This paper was converted on www.awesomepapers.org from LaTeX by an anonymous user.
Want to know more? Visit the Converter page.

Uniqueness theorems for meromorphic inner functions and canonical systems

Burak Hati̇noğlu Department of Mathematics, Michigan State University, East Lansing MI 48824, U.S.A. [email protected]
Abstract.

We prove uniqueness problems for meromorphic inner functions on the upper half-plane. In these problems we consider spectral data depending partially or fully on the spectrum, derivative values at the spectrum, Clark measure or the spectrum of the negative of a meromorphic inner function. Moreover we consider applications of these uniqueness results to inverse spectral theory of canonical Hamiltonian systems and obtain generalizations of Borg-Levinson two-spectra theorem for canonical Hamiltonian systems and unique determination of a Hamiltonian from its spectral measure under some conditions.

Key words and phrases:
meromorphic inner functions, uniqueness theorems, canonical Hamiltonian systems, inverse spectral theory, Weyl m-functions
2020 Mathematics Subject Classification:
30, 34

1. Introduction

Inner functions on +\mathbb{C}_{+} are bounded analytic functions with unit modulus almost everywhere on the boundary \mathbb{R}. If an inner function extends to \mathbb{C} meromorphically, it is called a meromorphic inner function (MIF), which is usually denoted by Θ\Theta.

MIFs appear in various fields such as spectral theory of differential operators [BBP17, MP05], Krein-de Branges theory of entire functions [B68, MP010, R17], functional model theory [N86, N02], approximation theory [P015], Toeplitz operators [HM16, MP10, P18] and non-linear Fourier transform [P21]. MIFs also play a critical role in the Toeplitz approach to the uncertainty principle [MP05, P15], which was used in the study of problems of harmonic analysis [MP15, P12, P13].

Each MIF is represented by the Blaschke/singular factorization

Θ(z)=Ceiazncnzωnzω¯n,\Theta(z)=Ce^{iaz}\prod_{n\in\mathbb{N}}c_{n}\frac{z-\omega_{n}}{z-\overline{\omega}_{n}},

where CC is a unimodular constant, aa is a nonzero real constant, {ωn}n\{\omega_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is a discrete sequence (i.e. has no finite accumulation point) in +\mathbb{C}_{+} satisfying the Blaschke condition nImωn/(1+|ωn|2)<\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mathrm{Im}\omega_{n}/(1+|\omega_{n}|^{2})<\infty, and cn=(i+ω¯n)/(i+ωn)c_{n}=(i+\overline{\omega}_{n})/(i+\omega_{n}). MIFs are also represented as Θ(x)=exp(iϕ(x))\Theta(x)=\exp(i\phi(x)) on the real line, where ϕ\phi is an increasing real analytic function.

A complex-valued function is said to be real if it maps real numbers to real numbers on its domain. A meromorphic Herglotz function (MHF) mm is a real meromorphic function with positive imaginary part on +\mathbb{C}_{+}. It has negative imaginary part on \mathbb{C}_{-} through the relation m(z¯)=m¯(z)m(\overline{z})=\overline{m}(z). There is a one-to-one correspondence between MIFs and MHFs given by the equations

Θ=mΘimΘ+iandmΘ=i1+Θ1Θ.\Theta=\frac{m_{\Theta}-i}{m_{\Theta}+i}\qquad\text{and}\qquad m_{\Theta}=i\frac{1+\Theta}{1-\Theta}.

Therefore MIFs can be described by parameters (b,c,μ)(b,c,\mu) via the Herglotz representation mΘ(z)=bz+c+iSμΘ(z)m_{\Theta}(z)=bz+c+iS\mu_{\Theta}(z), where b0b\geq 0, cc\in\mathbb{R} and

SμΘ(z):=1iπ(1tzt1+t2)𝑑μΘ(t)S\mu_{\Theta}(z):=\frac{1}{i\pi}\int\Big{(}\frac{1}{t-z}-\frac{t}{1+t^{2}}\Big{)}d\mu_{\Theta}(t)

is the Schwarz integral of the positive discrete Poisson-finite measure μΘ\mu_{\Theta} on \mathbb{R}, i.e. 1/(1+t2)𝑑μΘ(t)<\int 1/(1+t^{2})d\mu_{\Theta}(t)<\infty. The number πb\pi b is considered as the point mass of μΘ\mu_{\Theta} at infinity. This extended measure μΘ\mu_{\Theta} is called the Clark (or spectral) measure of Θ\Theta. The spectrum of Θ\Theta, denoted by σ(Θ)\sigma(\Theta), is the level set {Θ=1}\{\Theta=1\}, so μΘ\mu_{\Theta} is supported on σ(Θ)\sigma(\Theta) or σ(Θ){}\sigma(\Theta)\cup\{\infty\}. The point masses at tσ(Θ)t\in\sigma({\Theta}) are given by μΘ(t)=2π/|Θ(t)|\mu_{\Theta}(t)=2\pi/|\Theta^{\prime}(t)| and the point mass at infinity is non-zero if and only if limy+Θ(iy)=1\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}\Theta(iy)=1 and the limit limy+y2Θ(iy)\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}y^{2}\Theta^{\prime}(iy) exists. All of these above mentioned properties of MIFs can be found e.g in [P15] and references therein.

Existence, uniqueness, interpolation and other complex function theoretic problems for MIFs were studied in various papers [BCLRS16, P15, PR16, R17]. In this paper we consider unique determination of the MIF Θ\Theta from several spectral data and conditions depending fully or partially on σ(Θ)\sigma(\Theta), σ(Θ)\sigma(-\Theta) and {μΘ(t)}tσ(Θ)\{\mu_{\Theta}(t)\}_{t\in\sigma(\Theta)}. The two spectra σ(Θ)\sigma(\Theta) and σ(Θ)\sigma(-\Theta) are the sets of poles and zeros of mΘm_{\Theta} respectively. They are interlacing, discrete sequences on \mathbb{R}, so we denote them by {an}n=σ(Θ):={Θ=1}\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}=\sigma(\Theta):=\{\Theta=1\} and {bn}n=σ(Θ):={Θ=1}\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}=\sigma(-\Theta):=\{\Theta=-1\} indexed in increasing order. We also introduce the disjoint intervals In:=(an,bn)I_{n}:=(a_{n},b_{n}). If σ(Θ)\sigma(\Theta) is bounded below, then {an}\{a_{n}\}, {bn}\{b_{n}\} and {In}\{I_{n}\} are indexed by \mathbb{N}.

MIFs (equivalently MHFs) appear in inverse spectral theory. Inverse spectral problems aim to determine an operator from given spectral data. Classical results were given for Sturm-Liouville operators and can be found e.g. in [HAT] and references therein.

Canonical Hamiltonian systems are the most general class of symmetric second-order operators, so the more classical second-order operators such as Schrödinger, Jacobi, Dirac, Sturm–Liouville operators and Krein strings can be transformed to canonical Hamiltonian systems [REM18], e.g. see Section 1.3 of [REM18] for rewriting the Schrödinger equation as a canonical Hamiltonian system.

A canonical Hamiltonian system is a 2×22\times 2 differential equation system of the form

(1.1) Jf(x)=zH(x)f(x),Jf^{\prime}(x)=-zH(x)f(x),

where L>0L>0, x(0,L)x\in(0,L) and

J:=(0110),f(x)=(f1(x)f2(x)).J:={\begin{pmatrix}0&-1\\ 1&0\end{pmatrix}},\quad f(x)={\begin{pmatrix}f_{1}(x)\\ f_{2}(x)\end{pmatrix}}.

