Arxiv:1812.05412V1 [Math.FA]

arXiv:1812.05412v1 [math.FA] 13 Dec 2018 bu ulda pcs–bgnfu rs eae g ihteobs the with ago Khintchin decades the so and or inequality four mixed-norm began wood’s – spaces Euclidean 2012) about (Pisier, settings and contexts diverse in reinterpreted and ett xsec of existence to lent h rtedekieult edrvdfo h hnci inequality? Khintchin the seem from that derived yes question be a inequality considered Grothendieck we the cas Khintchin’s, special is a so is therefore inequality and Littlewood’s that Noting equivalent. sense, hta h iewn agl noie.Ffenyasltri anoth in later years as Fifteen reformulated 1968), unnoticed. Pelczynski, largely and went (Lindenstrauss time ( work the landmark at Grothendieck’s that Alexander in dubbed, so appeared, nlgu otecasclrpeettosb square-integrable by representations classical maps the to analogous p n e-lsia eut,addsrb prdso h Grothen the to it of motivation, of upgrades underlying setting extensions describe the analysis as and explain harmonic we results, a Ch.6), neo-classical in - and formula (Ch.2 Parseval monograph usual synthes the the formula, of Parseval-like from a – manifests it form of dual its in inequality eettoso ulda etr ybuddfntos(via functions bounded by vectors Euclidean of resentations spaces. ’Grothendieck-typ non-Euclidean other as well to as paths clidean opened indeed and generalized, neplnsta a o rvddb h hnci inequality Khintchin the by provided not was that interpolants ugae norcnetrfr oeitneo ulmp iha a an with maps E dual of of priori existence property to a a refers context expressing our effect in ’upgrade’ in each inequality), Grothendieck fteGohnic nqaiyfo hnci’ eurdcnrlo control required – Khintchin’s from inequality Grothendieck the of RMPREA OGOHNIC N ITEBEYOND, LITTLE A AND GROTHENDIECK TO PARSEVAL FROM l 8 Date u oko n rudteGohnic nqaiy–afundamenta a – inequality Grothendieck the around and on work Our n’prd’hr en hs aho h frmnindinequalit aforementioned the of Each this. means here ’upgrade’ An u trigpiti da’ve fteGohnic nqaiy h e the inequality: Grothendieck the of view ’dual’ a is point starting Our , n h e n’prd’o h hnci nqaiy(li 1977). (Blei, inequality Khintchin the of ’upgrade’ an key the and , etó`m odmna el heremtiu e produ des théorie metrique la théorème de Le fondamental 2 ã ,weenPrea’ dniyloslreadcnrl ned h G the Indeed, central. and large looms identity Parseval’s wherein ), Ñ eebr1,2018. 14, December : M urnedb h orsodn nqaiy h aka ad–ad a – hand at task The inequality. corresponding the by guaranteed q - interpolants h rtedekinequality Grothendieck the ulmaps dual l p sqec pcs ntescn at(h7-C.1,bidn on building Ch.11), - (Ch.7 part second the In spaces. -sequence Ltlwo’ nqaiy,and inequality), (Littlewood’s : p l 2 1. ã Ñ h udmna theorem fundamental the O BLEI RON ATI PART Foreward L n,snete,hsbe ple,extended, applied, been has then, since and, , 1 8 q - interpolants p L R 1 ã Ñ p l L 2 2 ã p Ñ q teKithninequality), Khintchin (the l ieult r,i precise a in are, -inequality 2 L ã t sec itle,was distilled, essence its , Ñ ic nqaiy swell as inequality, dieck . 8 t tensoriels its proper dtoa rpry not property, dditional ucin (via functions q L ’dsrpin fEu- of descriptions e’ - dntrlt s can us: to natural ed rtedek 1953) Grothendieck, representations 8 rainta Little- that ervation fGrothendieck’s, of e ciensae An space. uclidean zd–i u proof our in – ized q rlnmr work landmark er - ntefis part first the In . representations h derivation The . ver h nwrwas answer The eiwclassical review itneo rep- of xistence e sequiva- is ies p statement l rothendieck l 2 a first had erivation ã Ñ unitary L (the 8 q ), - 2 RON BLEI ideas detailed in the first, we derive Grothendieck-type representations of mixed-norm spaces, including spaces of operators. The monograph is intended for readers with interest in analysis, and specifically with interest in the Grothendieck inequality and topics around it. Since its appearance, the inequality has indeed gained in stature over the years, impacting en route functional analysis, harmonic analysis, probability theory, theoretical physics, and recently also theoretical computer science; see Pisier (2012). This book, starting from first principles, tells a tale about a subject that – we believe – is still in its ’mid-life,’ still open-ended with a range of unresolved issues. We assume familiarity with rudiments of functional and harmonic analysis usually covered in introductory courses. And otherwise we will review and explain, as we move along, relevant concepts and results that are either studied in advanced courses, or found in the research literature at large.

Contents 1. Foreward 1 2. Classical and neoclassical notions 3 2.1. Unitary maps 3 2.2. (l2 ã Lp)-representations 5 3. TheÑ Grothendieck inequality 10 3.1. Statement 10 3.2. Dual statement 12 3.3. Quadratic inequalities 16 4. The Khintchin, Littlewood, and Orlicz inequalities 18 4.1. Preliminaries 18 1 ã 2 ã 1,2 ã 2,1 4.2. LR L -inequality, CRˆR l -inequality, CRˆR l -inequality 19 4.3.p InterpolantsÑ q p Ñ q p Ñ q 24 4.4. Notion of an upgrade 29 5. The Grothendieck inequality: upgrades and extensions 34 5.1. From Parseval to Grothendieck (via Khintchin) 34 5.2. Riesz products 41 8 5.3. Lpsq-valued and Mpsq-valued Riesz products 45 5.4. More interpolants 49 5.5. Parseval-type formulae: extensions of the Grothendieck inequality 50 6. Interpolation sets (brief overview) 55 6.1. Λ p -sets 56 6.2. p-Sidonp q sets 56 6.3. The L p and S p properties 57 References p q p q 59 FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 3

2. Classical and neoclassical notions 2.1. Unitary maps. Let A be a set, and let l2 A denote the Euclidean space whose ’coordinate axes’ are indexed by A. That is, considerp q the space of complex-valued, square-summable functions on A, l2 A def x CA : x α 2 , (2.1) p q “ P | p q| ă8 αÿPA ( equipped with the usual inner product, x, y def x α y α , x l2 A , y l2 A , (2.2) x y “ p q p q P p q P p q αÿPA and Euclidean norm, 1 2 def 2 2 x 2 x, x x α , x l A . (2.3) } } “ x y “ ˆ | p q| ˙ P p q a αÿPA We view A merely as an indexing set, with no assumptions about its cardinality, or structures therein. Summing nonnegative scalars yα over α A has the usual meaning, P def yα sup yα. (2.4) “ finite F A αÿPA Ă αÿPF CA If yα : α A is absolutely summable over A (i.e., αPA yα ), then its p P q P 1 | |ă8 support α : yα 0 A is at most countably infinite, andř the sum αPA yα is ‰ “ 1 well-defined: for any sequence( of finite sets Ej increasing to A , ř 1 1 Ej Ej 1 A , j N, Ej A , (2.5) Ă ` Ă P “ jďPN the limit of the partial sums

def lim yα yα (2.6) jÑ8 “ αÿPEj αÿPA exists, and does not depend on the choice of Ej j. Let Ω,µ be a general measure space, andp considerq p q L2 Ω,µ C-valued measurable functions f on Ω : f 2dµ , (2.7) p q“ ż | | ă8 Ω ( wherein elements are listed modulo the equivalence f g f g a.e. µ , f L2 Ω,µ , g L2 Ω,µ . ” ô “ p q P p q P p q The resulting space of equivalence class representatives – denoted also by L2 Ω,µ – is a Hilbert space, with inner product p q

def 2 2 f,g L2 f gdµ, f L Ω,µ , g L Ω,µ , (2.8) x y “ żΩ P p q P p q 4 RON BLEI and L2-norm 1 2 def 2 2 f 2 f, f 2 f dµ , f L Ω,µ . (2.9) L L ˆ ˙ } } “ ax y “ żΩ | | P p q Assuming the dimension of L2 Ω,µ is at least the cardinality of A, we take an 2 p q orthonormal family fα α A L Ω,µ , and consider the linear injection t u P Ă p q 2 2 U U f : l A L Ω,µ (2.10) p“ t αuq p qÑ p q deﬁned by 2 Ux x α fα, x l A . (2.11) “ p q P p q αÿPA For x and y in l2 A , p q

x, y Ux Uy dµ Ux, Uy L2 , (2.12) x y “ żΩ “ x y and (therefore)

x 2 Ux 2 . (2.13) } } “} }L

Definition 2.1. Let H1 and H2 be Hilbert spaces with respective inner products , H1 x¨¨ ¨ÿ and , H2 . A map V : H1 H2 is said to be unitary, and H1 unitarily equivalent to x¨¨ ¨ÿ Ñ V H1 , if r s x, y H1 V x ,V y H2 , x H1, y H2. (2.14) x y “x p q p qy P P Every unitary map is necessarily injective, linear, and bounded, and in particular norm- continuous. In our case, U in (2.11) is unitary, and l2 A unitarily equivalent to p q 2 def 2 L L -closure of the linear span of fα α A. tfαu “ t u P Remark 2.2 (a classical example; e.g., Katznelson (1976, Ch. I)). Let A Z the integer group , Ω 0, 2π T the circle group , “ p q “r q “ p q µ dt 2π normalized Lebesgue measure , 2 “ { p q and ej j Z L T, dt 2π , t u P Ă p { q def ej t exp ijt , j Z, t T, i ? 1. (2.15) p q “ p q P P “ ´ 2 2 Then U e : l Z L T, dt , t j u p q Ñ p q 2 U e x x j ej, x l Z , (2.16) t j u “ p q P p q jÿPZ is the inverse of the Fourier transform map F : L2 T, dt 2π l2 Z , (2.17) p { q Ñ p q def 1 2 Fg j g j g t ej t dt, g L T, dt 2π , j Z, (2.18) p q “ p q “ 2π ż T p q p´ q P p { q P ` ˘ tP p FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 5 whereby

1 f t g t dt f j g j , f L2 T, dt 2π , g L2 T, dt 2π . (2.19) 2π ż T p q p q “ p q p q P p { q P p { q tP jÿPZ p p

Remark 2.3 (Parseval). In a framework of harmonic analysis, if Ω is a compact abelian group with normalized Haar measure µ, and fα αPA is a set of characters of Ω, then the assertion in (2.12) is generally referred tot as uParseval’s formula (e.g., (2.19) above). As such, Parseval’s formula is a special case of the more general Plancherel theorem (Rudin, 1967, §1.6): if Ω is a locally compact abelian group with dual group Γ, then there exist Haar measures µ on Ω and ν on Γ, with the property that the transform

def f γ f γdµ, f L1 Ω,µ , γ Γ, (2.20) p q “ żG P p q P p is uniquely extendible to a unitary map from L2 Ω,µ onto L2 Γ, ν , i.e., p q p q

f ω g ω µ dω f γ g γ ν dγ , f L2 Ω,µ , g L2 Ω,µ . żωPΩ p q p q p q “ żγPΓ p q p q p q P p q P p q p p (2.21)

(E.g., see Katznelson (1976, Chapter VI) for the classical Ω,µ R, dt and Γ, ν R, dt 2π .) The statement in (2.21) – a non-trivial generalizationp q“p ofq the analogousp q“ passertion{ q for compact Ω – is sometime referred to also as a Parseval formula. In the parlance of harmonic analysis, a Parseval formula could also refer to relations between maps and their transforms in ’non-Hilbertian’ settings (e.g., Katznelson (1976, Theorem I.7.1). In the case of a general measure space Ω,µ , we refer to (2.12) as Parseval’s identity. p q

2 Remark 2.4 (notation). Given an orthonormal system fα αPA L Ω,µ , we let CA t u Ă p q Utfαu denote the map from to the class of series spanned by fα αPA, formally deﬁned by t u def A x U f x x α fα, x C . (2.22) ÞÑ t αu “ p q P αÿPA 2 2 When restricted to x l A , the series x α fα converges in L Ω,µ , and P p q αPA p q p q Parseval’s identity holds. ř Henceforth, Ω,µ will be a probability space, i.e., a measure space with µ Ω 1. p q p q“ 2 p 2 2.2. (l ã L )-representations. The eﬀect of an orthonormal fα α A L Ω,µ on Ñ t u P Ă p q the corresponding Utfαu can be calibrated by tail-probabilities

2 µ U f x t , x l A , t 0 (2.23) | t αu |ě P p q ą ` ˘ 6 RON BLEI

(e.g., Blei (2011, §3.4)). In the case of complete systems fα αPA, the ’square power’ estimates t u 2 x 2 2 µ U f x t } } , x l A , (2.24) | t αu |ě ď t2 P p q ` ˘ 2 are optimal: for inﬁnite A, if fα α A is an orthonormal basis of L Ω,µ , then t u P p q

q 2 sup lim sup t µ Utfαux t : x Bl pAq , q 2. (2.25) " tÑ8 | |ą P * “8 ą ` ˘ def (Throughout, BY y Y : y Y 1 will denote the closed unit ball in a normed “ P } } ď linear space Y.) Moving away from ’completeness,’( as systems become ’sparser,’ tail- probabilities get ’smaller’ and become sub-Gaussian in the limit. To illustrate the lim- iting case in a generic setting, we take

def A Ω ΩA 1, 1 1, 1 -valued functions on A (2.26) “ “ t´ u p“ t´ u q endowed with the product topology, i.e., weakest topology with respect to which the coordinate functions rα : ΩA 1, 1 , Ñ t´ u rα ω ω α , ω ΩA, α A, (2.27) p q“ p q P P are continuous, and then let µ be the uniform probability measure PA on the resulting Borel ﬁeld (the product probability measure heuristically associated with independent tosses of a fair coin), i.e.,

def PA P0 product measure , (2.28) “ p q ąαPA where P0 is the uniform probability measure on 1, 1 , t´ u P0 1 P0 1 1 2. (2.29) pt´ uq “ pt uq “ { Equipped with coordinate-wise multiplication (point-wise product of 1, 1 -valued t´ u functions on A), ΩA becomes a compact abelian group with Haar measure PA. The dual group ΩA is the Walsh system p 8 WA WA,k, (2.30) “ kď“0 where WA,0 r0 , r0 1 on ΩA, and “ t u ”

WA,k rα : F A, #F k (Walsh characters of order k), k N. (2.31) “ " Ă “ * P αźPF We distinguish (for reasons that will later become apparent) between characters of odd and even order, 8 8 def def WA,odd WA,2k 1, WA,even WA,2k. (2.32) “ ` “ kď“0 kď“0 FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 7

2 At one end, we have the Walsh system WA, an orthonormal basis for L ΩA, PA , and at the other end, we have the Rademacher system p q

def RA rα : α A WA,1, (2.33) “ t P u“ an ’optimally’ sparse set of independent characters of ΩA (e.g., Blei (2001, Ch. II §1)). Taking 2 x UR x x α rα, x l A , (2.34) Ñ A “ p q P p q αÿPA 2 ã p we obtain from the LR L )-Khintchin inequalities (Remark 2.9 below) sub-Gaussian tail estimates p Ñ 2 t ´ 2 PA UR x t e , x B 2 , t 0, (2.35) | A |ą ď P l pAq ą ` ˘ which are sharp: for inﬁnite A,

tq P 2 sup lim sup e A URA x t : x Bl pAq , q 2. (2.36) " tÑ8 | |ą P * “8 ą ` ˘ Generally, under ’unitarity,’ sub-Gaussian tails are always optimal: for inﬁnite A, if V : l2 A L2 Ω,µ is unitary, then p qÑ p q tq sup lim sup e µ V x t : x Bl2pAq , q 2. (2.37) " tÑ8 | |ą P * “8 ą ` ˘ (This was pointed out to me by Gilles Pisier, citing results in Gordon and Lewis (1975).) Question 2.5. Could ’smaller’ tails be achieved with maps ’slightly less’ than unitary? Deﬁnition 2.6. Let A be a set, and Ω,µ a probability space. An injection p q Φ: l2 A Lp Ω,µ , 2 p , (2.38) p q Ñ p q ď ď 8 is a l2 A ã Lp -representation – an Lp-representation of l2 A – if p p q Ñ q p q Φ x x 2 Φ σx x 0, p q “ } } p q ‰ (2.39) Φ 0 0, p q “ where x x 2, x 0, σx {} } ‰ (2.40) “ " 0, x 0 “ (Remark 2.7 i),

def Φ x Φ y dµ x α y α x y (dot product), x l2 A , y l2 A , ż p q p q “ p q p q “ ¨ P p q P p q Ω αÿPA (2.41) 8 RON BLEI and

def sup Φ x Lp : x Sl2 A Φ l2 A ã Lp , "} p q} P p q* “} } p qÑ ă 8 (2.42) l2 A ã Lp -norm of Φ p q Ñ ` ˘

