![Arxiv:1609.08701V1 [Math.CA] 27 Sep 2016 Elcdb H Icegop Ntecs of Case the in Group, Circle the by Replaced S-M 257 N NSF-DMS-1600693](http://data.docslib.org/img/f93c0667ec80b7b3dfb695718e54d6d6-1.webp)
arXiv:1609.08701v1 [math.CA] 27 Sep 2016 elcdb h icegop ntecs of case the in group, circle the by replaced S-M 257 n NSF-DMS-1600693. and 1265570 NSF-DMS Peters and aware Campbell are [ We of Wainger that years. and above, several Stein Theorem for the noticed for not references was integers the for (1.2) follows. as is 1.1. estimate Theorem this setting, discrete the In series. sbuddon bounded is ut[ Hunt h alsnmxmloeao [ operator maximal Carleson The h rgnlatceo alsnadesdteTermaoewt t with above Theorem the addressed Carleson of article original The . sa S ototrlRsac elw eerho ..suppo M.L. of Research Fellow. Research Postdoctoral NSF an is B.K Date 12 uy1 2021. 1, July : ainsadetnin r loconsidered. also are extensions and Variants hsoeao lostse pretp on.Tefr ftes the of form The all bound. in type estimates sparse weighted a implies satisfies immediately also operator This and nrgigy hs usin eansbl n icl,ee nti s this in even difficult, and subtle { remain questions these Intriguingly, hn1 than from Abstract. X .I a rnfre otera ieb ei n oa [ Tomas and Kenig by line real the to transferred was It ]. m S } ℓ m p ea needn euneof sequence independent an be − to = ℓ α p . h iceeCreo aia operator maximal Carleson discrete The ( P ℓ p Z esuydsrt admvrat fteCreo aia operat maximal Carleson the of variants random discrete study We rvddteMnosidmnino Λ of dimension Minkowski the provided , k m ) =1 ICEECREO THEOREMS CARLESON DISCRETE , 33 PREBUD O RANDOM FOR BOUNDS SPARSE 1 X ]. E RUEADMCALT LACEY T. MICHAEL AND KRAUSE BEN k < p < Cf hntemxmloeao eo lotsrl sbounded is surely almost below operator maximal the Then . λ sup ( ∈ x E Λ =sup := ) X ∞
m m X 6=0 eeadthroughout, and Here . 1. = 0 X ≤ σ Introduction λ | m 6 m ≤ otostepitiecnegneo Fourier of convergence pointwise the controls ] | 1 = sgn(
{ m m X 0 e , 6=0 ( 1 − m 1 λm α } ) f , S admvralswt expectations with variables random p ) ( 0 | m n ,wt t xeso to extension its with 2, = < α < ℓ | − 2 f hc r oe nti setting. this in novel are which , ( x m − ) 1 e ⊂ m / ( 2 λm ) m [ , e
− ( . 1 t := ) ) / 2
, 1 / e n[ en ]i tityless strictly is 2] 2 ftoindependent two of πit 15 tdi atb grant by part in rted as bound parse 5 . ,bttevariant the but ], tig Let etting. em ]and 2] Lemma , eintegers he L or. p u to due 2 B. KRAUSE AND M. T. LACEY
In its much more well known version on the real line, this Theorem has several variants and extensions. For instance, the polynomial variant of Stein and Wainger [35], and its deep extension by Victor Lie [22, 23]. Pierce and Yung [31] have re- cently established certain Radon transform versions of Carleson’s Theorem. These are powerful and deep facts. The discrete versions of these results has only recently been investigated. To give the flavor of results that are under consideration, we recall this conjecture of Lillian Pierce [29]. Below, and throughout this paper we set e(t) = e2πit, and identify the fundamental domain for T = R/Z as [ 1/2, 1/2]. − Conjecture 1.3. The following inequality holds on ℓ2(Z). e(λn2) sup f(x n) . f ℓ2 . 