We assume H(x)2×2H(x)\in\mathbb{R}^{2\times 2}, HLloc1(0,L)H\in L_{\text{loc}}^{1}(0,L) and H(x)0H(x)\geq 0 a.e. on (0,L)(0,L). In this paper we consider the limit circle case, whixh means 0LTrH(x)𝑑x<\int_{0}^{L}\text{Tr}H(x)dx<\infty, on a finite interval, i.e. 0<L<0<L<\infty. The self-adjoint realizations of a canonical Hamiltonian system in the limit circle case with separated boundary conditions are described by

(1.2) f1(0)sinαf2(0)cosα=0,f1(L)sinβf2(L)cosβ=0,f_{1}(0)\sin\alpha-f_{2}(0)\cos\alpha=0,\qquad f_{1}(L)\sin\beta-f_{2}(L)\cos\beta=0,

with α,β[0,π)\alpha,\beta\in[0,\pi). Such a self-adjoint system has a discrete spectrum σα,β\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}.

Let f=f(x,z)f=f(x,z) be a solution of Jf=zHfJf^{\prime}=-zHf with the boundary condition f1(L)sinβf2(L)cosβ=0f_{1}(L)\sin\beta-f_{2}(L)\cos\beta=0. If we let uu and vv be solutions of Ju=zHuJu^{\prime}=-zHu with the initial conditions u1(0)=cos(α)u_{1}(0)=\cos(\alpha), u2(0)=sin(α)u_{2}(0)=\sin(\alpha) and v1(0)=sin(α)v_{1}(0)=-\sin(\alpha), v2(0)=cos(α)v_{2}(0)=\cos(\alpha), then the solution uu satisfies the boundary condition at x=0x=0, and f(x,z)=v(x,z)+mα,β(z)u(x,z)f(x,z)=v(x,z)+m_{\alpha,\beta}(z)u(x,z) is the unique solution of the form v+Muv+Mu that satisfies the boundary condition β\beta at x=Lx=L. The complex function mα,βm_{\alpha,\beta} is called the Weyl mm-function, which is

(1.3) mα,β(z):=cos(α)f1(0)+sin(α)f2(0)sin(α)f1(0)+cos(α)f2(0).m_{\alpha,\beta}(z):=\frac{\cos(\alpha)f_{1}(0)+\sin(\alpha)f_{2}(0)}{-\sin(\alpha)f_{1}(0)+\cos(\alpha)f_{2}(0)}.

The spectrum σα,β={an}n\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}=\{a_{n}\}_{n} is the set of poles of mα,βm_{\alpha,\beta}. The norming constant γα,β(n)\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}^{(n)} for anσα,βa_{n}\in\sigma_{\alpha,\beta} is defined as γα,β(n):=1/u(,an)2\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}^{(n)}:=1/||u(\cdot,a_{n})||^{2}. The Weyl mm-function mα,β(z)m_{\alpha,\beta}(z) is a MHF, so the corresponding MIF is defined as Θα,β=(mα,βi)/(mα,β+i)\Theta_{\alpha,\beta}=(m_{\alpha,\beta}-i)/(m_{\alpha,\beta}+i), which is called the Weyl inner function. The Clark (spectral) measure of Θα,β\Theta_{\alpha,\beta} is the discrete measure supported on σα,β\sigma_{\alpha,\beta} with point masses given by the corresponding norming constants, i.e. μα,β=nγα,β(n)δan\mu_{\alpha,\beta}=\sum_{n}\gamma_{\alpha,\beta}^{(n)}\delta_{a_{n}} is the spectral measure. The MIF Θα,β\Theta_{\alpha,\beta} carries out spectral properties of the corresponding canonical Hamiltonian system through (1.3), so we will use results on MIFs in inverse spectral theory of canonical Hamiltonian system.

The paper is organized as follows.

Section 2 includes following uniqueness results for MIFs and canonical systems.

  • In Theorem 2.1 we consider unique determination of Θ\Theta from its spectrum, point masses (or equivalently derivative values) at the spectrum and one of the constants Θ(0)\Theta(0), limy+Θ(iy)\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}\Theta(iy) or nan/bn1\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}a_{n}/b_{n}\neq 1 with the condition that {|In|/(1+dist(0,In))}nl1()\{|I_{n}|/(1+\text{dist}(0,I_{n}))\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\in l^{1}(\mathbb{Z}).

  • In Theorem 2.2, this condition is replaced by the condition (1+|x|)1L1(μΘ)(1+|x|)^{-1}\in L^{1}(\mu_{\Theta}) and that μΘ\mu_{\Theta} has no point mass at infinity, so the Clark measure μΘ\mu_{\Theta} and one of the constants Θ(0)\Theta(0), limy+Θ(iy)\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}\Theta(iy) or nan/bn1\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}a_{n}/b_{n}\neq 1 uniquely determine Θ\Theta in this case.

  • Theorem 2.3 shows that if σ(Θ)\sigma(\Theta) is bounded below and an<bna_{n}<b_{n}, then Θ\Theta is uniquely determined by the spectral data of Theorem 2.1 without any other condition. Its second part deals with the case an>bna_{n}>b_{n}.

  • In Theorems 2.4 and 2.5, we prove that the knowledge of the derivative values from Theorems 2.1 and 2.3 respectively, can be partially replaced by the knowledge of the corresponding points from the second spectrum σ(Θ)\sigma(-\Theta).

  • Theorem 2.6 shows unique determination of a Hamiltonian from the spectral measure μα1,β\mu_{\alpha_{1},\beta} and boundary conditions α1,α2\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2} and β\beta with the condition that {|In|/(1+dist(0,In))}nl1()\{|I_{n}|/(1+\text{dist}(0,I_{n}))\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\in l^{1}(\mathbb{Z}), where endpoints of InI_{n} are given by the two spectra σα1,β\sigma_{\alpha_{1},\beta} and σα2,β\sigma_{\alpha_{2},\beta}.

  • In Theorem 2.7 we consider unique determination of a Hamiltonian from a spectral measure and boundary conditions in the case that the corresponding spectrum is bounded below.

  • In Theorem 2.8 and Theorem 2.9 we prove that some missing norming constants from the spectral data of Theorems 2.6 and 2.7 respectively, can be compensated by the corresponding data from a second spectrum.

  • As Corollary 2.10 we obtain a generalization of Borg-Levison’s classical two-spectra theorem on Schrödinger operators to canonical Hamiltonian systems.

Section 3 includes proofs of results for MIFs.

Section 4 includes proofs of results for canonical Hamiltonian systems.

2. Results

We first obtain uniqueness theorems for meromporphic inner functions (MIFs) and then consider inverse spectral problems for canonical Hamiltonian systems as applications. However, let us start by fixing our notations. We denote MIFs by Θ\Theta (or Φ\Phi) and the corresponding MHFs by mΘm_{\Theta} (or mΦm_{\Phi}). Since the spectrum σ(Θ)\sigma(\Theta) of a MIF Θ\Theta is a discrete sequence in \mathbb{R}, we denote it by {an}n\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}. Similarly the second spectrum σ(Θ)\sigma(-\Theta) is denoted by {bn}n\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}. Since Θ=exp(iϕ)\Theta=\exp(i\phi) on \mathbb{R} for an increasing real analytic function ϕ\phi and {an}n\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} and {bn}n\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} are interlacing sequences, we get {x|ImΘ(x)>0}={(an,bn)}\{x\in\mathbb{R}~{}|~{}\mathrm{Im}\Theta(x)>0\}=\{(a_{n},b_{n})\}. We denote the intervals (an,bn)(a_{n},b_{n}) by InI_{n}. A sequence of disjoint intervals {Jn}\{J_{n}\} on \mathbb{R} is called short if

(2.1) n|Jn|21+dist2(0,Jn)<,\sum_{n}\frac{|J_{n}|^{2}}{1+\text{dist}^{2}(0,J_{n})}<\infty,

and long otherwise. Here |Jn||J_{n}| and dist(0,Jn)\text{dist}(0,J_{n}) denote the length of the interval JnJ_{n} and its distance to the origin respectively. Collections of short (and long) intervals appear in various areas of harmonic analysis (see [P15] and references therein). If we assume 0In0\notin\cup I_{n}, then condition (2.1) is nothing but {|Jn|/dist(0,Jn)}l2\{|J_{n}|/\text{dist}(0,J_{n})\}\in l^{2}. In some of our results we use the condition that this sequence for {In}\{I_{n}\} belongs to l1l^{1}, i.e.