2 where S 2 is the unit sphere in l A (Remark 2.7 i, ii). l pAq p q Remark 2.7 (notation and simple observations). i. The unit sphere in a normed linear space Y is denoted by

def SY y Y : y Y 1 , “ P } } “ ( and σY : Y SY 0 is defined by Ñ Y t u y y Y , y Y, y 0, {} } P ‰ σY y $ (2.43) “ & 0, 0 Y. P p % When Y l A (1 p ), we write σp, and σ when p 2. “ p q ď ď8 “ ii. If Y and Z are normed linear spaces, and F : Y Z, then Ñ def F Y Z sup F y Z : y SY , (2.44) } } Ñ “ } p q} P ( which defines a norm on the space of Z-valued functions on Y . If F is an injection, then we write F Y ã Z. } } Ñ iii. (2.39) implies that a l2 A ã Lp -representation Φ is determined by its values on p p q Ñ q Sl2pAq, and, in particular, that Φ cx cΦ x for all c R precisely when Φ is an odd function (i.e., Φ x Φ x ).p q “ p q P p´ q“´ p q iv. (2.42) implies the tail estimates p Φ 2 ã p x 2 µ Φ x t } }l pAqÑL } } , t 0, x l2 A , p 2, , (2.45) | p q| ě ď ˆ t ˙ ą P p q Pr 8q ` ˘ 2 inf t : µ Φ x t 0 Φ 2 ã 8 x 2. x l A , p . (2.46) t | p q| ě “ u ď } }l pAqÑL } } P p q “8 ` ˘ Viewing the representations in Definition 2.6 as ’slightly less’ than unitary maps, we rephrase Question 2.5: Question 2.8. Do L8-representations of l2 A exist for arbitrary A? p q FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 9

Remark 2.9 (Khintchin). The inequalities

UR x Lp ?p, sets A, p 2, x Sl2 A , (2.47) } A } ď ą P p q stated and proved ﬁrst in Khintchin (1923) for p 2n, n 2, 3,..., are arguably among the important mathematical discoveries in the“ 20th century.“ We refer to (2.47) 2 ã p as the Khintchin LR L -inequalities, which can be equivalently expressed as the sub-Gaussian tail estimatesp Ñ inq (2.35), or as the exponential-square integrability property

2 |UR x| def sup e A dPA : sets A, x Sl2pAq K . (2.48) " żΩA P * “ ă8 (For a proof that (2.47), (2.35), and (2.48) are equivalent, see Stein (2016, Appendix D).) 2 ã p By (2.47), the unitary map URA is a l A L -representation for all p 2, . 2 ã 8 p q Ñ Pp 8q Whereas URA is a l A L -representation` only˘ if A is finite – by (2.36), but more p q Ñ A 8 C simply, because 2ÙRA x L ˘x 1 for x with finite support. In due course, by } } ě } } P 2 8 using (2.47), we will ’slightly’ perturb UR to construct l A ã L -representations A p q Ñ of l2 A for arbitrary A. ` ˘ p q Remark 2.10 (representations vs. unitary maps). Unlike unitary maps, l2 ã L2 - representations need not be linear, homogeneous, or continuous. (E.g., seep proofÑ ofq Proposition 3.3 in the next chapter.) If a l2 ã L2 -representation Φ commutes with complex conjugation, i.e., if p Ñ q Φ x Φ x , x l2 A , (2.49) p q“ p q P p q then Φ is unitary, and (therefore) linear. Conversely, if an l2 ã L2 -representation Φ is linear, then Φ is continuous, and (therefore) commutes withp conjugation.Ñ q That is, Proposition 2.11. A l2 ã L2 -representation is unitary if and only if it is linear. p Ñ q 2 2 If V : l A L Ω,µ is unitary, and V eα is real-valued (α A), where eα αPA is the canonicalp qÑ basisp of l2q A , p q P t u p q 1, α α1 1 “ eα α $ (2.50) p q “ & 0, α α1, ‰ then V is a L2-representation of l2 A . Otherwise,% not every unitary map is a l2 ã L2 - representation; e.g., in Remark 2.2,p q if A Z, Ω 0, 2π , and µ Lebesguep measure,Ñ q “ “r q “ then Φ Utej u fails (2.41). If an “L8-representation of l2 A is unitary, then the underlying A must be finite: e.g., by (2.37); or, via the precise quantitativep q results in Alon et al. (2006) (cf. Remark 3.8). In Chapter 4, we construct l2 A ã L8 -representations for arbitrary A, uniformly bounded in the l2 L8 -norm,p p andq Ñ arbitrarilyq close to unitary maps in the l2 L2 - norm. Our focusp Ñ here onq uniformly bounded l2 ã L8 -representations isp motivatedÑ q mainly by Proposition 3.3 (in the next chapter),p assertingÑ q that existence of such representations is equivalent to a phenomenon known as the Grothendieck inequality. 10 RON BLEI

3. The Grothendieck inequality

3.1. Statement. The Grothendieck constant KG is the ’smallest’ K 1 such that for BˆBą all sets A, ﬁnite sets B, and scalar-valued arrays auv u,v B B C , p qp qP ˆ P

sup auv xu yv : xu S 2 , yv S 2 , u, v B B ¨ P l pAq P l pAq p q P ˆ ˇ pu,vÿqPBˆB ˇ ( ˇ ˇ (3.1) K sup auv sutv : su 1, tv 1, u, v B B . ď | |“ | |“ p q P ˆ ˇ pu,vÿqPBˆB ˇ ( ˇ ˇ

The Grothendieck inequality is the assertion

KG . (3.2) ă 8 KG has two values, depending on the underlying scalar field: if the supremum on the 2 R left of (3.1) is over SlRpAq ( -valued vectors) and on the right over su 1, tv 1 , then t “˘ “˘ u R KG K (the ’real’ Grothendieck constant); “ G if supremum is over Sl2pAq (C-valued vectors) on the left and su 1, tv 1 on the right, then t| |“ | |“ u C KG KG (the ’complex’ Grothendieck constant). “ R C The numerical values of KG and KG are open problems of long standing, and indeed of ongoing interest; e.g., see Braverman et al. (2011). Distinguishing between scalar fields on the right of (3.1), we have for finite B and B au u B C , p q P P π π au sup ausu : su 1, u B auru , (3.3) | | ď 2 “˘ P “ 2 8 uÿPB ˇ uÿPB ˇ ( › uÿPB › ˇ ˇ › › BˆB where π 2 is ’best’ possible (Seigner, 1997), and then for auv u,v B B C , { p qp qP ˆ P def a sup auv sutv : su 1, tv 1, u, v B B } }bǫ “ | |“ | |“ p q P ˆ ˇ pu,vÿqPBˆB ˇ ( ˇ ˇ π2 sup auv sutv : su 1, tv 1, u, v B B ď 4 “˘ “˘ p q P ˆ ˇ pu,vqPÿBˆB ˇ ( 2 ˇ ˇ 2 π def π auv ru rv a R . “ 4 b 8 “ 4 } }bǫ › pu,vÿqPBˆB › › › (3.4) Remark 3.1 (about the norms). A finite-dimensional scalar matrix

BˆB a auv u,v B B C ﬁnite B “p qp qP ˆ P p q FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 11 can be viewed as a representing matrix of a bilinear functional acting on C-valued functions deﬁned on B, B B s, t auv sutv, s su u B C , t tu u B C . (3.5) p q ÞÑ “p q P P “p q P P pu,vqPÿBˆB With the supremum norm on CB,

def B s max su : u B s su u B C , (3.6) } }8 “ t| | P u “p q P P the norm of the bilinear functional in (3.5) is

def a sup auv sutv : su 1, tv 1 . (3.7) } }bǫ “ | |“ | |“ ˇ pu,vÿqPBˆB ˇ ( ˇ ˇBˆB We can similarly view a auv pu,vqPBˆB C as a representing matrix of the “B p q P bilinear functional on l2 A deﬁned by p q ` ˘ x, y auv xu yv, p q ÞÑ ¨ pu,vÿqPBˆB (3.8) 2 B 2 B x xu u B l A , y yv v B l A , “p q P P p q “p q P P p q ` B ˘ ` ˘ whence, with the supremum norm on l2 A p q ` ˘ def 2 B x 8 ; 2 max xu 2 : u B , x xu u B l A , (3.9) } }l pB l q “ t} }l pAq P u “p q P P p q ` ˘ the norm of the functional in (3.8) becomes

def 2 2 a b 2 sup auv xu yv : xu Sl pAq, yv Sl pAq . (3.10) } } ǫ,l pAq “ ¨ P P ˇ pu,vÿqPBˆB ˇ ( ˇ ˇ The Grothendieck inequality asserts that b 2 and b are equivalent norms; } ¨¨} ǫ,l } ¨¨} ǫ namely, that there exist K 1, with the property that for all sets A and ﬁnite sets B, Pp 8q CBˆB a b a b 2 K a b , a . (3.11) } } ǫ ď } } ǫ,l pAq ď } } ǫ P In particular, CBˆB sup a b 2 a b : A, ﬁnite B, non-zero a KG . (3.12) } } ǫ,l pAq {} } ǫ P “ ă 8 (

In a setting of topological tensor products (e.g., Ryan (2002)), the norm in (3.7) }¨¨¨}bǫ is an instance of the injective tensor norm, sometimes denoted by _ and referred } ¨¨} b to as the smallest crossnorm (e.g., Schatten (1943)). In a framework of harmonic analysis, bǫ is the supremum norm of linear combinations of two-fold products of Rademacher} ¨¨} or Steinhaus characters, a view that will facilitate here duality arguments and, in particular, applications of the Riesz-Kakutani representation theorem: 12 RON BLEI

Theorem 3.2 (F. Riesz (Riesz, 1909), S. Kakutani (Kakutani, 1941)). Let X be a compact Hausdorﬀ space, C X the space of scalar-valued continuous functions on X , and M X the space of scalar-valuedp q regular Borel measures on X . If θ is a continuous linear functionalp q on C X , then there exists a unique µ M X , such that p q P p q θ f fdµ, f C X , (3.13) p q “ żX P p q and def def θ sup θ f µ X µ M , (3.14) } } “ }f}8ď1 | p q| “| |p q “} } where µ is the total variation measure of µ. | | 3.2. Dual statement. For a set A, let

‹ def 2 8 K A inf Φ 2 ã 8 : l A ã L -representations Φ , (3.15) p q “ "} }l pAqÑL p q Ñ * ` ˘ and K‹ def sup K‹ A , (3.16) “ A p q where supremum ranges over all sets A. Like the Grothendieck constant, K‹ is two- ‹ ˚,R 8 2 valued: K K if infimum in (3.15) ranges over L -representations of lR A (R- valued vectors),“ and K‹ K˚,C if infimum ranges over L8-representations ofp ql2 A (C-valued vectors). Representations“ in both cases are generally complex-valued: for,p ifq 8 2 2 Φ is an L -representation of lR A , and Φ x is real-valued for every x lR A , then Φ is necessarily unitary, and A mustp q be finite.p q P p q The proposition below – a statement about duality – asserts that the Grothendieck inequality and the existence of uniformly bounded l2 ã L8 -representations are equivalent in the sense that p Ñ q ‹ K KG . (3.17) ă8 ô ă8 Proposition 3.3 (cf. Blei (2014, Proposition 1.1, §1.3)).

2 2 π 2 K˚,R 4 KR K˚,R , (3.18) { ď G ď 4 ` ˘ ` ˘ and 2 2 K˚,C 4 KC K˚,C . (3.19) { ď G ď ` ˘ ` ˘ Proof. (See Remark 3.4 below for a refresher of basic notions.) To verify the right-side inequality in (3.18), assume K˚,R , and then for an arbitrary set A and ǫ 0, let 8 ă2 8 ą Φ be an L Ω,µ -representation of lR A , such that p q p q ˚,R sup Φ x L8 K ǫ. (3.20) xPS 2 } p } ď ` lRpAq FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 13

BˆB Then, for a ﬁnite set B, a auv u,v B B R , xu S 2 , and yv S 2 “ p qp qP ˆ Ă P lRpAq P lRpAq (u B, v B , we have P P q

auv xu yv auv Φ xu Φ yv dµ ¨ “ ż p q p q ˇ pu,vÿqPBˆB ˇ ˇ pu,vqPÿBˆB Ω ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ

auv Φ xu Φ yv dµ (3.21) ď ż p q p q Ω ˇ pu,vÿqPBˆB ˇ ˇ ˇ

2 π ˚,R 2 K ǫ a R . ď 4 p ` q } }bǫ

R ( bǫ is the injective tensor norm with supremum over su 1 and tv 1 in (3.1); see} ¨¨} (3.4) above.) “˘ “˘ R For the left-side inequality, assume KG , and let A be an arbitrary set. Then, (3.1) with K KR implies that ă 8 “ G g g rx,ry x y, ÞÑ p q ¨ x,y S 2 S 2 p qP l ÿpAqˆ l pAq R R p Walsh polynomials g C S S ΩS 2 ΩS 2 , R 2 ˆR 2 l pAq l pAq P lRpAq lRpAq R ˆ R ` ˘ (3.22) R determines a bounded linear functional with norm KG, deﬁned on the space of real- valued continuous functions on S 2 S 2 lRpAq lRpAq ΩS 2 ΩS 2 1, 1 1, 1 , (3.23) lRpAq ˆ lRpAq “ ´ ˆ ´ ` ( ( ˘ whose Walsh transforms are supported by RS 2 RS 2 . (RS 2 is the Rademacher lRpAq ˆ lRpAq lRpAq 2 system indexed by the unit sphere S 2 in lR A .) By Riesz-Kakutani and Hahn- lRpAq p q Banach, there exists a symmetric, real-valued Borel measure ν on ΩS 2 ΩS 2 , lRpAq ˆ lRpAq such that

x y ν rx,ry ¨ “ ` ˘ p (3.24) 2 2 rx ry dν, x SlRpAq, y SlRpAq, “ żΩS 2 ˆΩS 2 b P P lRpAq lRpAq and R ν M K total variation norm . (3.25) } } “ G p q R Now consider the probability measure µ ν KG, where ν is the total variation measure of ν, and rewrite (3.24) as “ | |{ | | 14 RON BLEI

R x y K r r h dµ, x S 2 , y S 2 , G x y lRpAq lRpAq (3.26) ¨ “ żΩS 2 ˆΩS 2 b P P lRpAq lRpAq where h 1 and h dµ dν KR . For j 1, 2, deﬁne “˘ “ { G “

2 8 φj : Sl pAq L ΩS 2 ΩS 2 ,µ , R Ñ lRpAq ˆ lRpAq ` ˘ by (3.27) R 2 φj x rx πj KG h, x Sl pAq, p q “ ˝ b P R where π1 and π2 are the canonical projections from the two-fold product ΩS 2 ΩS 2 lRpAq ˆ lRpAq onto the ﬁrst and second coordinates, respectively. Let

φ1 x φ2 x φ1 x φ2 x Φ x p q` p q i p q´ p q, x S 2 (3.28) p q “ 2 ` 2 P lRpAq (i ? 1), whence from (3.27), “ ´ R sup Φ x L8 2 KG , (3.29) xPS 2 } p } ď lRpAq b and from (3.26) and symmetry of ν,

2 2 x y Φ x Φ y dµ, x SlRpAq, y SlRpAq. (3.30) ¨ “ żΩS 2 ˆΩS 2 p q p q P P lRpAq lRpAq

2 We extend Φ to x lR A by P p q Φ x x 2 Φ σx x 0, p q “ } } p q ‰ (3.31) Φ 0 0. p q “ 8 2 (See (2.40) for the deﬁnition of σx.) Then, Φ is an L -representation of lR A with p q R 2 Φ l pAqãÑL8 2 KG, (3.32) } } ď b and therefore, ˚,R R K 2 KG. (3.33) ď b

The proof of (3.19) is similar. By using ˚,C 2 auv Φ xu Φ yv K ǫ a , (3.34) p q p q L8 ď p ` q } }bǫ › pu,vÿqPBˆB › › › π2 we obtain, as in (3.21) (without 4 ), the right-side inequality in (3.19). To verify the left-side inequality, consider the circle group T eit : t T , (3.35) “ t P u FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 15

S 2 l pAq and then take the compact abelian group T ( = T -valued functions on Sl2pAq), S 2 ^ whose character group T l pAq is generated by the Steinhaus system

` ˘ def 2 ZS 2 ζx : x Sl pAq , l pAq “ P ( where

S 2 ζx : T l pAq T , x S 2 , Ñ P l pAq (3.36) S 2 ζx ω ω x , x S 2 , ω T l pAq . p q “ p q P l pAq P (See Remark 3.4 below.) From KC , we obtain that G ă8

g g ζx,ζy x y, ÞÑ S S ¨ px,yqPÿl2 ˆ l2 ` ˘ p S 2 ^ (3.37) l pAq T -polynomials g CZS ˆZS , P l2 l2 ` ˘ determines a bounded linear functional on

S S l2 l2 CZS ˆZS T T (3.38) l2 l2 ˆ ` ˘

S 2 S 2 l l S S (continuous functions on T T with spectra in Z l2 Z l2 ), and the proof proceeds as in the ’real’ case. ˆ ˆ Remark 3.4 (some basics). Ω-polynomials refer to linear combinations of characters in Ω, where Ω is the dual of a compact abelian group Ω. (A trigonometric polynomial is p a linear combination of exponentials, and a Walsh polynomial is a linear combination p p of Walsh characters.) Ω-polynomials are norm-dense in C Ω and Lq Ω,µ , q 1, , and weak‹-dense in L8 Ω,µ) and M Ω (regular Borelp measuresq onp Ω),q wherePr µ8qis Haar measure of Ω. (E.g.,pp see Rudin (1967).)p q The Steinhaus system ZA ζα : α A (’complex’ analogue of the Rademacher “ t P u system RA) is deﬁned by