2 − 1 ≤λ≤ 1 − n ℓ k k 2 2 n6=0 X A recent paper of the authors [16] supplied sufficient conditions on Λ so that if one forms a restricted supremum over λ Λ, the maximal function above would be bounded on ℓ2. Even under this restriction,∈ in which we require sufficiently small arithmetic Minkowski dimension, our proof is difficult, even for examples of Λ being a sequence that converge very rapidly to the origin. The interested reader is referred to [7, 16] for more background (including the definition of arithmetic Minkowski di- mension), and related results. It is therefore of some interest to study random versions of these questions, in which we expect some of the severe obstacles in the arithmetic case to be of an easier nature. This is so, but even still, we will not be able to prove the most natural conjectures, and indeed even find that the random versions still have remnants of the arithmetic difficulties of the non-random versions. We consider two examples of random Carleson operators. From now on Xn : n Z will denote a sequence of independent 0, 1 random variables (on a{ probability∈ space} Ω) with expectations { } −α (1.4) EXm := σm = m , 0 <α< 1. Also define the partial sums by n X n> 0 (1.5) S = m=1 m . n S n< 0 (−P −n 1−α By the Law of Large Numbers, Sn is approximately cαn . In the first random examples, the analogy to the (linear) Carleson theorem stronger, since the frequency modulation and shift parameters agree.
ω e(λm) (1.6) α,Λf(x) := sup X|m| f(x m) . T λ∈Λ Sm − m6=0 X
DISCRETE CARLESON THEOREMS 3
We consider arbitrary 0 <α< 1 for the above operator, but in the second example 1 below, we only consider α = 1 d where d 3 is an integer, and have distinct frequency modulations and shift− parameters. ≥
ω e(λm) (1.7) α,Λf(x) := sup Xm f(x Sm) . C λ∈Λ Sm − m6=0 X Note that S md above is random version of monomial power. In both definitions, | m| ≈ we are using the definition (1.5) to define Sm for negative m. We will not be able to control the unrestricted supremum of λ, using Minkowski dimension as a sufficient condition for the boundedness of our maximal operators. Given Λ [ 1/2, 1/2], and 0 <δ< 1, let N(δ) = N (δ) be the fewest number of ⊂ − Λ intervals I1,...,IN required to cover Λ, subject to the condition at In < δ for all 1 n N. We say that Λ has Minkowski dimension d if | | ≤ ≤ d (1.8) Cd := sup N(δ)δ < . 0<δ≤1 ∞ The point of interest in the next theorem are that we (a) allow arbitrary 0 <α< 1, (b) have an explicit assumption on the Minkowski dimension of Λ, and (c) obtain a sparse bound for the operator. Theorem 1.9. Suppose
−α EXm = σm = m , 0 <α< 1, and let Λ [0, 1] have upper Minkowski dimension δ strictly less than 1 α. Then almost surely,⊂ these two properties hold. − (1) For all 1 ω f,g . Π (f,g). |hT α,Λ i| S,r In particular, there holds almost surely, for all weights w A RH , ∈ 2/r ∩ r/(2−r) (1.10) ω : ℓ2(Z,w) ℓ2(Z,w) < . kT α,Λ 7→ k ∞ In the second conclusion, we are using the notation of 2.3, specifically see (2.6). It implies the weighted inequalities (1.10), as is explained in§ that section. In particular, there is a slightly wider class of inequalities that are true, as specified in (2.9). We are not aware of any prior weighted inequality for a discrete variant of the Carleson operators (except the Carleson operator itself). (For discrete random Hilbert trans- forms, see [19].) We remark that we could keep track of the dependence of the sparse index r as a function of α and δ, but we don’t do