(2.2) n|In|1+dist(0,In)<.\sum_{n}\frac{|I_{n}|}{1+\text{dist}(0,I_{n})}<\infty.

In our first theorem, with condition (2.2), we consider unique determination of a MIF from its spectrum and derivative values on the spectrum.

Theorem 2.1.

Let Θ\Theta be a MIF, σ(Θ)={an}n:={Θ=1}\sigma(\Theta)=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}:=\{\Theta=1\}, σ(Θ)={bn}n:={Θ=1}\sigma(-\Theta)=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}:=\{\Theta=-1\} and In:=(an,bn)I_{n}:=(a_{n},b_{n}). If

n|In|1+dist(0,In)<,\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{|I_{n}|}{1+\mathrm{dist}(0,I_{n})}<\infty,

then the spectral data consisting of

  • {an}n\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}

  • {Θ(an)}n\{\Theta^{\prime}(a_{n})\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} (or equivalently {μΘ(an)}n\{\mu_{\Theta}(a_{n})\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}) and

  • L:=limy+Θ(iy)L:=\displaystyle\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}\Theta(iy) or C:=Θ(0)C:=\Theta(0) or p:=nan/bn1p:=\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}a_{n}/b_{n}\neq 1

uniquely determine Θ\Theta.

If the Clark measure has no point mass at infinity, summability condition (2.2) can be replaced by an integrability condition on the Clark measure.

Theorem 2.2.

Let Θ\Theta be a MIF, μΘ\mu_{\Theta} be its Clark measure, σ(Θ)={an}n:={Θ=1}\sigma(\Theta)=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}:=\{\Theta=1\} and σ(Θ)={bn}n:={Θ=1}\sigma(-\Theta)=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}:=\{\Theta=-1\}. If

11+|x|𝑑μΘ(x)<\int\frac{1}{1+|x|}d\mu_{\Theta}(x)<\infty

and μΘ\mu_{\Theta} has no point mass at \infty, then μΘ\mu_{\Theta} and L:=limy+Θ(iy)L:=\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}\Theta(iy) or C:=Θ(0)C:=\Theta(0) or p:=nan/bn1p:=\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}a_{n}/b_{n}\neq 1 uniquely determine Θ\Theta.

If the spectrum of a MIF is bounded below, then summability condition of Theorem 2.1 is not required.

Theorem 2.3.

Let Θ\Theta be a MIF, σ(Θ)={an}n:={Θ=1}\sigma(\Theta)=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}:=\{\Theta=1\} and σ(Θ)={bn}n:={Θ=1}\sigma(-\Theta)=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}:=\{\Theta=-1\}.

  1. (1)

    If σ(Θ)={an}n\sigma(\Theta)=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is bounded below and an<bna_{n}<b_{n}, then the spectral data consisting of

    • {an}n\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}

    • {Θ(an)}n\{\Theta^{\prime}(a_{n})\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} and

    • C:=Θ(0)C:=\Theta(0)

    uniquely determine Θ\Theta.

  2. (2)

    If σ(Θ)={an}n\sigma(\Theta)=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is bounded below and an>bna_{n}>b_{n}, then the spectral data consisting of

    • {bn}n\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}

    • {Θ(bn)}n\{\Theta^{\prime}(b_{n})\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} and

    • C:=Θ(0)C:=\Theta(0)

    uniquely determine Θ\Theta.

Next two theorems show that missing part of point masses of the Clark measure from the data of Theorems 2.1 and 2.3 can be compensated by the corresponding data from the second spectrum σ(Θ)\sigma(-\Theta).

Theorem 2.4.

Let Θ\Theta be a MIF, σ(Θ)={an}n:={Θ=1}\sigma(\Theta)=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}:=\{\Theta=1\}, σ(Θ)={bn}n:={Θ=1}\sigma(-\Theta)=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}:=\{\Theta=-1\} and AA\subseteq\mathbb{Z}. If

n|In|1+dist(0,In)<,\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{|I_{n}|}{1+\mathrm{dist}(0,I_{n})}<\infty,

then the spectral data consisting of

  • {an}n\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}

  • {bn}nA\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus A}

  • {Θ(an)}nA\{\Theta^{{}^{\prime}}(a_{n})\}_{n\in A} (or {μ(an)}nA\{\mu(a_{n})\}_{n\in A}) and

  • L:=limy+Θ(iy)L:=\displaystyle\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}\Theta(iy) or C:=Θ(0)C:=\Theta(0) or p:=nAan/bn1p:=\prod_{n\in A}a_{n}/b_{n}\neq 1

uniquely determine Θ\Theta.

Theorem 2.5.

Let Θ\Theta be a MIF, σ(Θ)={an}n:={Θ=1}\sigma(\Theta)=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}:=\{\Theta=1\}, σ(Θ)={bn}n:={Θ=1}\sigma(-\Theta)=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}:=\{\Theta=-1\} and AA\subseteq\mathbb{N}.

  1. (1)

    If {an}n\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is bounded below and an<bna_{n}<b_{n}, then the spectral data consisting of

    • {an}n\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}

    • {bn}nA\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}\setminus A}

    • {Θ(an)}nA\{\Theta^{{}^{\prime}}(a_{n})\}_{n\in A} (or {μ(an)}nA\{\mu(a_{n})\}_{n\in A}) and

    • C:=Θ(0)C:=\Theta(0)

    uniquely determine Θ\Theta.

  2. (2)

    If {an}n\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is bounded below and an>bna_{n}>b_{n}, then the spectral data consisting of

    • {an}nA\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}\setminus A}

    • {bn}n\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}

    • {Θ(bn)}nA\{\Theta^{{}^{\prime}}(b_{n})\}_{n\in A} and

    • C:=Θ(0)C:=\Theta(0)

    uniquely determine Θ\Theta.

Next, we consider inverse spectral theorems on canonical systems as applications of the above mentioned results. We follow the definitions and notations we introduced in Section 1.

Theorem 2.6.

Let L>0L>0, α1,α2,β[0,π)\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta\in[0,\pi), α1α2\alpha_{1}\neq\alpha_{2} and HH be a trace normed canonical system on [0,L][0,L]. Also let σα1,β={an}n\sigma_{\alpha_{1},\beta}=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}, σα2,β={bn}n\sigma_{\alpha_{2},\beta}=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} and In=(an,bn)I_{n}=(a_{n},b_{n}). If

n|In|1+dist(0,In)<,\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{|I_{n}|}{1+\mathrm{dist}(0,I_{n})}<\infty,

then the spectral measure μα1,β\mu_{\alpha_{1},\beta} and boundary conditions α1\alpha_{1}, α2\alpha_{2} and β\beta uniquely determine HH.

Theorem 2.7.

Let L>0L>0, α,β[0,π)\alpha,\beta\in[0,\pi) and HH be a trace normed canonical Hamiltonian system on [0,L][0,L]. If σα,β={an}n\sigma_{\alpha,\beta}=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is bounded below and an<bna_{n}<b_{n}, then the spectral measure μα,β\mu_{\alpha,\beta} and boundary conditions α\alpha and β\beta uniquely determine HH.

The next two results show that the missing norming constants from the spectral data can be compensated by the corresponding data from a second spectrum.

Theorem 2.8.

Let L>0L>0, α1,α2,β[0,π)\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta\in[0,\pi), α1α2\alpha_{1}\neq\alpha_{2}, AA\subseteq\mathbb{Z} and HH be a trace normed canonical Hamiltonian system on [0,L][0,L]. Also let σα1,β={an}n\sigma_{\alpha_{1},\beta}=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}, σα2,β={bn}n\sigma_{\alpha_{2},\beta}=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}} and In=(an,bn)I_{n}=(a_{n},b_{n}). If

n|In|1+dist(0,In)<,\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{|I_{n}|}{1+\mathrm{dist}(0,I_{n})}<\infty,

then the spectral data consisting of

  • {an}n\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}

  • {bn}nA\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}\setminus A}

  • {γα1,β(n)}nA\{\gamma_{\alpha_{1},\beta}^{(n)}\}_{n\in A} (or {μα1,β(an)}nA\{\mu_{\alpha_{1},\beta}(a_{n})\}_{n\in A})

  • α1\alpha_{1}, α2\alpha_{2} and β\beta

uniquely determine HH.