A ζα : T T , α A, Ñ P A (3.39) ζα ω ω α , α A, ω T , p q “ p q P P where T is the unit circle in C parameterized by 0, 2π , as per (3.35). The Steinhaus r q A system ZA is a set of independent characters of the compact abelian group T that generates the dual group T A. I.e., x 8 A T ZA,k, (3.40) “ kď“0 x 16 RON BLEI

A where ζ0 1 on T , ZA,0 ζ0 , and ” “ t u

nα F ZA,k ζ : F A, #F k, nα α F Z , k 1,.... (3.41) “ " α Ă “ p q P P * “ αźPF Remark 3.5 (proposition deconstructed, and a preview). The proof of Proposition 3.3 rests on the equivalence (via Riesz-Kakutani and Hahn-Banach) between ’KG ’ and the assertion (cf. Blei (1976)): ă8

for every set A, there exist ν M ΩS 2 ΩS 2 such that ν M KG, and P p l pAq ˆ l pAq q } } ď ν rx,ry x y for all x, y S 2 S 2 . (3.42) p q “ ¨ p q P l pAq ˆ l pAq p

2 8 Based on this equivalence, KG implies the existence of l A ã L -representations ă8 p q Ñ in (3.28), uniformly bounded in the l2 A L8 -norm, and` thus K‹ ˘ . Notably, the l2 ã L8 -representations in (3.28)p arep neitherqÑ ql2 L2 -continuousă8 nor homogeneous. p Ñ q p Ñ q Question 3.6. Do l2 ã L8 -representations exist with properties not a priori guaranteed by K‹ ?p (Cf.Ñ Remarkq 2.10.) ă8 In §5.1 and §5.5, we construct uniformly bounded l2 ã L8 -representations that are Ñ R-homogeneous, l2 L2 -continuous, and arbitrarily` close˘ to unitary maps in the l2 L2 -norm.p TheseÑ constructionsq are based in part on Riesz products, which are reviewedp Ñ q in §5.2 and §5.3. Existence of such representations, sharing properties with unitary maps (linearity excepted), is an upgrade of the Grothendieck inequality in the precise sense stated in §4.4. 3.3. Quadratic inequalities. The quadratic version of the Grothendieck inequality is: there exist K 1, such that for all sets A, ﬁnite sets B, and scalar-valued arrays Pp 8q auv u,v B, p qt uĂ

sup auv xu xv : xu S 2 ¨ P l pAq ˇ tu,vÿuĂB ˇ ( ˇ ˇ (3.43) K sup auv susv : su 1 . ď | |“ ˇ tu,vÿuĂB ˇ ( ˇ ˇ The ’smallest’ K in (3.43) is denoted by KG. Via polarization and symmetrization,

KG 4 KG KGr, ’real’ or ’complex’. (3.44) { ď ď (I do not know the exactr relation betweenr KG and KG.)

An injection Φ : l2 A L2 Ω,µ is a quasir -L8-representation of l2 A if p q Ñ p q p q Φ x x 2 Φ σx x 0, p q “ } } p q ‰ (3.45) Φ 0 0, p q “ FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 17

x y Φ x Φ y dµ, x l2 A , y l2 A , x y, (3.46) ¨ “ żΩ p q p q P p q P p q ‰ and

sup Φ x L8 : x Sl2 A Φ l2 A ã L8 . (3.47) } p q} P p q “} } p qÑ ă 8 ( (Cf. Deﬁnition 2.6.). As in (3.16), let

‹ def K sup inf Φ l2pAqãÑL8 , (3.48) “ A Φ } } ` ˘ r where the infimum ranges over all quasi-L8-representations of l2 A , and the supremum p q R ranges over all sets A. Depending on the underlying fields, K‹ has two values: K˚, in the ’real’ case, and K˚,C in the ’complex’ case. r r Proposition 3.7 (cf.r Proposition 3.3). π2 K˚,R 2 KR K˚,R 2, (3.49) p q ď G ď 4 p q and r r r KC K˚,C 2. (3.50) G “ p q 2 r R r π ˚,R 2 C ˚,C 2 Sketch of proof. The verifications of KG 4 K and KG K are identical to the verifications of the correspondingď inequalitiesp q in Propositionď p 3.3.q ˚,R 2 R r r r r To verify K KG, use Riesz-Kakutani to obtain a measure ν on ΩS 2 , such p q ď lRpAq R that ν M rK , andr } } “ G r 2 2 x y rx ry dν, x SlRpAq, y SlRpAq, x y. (3.51) ¨ “ żΩS 2 P P ‰ lRpAq

R Then, taking the probability space ΩS 2 , ν KG , let lRpAq | |{ ` ˘ r def R Φ x K h rx, x Sl2 pAq, p q “ ˆb G ˙ P R r (3.52)

def 2 Φ x x 2 Φ σx , x lR A , p q “} } p q P p q where h 1 is measurable on ΩS 2 , and “˘ lRpAq dν h d ν . “ | | ˚,C 2 C To verify K KG, use the same argument, with Steinhaus systems in place of Rademacherp systems.q ď r r 18 RON BLEI

Remark 3.8 (a variant). In the ’real’ case, removal of the ’absolute value’ from (3.43) leads to a distinctly diﬀerent phenomenon: there exist K 1, such that for all sets Pp 8q A, ﬁnite sets B, and R-valued arrays auv u,v B , p qt uĂ

sup auv xu xv : xu S 2 ¨ P lRpAq tu,vÿuĂB ( (3.53) K log #B sup auv susv : su 1 , ď p q “˘ tu,vÿuĂB ( where log #B is best possible; see Charikar and Wirth (2004) and Alon et al. (2006). That (3.53)p isq optimal implies that for inﬁnite A, there can be no unitary L8-representations of l2 A . (Cf. also (2.37).) p q

4. The Khintchin, Littlewood, and Orlicz inequalities 4.1. Preliminaries. In this chapter we consider three classical precursors to the Grothendieck inequality, with emphasis on their dual statements. We assume some familiarity with harmonic analysis on groups, and will use terminol- ogy and notation that is mostly standard. (E.g., Chapters 1 and 2 of Rudin (1967).) For a discrete abelian group Γ, its compact dual Γ and normalized Haar measure m on it, and E Γ, the following spaces recur throughout: Ă p Lp f Lp Γ, m : f γ 0, γ Γ E , 1 p , E “ P p q p q“ P z ď ď8 ( p p

CE f C Γ : f γ 0, γ Γ E , (4.1) “ P p q p q“ P z ( p p

ME µ M Γ : µ γ 0, γ Γ E . “ P p q p q“ P z ( The space of C-valued Γ-seriesp spannedp by E is denoted by

E SE φ γ γ : φ C , (4.2) “ " p q P * γÿPE and if φ in (4.2) is restricted to a subspace of CE, then the corresponding resulting subspace of SE will be formally so designated, e.g.,

def Ss φ γ γ : φ ls E , s 1, . (4.3) E “ " p q P p q* Pr 8s γÿPE

The Γ-transform of s φ γ γ SΓ is denoted by “ γPΓ p q P ř s γ φ γ , γ Γ. (4.4) p q “ p q P The spectrum of s is the supportp of s. If E Γ, and the spectrum of s SE is ﬁnite, then s is an E-polynomial. Ă P p FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 19

With each µ M Γ (a regular Borel measure on Γ) we associate the Γ-series P p q p µ µ γ γ, p “ p q γÿPΓ p (4.5) µ γ γdµ, γ Γ Fourier-Stieltjes transform), p q “ żΓ P p which uniquelyp determinesp µ. We then formally identify, via (4.5), each space in (4.1) as a subspace of SΓ. In this monograph we work mostly in the ’dyadic’ setting

Γ WA, Γ ΩA, m PA, “ “ “ a basic and convenient setting for our purposesp here. We will be dealing in this chapter, and also in later chapters, with mixed-norm spaces. Speciﬁcally, for s 1, , t 1, , sets A and B, and φ CAˆB, consider the mixed norms P r 8s Pr 8s P 1{s def t s{t φ s,t φ α, β , s 1, , t 1, } } “ ˆ | p q| ˙ Pp 8q Pp 8q αÿPA ` βÿPB ˘

def t 1{t φ 8,t sup φ α, β , s , t 1, , (4.6) } } “ α A | p q| “8 Pp 8q P ` βÿPB ˘

1{s def s φ s, sup φ α, β , s 1, , t , } } 8 “ ˆ | p q| ˙ Pp 8q “8 αÿPA βPB and let s t def s,t AˆB l A; l B l A, B φ C : φ s,t . (4.7) p q “ p q “ P } } ă8 ` ˘ (

1 2 1,2 2,1 4.2. L ã L -inequality, CR R ã l -inequality, CR R ã l -inequality. p R Ñ q p ˆ Ñ q p ˆ Ñ q i. The inclusions 1 2 L L ΩA, PA for all A, (4.8) RA Ă p q or equivalently, def κ sup 1 UR x 1 : x S 2 , ﬁnite sets A , (4.9) “ {} A }L P l pAq ă 8 had been independently observed in the 1930’s by Banach, Littlewoo( d, Orlicz, Steinhaus, and Zygmund, with various estimates of the constant κ, whose value became at the time 1 ã 2 an open problem. We refer to κ as the Khintchin LR L -constant, and to ’κ ’ as the Khintchin L1 ã L2 -inequality. That p Ñ q ă8 p R Ñ q κ ?2 (4.10) “ 20 RON BLEI was proved in a master’s thesis (Szarek, 1976). (See also Haagerup (1981).) So far that I can determine, Littlewood (Littlewood, 1930) was ﬁrst to state and prove

1{2 2 A x α ?3 x α rα 1 , ﬁnite sets A, x C , (4.11) ˆ | p q| ˙ ď p q L P αÿPA › αÿPA › › › 2 ã 4 i.e., that κ ?3. To this end, Littlewood veriﬁed the LR L -inequality ( p 4 in (2.47) ), andď then deduced (4.11) from it by convexity,p essentiallyÑ q via “ Lemma 4.1 (cf. Rudin (1967, p. 128)). For E Γ, if for some p 2, Ă ą def κ2 E; p sup f Lp : f SL2 , (4.12) p q “ } } P E ă 8 ( then

p def 2 κ1 E;2 sup 1 UF x 1 : ﬁnite sets F E, x S 2 κ2 E; p p´ . p q “ {} }L pΓ,mq Ă P l pF q ď r p qs p ( (4.13)

I.e., for p 2, ą L2 Lp Γ, m L1 L2 Γ, m . (4.14) E Ă p q ñ E Ă p q Proof. For x Sl2 F , ﬁnite F E,p write f UF x, andp estimate (via H¨older) P p q Ă “ p´2 p p´2 p p´2 p 1 1 p´1 p´1 p´1 1 1 f p´ f p´ dm f L1 f Lp f L1 κ2 E; p p´ . “ ż | | | | ď } } } } ď } } r p qs Γ ` ˘ ` ˘ ` ˘ p (4.15)

Remark 4.2 (Λ p -sets (Rudin, 1960)). For E Γ, p q 0, let p q Ă ą ą def sup f Lp f Lq :Γ-polynomials f, f 0, f 0 on Γ E κq E; p . (4.16) } } {} } ‰ “ z “ p q ( p As in (4.15), an application of H¨older implies

κq E; p κs E; p , p q s 0. (4.17) p qă8 ñ p qă8 ą ą ą q p We refer to ’κq E; p ’ as an L ã L -inequality. p qă8 p E Ñ q Deﬁnition 4.3 (Rudin (1960, Theorem 1.4, Deﬁnition 1.5)). E Γ is Λ p if κq E; p for some q 0,p . Ă p q p qă 8 Pp q E.g., (2.47) implies that Rademacher systems are Λ p for all p 0, . p q Pp 8q ii. Littlewood used κ in a derivation of a mixed-norm inequality: ă8 FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 21

for all ﬁnite sets A and B, and scalar-valued arrays aαβ α A,β B, p q P P a r r def a r ω r ω1 αβ α β 8 sup αβ α β b “ Ω 1 Ω p q p › αPA,ÿ βPB › ωP A, ω P B ˇ αPA,ÿ βPB ˇ › › ˇ ˇ 2 sup aαβ rα ω ě π ω Ω p q P A βÿPB ˇ αÿPA ˇ ˇ ˇ (4.18) 2 aαβ rα ω PA dω ě π ż p q p q βÿPB ωPΩA ˇ αÿPA ˇ ˇ ˇ

1 2 2 2 aαβ , ě πκ ˆ | | ˙ βÿPB αÿPA where the second line follows from (3.3), and the fourth from (4.9). Let κL be the inﬁ- mum of K 0 such that for all ﬁnite sets A and B, and scalar-valued arrays aαβ αPA,βPB, ą 1 p q 2 2 aαβ K aαβ rα rβ , (4.19) ˆ | | ˙ ď b 8 βÿPB αÿPA › αPA,ÿ βPB › › › whence from (4.18), πκ κL . (4.20) ď 2 Littlewood’s mixed-norm inequality

κL (4.21) ă 8 is equivalent to the assertion 1,2 f CR R f l A, B , for all sets A and B, (4.22) P Aˆ B ñ P p q p 1,2 and we refer to it as CR R ã l -inequality. p ˆ Ñ q

Remark 4.4 (a special case of the Grothendieck inequality). The inequality in (4.19), restated as

sup aαβ eα yβ : yβ Sl2 A , β B K aαβ rα rβ , ¨ P p q P ď b 8 ˇ αPA,ÿ βPB ˇ ( › αPA,ÿ βPB › ˇ ˇ › › is an instance of (3.1), whereby 1

κL KG. (4.23) ď 1 Littlewood’s result, which had appeared twenty or so years prior to Grothendieck’s, was indeed cited in the Resum´e(Grothendieck, 1953). Whether Littlewood’s mixed-norm inequality at least partly inspired Grothendieck’s fundamental theorem, is open to speculation. 22 RON BLEI

iii. Let κO denote the inﬁmum of K 0 over all ﬁnite sets A and B, and scalar-valued ą arrays aαβ αPA,βPB, such that p q 1 2 2 aαβ K aαβ rα rβ . (4.24) ˆ | | ˙ ď b 8 αÿPA ` βÿPA ˘ › αPA,ÿ βPA › › › From (4.19), via Minkowski (the ’triangle inequality’),

κO κL, (4.25) ď and therefore, from (4.21), κO , (4.26) ă8 which was deduced in Orlicz (1933) independently of Littlewood (1930). We refer to 2,1 (4.26) as the Orlicz CR R ã l -inequality; cf. (4.22). p ˆ Ñ q iv. The three inequalities are equivalent in the sense that

κ κL κO , (4.27) ă8 ô ă8 ô ă8 where κ is defined in (4.9), κL via (4.19), and κO via (4.24). Following (4.20) and (4.25) above, to prove (4.27) it suffices to verify κ κO. To A ď this end, we assume κO , and show that for a finite set A, if x C and ă8 P x α rα 1 P 1, (4.28) p q L pΩA, Aq “ › αÿPA › 1 › › then x 2 κO. We fix ω ΩA, and consider the Riesz product } } ď P 1 1 RA ω 1 rα ω rα . (4.29) p q “ ` p q αźPA ` ˘ 1 (E.g., see §5.2.) Because RA ω 0, p qě 1 1 RA ω L1 RA ω dPA 1, (4.30) } p q} “ żΩA p q “ which implies 1 1 x α rα ω rα 1 RA ω ˙ x α rα 1 p q p q L “} p q p q L › αÿPA › ` αÿPA ˘› › › › (4.31) 1 RA ω 1 x α rα 1 1, ď p q L p q L ď › › › αÿPA › › › › ›

1 ‹ 8 where ˙ denotes convolution. Then, by the duality L ΩA, PA L ΩA, PA , and p q “ p q because ΩA is a ﬁnite set, ` ˘

1 1 1 x α rα ω rα ω r˜ω u x α rα ω rα 1 1, ˆ 2#A p q p q p q˙ p q ď p q p q L ď ˇ ωÿPΩA αÿPA ˇ › αÿPA › (4.32) ˇ ˇ 1 › › ω ΩA, u ΩΩ , P P A FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 23 where def r˜ω : ω ΩA RΩ (Rademacher system indexed by ΩA). t P u “ A

AˆΩA Applying the assumption κO to aαω α A,ω Ω C , where ă8 p q P P A P 1 aαω x α rα ω , α A, ω ΩA, (4.33) “ 2#A p q p q P P we obtain 1{2 1 2 x α rα ω x 2 κO, (4.34) ˆ 2#A p q p q ˙ “} } ď αÿPA ` ωÿPΩA ˇ ˇ˘ ˇ ˇ which implies (via (4.28) and the deﬁnition of κ)

κ κO. (4.35) ď We summarize:

Proposition 4.5 (cf. Blei (2001, Ch. II §4)). πκ κ κO κL . (4.36) ď ď ď 2 Note: if the underlying scalar ﬁeld throughout is R, then π 2 can be removed from (4.18), i.e., in the ’real’ case, {

κO κL κ. (4.37) “ “

Remark 4.6 (generalizations). Maximizing (3.1) over yv Sl2 A v B implies P p q p P q

1{2 2 auv xu α K auv ru rv , xu S 2 u B , ˆ p q ˙ ď b 8 P l pAq p P q vÿPB αÿPA ˇ uÿPB ˇ › uPB,ÿ vPB › ˇ ˇ › › (4.38) and then by Minkowski,