so. 4 B. KRAUSE AND M. T. LACEY Theorem 1.11. Suppose d 3 is an integer and ≥ 1 EX = σ = m−α, α =1 . m m − d Let Λ [ 1/2, 1/2] have upper Minkowski dimension δ strictly less than 1/d, and Λ ( ⊂ǫ, ǫ)=− for some 0 <ǫ< 1 . Then almost surely, these two conclusions hold. ∩ − ∅ 4 (1) For all 1 ω f,g . Π (f,g). |hCα,Λ i| S,r In particular, the inequality (1.10) also holds for ω . Cα,Λ Our assumption that the set Λ is bounded away from the origin is rather se- vere. But, interestingly, removing this assumption would entail many extra subtleties, which we comment on at the end of the paper. We are inspired by the arithmetic ergodic theorems of Bourgain [3, 4]. To explore the underlying complexity of these theorems, Bourgain studied the pointwise ergodic theorem formed from randomly selected subsets of the integers. In our notation, this lead to the study of maximal functions 1 n sup Xmf(x m) , n S − n m=1 X p for non-negative f ℓ (Z). This theme was studied by several authors [20,24,32], and we point in particular∈ to the definitive results in the ‘lacunary’ case [1]. Our theorems are also closely related to the Wiener Wintner Theorem [36], which itself continues to have powerful and deep connections to ergodic theory [5, 11] and harmonic analysis [10, 28]. One can compare the results here with that of say [17], which obtains much stronger theorems, but for averages, as opposed to the singular sums of this paper. Our subject is also connected to the discrete harmonic analysis also inspired by Bourgain’s arithmetic ergodic theorems, and promoted by Stein and Wainger [33,34]. This area remains quite active. Besides these older papers [13,14], the reader should also reference these very recent papers for interesting new developments [7,16,25–27, 30]. The sparse bounds have been a recent and quite active topic in continuous har- monic analysis, see [8, 9, 18] and references therein for a guide to this subject. Their appearance in the discrete settings is new. In particular, the weighted inequalities that are corollaries to our main theorem have very few precedents in the literature. The techniques of our proofs straddle (discrete) harmonic analysis and probability theory. We will use standard facts about maximal functions, and the Carleson theo- rem itself. On the probability side, we reference standard large deviation inequalities DISCRETE CARLESON THEOREMS 5 for iid random variables, and martingales, to control random Fourier series. The method to obtain the sparse bounds is illustrated, in a simpler way, in the argument of [19], which also addresses random discrete inequalities. 2. Preliminaries 2.1. Notation. With X as in (1.4), we let Y = X σ , and m m m − m m Wm = σm. n=1 X 1 1−α By the integral test, we note that Wm = 1−α m + O(1). Moreover Var(Sn) Wn. And, it is well-known that, for any ǫ> 0, ≤ − ǫ+ 1 α (2.1) S W . m 2 | m − m| We will make use of the modified Vinogradov notation. We use X . Y , or Y & X to denote the estimate X CY for an absolute constant C. We use X Y as shorthand for Y . X . Y .≤ We also make use of big-O notation: we let O(Y )≈ denote a quantity that is . Y . Since we will be concerned with establishing a priori ℓp(Z)-estimates in this paper, we will restrict every function considered to be a member of a “nice” dense subclass: each function on the integers will be assumed to have finite support. 