Theorem 2.9.

Let L>0L>0, α1,α2,β[0,π)\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta\in[0,\pi), α1α2\alpha_{1}\neq\alpha_{2}, AA\subseteq\mathbb{N} and HH be a trace normed canonical Hamiltonian system on [0,L][0,L]. Also let σα1,β={an}n\sigma_{\alpha_{1},\beta}=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} and σα2,β={bn}n\sigma_{\alpha_{2},\beta}=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}. If σα1,β\sigma_{\alpha_{1},\beta} is bounded below and an<bna_{n}<b_{n}, then the spectral data consisting of

  • {an}n\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}

  • {bn}nA\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}\setminus A}

  • {γα1,β(n)}nA\{\gamma_{\alpha_{1},\beta}^{(n)}\}_{n\in A} (or {μα1,β(an)}nA\{\mu_{\alpha_{1},\beta}(a_{n})\}_{n\in A})

  • α1\alpha_{1}, α2\alpha_{2} and β\beta

uniquely determine HH.

By letting A=A=\emptyset, we get a canonical Hamiltonian system version of Borg-Levinson’s classical two spectra theorem for Schrödinger operators. Note that the spectrum of a Schrödinger (Sturm-Liouville) operator on a finite interval is always bounded below.

Corollary 2.10.

Let L>0L>0, α1,α2,β[0,π)\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta\in[0,\pi) and HH be a trace normed canonical Hamiltonian system on [0,L][0,L]. If σα1,β={an}n\sigma_{\alpha_{1},\beta}=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} is bounded below and an<bna_{n}<b_{n}, then the two spectra σα1,β={an}n\sigma_{\alpha_{1},\beta}=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}, σα2,β={bn}n\sigma_{\alpha_{2},\beta}=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} and α1\alpha_{1}, α2\alpha_{2} and β\beta uniquely determine HH.

Remark 2.11.

Schrödinger (Sturm-Liouville) operators on finite intervals are characterized by two spectra with specific asymptotics (see e.g. (2.4)-(2.7) in [HAT]). Namely, two interlacing, discrete, bounded below subsets of the real-line satisfying these asymptotics correspond to two spectra of a Schrödinger operator on a finite interval and any pair of spectra of a Schrödinger operator on a finite interval satisfy these properties.

Corollary 2.10 shows that unique recovery from two spectra is not related with the special asymptotics of eigenvalues from Schrödinger (Sturm-Liouville) class if the given order relation between the two spectra is satisfied. It extends the two-spectra theorem (or Borg-Levinson’s theorem) to a broader class of canonical Hamiltonian systems on finite intervals with bounded below spectrum.

Remark 2.12.

In this paper we consider canonical Hamiltonian systems on finite intervals to guarantee existence of a discrete spectrum. In general, one can let L=L=\infty in the definition of canonical Hamiltonian systems (1.1). With the restriction of having a discrete spectrum, the inverse spectral theory results above may be obtained for canonical Hamiltonian systems on +\mathbb{R}_{+}, since our results were obtained from the uniqueness results for MIF, which were considered in the general complex function theoretic framework. As a special case, similar versions of mixed spectral data results were obtained for semi-infinite Jacobi operators with discrete spectrum in [HAT2].

3. Proofs for meromorphic inner functions

To prove our uniqueness theorems, we use an infinite product representation result.

Lemma 3.1.

([LEV64], Theorem VII.1) The MHF mΘm_{\Theta} corresponding to the MIF Θ\Theta has the infinite product representation

(3.1) mΘ(z)=i1+Θ(z)1Θ(z)=cn(zbn1)(zan1)1m_{\Theta}(z)=i\frac{1+\Theta(z)}{1-\Theta(z)}=c\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\left(\frac{z}{b_{n}}-1\right)\left(\frac{z}{a_{n}}-1\right)^{-1}

where c>0c>0, an<bn<an+1a_{n}<b_{n}<a_{n+1} and the product converges normally on \nan\displaystyle\mathbb{C}\text{\textbackslash}\cup_{n\in\mathbb{N}}a_{n}.

Note that if mm is a MHF, then 1/m-1/m is also a MHF. Therefore the roles of zeros and poles can be swapped in Lemma 3.1 by letting the coefficient c=mΘ(0)c=m_{\Theta}(0) be negative.

Remark 3.2.

If σ(Θ)\sigma(\Theta) is bounded below and an<bna_{n}<b_{n}, then representation (3.1) becomes

(3.2) mΘ(z)=cn(zbn1)(zan1)1,m_{\Theta}(z)=c\prod_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\left(\frac{z}{b_{n}}-1\right)\left(\frac{z}{a_{n}}-1\right)^{-1},

where c=mΘ(0)>0c=m_{\Theta}(0)>0. If an>bna_{n}>b_{n}, representation (3.2) is valid with c=mΘ(0)<0c=m_{\Theta}(0)<0.

Proof of Theorem 2.1.

Let us note that

n|bnan|1+|an|n|In|1+dist(0,In)<andn|bnan|1+|bn|n|In|1+dist(0,In)<.\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{|b_{n}-a_{n}|}{1+|a_{n}|}\leq\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{|I_{n}|}{1+\text{dist}(0,I_{n})}<\infty~{}\text{and}~{}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{|b_{n}-a_{n}|}{1+|b_{n}|}\leq\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{|I_{n}|}{1+\text{dist}(0,I_{n})}<\infty.

Therefore 0<n|an|/|bn|<0<\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}|a_{n}|/|b_{n}|<\infty and hence

(3.3) l:=limy+mΘ(iy)=limy+cn(zbn1)(zan1)1=cnanbn,l:=\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}m_{\Theta}(iy)=\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}c\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\left(\frac{z}{b_{n}}-1\right)\left(\frac{z}{a_{n}}-1\right)^{-1}=c\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{a_{n}}{b_{n}},

which implies L:=limy+Θ(iy)=(li)/(l+i)1L:=\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}\Theta(iy)=(l-i)/(l+i)\neq 1. Therefore μΘ()=0\mu_{\Theta}(\infty)=0, i.e.

mΘ(z)=b+iSμΘ=b+kμΘ(ak)π(1akzak1+ak2).m_{\Theta}(z)=b+iS\mu_{\Theta}=b+\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{\mu_{\Theta}(a_{k})}{\pi}\left(\frac{1}{a_{k}-z}-\frac{a_{k}}{1+a_{k}^{2}}\right).

Now let’s observe that

l=bkμΘ(ak)πak1+ak2.l=b-\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{\mu_{\Theta}(a_{k})}{\pi}\frac{a_{k}}{1+a_{k}^{2}}.

Indeed, we just obtained that the limit of mΘ(iy)m_{\Theta}(iy) is finite as yy goes to ++\infty. Therefore mΘm_{\Theta} is bounded on i(ε,)i(\varepsilon,\infty) for a fixed ε>0\varepsilon>0 and

l=limy+mΘ(iy)\displaystyle l=\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}m_{\Theta}(iy) =b+1πklimy+μΘ(ak)(1akiyak1+ak2)\displaystyle=b+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}\mu_{\Theta}(a_{k})\left(\frac{1}{a_{k}-iy}-\frac{a_{k}}{1+a_{k}^{2}}\right)
=b1πkμΘ(ak)ak1+ak2,\displaystyle=b-\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\mu_{\Theta}(a_{k})\frac{a_{k}}{1+a_{k}^{2}},

which implies

(3.4) mΘ(z)=l+1πkμΘ(ak)(akz),m_{\Theta}(z)=l+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{\mu_{\Theta}(a_{k})}{(a_{k}-z)},

so the only unknown on the right hand side is ll.

At this point we consider three different cases of our spectral data given in the last item in the theorem statement.