1{2 2 auv xu α K auv ru rv , xu S 2 u B . ˆ p q ˙ ď b 8 P l pAq p P q αÿPA ` vÿPB ˇ uÿPB ˇ˘ › uPB,ÿ vPB › ˇ ˇ › › (4.39)

Inequalities (4.38) and (4.39) were dubbed the generalized Littlewood inequality and the generalized Orlicz inequality, respectively, in Lindenstrauss and Pelczynski (1968, pp. 280-281). The generalized Littlewood inequality is a restatement of (3.1), whereas the generalized Orlicz inequality is the instance yv y in (3.1). “ 24 RON BLEI

4.3. Interpolants. i (Khintchin). The Khintchin inequality κ implies (via Parseval) that for any set A and x l2 A , ă 8 P p q 1 h h rα x α , Walsh polynomials h L , (4.40) ÞÑ p q p q P RA αÿPA p 1 determines a continuous linear functional on LRA with norm bounded by κ. Then, by 1 ‹ 8 8 Hahn-Banach and L ΩA, PA L ΩA, PA , there exist GA x L ΩA, PA such that p q “ p q p q P p q GA x rα x α , α A, (4.41) p qp q “ p q P and { GA x L8 κ x 2. (4.42) } p q} ď } } That is, l2 A and L8 Ω , P L8 are isopmorphic as Banach spaces via the linear A A WAzRA injection p q p q{ 2 onto 8 8 GA : l A L ΩA, PA L , (4.43) p q ÝÑ p q{ WAzRA where 8 2 GA x f L ΩA, PA : f rα x α , α A , x l A , (4.44) p q “ P p q p q“ p q P P p q ( x 2 p GA x κ x 2, (4.45) } } ď ||| p q||| ď } } and is the quotient norm, |||¨¨¨||| def GA x inf f L8 : f GA x . (4.46) ||| p q||| “ } } P p q ( Invoking the axiom of choice (with a small apology for the pedantry), we select for every x Sl2 A , a class representative GA x GA x such that P p q p q P p q GA x L8 κ. (4.47) } p q} ď 2 For x l A S 2 , define P p qz l pAq GA x x 2 GA σx , x 0, p q “ } } p q ‰ (4.48) GA 0 0, p q “ 2 2 where σ : l A Sl2 A 0 is given in (2.40). The result is a choice function p qÑ p q Y t u 2 8 GA UR pA : l A L ΩA, PA , (4.49) “ A ` p q Ñ p q 2 The axiom of choice is invoked here not as a tool, but to signal that we use the ’simplest’ and ’least x 2 x efficient’ algorithm to construct GA. Namely, for each P Sl pAq, we choose ’randomly’ from GAp q, constrained only by (4.47); the resulting choice function is a pl2pAq ãÑ L8q-interpolant uniformly bounded in A. Arguably, we could (should?) invoke here the probabilistic method (Alon and Spencer, 2016), rather than the axiom of choice, or invoke both... Subsequent algorithms – in effect ’upgrades’ of the Khintchin inequality – will be designed to be ’more efficient,’ as well as more versatile. FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 25 where

sup GA x L8 GA l2ãÑL8 κ, (4.50) S 2 xP l pAq } p q} “} } ď and 2 2 pA : l A S , as per (4.3), (4.51) p q Ñ WAzRA whence

2 2 2 2 2 ? 2 pA x L κ x 2 URA x L2 κ 1 x 2 x 2, x l A } p q} ď b } } ´} } “ ´ } } “} } P p q (4.52) κ ?2 . p “ q Deﬁnition 4.7. For sets A1 A, an injection Ą 2 8 GA : l A ã L ΩA1 , PA1 (4.53) p q Ñ p q 2 8 is a l ã L -interpolant on RA if p Ñ q GA 0 0, p q “ GA x x 2 GA σx , x 0, p q “ } } p q ‰ (4.54) and 2 GA x rα x α , x l A , α A. p qp q “ p q P p q P Denote { 2 8 I 2ã 8 RA l ã L -interpolants on RA , (4.55) l ÑL p q “ p Ñ q and let ( ‹ def κ sup inf GA l2ãÑL8 : GA Il2ãÑL8 RA . (4.56) “ A } } P p q ( Proposition 4.8. κ‹ κ ?2 . (4.57) “ p “ q 2 8 Proof. Assuming κ , we produce the l ã L -interpolant GA in (4.49) (a choice function) that satisﬁesă8 (4.50), and thus κ p κÑ‹. q To verify the reverse inequality, assumeěκ‹ and A arbitrary. For x l2 A , let ă 8 P p q v S 2 be such that P l pAq x α v α x 2. (4.58) p q p q “ } } αÿPA

Then (by Parseval and H¨older), for any GA Il2ã L8 RA , P Ñ p q

x 2 UR x GA v dPA1 UR x L1 GA v L8 UR x L1 GA l2ãÑL8 , } } “ ż A p q ď } A } } p q} ď } A } } } ˇ ΩA1 ˇ ˇ ˇ (4.59) which implies κ‹ κ. ě 26 RON BLEI

Remark 4.9 (about A1 A). To define κ˚, and then verify Proposition 4.8, it suffices to take infimum in (4.56)Ą over interpolants with A1 A. That is, “ ‹ 2 8 κ sup inf GA l2ãÑL8 : l A ã L ΩA, PA -interpolants GA on RA . (4.60) “ A } } p q Ñ p q ` ˘ ( 8 1 Taking L ΩA1 , PA1 -valued interpolants with A A, as per Definition 4.7, allows for upgrades – ap notion explainedq and illustrated in theĄ next section. To wit, whereas the Khintchin inequality is an instance of the Grothendieck inequality (via Remark 4.4 and Proposition 4.5), the Grothendieck inequality can be viewed precisely as an upgrade of 2 8 1 the Khintchin inequality, via l A ã L ΩA1 , PA1 -interpolants with A A (Remark p q Ñ p q Ľ 4.21). ` ˘ 2 8 Remark 4.10 (template for later use). Given a l A ã L ΩA1 , PA1 -interpolant p q Ñ p q 1 GA on RA, we write GA URA pA , where ` ˘ “ ` 2 2 1 pA1 : l A S , A A, (4.61) p q Ñ WA1 zRA Ą 2 8 and say that pA1 is an orthogonal l , L -perturbation of UR . By (4.54), p q A 2 pA1 x x 2 pA1 σx , x l A , (4.62) p q “ } } p q P p q and by the Khintchin L2 ã Lq -inequalities (Remark 2.9), p R Ñ q pA1 2 q O ?q , q 2. (4.63) } }l ÑL “ p q ě

We will consider in due course other types of interpolants and perturbations. To avoid repetition – and also to highlight a recurring theme – we formalize the following template that we use throughout. Let E discrete Abelian group Γ, X normed linear subspace E Ă “ of C , B normed linear subspace of SΓ. An injection “ GE : X ã B (4.64) Ñ is a X ã B -interpolant on E if p Ñ q GE x x X GE σXx , x X, (4.65) p q “ } } p q P and

GE x γ x γ , γ E, x X. (4.66) p qp q “ p q P P { We denote def IXã B E X ã B -interpolants on E . (4.67) Ñ p q “ p Ñ q (

An orthogonal X, B -perturbation of UE is a map p : X SΓzE such that UE p is p q Ñ `2 a X ã B -interpolant on E. E.g., in Deﬁnition 4.7, Γ WA1 , E RA, X l A , p Ñ8 q 3 “ “ “ p q B L ΩA1 , PA1 . “ p q

3 L8pΩA1 , PA1 q is identiﬁed with tWA-series representing elements in L8pΩA1 , PA1 )}. FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 27

Remark 4.11 (also for later use). If E WA is Λ 2 , i.e., if Ă p q def κ E κ1 E, 2 (4.68) p q “ p q ă 8 (Remark 4.2), then there is a linear injection

2 onto 8 8 GE : l E L ΩA, PA L , (4.69) p q ÝÑ p q{ WAzE where 8 2 GE x g L ΩA, PA : g UEx L , (4.70) p q “ P p q ´ P WAzE ‰ H and ( def 2 x 2 GE x inf g L8 : g GE x κ E x 2, x l E . (4.71) } } ď ||| p q||| “ } } P p ď p q} } P p q ( (Cf. (4.43) - (4.46).) Therefore, there exists a l2 ã L8 -interpolant (a choice function) p Ñ q 2 8 GE UE p : l E ã L ΩA, PA , (4.72) “ ` p q Ñ p q 2 2 2 8 where p : l E l WA E is an orthogonal l , L -perturbation of UE, p qÑ p z q p q 2 GE l2ã L8 κ E , p l2 l2 κ E 1, (4.73) } } Ñ ď p q } } Ñ ď r p qs ´ and a ‹ def 2 8 κ E inf GE 2ã 8 : l E ã L -interpolants GE κ E . (4.74) p q “ } }l ÑL p p q Ñ q “ p q ( (Cf. (4.49) - (4.52), Proposition 4.8, Remark 4.10.)

ii (Littlewood). From κL , by duality (Parseval, Riesz-Kakutani, Hahn-Banach), for all sets A and B, and φ ă8l8,2 A, B , i.e., P p q 1 def 2 2 φ 8,2 sup φ α, β , (4.75) } } “ α A | p q| ă 8 P ` βÿPB ˘ there exist χ M ΩA ΩB , such that P p ˆ q χ rα,rβ φ α, β , α A, β B, (4.76) p q “ p q P P and p χ M κL φ ,2. (4.77) } } ď } }8 That is, we have an injection

8,2 χAB : l A, B M ΩA ΩB M R R c p q Ñ p ˆ q{ p Aˆ B q (4.78) c RA RB WA WB RA RB , p ˆ q “ ˆ z ˆ given by ` ˘

χAB φ χ M ΩA ΩB : χ rα rβ φ α, β , α, β A B , (4.79) p q “ P p ˆ q p b q“ p q p q P ˆ ( p 28 RON BLEI such that 8,2 χAB φ κL φ ,2, φ l A, B . (4.80) ||| p q||| ď } }8 P p q

8,2 ( the quotient norm.) Therefore, there exists a l A, B ã M ΩA ΩB - |||¨¨¨||| “ p q Ñ p ˆ q interpolant (choice function) ` ˘ 8,2 χAB UR R pAB : l A, B M ΩA ΩB , (4.81) “ Aˆ B ` p q Ñ p ˆ q where 8,2 8 pAB : l A, B S (4.82) p q Ñ WAˆWB zRAˆRB

8,2 is an orthogonal l A, B , M ΩA ΩB -perturbation, and p q p ˆ q ` ˘ χAB 8,2ã κL. (4.83) } }l ÑM ď

8,2 (In Remark 4.10, take Γ WA WB, E RA RB , X l A, B , B M ΩA ΩB .) Denote “ ˆ “ ˆ “ p q “ p ˆ q 8,2 I 8,2ã A, B l ã M -interpolants on RA RB , (4.84) l ÑM p q “ p Ñ q ˆ and let ( ‹ def κL sup inf χAB l8,2ãÑM : χAB Il8,2ãÑM A, B . (4.85) “ A,B } } P p q (

Proposition 4.12. ‹ κ κL. (4.86) L “ (Proof similar to that of Proposition 4.8.)

2,1 iii (Orlicz). For the dual statement of the Orlicz CRˆR ã l -inequality κO , replace l8,2 A, B in ii with l2 A; l8 B l2,8 A, Bp , and letÑ q ă8 p q p q “ p q ‹` def ˘ κO sup inf χAB l2,8ãÑM , (4.87) “ A,B χAB } } with supremum over sets A and B, and inﬁmum over l2,8 ã M -interpolants on p Ñ q RA RB. ˆ Proposition 4.13 (cf. Propositions 4.8, 4.12). ‹ κ κO. (4.88) O “

Remark 4.14 (’real’ vs. ’complex’). Each constant considered here has two values depending on the underlying scalar ﬁeld, and the relation between the two values is not always obvious. For example, in the case of the Grothendieck inequality, KC KR (4.89) G ă G FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 29

(e.g., see Pisier (2012) and Braverman et al. (2011)), whereas in the case of the Khintchin L1 ã L2 -inequality, p R Ñ q the ’complex’ κ the ’real’ κ ?2 . (4.90) “ p “ q (See Szarek (1976).) For our purposes, we will henceforth ignore distinctions between the ’real’ and ’complex’ constants, and will assume the ’default’ scalar ﬁeld always to be C, which, modulo ’best’ constants, subsumes R in every case. That is, in every instance, the ’complex’ constant the ’real’ constant . (4.91) ă8 ô ă8 4.4. Notion of an upgrade. The inequalities

KG , κ , κL , κO , (4.92) ă8 ă8 ă8 ă8 in their equivalent dual forms K‹ , κ‹ , κ‹ , κ‹ (4.93) ă8 ă8 L ă8 O ă8 (Propositions 3.3, 4.8, 4.12, 4.13) imply existence of uniformly bounded dual maps: l2 ã L8 -representations (Grothendieck), p Ñ q l2 ã L8 -interpolants (Khintchin), p Ñ q l8,2 ã M -interpolants (Littlewood), (4.94) p Ñ q and l2,8 ã M -interpolants (Orlicz). p Ñ q Namely, starting from an inequality in (4.93), we obtain a dual map by selecting an element from each equivalence class in a quotient space, whereby the inequality guarantees that elements can be chosen to be uniformly bounded, and guarantees no more. An upgrade is the feasibility of selecting an element in each equivalence class so that the resulting dual map is bounded by an absolute constant, and possesses also an additional property not a priori guaranteed by the inequality proper. Remark 4.15 (more constants...). Typically, an upgrade is characterized by a constant greater than or equal to the inequality’s constant in (4.93). For example, existence of uniformly bounded l2 ã L8 -interpolants that are also l2 L2 -continuous is conveyed by p Ñ q p Ñ q

‹,c def 2 8 κ sup inf GA l2ãÑL8 : continuous l ã L -interpolants GA . (4.95) “ A } } p Ñ q ă 8 ( A construction based on Riesz products (§5.2.i below) veriﬁes κ‹,c . Obviously, κ‹ κ‹,c; see (4.56). But it is not known whether κ‹ κ‹,c. ă 8 ď ă Next we verify an upgrade of the Khintchin inequality used in the next section to prove K‹ . To start, note that κ κ˚ ?2 implies for arbitrary set A, existence of orthogonală8 l2, L8 -perturbations “ “ p q 2 2 2 pA : l A S L , (4.96) p q Ñ WAzRA p “ WAzRA q 30 RON BLEI with the norm estimate

pA 2ã 2 1. (4.97) } }l ÑL ď

(See (4.52).) Can the estimate in (4.97) be improved? In particular, can pA be chosen arbitrarily ’small?’ To make the question precise, let

GA,δ x g GA x : g UR x L2 δ , x Sl2 A , δ 0, (4.98) p q “ P p q } ´ A } ď P p q ě ( where GA x is deﬁned in (4.44), and then p q def β A, δ sup inf g L8 : g GA,δ x : x S 2 , p q “ " } } P p q P l pAq* ( (4.99) def βR δ sup β A, δ , δ 0. p q “ A p q ě

The function βR : 0, 0, is obviously non-increasing. At δ 0, r 8qÑr 8s “ 2 8 βR 0 (because L L only if A is ﬁnite), (4.100) p q“8 RA “ RA and for δ 1, ě βR δ ?2, (because κ ?2). (4.101) p q“ “ The question whether l2, L8 -perturbations can be chosen arbitrarily ’small’ becomes: p q is βR δ for arbitrary δ 0, 1 ? To resolve the issue, we use the Khintchin L2 ãp qă8Lp -inequalities (in theirP equivalent p q form, as per Remark 2.9) p R Ñ q 2 |UR x| def sup e A dPA : sets A, x Sl2pAq K , (4.102) " żΩA P * “ ă8 and the function 2 ξ e ξ 2?K ξ e´ 2 , ξ 1, , (4.103) p q “ Pr 8q with its inverse ξ e´1 u , u 0, 2?eK . (4.104) “ p q Pp s

Lemma 4.16. For set A, x Sl2 A , and δ 0, 1 , there exist g GA,δ x , such that P p q Pp q P p q ´1 δ g L8 e δ . (4.105) } } ď p q` ?2 Proof. Given δ 0, 1 , let Pp q ξ e´1 δ . (4.106) “ p q For x S 2 , let P l pAq UR x, UR x ξ def A | A | ď hx,ξ $ (4.107) “ & 0, otherwise, and % def φx,ξ UR x hx,ξ. (4.108) “ A ´ FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 31

Using (4.102), we estimate

2 U x 2 2 U x 2 P | RA | ´| RA | P φx,ξ d A e URA x e d A żΩ | | “ ż |U x| ą ξ | | A RA ` ˘ ( (4.109) 2 ξ2e´ξ K. ď

Splitting φx,ξ into two Walsh series spanned by RA and WA RA, we obtain from (4.109) z 2 2 ξ ξ ´ 2 ´ 2 φx,ξ rα rα 2 ξe ?K, φx,ξ w w 2 ξe ?K. (4.110) p q L ď p q L ď › αÿPA › › wPWÿAzRA › › y › › y › 2 Taking GA UR pA in (4.96), and applying it to vx l A , where “ A ` P p q def vx α φx,ξ rα , α A, p q “ p q P y we obtain

GA vx φx,ξ rα rα pA vx , (4.111) p q “ p q ` p q αÿPA y

2 2 ξ ξ ´ 2 ´ 2 GA vx L8 ξe ?2K, pA vx 2 ξe ?K. (4.112) } p q} ď } p }L ď

Putting it all together, we have

def g hx,ξ GA vx UR x pA vx φx,ξ w w “ ` p q “ A ` ˆ p q ´ p q ˙ wPWÿAzRA (4.113) y def UR x pA x , “ A ` p q whence, from (4.112), (4.110), and (4.107),Ă

2 ξ δ ´ 2 ´1 g L8 ξ ξe ?2K e δ , (4.114) } } ď ` “ p q` ?2 and 2 ξ ´ 2 g UR x 2 2ξe ?K δ. (4.115) } ´ A }L ď “

Corollary 4.17 (cf. Blei (2001, Corollary III.10)).