2.2. Fourier Transform. As previously mentioned, we let e(t) := e2πit. The Fourier transform on f ℓ2(Z) is defined by ∈ f(β)= f(n)e( βn). F − n X This is a unitary map from ℓ2(Z) to L2(T). In particular, we have for convolution (f g)= f g. F ∗ F ·F In particular, all of our Theorems can be understood as maximal theorems over convo- lutions. It will be convenient to study the corresponding Fourier multipliers. Indeed, the following technical lemma exhibits the way that small Minkowski dimension is used. (It is so to speak a variant of Sobolev embedding, for sets of small Minkowski dimension.) Lemma 2.2 (Lemma 2.4 of [16]). Suppose Λ [0, 1] has upper Minkowski dimension ⊂ at most 0 (2.4) and A := sup ∂λTλ ℓ2(Z)→ℓ2(Z). λ∈[0,1] k k 6 B. KRAUSE AND M. T. LACEY Then we have the maximal inequality below 1/2 1−d/2 d/2 (2.5) sup Tλf ℓ2(Z) . Cd (a + a A ) f ℓ2(Z). k Λ | |k k k In application, the quantities in (2.3) and (2.4) are estimated on the Fourier side. This will be used in settings where a 1 and 1 A a−m, for some large integer m. Then, for 0 2.3. Sparse Operators. A sparse collection of intervals satisfy this essential con- dition: There is a collection of pairwise disjoint sets of theS integers E(I): I 1 { ∈ S} so that E(I) > 10 I for all I . A sparse bilinear form is defined in terms of a choice of| index| 1 |r| < , and∈ a Ssparse collection of intervals . Define ≤ ∞ S Π (f,g)= f g I S,r h iI,rh iI,r| | I∈S X (2.6) 1/r f := I −1 f(n) r . h iI,r | | | | h Xn∈I i If the role of the sparse collection is not essential, it will be suppressed in the notation. Sparse bounds are known for some operators T , taking this form: For all f,g finitely supported on Z, there is a choice of sparse operator Πr so that Tf,g . Π (f,g), |h i| r where the implied constant is independent of f,g. We refer to this as the sparse property of index r, and write T Sparse ∈ r Theorem 2.7. We have these sparse bounds. (1) For the maximal function M, we have M Sparse1. (2) For the Carleson operator C of (1.2), we∈ have for all 1 1 w 1−p (Q) p−1 w(Q) [w]Ap = sup < Q Q Q ∞ h | | i | | wp 1/p [w] = sup h iQ < RHp w ∞ Q h iQ DISCRETE CARLESON THEOREMS 7 1 1 1−p 1−p Above, we are conflating w as a measure and a density, thus w (Q)= Q w(x) dx. And, we are stating the definition as if it on Euclidean space, but the theory transfers R to the integers in a straight forward way. We have these estimates, a corollary to [2, Prop 6.4]. Theorem 2.8. For all 1 (2.9) Π (f,g) C([w] , [w] ) f p g p . r ≤ Ap/r RHr/(r−p(r−1)) k kℓ (w)k kℓ (w) The sharp bound for the constant on the right is computed in [2]. There is little doubt that the results of this paper can be improved, so we don’t track that constant. 3. The Proof of Theorem 1.9 Theorem 1.9 concerns the maximal function in (1.6). For fixed λ the summands in (1.6) consist in part of e(λm) e(λm) (3.1) X|m| = cα S|m| m σ| | c (3.2) + |m| α e(λm) W|m| − m h | |i e(λm) (3.3) + Y|m| W|m| 1 1 (3.4) + X|m|e(λm) S|m| − W|m| h i This leads to the decomposition of the maximal operator in (1.6), upon multiply- ing each term by sgn(m). We will address them in order, with the restriction on Minkowski dimension arising from only the term in (3.3). The first and most significant term is associated with (3.1), which is entirely deter- ministic, and in fact the associated maximal function is exactly the Carleson Theorem 1.1, hence we have