If L=limy+Θ(iy)L=\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}\Theta(iy) is known, then LL uniquely determines l=limy+mΘ(iy)l=\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}m_{\Theta}(iy), since L=(li)/(l+i)L=(l-i)/(l+i) and (xi)/(x+i)(x-i)/(x+i) is an injective function. Therefore by (3.4) mΘm_{\Theta} is uniquely determined.

If c=mΘ(0)c=m_{\Theta}(0) is known, then using (3.4) we get

l=c1πkμΘ(ak)ak,l=c-\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{k\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{\mu_{\Theta}(a_{k})}{a_{k}},

so ll is known and hence mΘm_{\Theta} is uniquely determined.

If p=nan/bn1p=\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}a_{n}/b_{n}\neq 1 is known, in order to show uniqueness of ll let us consider another MIF Θ~\widetilde{\Theta} satisfying the following properties:

  • {Θ~=1}={an}n\{\widetilde{\Theta}=1\}=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}},

  • Θ~(an)=Θ(an)\widetilde{\Theta}^{\prime}(a_{n})=\Theta^{\prime}(a_{n}) for any nn\in\mathbb{Z},

  • n|I~n|1+dist(0,I~n)<\displaystyle\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{|\widetilde{I}_{n}|}{1+\text{dist}(0,\widetilde{I}_{n})}<\infty (and hence μΘ~()=0\mu_{\widetilde{\Theta}}(\infty)=0),

where I~n=(an,b~n)\widetilde{I}_{n}=(a_{n},\widetilde{b}_{n}) and {b~n}n:=σ(Θ)\{\widetilde{b}_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}:=\sigma(-\Theta). In other words MIFs Θ\Theta and Θ~\widetilde{\Theta} share the same Clark measure, i.e. μΘ=μΘ~\mu_{\Theta}=\mu_{\widetilde{\Theta}}, and {I~n}n\{\widetilde{I}_{n}\}_{n} satisfy the summability condition, so

mΘ~(z)=i1+Θ~(z)1Θ~(z)=c~n(zb~n1)(zan1)1=l~+1πnμΘ(an)(anz).m_{\widetilde{\Theta}}(z)=i\frac{1+\widetilde{\Theta}(z)}{1-\widetilde{\Theta}(z)}=\widetilde{c}\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\left(\frac{z}{\widetilde{b}_{n}}-1\right)\left(\frac{z}{a_{n}}-1\right)^{-1}=\widetilde{l}+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{\mu_{\Theta}(a_{n})}{(a_{n}-z)}.

Let us recall from (3.3) that l=cpl=cp, so we have l/c=l~/c~=pl/c=\widetilde{l}/\widetilde{c}=p. Also by assumption p1p\neq 1, we get lcl\neq c and l~c~\widetilde{l}\neq\widetilde{c}. Letting z=0z=0 in (3.4), we also get cc~=ll~c-\widetilde{c}=l-\widetilde{l}. If we call this value xx, then we have

lc=lxcx\frac{l}{c}=\frac{l-x}{c-x}

and hence x(lc)=0x(l-c)=0, so x=0x=0, i.e l=l~l=\widetilde{l} and mΘm_{\Theta} is uniquely determined.

In all three cases mΘm_{\Theta} is uniquely determined from the given spectral data. Then Θ\Theta is uniquely determined through the one-to-one correspondence between MHFs and MIFs, so we get the desired result. ∎

Proof of Theorem 2.2.

Recall that knowing μΘ\mu_{\Theta} means knowing {an}n\{a_{n}\}_{n} and {Θ(an)}n\{\Theta^{\prime}(a_{n})\}_{n}. We also know that μΘ()=0\mu_{\Theta}(\infty)=0, so the MHF corresponding to Θ\Theta has the representation

(3.5) mΘ(z)=b+iSμΘ=b+1πnμΘ(an)(1anzan1+an2).m_{\Theta}(z)=b+iS\mu_{\Theta}=b+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\mu_{\Theta}(a_{n})\left(\frac{1}{a_{n}-z}-\frac{a_{n}}{1+a_{n}^{2}}\right).

The condition 1/(1+|x|)𝑑μΘ(x)<\int 1/(1+|x|)d\mu_{\Theta}(x)<\infty means nμ(an)/(1+|an|)<\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\mu(a_{n})/(1+|a_{n}|)<\infty, which implies that nanμ(an)/(1+an2)\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}a_{n}\mu(a_{n})/(1+a_{n}^{2}) is convergent and nμ(an)/(anz)\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\mu(a_{n})/(a_{n}-z) is uniformly bounded by nμ(an)/(1+|an|)\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\mu(a_{n})/(1+|a_{n}|) on the set i(1,)i(1,\infty). These observations together with the representation (3.5) and Lemma 3.1 imply

cnanbn=limymΘ(iy)=b1πnμΘ(an)an1+an2,c\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}=\lim_{y\rightarrow\infty}m_{\Theta}(iy)=b-\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\mu_{\Theta}(a_{n})\frac{a_{n}}{1+a_{n}^{2}},

i.e. nan/bn\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}a_{n}/b_{n} is convergent. Therefore

mΘ(z)=l+1πnμΘ(an)anz,m_{\Theta}(z)=l+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}\frac{\mu_{\Theta}(a_{n})}{a_{n}-z},

so we get the representation (3.4) again. In order to show uniqueness of mΘm_{\Theta}, we can follow the arguments (starting after (3.4)) we used in the proof of Theorem 2.1 in all three cases of given spectral data. Uniqueness of mΘm_{\Theta} gives uniqueness of Θ\Theta through the one-to-one correspondence between MHFs and MIFs, so we get the desired result. ∎

Proof of Theorem 2.3.

Let d>max{|a1|,|b1|}d>\max\{|a_{1}|,|b_{1}|\}. Since the MHF mΘm_{\Theta} corresponding to Θ\Theta satisfies the infinite product representation (3.2), by substituting zdz-d for zz we can keep the derivative values of Θ\Theta same and make {an+d}n\{a_{n}+d\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} and {bn+d}n\{b_{n}+d\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}} subsets of +\mathbb{R}_{+}. Therefore without loss of generality we assume {an}n{bn}n+\{a_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\bigcup\{b_{n}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\subset\mathbb{R}_{+}.

Now we are ready to prove part (1)(1). We know that

(3.6) mΘ(z)=az+b+iSμΘ=az+b+1πnμΘ(an)(1anzan1+an2),m_{\Theta}(z)=az+b+iS\mu_{\Theta}=az+b+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mu_{\Theta}(a_{n})\left(\frac{1}{a_{n}-z}-\frac{a_{n}}{1+a_{n}^{2}}\right),

where a0a\geq 0, bb\in\mathbb{R} and μΘ(an)0\mu_{\Theta}(a_{n})\geq 0 for any nn\in\mathbb{N}. First let’s show that a=0a=0. Note that in part (1)(1) we assume an<bna_{n}<b_{n}, so mΘm_{\Theta} satisfies the infinite product representation (3.2) with positive c=mΘ(0)c=m_{\Theta}(0). Then partial products of mΘm_{\Theta} are represented as

mΘ(N)(z):=cn=1Nananzbnzbn=n=1Nαn,Nanz+cn=1Nanbn,m_{\Theta}^{(N)}(z):=c\prod_{n=1}^{N}\frac{a_{n}}{a_{n}-z}\frac{b_{n}-z}{b_{n}}=\sum_{n=1}^{N}\frac{\alpha_{n,N}}{a_{n}-z}+c\prod_{n=1}^{N}\frac{a_{n}}{b_{n}},

where c>0c>0 and αn,N>0\alpha_{n,N}>0 for any n{1,,N}n\in\{1,\cdots,N\}, NN\in\mathbb{N}. Let us also note that αn,N\alpha_{n,N} converges to μΘ(an)/π\mu_{\Theta}(a_{n})/\pi for any fixed nn and {μΘ(an)/an2}nl1()\{\mu_{\Theta}(a_{n})/a_{n}^{2}\}_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\in l^{1}(\mathbb{N}). Then for K<NK<N, let us consider the difference

mΘ(N)(z)n=1Kαn,N(1anzan1+an2)=n=K+1Nαn,Nanz+cn=1Nanbn+n=1Kαn,Nan1+an2.m_{\Theta}^{(N)}(z)-\sum_{n=1}^{K}\alpha_{n,N}\left(\frac{1}{a_{n}-z}-\frac{a_{n}}{1+a_{n}^{2}}\right)=\sum_{n=K+1}^{N}\frac{\alpha_{n,N}}{a_{n}-z}+c\prod_{n=1}^{N}\frac{a_{n}}{b_{n}}+\sum_{n=1}^{K}\alpha_{n,N}\frac{a_{n}}{1+a_{n}^{2}}.