´1 δ ?2 κ βR δ e δ , δ 0, 1 . (4.116) “ ď p q ď p q` ?2 Pp q 32 RON BLEI

Remark 4.18 (uniformizability). Corollary 4.17 implies that for every δ 0, there 2 8 ą exist β , such that for each set A, there are orthogonal l , L -perturbations pA ă 8 p q (of URA ) satisfying

UR pA l2ã L8 β and pA l2ã L2 δ. (4.117) } A ` } Ñ ď } } Ñ ď Succinctly put,

βR δ , δ 0, (4.118) p qă8 ą where βR is deﬁned in (4.99). We refer to the property expressed by (4.118) as Λ 2 - p q uniformizability (Blei, 1977), and to βR as the Λ 2 -modulus of Rademacher systems. p q Little is known about βR beyond the estimate in (4.116). (Is the estimate sharp? Is βR everywhere continuous?)

def Remark 4.19 (open questions). Suppose E WA is Λ 2 , i.e., κ E κ1 E, 2 (Remark 4.11). Let Ă p q p q “ p qă8

def GE,δ x g GE x : g UEx L2 δ , x Sl2 E , δ 0, (4.119) p q “ P p q } ´ } ď P p q ě ( where GE x is given by (4.70), and deﬁne the Λ 2 -modulus of E p q p q def βE δ sup inf g L8 : g GE,δ x : x Sl2 E , δ 0. (4.120) p q “ " } } P p q P p q* ě ( (Cf. (4.98) and (4.99).) If βE δ for all δ 0, then E is Λ 2 -uniformizable. Whether every Λ 2 -set is Λp qă82 -uniformizableą is an open problem.p q The best known result in this directionp q is Lemmap q 4.20 below (derived by modifying the proof of Lemma 4.16), which implies that if E WA is Λ p for some p 2, i.e., Ă p q ą κ2 E,p , (4.121) p q ă 8 then E is Λ 2 -uniformizable. Notably, whether every Λ 2 -set is Λ p for some p 2 is an open problemp q of long standing, known as the Λ 2 -setp q problemp. (Seeq §6.1.) ą p q 2 Lemma 4.20. If E WA is Λ p for some p 2, then for all x l E and δ 0, Ă p q ą P p q ą there exist g GE,δ x , such that P p q 2 2 g L8 Cp δ ´p δ 2, (4.122) } } ď ` { where 1 p 2 2 2 2 Cp 4 p´ κ2 E,p p´ κ E p´ . (4.123) “ r p qs r p qs Proof. For ξ 1 (to be speciﬁed), and for arbitrary x S 2 , let ą P l pEq UEx, UEx ξ def | | ď hx,ξ $ (4.124) “ & 0, otherwise, % and def φx,ξ UEx hx,ξ. (4.125) “ ´ FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 33

Applying (4.121), we estimate

2 p 2´p φx,ξ dPA UEx UEx dPA żΩA | | “ ż |UEx| ą ξ | | | | ( (4.126) 2´p p ξ κ2 E,p , ď r p qs and thus obtain

2´p p 2´p p 2 2 2 2 φx,ξ w w 2 ξ κ2 E,p , φx,ξ w w 2 ξ κ2 E,p . p q L ď r p qs p q L ď r p qs › wÿPE › › wPÿWAzE › › y › › y › (4.127)

Noting that E WA is a fortiori Λ 2 , i.e., κ E (Lemma 4.1), we can apply the Ă 2 p q p qă8 interpolant GE in (4.72) to vx l E , where P p q def vx w φx,ξ w , w E, p q “ p q P y and obtain GE vx φx,ξ w w pE vx , (4.128) p q “ p q ` p q wÿPE y

2´p p 2 2 GE vx L8 ξ κ2 E,p κ E , } p q} ď r p qs p q (4.129) 2´p p 2 2 2 pE vx 2 ξ κ2 E,p κ E 1 . } p }L ď r p qs r p qs ´ q `a ˘ Let

def g hx,ξ GE vx UEx pE vx φx,ξ w w “ ` p q “ ` ˆ p q ´ p q ˙ wPÿWAzE (4.130) y def UEx pE x , “ ` p q and deduce from (4.129), (4.127), and (4.124),Ă

2´p p 2 2 g L8 ξ ξ κ2 E,p κ E , (4.131) } } ď ` r p qs p q and

2´p p 2 2 2 p x 2 ξ κ2 E,p κ E 1 1 E L ˆ ˙ } p q} ď r p qs ar p qs ´ ` Ă (4.132) 2´p p 2 2 2ξ κ2 E,p κ E . ď r p qs p q 34 RON BLEI

Putting p 2 2 p´2 ξ δ 2 κ2 E,p κ E (4.133) “ { r p qs p q ` ˘ in (4.131) and (4.132) completes the proof. Remark 4.21 (ultra-interpolants). In the next section we produce A1 A, and 2 8 Ą l A ã L ΩA1 , PA1 -interpolants ΦA (on RA) that satisfy p q Ñ p q ` ˘ 2 2 x y Φ x Φ y dP 1 , x l A , y l A , (4.134) ¨ A A A ¨ “ żΩA1 p q p q P p q P p q and 2 ΦA x L8 K x 2, x l A , (4.135) } p } ď } } P p q where K 1 does not depend on A. (See Theorem 5.4 and Corollary 5.5.) Existence of l2 ã ąL8 -interpolants that are also l2 ã L8 -representations upgrades both the Khintchinp Ñ inequalityq and the Grothendieckp inequalityÑ q in the sense stated at the start of the section. We refer to such maps as ultra-interpolants.

5. The Grothendieck inequality: upgrades and extensions 5.1. From Parseval to Grothendieck (via Khintchin). An interpolant 2 8 1 GA UR pA1 : l A L ΩA1 , PA1 , A A, (5.1) “ A ` p qÑ p q Ą is an ultra-interpolant if and only if for all x and y in l2 A , p q

p 1 x p 1 y p 1 x p 1 y dP 1 0. (5.2) A ¨ A A A A p q ¨ p q “ żΩA1 p q p q “ { { Namely, the Parseval formula

P 1 P 1 1 1 P 1 GA x GA y d A URA x URA y d A pA x pA y d A , żΩA1 p q p q “ żΩA1 ` żΩA1 p q p q

2 2 x y pA1 x w pA1 y w , x l A , y l A , “ ¨ ` p qp q p qp q P p q P p q wPWÿA1 zRA { { (5.3) morphs into the Parseval-like formula in (2.41) precisely when (5.2) holds for all x and y in l2 A . This simple observation is the motivation behind the recursive construction of thep ultra-interpolantsq below. To start, given an arbitrary set A, we initialize A1 A, and generate from it a sequence of disjoint sets “ def Aj 1 WA RA r0 , j 1,.... (5.4) ` “ j zp j Y t uq “ FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 35

(We refer to Aj as a set-cascade generated by A.) Fix δ 0, 1 , and let j Pp q ` ˘ β βR δ “ p qă8 2 8 (Corollary 4.17). For j 1,..., select l Aj ã L ΩA , PA -interpolants “ p q Ñ p j j q ` ˘ GA ,δ UR pA ,δ, (5.5) j “ Aj ` j 2 such that for x l Aj , P p q GA ,δ x L8 β x 2 and pA ,δ x L2 δ x 2 . (5.6) } j p q} ď } } } j p q} ď } } We can assume

2 GA ,δ x dPA 0, x l A , j 1,.... (5.7) ż j p q j “ P p q “ ΩAj Let 8 1 A Aj, (5.8) “ jď“1 and consider the product space (a compact abelian group) 8 ΩA1 ΩA , (5.9) “ j ąj“1 with the uniform probability measure on it (normalized Haar measure) 8 PA1 PA . (5.10) “ j ąj“1 We take the independent projections

πA : ΩA1 ΩA , j 1,..., (5.11) j Ñ j “ given by A1 πA ω ω α , ω 1, 1 , (5.12) j p q “ p q αPAj P t´ ` u ` 2 ˘ 8 and view the GA ,δ as independent l Aj ã L ΩA1 , PA1 -interpolants Gj,δ, where j p q Ñ p q ` ˘ 2 Gj,δ x GA ,δ x πA UR x pj,δ x , x l Aj , j 1,..., (5.13) p q “ j p q˝ j “ Aj ` p q P p q “ and pj,δ x pA ,δ x πA . (5.14) p q “ j p q˝ j

2 For j 1,..., and x l Aj , “ P p q

Gj,δ x rα x α , α Aj, (5.15) p qp q “ p q P and { w WA1 : Gj,δ x w 0 WA . (5.16) P p qp q ‰ Ă j { ( 36 RON BLEI

2 2 In particular, for j1 j2, x1 l Aj1 , x2 l Aj2 , ‰ P p q P p q

Gj1,δ x1 Gj2,δ x2 dPA1 0. (5.17) żΩA1 p q p q “

Next, for arbitrary x l2 A , we initialize xp1q x, and generate a sequence of vectors pjq 2 P p q “ x l Aj , deﬁned recursively by P p q pj`1q pjq ^ x α pj,δ x α , α Aj 1, j 1,.... (5.18) p q “ p q p q P ` “ pjq 2 (We refer to x j as a vector-cascade generated by x l A .) p q P p q Lemma 5.1. For x l2 A , P p q pjq j´1 x 2 δ x 2, j 1,.... (5.19) } } ď } } “ Proof (by induction on j). The case j 1 is the initial assignment xp1q x. For j 1, “ “ ě

pj`1q pjq pjq j´1 x 2 pj,δ x 2 δ x 2 δ δ x 2, (5.20) } } “} p q}L ď } } ď ¨ } } where the equality on the left follows from (5.18), the ﬁrst inequality from (5.6), and the second from the induction hypothesis. Lemma 5.2. For x and y in l2 A , p q n j´1 pjq pjq 1 Gj,δ x Gj,δ y dPA1 p´ q żΩ p q p q jÿ“1 A1 (5.21)

n´1 pnq pnq x y 1 p x p y dP 1 , n 1,.... ¨ n,δ n,δ A “ ¨ ` p´ q żΩA1 p q p q “ Proof (by induction on n). The case n 1 is (5.3). For n 1, “ ą n j´1 pjq pjq 1 Gj,δ x Gj,δ y dPA1 x y p´ q żΩ1 p q p q “ ¨ jÿ“1 A

n´2 pn´1q pn´1q n´1 pnq pnq 1 pn´1,δ x pn´1,δ y dPA 1 Gn,δ x Gn,δ y dPA1 ` p´ q żΩA1 p q p q ` p´ q żΩA1 p q p q

(induction hypothesis . q (5.22) FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 37

By (5.3), (5.4), and (5.18) (via Parseval),

pnq pnq pnq pnq pnq pnq G x G y dP 1 x y p x p y dP n,δ n,δ A ¨ n,δ n,δ A żΩA1 p q p q “ ¨ ` żΩA1 p q p q (5.23)

pn´1q pn´1q pnq pnq pn´1,δ x pn´1,δ y dPA1 pn,δ x pn,δ y dPA1 , “ żΩA1 p q p q ` żΩA1 p q p q which, put in (5.22), implies (5.21).

Lemma 5.3. For x l2 A and y l2 A , P p q P p q 8 2 pjq pjq β Gj,δ x Gj,δ y dPA1 x 2 y 2, (5.24) ż p q p q ď 1 δ2 } } } } jÿ“1 ΩA1 ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ´ and 8 j´1 pjq pjq 1 Gj,δ x Gj,δ y dPA1 x y. (5.25) p´ q ż p q p q “ ¨ jÿ“1 ΩA1 Proof. By H¨older, Cauchy-Schwarz, (5.6), and (5.19),

n n pjq pjq pjq pjq Gj,δ x Gj,δ y dPA1 Gj,δ x L8 Gj,δ y L8 żΩ p q p q ď } p q} } p q} jÿ“1 A1 ˇ ˇ ˇ jÿ“1 ˇ ˇ ˇ (5.26) n 2 2pj´1q β x 2 y 2 δ , ď } } } } jÿ“1 and

pnq pnq pnq pnq pn,δ x pn,δ y dPA1 pn,δ x L2 pn,δ y L2 ˇ żΩ p q p q ˇ ď } p q} } p q} ˇ A1 ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ 2 pnq pnq (5.27) δ x 2 y 2 ď } } } }

2n δ x 2 y 2 . ď } } } } The lemma follows by letting n in (5.26) and (5.21). Ñ8 Putting it all together, we obtain Theorem 5.4. For δ 0, 1 and set A, Pp q 8 def j´1 pjq 2 ΦA,δ x i Gj,δ x , x l A i ? 1 , (5.28) p q “ p q P p q p “ ´ q jÿ“1 38 RON BLEI

8 2 converges absolutely in L ΩA1 , PA1 and uniformly on bounded subsets of l A . More- 2 p8 q p q over, ΦA,δ is a l A ã L ΩA1 , PA1 -ultra-interpolant on RA, and p q Ñ p q ` ˘ βR δ ΦA,δ 2ã 8 p q. (5.29) } }l ÑL ď 1 δ ´ Proof. By (5.6) and (5.19),

8 8 8 pjq pjq j´1 β Gj,δ x L8 β x 2 β δ x 2 x 2,, } p q} ď } } ď } } “ 1 δ } } jÿ“1 jÿ“1 jÿ“1 ´ 2 x l A , β βR δ , P p q “ p q (5.30) implying absolute convergence of the series in (5.28), uniformly for x in bounded subsets of l2 A . Byp (5.30),q (5.15), and (5.16), for x l2 A , P p q

ΦA,δ x rα G1,δ rα p qp q “ p q { (5.31) x α , α A1 A , “ p q P p “ q

2 8 implying that ΦA,δ is a l A ã L ΩA1 , PA1 -interpolant on RA. p q Ñ p q By Lemma 5.3, and (5.17),` for x l2 A , y ˘ l2 A , P p q P p q 8 8 j´1 pjq pjq ΦA,δ x ΦA,δ y dPA1 1 Gj,δ x Gj,δ y dPA1 żΩ p q p q “ żΩ p´ q ˆ p q p q˙ A1 A1 jÿ“1 jÿ“1

8 (5.32) j pjq pjq 1 Gj,δ x Gj,δ y dPA1 x y, “ p´ q żΩ p q p q “ ¨ jÿ“1 A1

2 8 implying that ΦA,δ is a l A ã L ΩA1 , PA1 -representation. The estimate in (5.29) p q Ñ p q follows from (5.30). ` ˘

Corollary 5.5. For all sets A and ǫ 0, there exist ultra-interpolants ą 2 8 GA UR pA1 : l A ã L ΩA1 , PA1 , (5.33) “ A ` p q Ñ p q such that

GA 2ã 8 K, pA1 2ã 2 ǫ, (5.34) } }l ÑL ď } }l ÑL ď FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 39 where K 1 depends only on ǫ, ą 1 A A Aj, “ Y jď“2 and Aj is the set-cascade generated by A A1, as per (5.4). j “ ` ˘ Proof. For δ 0 (to be determined) and x S 2 , rewrite (5.28) ą P l pAq 8 j´1 pjq ΦA,δ x i Gj,δ x p q “ p q jÿ“1 8 (5.35) j´1 pjq UR x p1,δ x i Gj,δ x , “ A ` ˆ p q ` p q˙ jÿ“2 pjq where x j is the vector-cascade given by (5.18). Let p q 8 def j´1 pjq pA1 x p1,δ x i Gj,δ x , (5.36) p q “ p q ` p q jÿ“2 and use (5.6), (5.18), and (5.19) to deduce 1 8 2 2 2j´2 2j 2 pA1 x 2 δ δ δ δ . (5.37) } p q}L ď ˆ ` ` ˙ ď c1 δ2 jÿ“2 ´ For ǫ 0, let ą ǫ β δ δ δ , K R ǫ , (5.38) ǫ 2 p q “ “ ?2 ǫ “ 1 δǫ ` ´ and 2 GA x ΦA,δ x , x l A . (5.39) p q “ ǫ p q P p q

Remark 5.6 (more about constants...). Consider

‹,u def 2 8 κ sup inf ΦA l2ãÑL8 : l ã L -ultra-interpolants ΦA (on RA) . (5.40) “ A } } p Ñ q ( (Cf. (3.16) and (4.56).) From deﬁnitions and Theorem 5.4,

βR δ K‹ κ‹,u p q, δ 0, 1 . (5.41) ď ď 1 δ Pp q ´ The assertion κ‹,u (5.42) ă 8 is indeed an upgrade of the Grothendieck inequality as well as the Khintchin inequalty. In particular, the Grothendieck inequality is obtained from its upgrade in (5.41) via (3.19), 2 ‹ 2 ‹,u 2 βR δ KG K κ p q , δ 0, 1 . (5.43) ď ď ď ˆ 1 δ ˙ Pp q ` ˘ ` ˘ ´ 40 RON BLEI

We can deduce KG directly from Lemma 5.3, bypassing its upgrade, thereby obtain- ă8 ing an estimate of KG sharper than (5.43). Namely, from Lemma 5.3, for a set A, ﬁnite set B, scalar array a auv u,v B B , xu S 2 and yv S 2 , u, v B B, “p qp qP ˆ P l pAq P l pAq p q P ˆ

auvxu yv ¨ ˇ pu,vqPÿBˆB ˇ ˇ 8ˇ j´1 pjq pjq P auv 1 Gj,δ xu Gj,δ yv d A1 “ p´ q żΩ p q p q ˇ pu,vÿqPBˆB jÿ“1 A1 ˇ ˇ8 ˇ (5.44) pjq pjq P auv Gj,δ xu Gj,δ yv d A1 ď żΩ p q p q jÿ“1 A1 ˇ pu,vÿqPBˆB ˇ ˇ ˇ 8 2 2 2pj´1q β β δ a _ a _ , β βR δ , ď } } b “ ˆ1 δ2 ˙} } b “ p q jÿ“1 ´ and hence 2 2 2 βR δ βR δ KG p q p q , δ 0, 1 . (5.45) ď `1 δ2˘ ă ˆ 1 δ ˙ Pp q ´ ´

Whether Λ 2 -uniformizability – of Rademacher or other independent system, e.g., p q Steinhaus, Gaussian – could lead to a determination of KG is open to speculation. (Cf. Lemma 4.16 and Remark 4.18.)