the sparse bound from Theorem 2.7. The relevant sparse bound is C Sparser, for all 1 8 B. KRAUSE AND M. T. LACEY Lemma 3.6. Assume that Λ has Minkowski dimension strictly less than 1 α. Then there is a positive choice of η = η(α) > 0, so for all integers k N, we have− almost surely ∈ 1 1 ∞ ∞ (3.7) sup Pk : ℓ ℓ + Pk : ℓ ℓ < , k∈Nk → k k → k ∞ ηk 2 2 (3.8) sup 2 Pk : ℓ ℓ < . k∈N k → k ∞ Proof. The first claim is a consequence of the Strong Law of Large Numbers. Note that 1 1 Ym Pk : ℓ ℓ . | |. k → k k k+1 Wm m : 2 ≤|Xm|<2 And, the latter is uniformly bounded almost surely. The ℓ2 estimate, which has a gain in operator norm, is a consequence of Lemma 2.2, which bounds supremums like those in (3.8) in terms of the ℓ∞ norm of the multipliers, and the derivatives of the multipliers. Due to the form of the sums, the multipliers are translations by λ Λ of the functions of θ below. Now, Lemma 2.2 requires two estimates, the first is∈ the L∞(dθ) estimate, for which we have e(θm) k(α−1)/2 −k P Ym >C√k 2 2 , Wm ∞ · ≤ m : 2k≤|m|<2k+1 X for appropriate constant C. (We will recall a proof in Lemma 4.5 below.) We also need an estimate for the derivative in θ of the functions above, which is clearly of the form e(θm) k(α+1)/2 −k P mYm >C√k 2 2 Wm ∞ · ≤ m : 2k≤|m|<2k+1 X By the Borel-Cantelli Lemma, we see that the union of these two events occur finitely often, almost surely. Apply (2.5), with a = √k 2k(α−1)/2 and A = √k 2k(α+1)/2. We see that the conclusion of the Lemma holds· provided · (α 1)(1 d/2)+(α + 1)d/2 < 0 − − where α is the constant associated to the selector random variables, and d is the Minkowski dimension of Λ. This inequality is true for d< 1 α. This completes the proof. − The previous Lemma implies the ℓp-controll of the term associated to (3.3), after a straight forward interpolation between (3.7) and (3.8). We turn to the sparse bound. DISCRETE CARLESON THEOREMS 9 Corollary 3.9. There is a η > 0, so that almost surely, there is a finite constant k Cω > 0 so that we have for all integers k, intervals I of length 2 , and functions f,g supported on I, ′ (3.10) P f,g C 2−η k f g I 0 < 2 r −η′k 2 f 3I,r g I,r I . Πr(f,g), kh i h i | | Xk I∈DX: |I|=2 for appropriate sparse operator Π. This completes the sparse bound for the term associated to (3.3). Proof. Observe that almost surely, there exists Cω < , so that these inequalities hold. ∞ 2−ηk f g I (3.11) P f,g C h i3I,2h iI,2| | |h k i| ≤ ω 2αk f g I ( h i3I,1h iI,1| | The top line follows from (3.8). The last line is the inequality that is below duality. (And, geometric growth in k.) It follows from estimate Y P f,g | n| f(x n) g(x) . |h k i| ≤ n 1−α | − |·| | x k k+1 X n : 2 ≤|Xn|<2 | | 1 ∞ Then, use the ℓ -norm on f, the same on g, and the ℓ norm on Yn . To conclude (3.10), interpolate between the top and bottom estimates| | in (3.11). The bottom line has a fixed positive geometric growth, while the ℓ2 estimate has a fixed negative geometric growth. For a choice of 1 And, recall that W m(1−α). It follows that m ∼ 1 1 √log log m . . m−β 3 − α Sm − Wm m 2 2 where β > 1. The sparse bound is then immediate. 