Note that for any z<0z<0, K<NK<N and NN\in\mathbb{N}, the right-hand side is positive since αn,N\alpha_{n,N}, cc, ana_{n}, bnb_{n} are positive numbers, so the left-hand side is positive for any z<0z<0, K<NK<N and NN\in\mathbb{N}. First letting NN tend to infinity we get

mΘ(z)1πn=1KμΘ(an)(1anzan1+an2),m_{\Theta}(z)-\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{n=1}^{K}\mu_{\Theta}(a_{n})\left(\frac{1}{a_{n}-z}-\frac{a_{n}}{1+a_{n}^{2}}\right),

and then letting KK tend to infinity we get

mΘ(z)1πnμΘ(an)(1anzan1+an2).m_{\Theta}(z)-\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mu_{\Theta}(a_{n})\left(\frac{1}{a_{n}-z}-\frac{a_{n}}{1+a_{n}^{2}}\right).

We observed that this difference should be non-negative for z<0z<0. However by (3.6) it is nothing but az+baz+b with a0a\geq 0, which is possible only if a=0a=0, i.e.

(3.7) mΘ(z)=b+1πnμ(an)(1anzan1+an2),m_{\Theta}(z)=b+\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mu(a_{n})\left(\frac{1}{a_{n}-z}-\frac{a_{n}}{1+a_{n}^{2}}\right),

Therefore

b=c1πnμ(an)(1an+an3),b=c-\frac{1}{\pi}\sum_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\mu(a_{n})\left(\frac{1}{a_{n}+a_{n}^{3}}\right),

so bb and hence mΘm_{\Theta} is uniquely determined. Using the one-to-one correspondence between MHFs and MIFs we get the desired result of part (1)(1).

For part (2)(2), let’s observe that Θ-\Theta is a MIF and its MHF is 1/mΘ-1/m_{\Theta}. Using 1/mΘ-1/m_{\Theta} as our MHF allows us to swap the roles of {an}\{a_{n}\} and {bn}\{b_{n}\}. Also note that an>bna_{n}>b_{n} and mΘ<0m_{\Theta}<0 in part (2)(2). Therefore 1/mΘ-1/m_{\Theta} (or Θ-\Theta) with the spectral data of part (2)(2) falls to the setting of part (1)(1), so we follow the proof of part (1)(1) and obtain uniqueness of 1/mΘ-1/m_{\Theta}. Using the one-to-one correspondence between MHFs and MIFs we get the desired result of part (2)(2). ∎

Remark 3.3.

In the proof of Theorem 2.3, we showed that there is no point mass at infinity. However it does not necessarily imply that L:=limy+Θ(iy)1L:=\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}\Theta(iy)\neq 1 (or equivalently l:=limy+mΘ(iy)<l:=\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}m_{\Theta}(iy)<\infty). If we know that this limit condition is satisfied, then we can replace cc in the spectral data with LL by following the arguments we used in the proof of Theorem 2.1. Same applies to p:=nan/bnp:=\prod_{n\in\mathbb{Z}}a_{n}/b_{n}, if it is convergent and not equal to 11.

Proof of Theorem 2.4.

From Lemma 3.1, without loss of generality we can assume that mΘm_{\Theta} has the representation

mΘ(z)=cn(zbn1)(zan1)1.m_{\Theta}(z)=c\prod_{n\in\mathbb{N}}\left(\frac{z}{b_{n}}-1\right)\left(\frac{z}{a_{n}}-1\right)^{-1}.

Note that for any kAk\in A, we know

(3.8) μΘ(ak)π=Res(mΘ,ak)=c(bkak)akbkn,nk(akbn1)(akan1)1.\frac{-\mu_{\Theta}(a_{k})}{\pi}=\mathrm{Res}(m_{\Theta},a_{k})=c(b_{k}-a_{k})\frac{a_{k}}{b_{k}}\prod_{n\in\mathbb{N},n\neq k}\left(\frac{a_{k}}{b_{n}}-1\right)\left(\frac{a_{k}}{a_{n}}-1\right)^{-1}.

Let mΘ(z)=f(z)g(z)m_{\Theta}(z)=f(z)g(z), where ff and gg are two infinite products defined as

f(z):=cnA(zbn1)(zan1)1,g(z):=n\A(zbn1)(zan1)1f(z):=c\prod_{n\in A}\left(\frac{z}{b_{n}}-1\right)\left(\frac{z}{a_{n}}-1\right)^{-1},\qquad g(z):=\prod_{n\in\mathbb{N}\text{\textbackslash}A}\left(\frac{z}{b_{n}}-1\right)\left(\frac{z}{a_{n}}-1\right)^{-1}

Let us observe that at any point of {an}nA\{a_{n}\}_{n\in A}, the infinite product

(3.9) g(z)=n\A(zbn1)(zan1)1g(z)=\prod_{n\in\mathbb{N}\text{\textbackslash}A}\left(\frac{z}{b_{n}}-1\right)\left(\frac{z}{a_{n}}-1\right)^{-1}

is also known. Then conditions (3.8) and (3.9) imply that for any kAk\in A, we know

Res(f,ak)=Res(mΘ,ak)g(ak).\mathrm{Res}(f,a_{k})=\frac{\mathrm{Res}(m_{\Theta},a_{k})}{g(a_{k})}.

Since real zeros and poles of ff are simple and interlacing, ff is a MHF. If Φ\Phi is the MIF corresponding to ff, then {Φ=1}={an}nA\{\Phi=1\}=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in A}, {Φ=1}={bn}nA\{\Phi=-1\}=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in A} and our spectral data become {an}nA\{a_{n}\}_{n\in A}, {Φ(an)}nA\{\Phi^{\prime}(a_{n})\}_{n\in A} and c=f(0)c=f(0), limy+Φ(iy)\lim_{y\rightarrow+\infty}\Phi(iy) or nAan/bn\prod_{n\in A}a_{n}/b_{n}. The convergence condition (2.2) implies 0<n|an|/|bn|<0<\prod_{n\in\mathbb{N}}|a_{n}|/|b_{n}|<\infty and hence 0<nA|an|/|bn|<0<\prod_{n\in A}|a_{n}|/|b_{n}|<\infty. Therefore applying the proof of Theorem 2.1, we determine Φ\Phi and hence {bn}nA\{b_{n}\}_{n\in A} uniquely. This means unique recovery of mΘm_{\Theta} and then unique recovery of Θ\Theta through the one-to-one correspondence between MHFs and MIFs. ∎

Proof of Theorem 2.5.

For part (1)(1), following arguments from the proof of Theorem 2.4, we convert our problem to the problem of unique determination of the MIF Φ\Phi from the spectral data {an}nA\{a_{n}\}_{n\in A} and {Φ(an)}nA\{\Phi^{\prime}(a_{n})\}_{n\in A}, where {Φ=1}={an}nA\{\Phi=1\}=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in A}, {Φ=1}={bn}nA\{\Phi=-1\}=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in A}. Since {an}nA\{a_{n}\}_{n\in A} is bounded below, by Theorem 2.3 part (1)(1) these spectral data uniquely determine Φ\Phi and hence {bn}nA\{b_{n}\}_{n\in A}. This means unique recovery of mΘm_{\Theta} and then unique recovery of Θ\Theta through the one-to-one correspondence between MHFs and MIFs.

