2
$\begingroup$

Let $x\in R^{2m}$ such that $x_1+\ldots+x_{2m}=0$ and let $r_i, i=1, \ldots, 2m$ be Rademacher functions, i.e. $P(r_i=1)=P(r_i=-1)=1/2$.

I would like to find an example of the vector $x$ such that $E(\sum_{i=1}^{2m}x_ir_i)^{2q}\geq C\sqrt{2q}\|x\|_2$.

1 Answers 1

3

I suspect you need to add more constraints, $x=0$ will satisfy the inequality trivially.

Alternatively, assuming that the $r_i$ are independent, then $$E(\sum_{i=1}^{2m}x_ir_i)^{2q} = E (\sum_{i_1}\cdots \sum_{i_{2q}}x_{i_1} \cdots x_{2q} r_{i_1} \cdots r_{2q}) =\sum_{i_1}\cdots \sum_{i_{2q}}x_{i_1} \cdots x_{2q} E(r_{i_1} \cdots r_{2q}) = \sum x_i^{2q}, $$ where we used independence and that $r_i^2 = 1$ in the last equality.

The problem then reduces to finding an $x$ that satisfies $\sum x_i = 0$ and $\sum x_i^{2q} \geq C \sqrt{2 q} \sqrt{\sum x_i^2}$.

Let $t\geq 0$ and let $x=(t,\cdots t,-t,\cdots, -t)$ ($m$ components are $t$ followed by $m$ components of $-t$). Clearly $\sum x_i = 0$. The inequality becomes $2m t^{2q} \geq C \sqrt{2 q} \sqrt{2 m} t$. This is satisfied whenever $t=0$ or whenever the inequality $t^{2q-1} \geq C \sqrt{\frac{q}{m}}$ is satisfied, or equivalently whenever $t \geq \sqrt[2q-1]{C \sqrt{\frac{q}{m}}}$.

  • 0
    Thank you. For curiosity, if one assume that $\sum_i r_i=0$ and $x\in R^{2m}$ any vector. Would be your argument true?2012-07-29
  • 0
    No, because you lose independence. However, I think you could zero the components of $x$ corresponding to the dependent $r_i$ (possibly one more for evenness) and repair the argument (I haven't worked this through).2012-07-29
  • 0
    Could you elaborate please your last statement. I did not get an idea...2012-07-29
  • 0
    Some subset of the $r_i$ are independent. Set $x_j=0$ for $j$ corresponding to a dependent $r_j$, and deal with a lower dimensional problem. The only catch is to have an even number of coordinates so you can do the $\pm t$ trick.2012-07-29
  • 0
    Thak you for your explanations.2012-07-29
  • 0
    Sorry for the question. In your lst explanations, when are you saing 'Some subset of the $r_i$ are independent' what do you mean? Did you mean that one can find transformation of the set of $r_i$ such that some subset of this new set would be independent. But in this cas coefficients $x_i$ would changed.2012-08-01
  • 0
    If $\sum r_i = 0$, then the $r_i$ are not independent, but some subset $I$ will be independent (ie, $\{r_i\}_{i \in I}$ are independent). Set $x_i = 0$ whenever $i \notin I$. Now you are back to the original problem (except that $|I|$ might be odd, in which case we hope that $|I| > 2$ so you can also drop some $i_0 \in I$).2012-08-01
  • 0
    Thank you so much. Now I've got it:-)2012-08-01