Remark 5.7 (continuity). To construct l2 L2 -continuous ultra-interpolants, we need l2, L8 -perturbations that are ’small’p asÑ well asq l2 L2 -continuous. For a set A andp δ 0q, let p Ñ q ą c def 2 2 2 8 2 2 β A, δ inf URA pA l ãÑL : l L -continuous pA : Sl pAq Bδ,L , p q “ } ` q} p Ñ q Ñ WAzRA ( (5.46)

2 2 P where Bδ,L is the δ-ball in LW zR ΩA, A , and then WAzRA A A p q

c def c βR δ sup β A, δ . (5.47) p q “ A p q Proposition 5.8.

c κ βR δ β δ O 1 ?δ , 0 δ 1. (5.48) ď p q ď Rp q “ { q ă ă ` (Cf. (4.95).) A proof using Riesz products is outlined in §5.2.i below. FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 41

5.2. Riesz products. For a set A and x CA, deﬁne P

RA x r0 x α rα (5.49) p q “ ` p q αźPA ` ˘ to be the Walsh series

8 def RA x r0 x α1 x αk rα1 rα . (5.50) p q “ ` ˆ p q¨¨¨ p q ¨ ¨ ¨ k ˙ kÿ“1 tα1,...,αÿkuĂA

A At the very outset, RA is merely a function on C , whose range comprises WA-series formally given by (5.50). If A is a finite set, then (5.49) is a bona fide product representing a Walsh polynomial on ΩA. But if A is infinite, then the object represented by (5.50) will depend on x CA, as well as the mode of convergence of the series in (5.50). The construct in (5.49),P which appeared first in the circle group setting – with lacunary exponentials in place of Rademacher characters (Riesz, 1918) – is known as a Riesz product.

The following general properties of RA are key:

A 1. RA is a C ã SW -interpolant on RA, i.e., p Ñ A q ^ A RA x rα x α , x C , α A, (5.51) p q p q “ p q P P ` ˘ with an orthogonal perturbation

8 A pA x r0 x α1 x αk rα1 rα , x C . (5.52) p q “ ` ˆ p q¨¨¨ p q ¨ ¨ ¨ k ˙ P kÿ“2 tα1,...,αÿkuĂA

(But for the presence of norms and (4.65), RA satisﬁes requirements in Remark 4.10 A with Γ WA, E RA, X C , B SW .) “ “ “ “ A A 2. Restrictions of RA to WA,k are k-homogeneous. Namely, for scalars c and x C , P p 8 k RA cx r0 c x α1 x αk rα1 rα , (5.53) p q “ ` ˆ p q¨¨¨ p q ¨ ¨ ¨ k ˙ kÿ“1 tα1,...,αÿkuĂA and therefore,

^ k k ^ RA cx w c x α1 x αk c RA x w , p q p q “ p q¨¨¨ p q “ p q p q ` ˘ ` ˘ (5.54)

w WA,k, w rα1 rα , k 1, 2,.... P “ ¨ ¨ ¨ k “ 42 RON BLEI

3. For p 0, , Pp 8q 8 ^ p p RA x 1 x α1 x αk , p p q p “ ` | p q¨¨¨ p q| › ˘ › kÿ“1 tα1,...,αÿkuĂA › › (5.55) 8 k 1 p x α p e}x}p , x CA. ď k!ˆ | p q| ˙ “ P kÿ“0 αÿPA

4. For x and y in CA, the product xy is the usual point-wise product of functions, i.e., xy α def x α y α , α A. (5.56) p qp q “ p q p q P

For a and b in CWA , the convolution of the Walsh series

SA a a w w, SA b b w w, (5.57) r s “ p q r s “ p q wÿPWA wÿPWA is deﬁned by

def SA a ˙ SA b SA ab a w b w w, (5.58) r s r s “ r s “ p q p q wÿPWA which is consistent with usual convolution in classical spaces.4 Then, from (5.50) and (5.58), A A RA x ˙ RA y RA xy , x C , y C . (5.60) p q p q “ p q P P

Remark 5.9 (a broader view). Let Z be a unital normed algebra Z over the complex A scalars C. Mimicking (5.50), we can take RA to be the function on Z , whose values are the Z-valued WA-series 8 def 1 A RA z z0r0 z απp1q z απpkq rα1 rαk , z Z , p q “ ` k!ˆ S p q¨¨¨ p q˙ ¨ ¨ ¨ P kÿ“1 tα1,...,αÿkuĂA πÿP k where z0 multiplicative unit of Z, and Sk is the permutation group of 1,...,k . The interpolation“ property in (5.51) and the k-homogeneity property in (5.54)t carryu over verbatim, and the norm estimate in (5.55) becomes ^ p p A RA z w exp z α , z Z , (5.61) } p q p q} ď } p q} P wÿPWA ` ˘ ` ÿα ˘ 4 For µ and ν in MpΩAq, the convolution µ˙ν P MpΩAq is defined via the duality CpΩAq‹ “ MpΩAq (Riesz-Kakutani), and satisfies µ ˙ ν “ SArµs ˙ SArµs, (5.59) where convolution on the right-hand side is defined by (5.58). p p FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 43 where is the Z-norm. For commutative Z, } ¨¨} 8 A RA z z0r0 z α1 z αk rα1 rα , z Z , (5.62) p q “ ` p q¨¨¨ p q ¨ ¨ ¨ k P kÿ“1 tα1,...,αÿkuĂA define the products

A RA z z0r0 z α rα , z Z , (5.63) p q “ ` p q P αźPA ` ˘ in which case also the relation in (5.60) carries over, where convolution is deﬁned by (5.58) with Z in place of C. In this work, Z will be the real and complex ﬁelds, spaces of essentially bounded measurable functions (with point-wise multiplication), and spaces of measures (with convolution). In the latter two cases, Z L8 and Z M, we will refer to product amalgams and convolution amalgams, respectively.“ A recurring“ task will be to identify objects represented by these products, either in their scalar form (5.50), or in their more general guise (5.62).

We make use of two classical scenarios that originated in Salem and Zygmund (1947) and Riesz (1918).

8 2 i (L -valued Riesz products). For x lR A (a real-valued Euclidean vector) and ǫ 0, let P p q ą

def x 2 QA,ǫ x Im } } RA iǫσx (i ? 1, Im imaginary part) p q “ ǫ p q “ ´ “

8 2k k ǫ x α rα 1 x α1 x α2k`1 rα1 rα2k`1 “ p q ` p´ q ˆ x 2 ˙ ˆ p q¨¨¨ p q ¨ ¨ ¨ ˙ αÿPA kÿ“1 } } tα1,...,αÿ2k`1uĂA

URA x gǫ x . “ ` p q (5.64) whence

QA,ǫ x rα x α , α A. (5.65) p qp q “ p q P { By a computation similar to (5.55),

?sinh ǫ2 ǫ2 gǫ x 2 ´ x 2 } p q}L ď ˆ ǫ ˙} } (5.66)

2 ǫ x 2, 0 ǫ 1. ď } } ă ă 44 RON BLEI

If E A is ﬁnite, then Ă 1{2 2 2 2 ǫ2{2 max RE iǫσx ξ 1 ǫ x α x 2 e . (5.67) ξPΩE p q p q “ ˆ ` | p q| {} } ˙ ď ˇ` ˘ ˇ αźPE ˇ ˇ 8 Therefore (e.g., Blei (2014, Lemma 4.3)), QA,ǫ x L ΩA, PA , and p q P p q 2 eǫ {2 QA,ǫ x L8 x 2 . (5.68) } p q} ď ǫ } } ` ˘ 2 2 For x u iv, u lR A , v lR A , let “ ` P p q P p q def QA,ǫ x QA,ǫ u iQA,ǫ v , (5.69) p q “ p q ` p q and def gǫ x QA,ǫ x UR x. p q “ p q´ A 2 8 2 8 Then, QA,ǫ is a l ã L -interpolant with orthogonal l , L -perturbation gǫ. p Ñ q p q Proof of Proposition 5.8. Apply (5.68), (5.66), and that 2 gǫ : S 2 L (5.70) l pAq Ñ WAzRA is l2 L2 -continuous (e.g., Blei (2014, Lemma 4.4)). p Ñ q

8 ii (M-valued Riesz products). For x lR A and 0 ǫ 2, let P p q ă ď

def x 8 ǫσ8x ǫσ8x PA,ǫ x } } RA RA p q “ ǫ ˆ 2 ´ ´ 2 ˙ ` ˘ ` ˘ (5.71) 8 ǫ 2k x α1 x α2k`1 rα1 rα2k`1 , x 0. “ ˆ2 x 8 ˙ ˆ p q¨¨¨ p q ¨ ¨ ¨ ˙ ‰ kÿ“0 } } tα1,...,αÿ2k`1uĂA and write

PA,ǫ x UR x hǫ x , (5.72) p q “ A ` p q i.e., 8 ǫ 2k hǫ x x α1 x α2k`1 rα1 rα2k`1 , x 0. p q “ ˆ2 x 8 ˙ ˆ p q¨¨¨ p q ¨ ¨ ¨ ˙ ‰ kÿ“1 } } tα1,...,αÿ2k`1uĂA (5.73) Then,

PA,ǫ x rα x α , α A, (5.74) p qp q “ p q P and { ǫ2 hǫ x x . (5.75) } p q}8 ď 4 } }8 ` ˘ z FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 45

Moreover, if E A is ﬁnite, and f f w w, then Ă “ wPWE p q ř p PA,ǫ x f w PE,ǫ x f w f PE,ǫ x dPE f 8 PE,ǫ x L1 ˇ p q p qˇ “ ˇ p q p qˇ “ ˇ żΩ p q ˇ ď } } } p q} ˇ wÿPWA ˇ ˇ wÿPWE ˇ ˇ E ˇ ˇ { p ˇ ˇ { p ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ

x 8 ǫσ8x ǫσ8x 2 x 8 f 8 } } RE dPE RE dPE f 8 } } “} } ǫ ˆ ż 2 ` ż ´ 2 ˙ “} } ǫ ΩE ` ˘ ΩE ` ˘

ǫσ8x (because RE 0 . ˘ 2 ě q ` ˘ (5.76)

From the norm density of Walsh polynomials in C ΩA , and the duality p q ‹ C ΩA M ΩA (Riesz-Kakutani), p q “ p q we obtain PA,ǫ x M ΩA , and p q P p q 2 PA,ǫ x x . (5.77) p q M ď ǫ } }8 › › ` ˘ › › 8 For arbitrary x l A , deﬁne PA,ǫ x by applying PA,ǫ in (5.71) separately to the real and imaginary partsP p ofqx. (See (5.69).)p q

8 8 In summary, PA,ǫ is a l ã M -interpolant on RA, with orthogonal l , M - p Ñ q p q perturbation hǫ of URA .

Remark 5.10 (R-homogeneity). Spectra of QA,ǫ and PA,ǫ comprise Walsh characters of odd order, i.e., 2 QA,ǫ x w PA,ǫ x w 0, w WA,even, x l A . (5.78) p qp q“ p qp q“ P P p q (See (2.32).) In{ particular, {

QA,ǫ x QA,ǫ x , PA,ǫ x PA,ǫ x , (5.79) p´ q “ ´ p q p´ q “ ´ p q and therefore,

8 QA,ǫ cx cQA,ǫ x and PA,ǫ cx cPA,ǫ x , x l A , c R. (5.80) p q“ p q p q“ p q P p q P

8 5.3. L -valued and M s -valued Riesz products. For s 1, , consider psq p q Pr 8s p def p s L ΩA, PA f L ΩA, PA : f l WA , 1 p , psqp q “ P p q P p q ď ď8 ( and p (5.81) def s M s ΩA µ M ΩA : µ l WA , p qp q “ P p q P p q ( p 46 RON BLEI equipped with

def p f Lp max f Lp , f s , f L ΩA, PA , } } psq “ t} } } } u P psqp q p (5.82) def µ M max µ M , µ s , µ M s ΩA . } } psq “ t} } } } u P p qp q The aforementioned are Banach spaces normedp by (5.82), where

8 8 L ΩA, PA L ΩA, PA , p2qp q “ p q

8 L ΩA, PA M 1 ΩA A ΩA absolutely convergent Walsh series , p1qp q “ p qp q “ p q p“ q

2 Mp2q ΩA L ΩA, PA , Mp8q ΩA M ΩA . p q “ p q p q “ p q (5.83) Also, by Hausdorﬀ-Young,

p p p L ΩA, PA L ΩA, PA , 1 p 2, q . (5.84) pqqp q “ p q ď ď “ p 1 ´ ‹ def s 8 If 1 s 2 s , f L ΩA, PA , and µ M s‹ ΩA , then the ď ď ď “ s´1 ď 8 P psqp q P p qp q convolution f ˙ µ is in A ΩA , and (therefore) p q f ω µ dω f w µ w (Parseval formula). (5.85) żωPΩ p q p q“ p q p q A wÿPWA p p In particular, the integral on the left side of (5.85) is well-deﬁned, and

8 f ω µ dω f L µ M ‹ . (5.86) ˇ ż p q p qˇ ď } } psq } } ps q ˇ ωPΩA ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ ˇ

s For ǫ 0, s 1, , x lR A , x 0, let ą Pr 8s P p q ‰

psq def x s Q x } } Im RA iǫσsx , (5.87) A,ǫp q “ ǫ ` ˘ and psq def x s ǫσsx ǫσsx P x } } RA RA . (5.88) A,ǫp q “ ǫ ˆ 2 ´ ´ 2 ˙ ` ˘ ` ˘ s Lemma 5.11. If ǫ 0, 2 , s 1, , and x lR A , then: Pp s Pr 8s P p q FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 47

For s 1, “ p1q p1q sinh ǫ Q x A ΩA , Q x A x 1, A,ǫp q P p q } A,ǫp q} ď ǫ } } ` ˘ (5.89) ǫ p1q p1q 2 sinh 2 P x A ΩA , P x A x 1. A,ǫp q P p q } A,ǫp q} ď ǫ } } ` ˘ For s 1, 2 , Pp s 2 psq 8 psq 1 ǫ x 2 Q x L Ω , P , Q x 8 exp x , A,ǫ psq A A A,ǫ Lpsq } } s p q P p q } p q} ď ǫ ˆ?2 x s ˙ } } } }

psq p psq 2 ǫ?p x 2 P p PA,ǫ x Lpsq ΩA, A , PA,ǫ x L sinh } } x s, p 2. p q P p q } p q} ď ǫ ˆ 2 x s ˙ } } ě 2ďčpă8 } } (5.90)

For s 2, , Pp 8s s ǫ s 1{s psq psq 2 sinh 2 2 P x M s ΩA , P x M max , x s. A,ǫp q P p qp q } A,ǫp q} psq ď "ˆ ǫs ` ˘ ˙ ǫ *} } (5.91)

Also, psq ^ psq ^ Q x rα P x rα x α , α A, (5.92) A,ǫp q p q“ A,ǫp q p q “ p q P ` ˘ ` ˘

s s 1{s psq ^ sinh ǫ ǫ QA,ǫ x p ´ q x s, s 1, , p q WAzRA s ď ǫ } } Pr 8q ›` ˘ ˇ › › ˇ › (5.93) s s 1{s psq ^ sinh ǫ 2 ǫ 2 PA,ǫ x { q ´p { q x s, s 1, . p q WAzRA s ď ` ` ǫ ˘ } } Pr 8s ›` ˘ ˇ › › ˇ › Moreover, the transform maps

psq ^ s s psq ^ s s Q : l A l WA , P : l A l WA A,ǫp¨¨¨q p q Ñ p q A,ǫp¨¨¨q p q Ñ p q ` ˘ ` ˘ are ls-norm-continuous. Sketch of proof. (5.89) and the ﬁrst line in (5.90), along with (5.92), (5.93), and the ls-norm-continuity of the Walsh transforms, follow from spectral analysis and norm estimates applied to Riesz products; cf. (5.55), (Blei, 2014, Lemmas 4.3, 4.4, and (4.5)). 48 RON BLEI

2 ã p The second line in (5.90) is proved by applying the Khintchin LR L -inequalities (Remark 2.9) to each of the summands in p Ñ q

8 2k psq ǫ PA,ǫ x x α1 x α2k`1 rα1 rα2k`1 . (5.94) p q “ ˆ2 x s ˙ ˆ p q¨¨¨ p q ¨ ¨ ¨ ˙ kÿ“0 } } tα1,...,αÿ2k`1uĂA

Namely, for s 1, 2 , p 2, k 0, 1,..., Pp s ą “ 2k`1 ?p 2k`1 x α1 x α2k 1 rα1 rα2 1 p q x , (5.95) p q¨¨¨ p ` q ¨ ¨ ¨ k` Lp ď 2k 1 ! } }s › tα1,...,αÿ2k 1uĂA › › ` › p ` q which we sum over k, and then apply Minkowski’s inequality.