For part (2)(2), considering the MHF 1/mΘ-1/m_{\Theta} and following arguments from the proof of Theorem 2.4, we convert our problem to the problem of unique determination of the MIF Φ\Phi from the spectral data {bn}nA\{b_{n}\}_{n\in A} and {Φ(bn)}nA\{\Phi^{\prime}(b_{n})\}_{n\in A}, where {Φ=1}={bn}nA\{\Phi=1\}=\{b_{n}\}_{n\in A}, {Φ=1}={an}nA\{\Phi=-1\}=\{a_{n}\}_{n\in A}. Since {an}nA\{a_{n}\}_{n\in A} is bounded below, by Theorem 2.3 part (2)(2) these spectral data uniquely determine Φ\Phi and hence {an}nA\{a_{n}\}_{n\in A}. This means unique recovery of 1/mΘ-1/m_{\Theta} and then unique recovery of Θ\Theta through the one-to-one correspondence between MHFs and MIFs. ∎

Remark 3.4.

Remark 3.3 is also valid for Theorem 2.5.

4. Applications to inverse spectral theory of canonical systems

In this section we prove our inverse spectral theorems on canonical Hamiltonian systems. Recall that we introduced these differential systems in (1.1) and discussed some of their properties in the limit circle case (i.e. 0LTrH(x)𝑑x<\int_{0}^{L}\text{Tr}H(x)dx<\infty) for 0<L<0<L<\infty in Section 1. Since we are in the limit circle case, we can normalize our Hamiltonian systems by letting the trace to be identically one. Also note that throughout this section LL will be arbitrary but fixed.

In order to obtain our results we need another definition. The transfer matrix T(z)T(z) is the 2×22\times 2 matrix solution of (1.1) with the initial condition identity matrix at x=0x=0. Some properties of transfer matrices are given in Theorem 1.2 in [REM18]. Following definition 4.3 in [REM18], we call collection of all matrices with these properties TMTM, namely the set of matrix functions T:SL(2,)T:\mathbb{C}\rightarrow\mathrm{SL}(2,\mathbb{C}) such that TT is entire, T(0)=I2T(0)=I_{2}, T(z¯)¯=T(z)\overline{T(\overline{z})}=T(z) and if Imz0\mathrm{Im}z\geq 0, then i(T(z)JT(z)J)0i(T^{*}(z)JT(z)-J)\geq 0. We denote any TTMT\in TM by

T(z):=(A(z)B(z)C(z)D(z)).T(z):={\begin{pmatrix}A(z)&B(z)\\ C(z)&D(z)\end{pmatrix}}.

Note that the transfer matrix of any trace normed canonical system on [0,L][0,L] satisfies C(0)B(0)=LC^{\prime}(0)-B^{\prime}(0)=L and C(0)B(0)0C^{\prime}(0)-B^{\prime}(0)\geq 0 for any TTMT\in TM (see page 106 in [REM18] for explanations). Therefore if we define the disjoint subset

(4.1) TM(L):={TTM|C(0)B(0)=L},TM(L):=\{T\in TM~{}|~{}C^{\prime}(0)-B^{\prime}(0)=L\},

then TM=L0TM(L)TM=\cup_{L\geq 0}TM(L). The following result shows that TMTM characterizes all transfer matrices on finite intervals.

Theorem 4.1.

([REM18], Theorem 5.2) Let L0L\geq 0. For every TTM(L)T\in TM(L), there is a unique trace normed canonical Hamiltonian system HH on [0,L][0,L] such that TT is the transfer matrix of HH.

Next, we focus on connections between mm-functions and transfer matrices. The entries of TT appears in mm-functions with Dirichlet-Neumann and Dirichlet-Dirichlet boundary conditions, namely B/A=m0,π/2-B/A=m_{0,\pi/2} and D/C=m0,0-D/C=m_{0,0} (page 86, [REM18]). This allows us to obtain unique recovery of transfer matrices from mm-functions.

Proposition 4.2.

Let L>0L>0. Then the Weyl m-function m0,π/2m_{0,\pi/2} uniquely determines the transfer matrix TTM(L)T\in TM(L).

Proof.

Let T,T~TM(L)T,\widetilde{T}\in TM(L) share the same m0,π/2m_{0,\pi/2}, i.e. B(z)/A(z)=B~(z)/A~(z)-B(z)/A(z)=-\widetilde{B}(z)/\widetilde{A}(z). By Theorem 4.22 in [REM18]

(4.2) (A~(z)B~(z)C~(z)D~(z))=(10az1)(A(z)B(z)C(z)D(z))=(A(z)B(z)azA+C(z)azB+D(z)){\begin{pmatrix}\widetilde{A}(z)&\widetilde{B}(z)\\ \widetilde{C}(z)&\widetilde{D}(z)\end{pmatrix}}={\begin{pmatrix}1&0\\ az&1\end{pmatrix}}{\begin{pmatrix}A(z)&B(z)\\ C(z)&D(z)\end{pmatrix}}={\begin{pmatrix}A(z)&B(z)\\ azA+C(z)&azB+D(z)\end{pmatrix}}

for some aa\in\mathbb{R}. Since T,T~TM(L)T,\widetilde{T}\in TM(L), we also know that C(0)B(0)=C~(0)B~(0)=LC^{\prime}(0)-B^{\prime}(0)=\widetilde{C}^{\prime}(0)-\widetilde{B}^{\prime}(0)=L and T(0)=T~(0)=I2T(0)=\widetilde{T}(0)=I_{2}. Therefore by (4.2), L=C~(0)B~(0)=aA(0)+C(0)B(0)=a+LL=\widetilde{C}^{\prime}(0)-\widetilde{B}^{\prime}(0)=aA(0)+C^{\prime}(0)-B^{\prime}(0)=a+L and hence T=T~T=\widetilde{T}. ∎

In order to consider general boundary conditions we introduce another notation. Again following [REM18] let

Rα:=(cosαsinαsinαcosα).R_{\alpha}:={\begin{pmatrix}\cos\alpha&-\sin\alpha\\ \sin\alpha&\cos\alpha\end{pmatrix}}.

Note that RαR_{\alpha} is a unitary matrix, Rα1=RαR^{-1}_{\alpha}=R_{-\alpha} and detRα=1\mathrm{det}R_{\alpha}=1. If ff is a single variable, then by RαfR_{\alpha}f we mean division of the first entry of the 2×12\times 1 vector Rα(f,1)TR_{\alpha}(f,1)^{\mathrm{T}} by its second entry. For example mα,β=Rαm0,βm_{\alpha,\beta}=R_{-\alpha}m_{0,\beta}. We will use the same notation for the transfer matrices.

Now we are ready to prove our inverse spectral results. Let’s start with the proof of Theorem 2.7, since the proof of Theorem 2.6 will require handling both spectra in the same MHF and hence introducing generalized mm-functions and RR-matrices.

Proof of Theorem 2.7.

In order to use Theorem 2.3, first let’s show that mα,β(0)m_{\alpha,\beta}(0) solely depends on α\alpha and β\beta. We discussed the identity m0,β=Rαmα,βm_{0,\beta}=R_{\alpha}m_{\alpha,\beta}. Also recalling the identity m0,β(z)=T1(z)cotβm_{0,\beta}(z)=T^{-1}(z)\cot\beta ((3.4)(3.4) in [REM18]), we get

mα,β(0)=Rαm0,β(0)=Rαcotβ=cosαcosβ+sinαsinβsinαcosβ+cosαsinβ=cot(βα).m_{\alpha,\beta}(0)=R_{-\alpha}m_{0,\beta}(0)=R_{-\alpha}\cot\beta=\frac{\cos\alpha\cos\beta+\sin\alpha\sin\beta}{-\sin\alpha\cos\beta+\cos\alpha\sin\beta}=\cot(\beta-\alpha).

