (6.14) M ⊆M[W (FLˇ , L )] and M ⊆M[W (FLe , L )], σˇF νeF ωˇF σF νF ωF where σF (x, ξ) = ωF (x, ξ)˜νF (0, x). If νF (0, · ) = 1, the above inequality and the 1 1 ∞ 1 1 inclusion W (FL , LωF ) ⊆ W (L , LωF ) ⊂ LωF imply that 1,1 1 1 1,1 1 1 (6.15) MωˇF = M[W (FL , LωˇF )] and MωF = M[W (FL , LωF )]. 1,1 1,1 By (6.14), we can take ψ ∈ MσˇF in Theorem 6.6(i) and ψ ∈ MσF in Theorem 6.6(ii); a similar statement holds for Corollary 6.7. As mentioned in the introduction, if F is solid, Theorem 6.6 and Corollary 6.7 are known to hold true for the window class M 1,1 [13, 18, 19]. The equalities in (6.15) imply that this remains valid for the max{ωF ,ωˇF } larger class of TMIB and DTMIB F for which νF (0, · ) = 1; e.g F = E1⊗τ E2, τ = π n n or ǫ, where E1 is a TMIB on R and E2 is a solid TMIB on R , satisfy νF (0, · ) = 1. Remark 6.9. For each ϕ ∈ W (L∞, L1)\{0}, the system G(ϕ, aZn × bZn)b is a Gabor frame for a,b > 0 small enough [19, Theorem 6.5.1]. If ϕ(x)=2n/4e−πx·x is the Gaussian, G(ϕ, aZn × bZn) is a Gabor frame if and only if ab < 1 (cf. [19, Theorem 7.5.3]). If ϕ ∈ S(Rn) and G(ϕ, aZn × bZn) is a Gabor frame, then the canonical dual window γ0 = S−1ϕ on aZn × bZn also belongs to S(Rn) [19, Corollary 13.5.4] (see [20] for a more reﬁned version of this result). We end this article by giving two applications of Corollary 6.7. The next result and various related statements were recently shown in [16] via diﬀerent methods.

n Corollary 6.10. Let w1 and w2 be two polynomially bounded weight functions on R and let 1 ≤ p1,p2 < ∞. Then, p1 p2 1 p2 p2 1 −1 −1 (i) M[Lw1 ⊗πFLw2 ]= M[Lw1w2 (FL )] = W (L , Lw1w2 ) if p1 + p2 ≥ 1, p1 p2 p2 p2 −1 −1 (ii) M[Lw1 ⊗ǫFLw2 ]= M[C0,w1w2 (FL )] = W (L ,C0,w1w2 ) if p1 + p2 ≤ 1, topologically. b b Proof. In view of Corollary 6.7 (and Remark 6.9), the topological identities

p1 p2 1 p2 −1 −1 M[Lw1 ⊗πFLw2 ]= M[Lw1w2 (FL )], p1 + p2 ≥ 1, p1 p2 p2 −1 −1 M[Lw ⊗ǫFLw ]= M[C0,w1w2 (FL )], p1 + p2 ≤ 1, 1 b 2 follow from Proposition 5.26 and Proposition 5.30. The proof of the other two identities is straightforward andb we omit them. Corollary 6.7 (and Remark 6.9) also imply that modulation spaces defined via TMIB satisfy the sequential approximation property [23, Chapter 43]; we refer to [8] for p,q more information on approximation properties for the classical modulation spaces Mw , 1 ≤ p,q < ∞. Corollary 6.11. Let F be a TMIB on R2n. Then, MF satisfies the sequential approximation property, that is, there exists a sequence of finite rank operators (Pn)n∈N ⊂ GABOR FRAME CHARACTERISATIONS OF MODULATION SPACES 41

F ′ F F (M ) ⊗M which converges to idMF in Lp(M ), where p stands for the topology of uniform convergence on precompact sets.