4. Proof of Theorem 1.11 The summands in (1.7) are rewritten as below, in which we assume that m> 0. f(x Sm) f(x + Sm) Xme(λm) − − · Sm 1 1 (4.1) =Xme(λm)(f(x Sm) f(x + Sm)) − − Sm − Wm σm cα n o (4.2) + e(λm) (f(x Sm−1 1) f(x + Sm−1 + 1)) Wm − m · − − − n o f(x Sm−1 1) f(x + Sm−1 + 1) (4.3) + Yme(λm) − − − . · Wm f(x S 1) f(x + S + 1) (4.4) + c e(λm) − m−1 − − m−1 . α · m In the first stage we simply replace 1 by 1 . But the remaining terms use the Sm Wm identity Xmf(x + Sm)= Xmf(x + Sm−1 + 1), which step is motivated by a martingale argument below. The term associated with (4.1) is controlled by the estimate (3.13), and that for (4.2) is entirely similar. The term in (4.3) is analogous to Corollary 3.9, for which we need this Lemma. Define the maximal operator f(x Sm−1 1) f(x + Sm−1 + 1) Qkf := sup Yme(λm) − − − λ∈Λ · Wm m : 2k≤|m|≤2k+1 X Lemma 4.5. Assume that Λ T has Minkowski dimension at most 1 α, then there is a η > 0 so that we have almost⊂ surely − 1 1 ∞ ∞ sup Qk : ℓ ℓ + Qk : ℓ ℓ < , k k → k k → k ∞ ηk 2 2 sup 2 Qk : ℓ ℓ < . k k → k ∞ Proof. The top line follows from the Strong Law of Large Numbers. We turn to the second line, where there is geometric decay. There are no cancellative effects between DISCRETE CARLESON THEOREMS 11 positive and negative translations, and so we only consider the positive ones. The ℓ2 bound is a consequence of Lemma 2.2, and so we need to consider the multipliers e(λm + θ(S + 1)) M(λ, θ) := Y m−1 . m W k k+1 m m : 2 X≤m≤2 So to prove the Lemma, it suffices to show that with probability at least 1 2−ǫk, we have the two inequalities − k(−(α+1)/2+ǫ) (4.6) M(λ, θ) ∞ . 2 , k kL (λ,θ) k((1−α)/2+ǫ) (4.7) ∂ M(λ, θ) ∞ . 2 . k λ kL (λ,θ) The summands in the definition of M(λ, β), for fixed λ and β, form a bounded martingale difference sequence, with square function bounded in L∞(Ω) by 1/2 − σm −k 1 α . 2 2 . W 2 k k+1 m hm : 2 X≤m≤2 i It is well-known that such martingale differences are sub-gaussian, hence, uniformly in λ and β, we have − k(− 1 α +ǫ) 2ǫk (4.8) P( M(λ, β) > 2 2 ) . exp( 2 ). | | − But, M(λ, β) clearly has gradient at most 2k in norm. That means to test the L∞(λ, β) norm, we apply the inequality (4.8) on a set of at most 22k choices of (λ, β). Therefore (4.6) clearly follows. The analysis for (4.7) is similar. With this bound in hand, we can repeat the proof of Corollary 3.9, and conclude that almost surely we have Q : ℓp ℓp < , 1 The term associated with (4.4) is arithmetic in nature. Let aj be the smallest positive integer such that Saj = j. It is a consequence of the Strong Law of Large Numbers that we have ǫ+ 1 1 ǫ+ 1 a = p + O(j 2(1−α) )= C j 1−α + O(j 2(1−α) ), j j ⌊ α ⌋ 12 B. KRAUSE AND M. T. LACEY 1 where 0 (4.10) sup ∆jf(x j) . Mf(x) 0<λ<1 − α | − | |j|<λX1−α e(p λ) where ∆ = A (λ) j , j j − j (4.11) sup Aj(λ)f(x j) . Mf(x). 0<λ<1 − α | − | |j|≥Xλ 1−α Above, M is the maximal function, and it is in Sparse1. Proof. We begin with an elementary estimate. Set 1 −1 α r = p p j 1−α = j 1−α . j j − j−1 ≃ We use this notation to rewrite Aj(λ) in terms of the Dirichlet kernel. rj −1 e( λm) − 1 A (λ)= e(p λ) − + O(j 1−α ) j j p + m m=0 j−1 Xrj e(pjλ) rj−1 = e( λm)+ O p2 p − j−1 j−1 m=1 X e(pjλ) 1 −1− 1−α = Drj ( λ)+ O(j ). pj−1 − DISCRETE CARLESON THEOREMS 13 In the last line, Dn denotes the nth Dirichlet kernel. Clearly, convolution with the Big-Oh term is bounded by the maximal function, so that we continue with the term involving the Dirichlet kernel. By the estimate D (λ) n . nλ, for 0 <λ< 1, we have | n − | e(p λ)r α j j − dj = Aj(λ) . rjλ . j 1 α λ. − pj−1 It follows that for non-negative f, sup djf(x j) . Mf(x). 