To deﬁne Qpsq x and P psq x for x ls A , apply (5.87) and (5.88) to the real A,ǫp q A,ǫp q P p q and imaginary parts of x separately. (See (5.69).) The norm estimates are (at most) ”doubled,” and all other properties remain intact. In the extremal instances ǫ 1, s 2, and s , we write “ “ “8 psq psq psq psq p2q p8q QA for QA,1, PA for PA,1, QA,ǫ for QA,ǫ, PA,ǫ for PA,ǫ , (5.96)

QA for QA,1, and PA for PA,1.

st s t From (5.60), (5.87) and (5.88), for 1 s, t , u , x lR A , and y lR A , ď ď8 ě s`t P p q P p q

Qpsq x ˙ P ptq y P psq x ˙ Qptq y Qpuq xy , A p q A p q “ A p q A p q “ A,ǫ{4p q

P psq x ˙ P ptq y P puq xy , A p q A p q “ A,ǫ{2p q

psq ptq puq (5.97) Q x ˙ Q y P xy , A p q A p q “ A,ǫ p q

xy u where ǫ ǫ x, y; u,s,t } } 1. “ “ x s y t ď ` ˘ } } } }

We summarize, and record for future use (omitting proof):

Lemma 5.12 (Parseval formulae; cf. (5.85)). For 1 s 2 t s , if x ls A ď ď ď ď s´1 P p q and y lt A , then P p q FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 49

psq ptq psq ^ ptq ^ QA x ω PA y dω x α y α QA x w PA y w , żωPΩA p qp q p qp q “ p q p q ` p q p q p q p q αÿPA wPWÿAzRA ` ˘ ` ˘

psq ptq psq ^ ptq ^ PA x ω PA y dω x α y α PA x w PA y w , żωPΩA p qp q p qp q “ p q p q ` p q p q p q p q αÿPA wPWÿAzRA ` ˘ ` ˘

psq ptq psq ^ ptq ^ QA x ω QA y dω x α y α QA x w QA y w , żωPΩA p qp q p qp q “ p q p q ` p q p q p q p q αÿPA wPWÿAzRA ` ˘ ` ˘ (5.98) where all sums on the right are absolutely convergent. Remark 5.13 (bona fide integrals?). The left sides of the first two lines of (5.98) are well-defined Lebesgue integrals. In the case s t 2, the left side of the third line is a bona fide integral with respect to “ “ p2q p2q Q y dω Q y ω PA dω , A p qp q“ A p qp q p q but otherwise, for 1 s 2 t , the left side is defined by the sums on the right. ď ă ă ď8 ptq t Question 5.14. What can be said about Q y for y lR A and t 2, ? E.g., does A p q P p q Pp 8s Qptq y represent a measure? A p q 5.4. More interpolants. For A1 A, let Ą 2 8 1 P 1 orthogonal l A , Lpsq ΩA , A -perturbations of URA , s 1, 2 , def p q p q Pr s Ppsq A1 A $ ` ˘ ( p Ą q “ 2 & orthogonal l A , M s ΩA1 -perturbations of UR , s 2, . p q p qp q A Pp 8s ` ˘ ( (See Remark 4.10.)% We write Ppsq A for Ppsq A A . (See Remark 4.9.) Let p q p Ą q ‹,psq def psq κ sup inf U p sã 8 : p P A , s 1, 2 , RA A l ÑLpsq A “ A } ` } P p q Pr s ( (5.99) psq def psq sã σ sup inf URA pA l ÑMpsq : pA P A , s 2, . “ A } ` } P p q Pp 8s ( For δ 0, let ě psq s 8 s s inf URA p l ãÑL : p P A , p l ãÑl δ , s 1, 2 , def } ` } psq P p q } } ď Pr s βpsq A, δ $ ( p q “ psq p & inf UR p lsã M : p P A , p lsã ls δ , s 2, , } A ` } Ñ psq P p q } } Ñ ď Pp 8s % ( and then p

psq def psq βR δ sup β A, δ , s 1, . (5.100) p q “ A p q Pr 8s 50 RON BLEI

s s (Cf. (4.99).) Adding l A l WA1 -continuity, we let p qÑ p q psq,c 1 def ` s s ˘ psq 1 P A A l A l WA1 RA -continuous pA1 P A A , p Ą q “ p qÑ p z q P p Ą q ` ˘ ( (5.101) and for δ 0, ě βpsq,c A, δ p q def psq,c 1 inf UR pA1 lsãÑL8 : pA1 P A A , pA lsãÑls δ , s 1, 2 , “ } A ` q} psq P p Ą q } } ď Pr s def psq,c 1 ( inf UR pA1 lsã M : pA1 P A A , xpA lsã ls δ , s 2, , “ } A ` q} Ñ psq P p Ą q } } Ñ ď Pp 8s ( x psq,c def psq,c βR δ sup β A, δ , s 1, . p q “ A p q Pr 8s (5.102) Lemma 5.11 implies Corollary 5.15 (cf. Corollary 4.17, Proposition 5.8). For every s 1, , there exist Pp 8s Ks 0 such that for δ 0, 1 , ą Pp q κpsq, s 1, 2 , ? psq,c psq Pr s Ks δ βR δ βR δ $ (5.103) { ě p q ě p q ě & σpsq, s 2, . Pp 8s Remark 5.16 (s 1). The extremal case s 1 is% trivial in the sense that ě “ βp1q,c δ βp1q δ 1, δ 0. (5.104) R p q “ R p q “ ě For s 1, the proof of (5.103) uses Riesz products. (Proposition 5.8 is the case s 2.) ą psq,c psq “ I do not know whether the estimate is optimal, or whether βR δ βR δ is a strict inequality. p q ě p q 5.5. Parseval-type formulae: extensions of the Grothendieck inequality. The Sidon property of Rademacher systems,

2 1 UR x x α rα x 1, x l A , (5.105) A L8 “ p q L8 ě π } } P p q › › › αÿPA › › › › › 8 with its dual equivalent, that for every y l A there exist µ y M ΩA such that P p q p q P p q µ y rα y α , α A, (5.106) p qp q “ p q P implies z

1 8 x α y α UR x ξ µ y dξ , x l A , y l A . (5.107) p q p q “ ż A p q p qp q P p q P p q αÿPA ξPΩA ` ˘ Based on extensions of the Sidon property, similar expressions of the duality of ls and ls‹ 1 s 2, s‹ s ) were derived in Blei (2014, Theorem 9.1). These formulae are p ă ď “ s´1 FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 51 recalled below with derivations that slightly diﬀer from the derivations in Blei (2014), and closely mimic the proof of Theorem 5.4. (See Remark 5.21.)

Given a set A, we initialize A1 A, and generate the set-cascade “ Aj 1 WA RA , j 1. (5.108) ` “ j,odd z j ě (Cf. (5.4).) As in (5.8), (5.9), and (5.10), let 8 8 8 1 A Aj, ΩA1 ΩA , PA1 PA . (5.109) “ “ j “ j jď“1 ąj“1 ąj“1 s p1q pjq s Given x lR A , we initialize x x, and generate the vector-cascade x l Aj , j 1, byP p q “ P p q ě psq pjq ^ Q x α , α Aj 1, s 1, 2 , Aj p q p q P ` Pr s xpj`1q α $ ` ˘ (5.110) p q“ &’ psq pjq ^ P x α , α Aj 1, s 2, , Aj p q p q P ` Pp 8s ` ˘ psq pjq psq p%’jq where Q x and P x are deﬁned on ΩA1 . (Cf. (5.13).) By (5.93) with ǫ 1, Aj p q Aj p q “ pj`1q pjq x s δs x s, j 1,..., (5.111) } } ď } } “ where

sinh 1 1 1{s, s 1, 2 , p ´ q Pr s δs $ (5.112) “ 1{s & sinh 1 1 , s 2, , 2s ´ 2s Pp 8s ` ˘ and therefore, % pjq j´1 x s δ x s, j 1,.... (5.113) } } ď s } } “ (Note: 0 δs 1.) ă ă s For s 1, and x lR A , deﬁne Pr 8s P p q

UR x, s 1, A1 “ $ ’ 8 ij´1 Qpsq pjq , s , , ’ j“1 Aj x 1 2 psq ’ p q Pr s Φ x ’ ř (5.114) A p q “ ’ & 8 ij´1 P psq xpjq , s 2, , j“1 Aj p q Pp 8s ’ ř ’ P , s . ’ A1 x ’ p q “8 s %’ s For x u iv, u lR A , v lR A , let “ ` P p q P p q Φpsq x def Φpsq u iΦpsq v . (5.115) A p q “ A p q` A p q 52 RON BLEI

For s 1 and s , “ “8 2 p1q 1 x 1 Φ x L8 x 1, x l A , π } } ď } A p q} ď } } P p q (5.116)

p8q 8 x Φ x M 4 x , x l A , } }8 ď } A p q} ď } }8 P p q p1q p8q p1q 1 8 Φ x ˙ Φ y Φ xy A ΩA1 , x lR A , y lR A , (5.117) A p q A p q “ A p q P p q P p q P p q and x α y α Φp1q x ω Φp8q y dω p q p q “ ż A p q p q A p q p q αÿPA ωPΩA1 ` ˘ ` ˘ (5.118) p1q p8q 1 8 Φ x ˙ Φ y ω0 , x l A , y l A , “ A p q A p q p q P p q P p q ` ˘ where ω0 identity element of ΩA1 . In (5.116), the ﬁrst line is trivial, and the second follows from“ (5.77). Parseval’s formula and (5.74) imply (5.117) and (5.118), as per (5.107). For s 1, , we have Pp 8q s Lemma 5.17. For x lR A , 1 s , P p q ă ă8 8 P Lpsq ΩA1 , A1 , 1 s 2, psq p q ă ď Φ x $ (5.119) A p q P & M s ΩA1 , 2 s , p qp q ă ă8 s‹ % ‹ s and (then) for y lR A , 1 s 2 s , P p q ă ď ď “ s´1 ă8 8 1 j´1Qp1q xy pjq , 1 s 2, j“1 Aj ,ǫj {4 s s‹ p´ q p q ă ă Φp q x ˙ Φp q y $ ř ` ˘ (5.120) A p q A p q “ ’ & 8 1 j´1P p1q xy pjq , s 2, j“1p´ q Aj ,ǫj p q “ ` ˘ %’ ř pjq pjq ‹ are elements of A ΩA1 , where ǫj ǫ x , y ;1,s,s are deﬁned by (5.97). Moreover, p q “ p q psq ps‹q ˙ ‹ ‹ ΦA x ΦA y A Ω K δs, δs x s y s , (5.121) p q p q p A1 q ď p q } } } } › › where δs and δs‹ are› given in (5.112),› and K δs, δs‹ depends only on δs and δs‹ . p q 8 Sketch of proof. The series in (5.114) converge absolutely in L ΩA1 , PA1 and M s‹ ΩA1 , psqp q p qp q respectively, via (5.111) and a geometric series argument; and hence (5.119). The con- volutions in (5.120) are computed by applying (5.97) and independence of Rademacher systems RAj . The norm estimate in (5.121) follows from (5.111). FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 53

s s‹ ‹ s Lemma 5.18. For x lR A , y lR A , 1 s 2 s , P p q P p q ă ď ď “ s´1 ă8 psq ps‹q x α y α Φ x ˙ Φ y ω0 p q p q “ A p q A p q p q αÿPA ` ˘ (5.122) psq ps‹q ΦA x ω ΦA y dω . “ ż Ω p q p q p q p q ωP A1 ` ˘ ` ˘ p2q p2q (For s 2, Φ y dω Φ y ω PA1 dω .) “ A p q p q“ A p q p q p q Sketch of proof.` For˘ 1 s `2, by iterating˘ (5.110) and Lemma 5.12, we obtain (by induction) ă ă

n n j´1 psq pjq j´1 ps‹q pjq i Q x ˙ i P y ω0 ˆ Aj p q Aj p q˙p q jÿ“1 jÿ“1

n ‹ 1 j´1 Qpsq xpjq P ps q ypjq dω “ p´ q ż Aj p q Aj p qp q jÿ“1 ΩA1

^ x α y α 1 n´1 Qp1q xy pnq w , n 1,.... “ p q p q ` p´ q An,ǫn{4 p q p q “ αÿPA wPWÿAn zRAn ` ˘ (5.123) (See (5.97).) Then, n n j´1 psq pjq ˙ j´1 ps‹q pjq psq ˙ ps‹q i QA x i PA y ω0 ΦA x ΦA y ω0 ˆ j p q j p q˙p qn ÝÑÑ8 p q p q p q jÿ“1 jÿ“1 ` ˘ and ^ Qp1q xy pnq w 0 An,ǫn{4 p q p qn ÝÑÑ8 wPWÿAn zRAn ` ˘ converges uniformly on bounded subsets of ls A and ls‹ A , and hence (5.122). For 2 p q p 2 q s 2, in the preceding argument replace P p q ypjq with Qp q ypjq . “ Aj p q Aj p q We summarize: Theorem 5.19. The mappings in (5.115) are injections 8 P Lpsq ΩA1 , A1 , s 1, 2 psq s p q Pr s Φ : l A $ (5.124) A p q Ñ & M s ΩA1 , s 2, , p qp q Pp 8s with the following properties: % i. For x ls A , s 1, , P p q Pr 8s psq ^ Φ x rα x α , α A. (5.125) A p q p q “ p q P ` ˘ 54 RON BLEI

ii. For x ls A , s 1, , P p q Pr 8s 2 p1q x 1 Φ x L8 x 1, s 1, π } } ď } A p q} ď } } “

psq 2?e x Φ x 8 x , s 1, 2 , s A Lpsq s } } ď } p q} ď 1 δs } } Pp s ´ (5.126) psq 4 x s ΦA x Mpsq x s, s 2, , } } ď } p q} ď 1 δs } } Pp 8s ´

p8q x Φ x M 4 x , s , } }8 ď } A p q} ď } }8 “8 where δs is given in (5.112). iii. For x ls A , y ls‹ A , 1 s 2 s‹ s , P p q P p q ď ď ď “ s´1 ď8

‹ x α y α Φpsq x ω Φps q y dω . (5.127) p q p q “ ż A p q p q A p q p q αÿPA ωPΩA1 ` ˘ ` ˘ iv. For x ls A , s 1, , c R, P p q Pr 8s P Φpsq cx c Φpsq cx . (5.128) A p q “ A p q v. The transform maps

psq s s Φ : l A l WA1 , s 1, , (5.129) A p q Ñ p q Pr 8s are ls ã ls -continuous.y p Ñ q Sketch of proof. The interpolation property in (5.125) follows from psq p1q ^ QA1 x α , α A1, s 1, 2 psq ^ p q p q P Pr s ΦA x rα $ ` ˘ (5.130) p q p q“ & psq p1q ^ ` ˘ P x α , α A1, s 2, . A1 p q p q P Pp 8s % ` ˘ The ﬁrst line in (5.126) is the Sidon property in (5.105), and the fourth follows from (5.77). In (5.127), the instance s 1 is a restatement of (5.118), and the case 1 s 2 is a restatement of (5.122) in Lemma“ 5.18. The second and third lines in (5.126)ă followď Qpsq from (5.111). The homogeneity property in (5.128) follows from the homogeneity of Aj P psq and Aj . (See Remark 5.10.) The continuity of the transform map in (5.129) follows from the last assertion in Lemma 5.11. FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 55

s p2q Remark 5.20 (representations of l ). For s 2 in Theorem 5.19, the map ΦA is the l2 A ã L8 -ultra-interpolant of Theorem 5.4“ p q Ñ q ` 8 j´1 pjq 2 ΦA,δ x i Gj,δ x , x l A , (5.131) p q “ p q P p q jÿ“1 with Gj,δ QAj and δ ?sinh 1 1. We refer to the maps in (5.124) that satisfy (5.125)“, (5.126) (with“ general constants´ on the right side), and (5.127), as rep- s s ã 8 resentations of l A ; specifically, l A Lpsq -representations for s 1, 2 , and s p q p p q Ñ q P r s l A ã Mpsq -representations for s 2, . The gist of Theorem 5.19 is that the con- pstructsp q Ñ in (5.115)q are uniformly boundedPp R8s-homogeneous representations of ls A with norm-continuous transforms. p q Remark 5.21 (idea deconstructed). The case #A 2, which we excluded, is trivial. “ For, if #A #A1 2, then Aj for j 2. In Blei (2014,“ Theorem“ 9.1) we“ H took A toą be infinite, without loss of generality. We fixed a countably infinite partition Aj : j N of A with the property that each Aj had the same cardinality as A, and choset bijectionsP u

τ0 : A A1, τj : WA RA Aj 1, j N. (5.132) Ñ j z j Ñ ` P s p1q s For x lR A 1 s , we defined x lR A1 by P p q p ď ď 8q P p q p1q x τ0α x α , α A, (5.133) p q“ p q P pj`1q s and x lR Aj 1 , j 1, 2,..., by P p ` q “ Qpsq pjq ^ w , w W R , s , , Aj x Aj Aj 1 2 pj`1q p p q P z Pr s x τjw $ ` ˘ (5.134) p q“ &’ psq pjq ^ P x w , w WA RA , s 2, . Aj p p q P j z j Pp 8s ` ˘ %’ s (Cf. (5.108) and (5.110).) Representations of l with respect to ΩA, PA were then derived via recursions nearly identical to those above based on (5.108)p and q(5.110). I prefer cascades leading to the countably infinite product ΩA1 , PA1 in (5.109), wherein p q ΩA, PA is the first factor. Specifically, the ”cascade” approach vacates the ’infinite A’ p q 2 8 assumption, and also leads to the l ã L -ultra-interpolant ΦA,δ in Theorem 5.4, or p2q p Ñ q ΦA in Theorem 5.19; and thus a view of the Grothendieck inequality as an upgrade of Khintchin’s. (Cf. Remark 4.21.)