References [1] A.´ Bényi, T. Oh, Modulation spaces, Wiener amalgam spaces, and Brownian motions, Adv. Math. 228 (2011), 2943–2981. [2] W. Braun, H. G. Feichtinger, Banach spaces of distributions having two module structures,J. Funct. Anal. 51 (1983), 174–212. [3] J. Chaney, Banach lattices of compact maps, Math. Z. 129 (1972), 1–19. [4] J. G. Christensen. A. H. Darweesh, G. Olafsson, Coorbits for projective representations with an application to Bergman spaces, Monatsh. Math. 189 (2019), 385–420. [5] O. Christensen, Atomic decomposition via projective group representations, Rocky Mountain J. Math. 26 (1996), 1289–1312. [6] E. Cordero, M. de Gosson, F. Nicola, A characterization of modulation spaces by symplectic rotations, J. Funct. Anal. 278 (2020), 108474. [7] E. Cordero, L. Rodino, Time-Frequency Analysis of Operators, De Gruyter, 2020. [8] J. Delgado, M. Ruzhansky, B. Wang, Approximation property and nuclearity on mixed-norm Lp, modulation and Wiener amalgam spaces, J. Lond. Math. Soc. 94 (2016), 391-408. [9] P. Dimovski, S. Pilipović, J. Vindas, New distribution spaces associated to translation-invariant Banach spaces, Monatsh. Math. 177 (2015), 495–515. [10] P. Dimovski, S. Pilipović, B. Prangoski, J. Vindas, Translation-modulation invariant Banach spaces of ultradistributions, J. Fourier Anal. Appl. 25 (2019), 819–841. [11] H. G. Feichtinger, Banach convolution algebras of Wiener type, in: Proc. Conf. on Functions, Series, Operators, Budapest 1980, volume 35 of Colloq. Math. Soc. Janos Bolyai, pp. 509-524. North-Holland, Amsterdam, Eds. B. Sz.-Nagy and J. Szabados. edition, 1983. [12] H. G. Feichtinger, Modulation spaces on locally compact abelian groups, Technical report, Uni- versity of Vienna (1983). [13] H. G. Feichtinger, K. Gröchenig, Banach spaces related to integrable group representations and their atomic decompositions. I, J. Funct. Anal. 86 (1989), 307–340. [14] H. G. Feichtinger, K. Gröchenig, Banach spaces related to integrable group representations and their atomic decompositions. II, Monatsh. Math. 108 (1989), 129–148. [15] H. G. Feichtinger, K. Gröchenig, Gabor frames and time-frequency analysis of distributions,J. Funct. Anal. 146 (1997), 464–495. [16] H. G. Feichtinger, S. Pilipović, B. Prangoski, Modulation spaces associated to tensor products of amalgam spaces, preprint, arXiv:2012.12295 [math.FA]/ [17] L. Grafakos, Classical Fourier analysis, third edition, Springer, New York, 2014. [18] K. Gröchenig, Describing functions: Atomic decompositions versus frames, Monatsh. Math. 112 (1991), 1–41. [19] K. Gröchenig, Foundations of time-frequency analysis, Birkhäuser, Boston, 2001. [20] K. Gröchenig, M. Leinert, Wiener’s lemma for twisted convolution and Gabor frames, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 17 (2004), 1–18. [21] C. Heil, A Basis theory primer, Birkhäuser, Basel, 2011. [22] S. Kostadinova, S. Pilipović, K. Saneva, J. Vindas, The short-time Fourier transform of distributions of exponential type and Tauberian theorems for S-asymptotics, Filomat 30 (2016), 3047–3061. [23] G. Köthe, Topological vector spaces II, Springer-Verlag, New York, 1979. [24] R. A. Ryan, Introduction to tensor products of Banach spaces, Springer-Verlag, London, 2002. [25] L. Schwartz, Théorie des distributions, Hermann, Paris, 1966. [26] J. Toft, E. Nabizadeh, Periodic distributions and periodic elements in modulation spaces, Adv. Math. 323 (2018), 193-225. 42 A.DEBROUWEREANDB.PRANGOSKI

Department of Mathematics: Analysis, Logic and Discrete Mathematics, Ghent Uni- versity, Krijgslaan 281, 9000 Gent, Belgium Email address: [email protected] B. Prangoski, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, University Ss. Cyril and Method- ius, Karpos II bb, 1000 Skopje, Macedonia Email address: [email protected]