0<λ<1 − α − j : 0≤|Xj|≤λ 1−α This is nearly completes the proof of (4.10). The last step is to observe that r 1 j . j−2. pj−1 − j −2 And, convolution with respect to j is bounded by the maximal function as well. This completes the proof of (4.10). By the estimate D (λ) . λ−1, for 0 <λ< 1, we have | n | −1 − 1 A (λ) . (p λ) j 1−α λ. | j | j ≃ Hence, we have, for non-negative f, sup Aj(λ) f(x j) . Mf(x), 0<λ<1 − α | | − |j|>λX1−α where M denotes the discrete Hardy-Littlewood maximal function. This proves (4.11). We see that the proof of our Theorem is reduced to this deterministic, and trivial, result. Here, we simply use a crude bound, and the assumption that Λ has no points close to the origin. With the summation condition, this bound is trivial. 1 Lemma 4.12. For 0 <ǫ< 4 e(λp ) sup j (f(x + j) f(x j)) . (log 1/ǫ)Mf(x) 1 j − − ǫ<|λ|< − α 2 1 References [1] Mustafa Akcoglu, Alexandra Bellow, Roger L. Jones, Viktor Losert, Karin Reinhold-Larsson, and M´at´eWierdl, The strong sweeping out property for lacunary sequences, Riemann sums, convolution powers, and related matters, Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 16 (1996), no. 2, 207–253. 4 [2] Fr´ed´eric Bernicot,↑ Dorothee Frey, and Stefanie Petermichl, Sharp weighted norm estimates beyond Calder´on–Zygmund theory, Anal. PDE 9 (2016), no. 5, 1079–1113. 7 [3] J. Bourgain, On the pointwise ergodic theorem on Lp for arithmetic sets,↑ Israel J. Math. 61 (1988), no. 1, 73–84. 4 ↑ [4] Jean Bourgain, Pointwise ergodic theorems for arithmetic sets, Inst. Hautes Etudes´ Sci. Publ. Math. 69 (1989), 5–45. With an appendix by the author, Harry Furstenberg, Yitzhak Katznelson and Donald S. Ornstein. 4 [5] James Campbell and Karl↑ Petersen, The spectral measure and Hilbert transform of a measure- preserving transformation, Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 313 (1989), no. 1, 121–129. 1, 4 [6] Lennart Carleson, On convergence and growth of partial sums of Fourier series↑, Acta Math. 116 (1966), 135–157. 1 [7] L. Cladek, K. Henriot,↑ B. Krause, I. Laba, and M. Pramanik, A Discrete Carleson Theorem Along the Primes with a Restricted Supremum, available at 1604.08695. 2, 4, 13 [8] Jos´eM. Conde-Alonso and Guillermo Rey, A pointwise estimate for positive↑ dyadic shifts and some applications, Math. Ann. (2015), 1–25. 4 [9] A. Culiuc, F. Di Plinio, and Y. Ou, Domination↑ of multilinear singular integrals by positive sparse forms, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.05317. 4 [10] Ciprian Demeter, Michael T. Lacey, Terence Tao, and Christoph↑ Thiele, Breaking the duality in the return times theorem, Duke Math. J. 143 (2008), no. 2, 281–355. 4 [11] Nikos Frantzikinakis, Uniformity in the polynomial Wiener-Wintner theorem↑ , Ergodic Theory Dynam. Systems 26 (2006), no. 4, 1061–1071. 4 [12] Richard A. Hunt, On the convergence of Fourier↑ series, Orthogonal Expansions and their Con- tinuous Analogues (Proc. Conf., Edwardsville, Ill., 1967), Southern Illinois Univ. Press, Car- bondale, Ill., 1968, pp. 235–255. 1 [13] Alexandru D. Ionescu and Stephen↑ Wainger, Lp boundedness of discrete singular Radon trans- forms, J. Amer. Math. Soc. 19 (2006), no. 2, 357–383 (electronic). 4 [14] Alexandru D. Ionescu, Elias M. Stein, Akos Magyar, and Stephen↑ Wainger, Discrete Radon transforms and applications to ergodic theory, Acta Math. 198 (2007), no. 2, 231–298. 