6. Interpolation sets (brief overview) The proof of Theorem 5.19 relied on upgrades of interpolation properties of Rademacher systems, s 8 P ^ l RA Lpsq ΩA, A , s 1, 2 , p qĂ p q RA Pr s (6.1) s ` ^ ˘ ˇ l RA Mpsq ΩA ˇ, s 2, , p qĂ p q RA Pp 8s ` ˘ ˇ ˇ 56 RON BLEI where the instance s 2 is the dual equivalent of the Khintchin inequality, and the instance s is the dual“ equivalent of “8 1 f CR ΩA f l RA . (6.2) P A p q ñ P p q The properties in (6.1), formally tagged in §6.3,p naturally ﬁt in a broader context of interpolation phenomena, which we brieﬂy survey below.

6.1. Λ p -sets. E Γ (= discrete abelian group) is Λ p , p 0, , if κq E,p for somep q q 0,p .Ă (See Remark 4.2.) The Λ p propertyp q hadP p been8q formalizedp qă8 and P p q p q studied first in the circle group setting Γ 0, 2π (Rudin, 1960), but soon was cast in other settings as well (e.g., Bonami (1968),“ r Bonamiq (1970), Zygmund (1974)). In p dyadic settings, Rademacher systems RA via the Khintchin inequalities (Khintchin, 1923), and more generally, Walsh systems WA,k via Bonami’s inequalities (Bonami, 1968), are prototypical Λ p -sets for all p 0.5 The question (Rudin, 1960), which became known as the Λ pp-setq problem, whetherą for a given p 0 there exist Λ p -sets that are not Λ s for anypsq p 0, had been resolved affirmativelyą first for even integersp q p 4 in Rudinp q (1960); negativelyą ą in Bachelis and Ebenstein (1974) for p 0, 2 (see alsoě Hare (1988)), and affirmatively in Bourgain (1989) for p 2, (see alsoP Talagrand p q (1995)). At p 2, the Λ 2 -set problem remains open. Pp 8q A general notion“ of Λ 2p -uniformizability,q and, specifically, the Λ 2 -modulus of E Γ are verbatim transcriptionsp q from the dyadic setting (Remark 4.18)p q. We have alreadyĂ noted the open question, whether every Λ 2 -set is Λ 2 -uniformizable, and its connection to the Λ 2 -set problem; that a negativep q answerp toq the uniformizability question would imply thep q existence of a Λ 2 -set that is not Λ s for any s 2 (Lemma 4.20). The uniformizability question is relatedp q also to the Λ p2 qunion problemą , hitherto open, whether a finite union of Λ 2 -sets is Λ 2 ; an affirmativep q answer to the former would imply an affirmative answerp toq the latter.p q (Cf. Blei (2001, Ch. III §6).)

6.2. p-Sidon sets. Deﬁnition 6.1. E Γ is p-Sidon, p 1, 2 , if Ă Pr q c def p fˆ : f C Γ , f 0 on E CE l E , (6.3) P p q “ “ Ă p q ( or, equivalently (by duality), if p p x

˚ p lp E M Γ ^ , p˚ . (6.4) p qĂ p q E “ p 1 ` ˘ ˇ p ˇ ´

5 Bonami’s inequalities became known as hypercontractive inequalities, variants of which had previ- ously appeared in a theoretical physics context (Nelson, 1966). (See Davies et al. (1992) for a detailed survey of hypecontractivity in a mathematical physics context, where the term hypercontractivity originated.) Bonami’s inequalities were applied also in a theoretical computer science framework, with their ﬁrst use in Kahn et al. (1988), in the proof of the KKL theorem; e.g., see O’Donnell (2008). FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 57

The case p 1 was considered first in Rudin (1960), wherein E Z satisfying (6.3) with p “1 were dubbed Sidon sets – homage to the result in SidonĂ (1927) that lacunary E “Z` satisfy (6.3) with p 1. The notion of p-Sidonicity was formalized later in EdwardsĂ and Ross (1974). Over“ the years, studies of Sidonicity have indeed branched out in different directions and various settings. (For a detailed survey, see Graham and Hare (2013). Beware: in additive number theory, a Sidon set has altogether a different meaning, which originated in Sidon (1932); see O’Bryant (2004).) ` The Rademacher system RA WA,1 , an analogue of a lacunary subset of Z , is an archetypal 1-Sidon set. Littlewood’sp“ q 4 3-inequality (Littlewood, 1930) (in part a 1,2 { corollary to the CR R ã l -inequality) asserts that if A is infinite, then WA,2 WA p ˆ Ñ q Ă is an exact 4 3-Sidon set, i.e., WA,2 is p-Sidon p 4 3. Exact p-Sidon sets for arbitrary p { 1, 2 were produced in Blei (1979).ô Weě know{ more about 1-Sidonicity (the extremalP pcase)q than about p-Sidonicity (the full scale). For example, the union of finitely many 1-Sidon sets is known to be 1-Sidon (Drury, 1972), but whether the same holds for p-Sidon sets, p 1, 2 , is open. Pp q Remark 6.2 (p-Sidon constant). E Γ is p-Sidon, p 1, 2 , if and only if Ă Pr q def σp E sup f p f L8 : E-polynomials, f 0 . (6.5) p q “ } } {} } ‰ ă 8 ( By duality, in the ’language’ ofp interpolants (Remark 4.10), p˚ σp E inf G p˚ ã : l E ã M Γ -interpolants G . (6.6) p q “ } }l ÑM p q Ñ p q ` ˘ ( p 6.3. The L p and S p properties. The Λ 2 and 1-Sidon properties have extensions, which are exemplifiedp q p byq (6.1), and are ostensiblyp q distinct from Λ p and p-Sidonicity. Let p q 8 def 8 ˆ p L p Γ, m f L Γ, m : f l Γ , p 1, 2 , p qp q “ P p q P p q Pr s (6.7) def p ( M pp Γ λ M Γp : λˆ l Γ , p 2, . p qp q “ P p q P p q Pp 8s ( (Cf. (5.81) and (5.82).) p p

Deﬁnition 6.3. E Γ is an L p -set for p 1, 2 , if for every φ lp E there exist Ă p q P r s P p q f L8 Γ, m such that P ppqp q p f φ, (6.8) E “ ˇ p and an S p -set for p 2, , if for everypˇ φ l E there exist µ M p Γ such that p q Pp 8s P p q P p qp q µ φ. p (6.9) E “ ˇ pˇ By duality, as in §5.4, E Γ an L p -set, p 1, 2 , if and only if Ă p q Pr s

ppq def p 8 κ E inf G lpãÑL8 : l E ã L Γ, m -interpolants G , (6.10) p q “ } } ppq p q Ñ ppqp q ă 8 ` ˘ ( p 58 RON BLEI and an S p -set, p 2, , if and only if p q Pp 8s ppq def p σ E inf G lpã M : l E ã M p Γ -interpolants G . (6.11) p q “ } } Ñ ppq p q Ñ p qp q ă 8 ` ˘ ( p Gauging the ’size’ of perturbations, we compute βppq E, δ , δ 0, as in (5.100). We say E Γ is L p -uniformizable (1 p 2), or S p -puniformizableq ě (2 p ), if βppq E,Ă δ pforq δ 0 in the correspondingď ď rangesp q of p. ă ď 8 Top markqă8lp E ląp Γ -continuity of transforms, we deﬁne βppq,c E, δ as in (5.102), p qÑ p q p q and dub E` Γ continuous˘ -L p -uniformizable (1 p 2), or continuous-S p - uniformizableĂ(2 p ), ifpβqppq,c E, δ (δ ď 0) inď the respective rangesp ofq p. ă ď 8 p qă8 ą I know scant little about the L p and S p properties, beyond their roles in the proof of Theorem 5.19. Two questionsp Iq thoughtp q about and could not answer are stated in the remarks below; and there are others that will almost surely occur to the reader... Remark 6.4 (S p -sets). For p 2, , every S p -set is a fortiori q-Sidon for every q p‹, 2 , p‹ pp q. That is, forPpE 8sΓ and p 2p, q , Pr q “ p´1 Ă Pp 8s ppq ˚ σq E σ E , p q 2. (6.12) p q ď p q ď ă In particular, p˚-Sidonicity is upgraded by the S p property, which asserts that inter- p q polants can be chosen to be Mppq-valued, and not merely M-valued; see §4.4 (”notion of an upgrade”). The Mppq ΩA -valued Riesz products (Lemma 5.11) imply that Rademacher systems are continuousp Sq p -uniformizable for every p 2, . It can be similarly shown with a bit more work, speciﬁcallyp q by modifying argumentsPp in8s Drury (1972) (also based on Riesz products), that 1-Sidon sets are continuous-S p -uniformizable for every p 2, . p q Pp 8s In Part II of the monograph, we will deduce that F WA,n is an S p -set for all p 2, 2dim F , n 2,..., where dim F is the combinatorialĂ dimensionp qof F (Blei, P p dim F ´1 s “ 1984). Question 6.5. Does q-Sidon S q˚ -set, q 1, 2 ? ñ p q Pp q

Remark 6.6 (L p -sets). For every E Γ, p q Ă 8 1 UEx L Γ, m for all x l E , (6.13) P p1qp q P p q i.e., every E Γ is L 1 (trivially!).p For 1 p 2, Ă p q ă ď 8 p UEx L Γ, m for all x l E (6.14) P ppqp q P p q p 8 only for ﬁnite E Γ, and otherwisep there exist an orthogonal l , Lppq -perturbations p Ă p q pE : l E SΓ E, i.e., p qÑ z 8 p UEx pE x L Γ, m for all x l E , (6.15) ` p q P ppqp q P p q p FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 59 if and only if E Γ is L p . Ă p q

We will note in Part II that for every n 1,..., WA,n is L p for all p 1, 2 . “ p q Pr s Question 6.7. Does Λ 2 L p , p 1, 2 ? p q ñ p q Pp q

References Alon, N., Makarychev, K., Makarychev, Y., and Naor, A. (2006). Quadratic forms on graphs. Inventiones Math., 163:499–522. Alon, N. and Spencer, J. (2016). The Probabilistic Method. John Wiley & Sons. Bachelis, G. and Ebenstein, S. (1974). On Λ(p) sets. Pacific J. Math., 54(1):35–38. Blei, R. (1976). Sidon partitions and p-Sidon sets. Pacific J. Math., 65(2):307–313. Blei, R. (1977). A uniformity property for Λ 2 -sets and Grothendieck’s inequality. In Symposia Math., volume 50, pages 321–336.p q Blei, R. (1979). Fractional Cartesian products of sets. In Annales de l’institut Fourier, volume 29, pages 79–105. Blei, R. (1984). Combinatorial dimension and certain norms in harmonic analysis. American Journal of Mathematics, 106(4):847–887. Blei, R. (2001). Analysis in Integer and Fractional Dimensions. Cambridge University Press. Blei, R. (2011). Measurements of interdependence. Lithuanian Math. J., 51(2):141–154. Blei, R. (2014). The Grothendieck inequality revisited. Memoirs of the American Math. Soc. Bonami, A. (1968). Ensembles Λ(p) dans le dual de D8. Ann. Inst. Fourier, 18(2):193– 204. Bonami, A. (1970). Etude´ des coefficients de Fourier des fonctions de Lp G . Ann. Inst. Fourier, 20(2):335–402. p q Bourgain, J. (1989). Bounded orthogonal systems and the Λ(p)-set problem. Acta Mathematica, 162(3-4):227–245. Braverman, M., Makarychev, K., Makarychev, Y., and Naor, A. (2011). The Grothendieck constant is strictly smaller than Krivine’s bound. In Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), 2011 IEEE 52nd Annual Symposium on, pages 453–462. IEEE. Charikar, M. and Wirth, A. (2004). Maximizing quadratic programs: extending Grothendieck’s inequality. In Proceedings of the 45th Annual IEEE Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science. Davies, E. B., Gross, I., and Simon, B. (1992). Hypercontractivity: A bibliographical review. Ideas and Methods of Mathematics and Physics, in Memoriam of Raphael Hoegh-Krohn, Eds., S. Albeverio, JE Fenstand, H. Holden, T. Lindstrom, Cambridge University Press, pages 1061–1083. Drury, S. W. (1972). Unions of sets of interpolation. In Conference on Harmonic Analysis, pages 23–33. Springer. Edwards, R. E. and Ross, K. A. (1974). p-Sidon sets. J. Func. Anal., 15(4):404–427. 60 RON BLEI

Gordon, Y. and Lewis, D. Y. (1975). Banach ideals on Hilbert spaces. Studia Mathe- matica, 54(2):161–172. Graham, C. C. and Hare, K. E. (2013). Interpolation and Sidon Sets for Compact Groups. Boston, MA: Springer US. Grothendieck, A. (1953). Resuméde la théorie metrique des produits tensoriels. Bol. Soc. Matem. SaõPaulo, 8:1–79. Haagerup, U. (1981). The best constants in the Khintchine inequality. Studia Math., 70(3):231–283. Hare, K. E. (1988). An elementary proof of a result on Λ(p) sets. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society, 104(3):829–834. Kahn, J., Kalai, G., and Linial, N. (1988). The influence of variables on Boolean functions. In 29th Annual Symposium on Foundations of Computer Science, pages 68–80. Kakutani, S. (1941). Concrete representation of abstract (M)-spaces (a characterization of the space of continuous functions). Annals of Math., 42(4):994–1024. Katznelson, Y. (1976). An introduction to Harmonic Analysis. Dover. Khintchin, A. (1923). Uber¨ dyadische brüche. Mathematische Zeitschrift, 18(1):109–116. Lindenstrauss, J. and Pelczynski, A. (1968). Absolutely summing operators in Lp-spaces and their applications. Studia Math., 29:275–326. Littlewood, J. E. (1930). On bounded bilinear forms in an infinite number of variables. Quart. J. Math. Oxford, 1:164–174. Nelson, E. (1966). A quartic interaction in two dimensions. Mathematical Theory of Elementary Particles, MIT Press. O’Bryant, K. (2004). A complete annotated bibliography of work related to Sidon sequences. Electron. J. Combin, 575. O’Donnell, R. (2008). Some topics in analysis of Boolean functions. In Proceedings of the 40th annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing, pages 569–578. Orlicz, W. (1933). Uber¨ unbedingte Konvergenz in Funktionenraümen (I). Studia Math., 4(1):33–37. Pisier, G. (2012). Grothendieck’s theorem, past and present. Bull. Amer. Math. Soc, 49(2):237–323. Riesz, F. (1909). Sur les opérations fonctionelles linéaires. C, R. Acad. Sci. Paris, 149:974–977. Riesz, F. (1918). Uber die Fourierkoeffizienten einer stetigen funktion von beschränkter schwankung. Math. Zeit., 2:312–315. Rudin, W. (1960). Trigonometric series with gaps. Indiana Univ. Math. J, 9:203–227. Rudin, W. (1967). Fourier analysis on groups. Interscience Publishers, Wiley & Sons. Ryan, R. A. (2002). The Injective Tensor Product. In: Introduction to Tensor Products of Banach Spaces. Springer Monographs in Mathematics. Salem, R. and Zygmund, A. (1947). On lacunary trigonometric series. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 33(11):333. Schatten, R. (1943). On the direct products of Banach spaces. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc, 53:195–217. FROM PARSEVAL TO GROTHENDIECK AND A LITTLE BEYOND, PART I 61

Seigner, J. A. (1997). Rademacher variables in connection with complex scalars. Acta Math. Univ. Comenianae, 66(2):329–336. Sidon, S. (1927). Verallgemeinerung eines Satzes über die absolute Konvergenz von Fourierreihen mit Lücken. Math. Annal., 97:675–676. Sidon, S. (1932). Ein Satz über trigonometrische Polynome und seine Anwendung in der Theorie der Fourier-Reihen. Math. Annal., 106(1):536–539. Stein, E. M. (2016). Singular integrals and differentiability properties of functions (PMS- 30), volume 30. Princeton university press. Szarek, S. (1976). On the best constants in the Khinchin inequality. Studia Math., 58(2):197–208. Talagrand, M. (1995). Sections of smooth convex bodies via majorizing measures. Acta Mathematica, 175(2):273–300. Zygmund, A. (1974). On Fourier coefficients and transforms of functions of two variables. Studia Math., 50(2):189–201.

E-mail address: Ron Blei, [email protected] Department of Mathematics, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269