4 [15] Carlos E. Kenig and Peter A. Tomas, Maximal operators defined by Fourier multipliers,↑ Studia Math. 68 (1980), no. 1, 79–83. 1 [16] Ben Krause and Michael T. Lacey,↑ A Discrete Quadratic Carleson Theorem on ℓ2 with a Re- stricted Supremum, IMRN, to appear (2015). 2, 4, 5, 13, 14 [17] B. Krause and P. Zorin-Kranich, A random pointwise↑ ergodic theorem with Hardy field weights, available at 1410.0806. 4 ↑ DISCRETE CARLESON THEOREMS 15 [18] Michael T. Lacey, An elementary proof of the A2 Bound, Israel J. Math., to appear (2015). 4 [19] Michael T. Lacey and Scott Spencer, Sparse Bounds for Oscillatory and Random Singular↑ Integrals (2016), available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1609.06364. 3, 5 [20] Michael Lacey, Karl Petersen, M´at´eWierdl, and Dan Rudolph, Random↑ ergodic theorems with universally representative sequences, Ann. Inst. H. Poincar´eProbab. Statist. 30 (1994), no. 3, 353–395 (English, with English and French summaries). 4 [21] Andrei K. Lerner, On pointwise estimates involving sparse↑ operators, New York J. Math. 22 (2016), 341–349. MR3484688 6 [22] Victor Lie, The (weak-L2) boundedness↑ of the quadratic Carleson operator, Geom. Funct. Anal. 19 (2009), no. 2, 457–497. 2 [23] , The Polynomial Carleson↑ Operator, available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4504. 2 [24] Mariusz↑ Mirek, Weak type (1, 1) inequalities for discrete rough maximal functions, J. Anal. Math. 127 (2015), 247–281. 4 [25] , Square function estimates↑ for discrete Radon transforms (2015), available at arXiv:1512.07524. 4 [26] Mariusz Mirek, Bartosz↑ Trojan, and E. M. Stein, Lp(Zd)-estimates for discrete operators of Radon type: Variational estimates, available at arXiv:1512.07523. 4 [27] , Lp(Zd)-estimates for discrete operators of Radon type: Maximal↑ functions and vector- valued estimates, available at arXiv:1512.07518. 4 [28] Richard Oberlin, Andreas Seeger, Terence Tao, Christoph↑ Thiele, and James Wright, A variation norm Carleson theorem, J. Eur. Math. Soc. (JEMS) 14 (2012), no. 2, 421–464. 4 [29] Lillian B. Pierce, Personal Communication, American Institute of Mathematics↑ (May, 2015). 2 [30] ↑ , Discrete fractional Radon transforms and quadratic forms, Duke Math. J. 161 (2012), no. 1, 69–106. 4 [31] L. B. Pierce and↑ Po-Lam Yung, A polynomial Carleson operator along the paraboloid (2015), available at 1505.03882. 2 [32] Joseph Rosenblatt, Universally↑ bad sequences in ergodic theory, Almost everywhere convergence, II (Evanston, IL, 1989), Academic Press, Boston, MA, 1991, pp. 227–245. 4 [33] E. M. Stein and S. Wainger, Discrete analogues of singular Radon transforms↑ , Bull. Amer. Math. Soc. (N.S.) 23 (1990), no. 2, 537–544. 1, 4 [34] Elias M. Stein and Stephen Wainger, Discrete↑ analogues in harmonic analysis. I. l2 estimates for singular Radon transforms, Amer. J. Math. 121 (1999), no. 6, 1291–1336. 4 [35] , Oscillatory integrals related to Carleson’s theorem, Math. Res. Lett. 8↑(2001), no. 5-6, 789–800. 2 [36] Norbert Wiener↑ and Aurel Wintner, Harmonic analysis and ergodic theory, Amer. J. Math. 63 (1941), 415–426. 4 ↑ Department of Mathematics The University of British Columbia, 1984 Mathemat- ics Road Vancouver, B.C. Canada V6T 1Z2 E-mail address: [email protected] School of Mathematics Georgia Institute of Technology, 686 Cherry Street At- lanta, GA 30332-0160 E-mail address: [email protected]