Therefore by Theorem 2.3 part (1)(1), the spectral measure μα,β\mu_{\alpha,\beta} and boundary conditions α\alpha and β\beta uniquely determine the Weyl inner function Θα,β\Theta_{\alpha,\beta} and hence the Weyl m-function mα,βm_{\alpha,\beta} since there is a one-to-one correspondence between MIFs and MHFs. By the identity m0,β=Rαmα,βm_{0,\beta}=R_{\alpha}m_{\alpha,\beta}, the mm-function mα,βm_{\alpha,\beta} and the boundary condition α\alpha uniquely determine m0,βm_{0,\beta}. We still need to pass to π/2\pi/2 from general β\beta in order to use Proposition 4.2. For this, we use a transformation of HH, namely Hγ:=RγTHRγH_{\gamma}:=R_{\gamma}^{\mathrm{T}}HR_{\gamma}. If m(γ)m^{(\gamma)} denotes the mm-function of HγH_{\gamma}, then m0,βγ(γ)(z)=Rγm0,β(z)m^{(\gamma)}_{0,\beta-\gamma}(z)=R_{-\gamma}m_{0,\beta}(z) (see Theorem 3.20 and explanation below that in [REM18]). By letting γ=βπ/2\gamma=\beta-\pi/2, we can uniquely determine m0,π/2(γ)m^{(\gamma)}_{0,\pi/2} from the knowledge of m0,βm_{0,\beta} and β\beta. Now by Proposition 4.2 we obtain the transfer matrix of Hβπ/2H_{\beta-\pi/2} and then by Theorem 4.1 the Hamiltonian Hβπ/2H_{\beta-\pi/2} uniquely. Finally, recalling H=RγHγRγTH=R_{\gamma}H_{\gamma}R_{\gamma}^{\mathrm{T}}, we get unique determination of HH from uniqueness of Hβπ/2H_{\beta-\pi/2} and β\beta. ∎

Proof of Theorem 2.6.

In order to handle both spectra in the same MHF let’s introduce generalized mm-functions and RR-matrices:

mα1,α2,β(z):=sin(α2)f1(0)+cos(α2)f2(0)sin(α1)f1(0)+cos(α1)f2(0),Rα1,α2:=(sinα2cosα2sinα1cosα1).m_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}(z):=\frac{-\sin(\alpha_{2})f_{1}(0)+\cos(\alpha_{2})f_{2}(0)}{-\sin(\alpha_{1})f_{1}(0)+\cos(\alpha_{1})f_{2}(0)},\qquad R_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}}:={\begin{pmatrix}-\sin\alpha_{2}&\cos\alpha_{2}\\ -\sin\alpha_{1}&\cos\alpha_{1}\end{pmatrix}}.

Note that detRα1,α2=sin(α1α2)\det R_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}}=\sin(\alpha_{1}-\alpha_{2}), so Rα1,α2R_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}} is invertible. Also mα1,α2,β=Rα1,α2m0,βm_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}=R_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}}m_{0,\beta} and hence mα1,α2,β=Rα1,α2Rα11mα1,βm_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}=R_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}}R^{-1}_{\alpha_{1}}m_{\alpha_{1},\beta}. Moreover σα1,β\sigma_{\alpha_{1},\beta} and σα2,β\sigma_{\alpha_{2},\beta} are sets of poles and zeros of mα1,α2,βm_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta} respectively. Another critical observation is that mα1,α2,βm_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta} is a MHF since m0,βm_{0,\beta} is a MHF. Therefore we can introduce corresponding MIF Θα1,α2,β\Theta_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta} and spectral measure μα1,α2,β=γα1,α2,β(n)δan\mu_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}=\sum\gamma_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}^{(n)}\delta_{a_{n}}. Keeping this notations in mind, we need to pass from μα1,β\mu_{\alpha_{1},\beta} to μα1,α2,β\mu_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}. We can do this using two observations: firstly both measures are supported on σα1,β\sigma_{\alpha_{1},\beta}, secondly the point masses or norming constants are related by the identity γα1,α2,β(n)=sin(α1α2)γα1,β(n)\gamma^{(n)}_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}=\sin(\alpha_{1}-\alpha_{2})\gamma^{(n)}_{\alpha_{1},\beta}, which is also valid for the point masses at infinity. First observation follows from the fact that the mα1,α2,βm_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta} and mα1,βm_{\alpha_{1},\beta} share the same set of poles σα1,β\sigma_{\alpha_{1},\beta}. Let’s prove the second observation. For simplicity we use the following notation: sk:=sin(αk)s_{k}:=\sin(\alpha_{k}) and ck:=cos(αk)c_{k}:=\cos(\alpha_{k}). We know that ana_{n} is a pole for both mm-functions, so

Res(mα1,β,z=an)=(c1f1(0)+s1f2(0))|z=anlimzanzans1f1(0)+c1f2(0)\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\beta},z=a_{n})=\big{(}c_{1}f_{1}(0)+s_{1}f_{2}(0)\big{)}\Big{|}_{z=a_{n}}\lim_{z\rightarrow a_{n}}\frac{z-a_{n}}{-s_{1}f_{1}(0)+c_{1}f_{2}(0)}

and similarly

Res(mα1,α2,β,z=an)=(s2f1(0)+c2f2(0))|z=anlimzanzans1f1(0)+c1f2(0).\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta},z=a_{n})=\big{(}-s_{2}f_{1}(0)+c_{2}f_{2}(0)\big{)}\Big{|}_{z=a_{n}}\lim_{z\rightarrow a_{n}}\frac{z-a_{n}}{-s_{1}f_{1}(0)+c_{1}f_{2}(0)}.

Therefore

Res(mα1,β,z=an)Res(mα1,α2,β,z=an)=c1f1(0)f2(0)|z=an+s1s2f1(0)f2(0)|z=an+c2.\frac{\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\beta},z=a_{n})}{\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta},z=a_{n})}=\frac{c_{1}\frac{f_{1}(0)}{f_{2}(0)}\Big{|}_{z=a_{n}}+s_{1}}{-s_{2}\frac{f_{1}(0)}{f_{2}(0)}\Big{|}_{z=a_{n}}+c_{2}}.

Since ana_{n} is a pole, at z=anz=a_{n}, s1f1(0)+c1f2(0)=0-s_{1}f_{1}(0)+c_{1}f_{2}(0)=0, i.e. (f1(0)/f2(0))|z=an=c1/s1(f_{1}(0)/f_{2}(0))|_{z=a_{n}}=c_{1}/s_{1}. Hence

Res(mα1,β,z=an)Res(mα1,α2,β,z=an)=c12s1+s1s2c1s1+c2=c12+s12s2c1+s1c2=1sin(α1α2)\frac{\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\beta},z=a_{n})}{\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta},z=a_{n})}=\frac{\frac{c_{1}^{2}}{s_{1}}+s_{1}}{-s_{2}\frac{c_{1}}{s_{1}}+c_{2}}=\frac{c_{1}^{2}+s_{1}^{2}}{-s_{2}c_{1}+s_{1}c_{2}}=\frac{1}{\sin(\alpha_{1}-\alpha_{2})}

if s10s_{1}\neq 0 and c10c_{1}\neq 0. One can check other cases similarly and get

Res(mα1,β,z=an)Res(mα1,α2,β,z=an)=c1s2andRes(mα1,β,z=an)Res(mα1,α2,β,z=an)=s1c2\frac{\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\beta},z=a_{n})}{\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta},z=a_{n})}=-\frac{c_{1}}{s_{2}}\qquad\text{and}\qquad\frac{\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\beta},z=a_{n})}{\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta},z=a_{n})}=-\frac{s_{1}}{c_{2}}

for the cases s1=0s_{1}=0 and c1=0c_{1}=0 respectively. In all three cases Res(mα1,β,z=an)\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\beta},z=a_{n}) is given in terms of Res(mα1,α2,β,z=an)\mathrm{Res}(m_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta},z=a_{n}), α1\alpha_{1} and α2\alpha_{2} for any nn. Finally recalling that the residue of a MHF at a pole is 1/π-1/\pi times the corresponding point mass by Herglotz representation (3.6), we get unique determination of μα1,α2,β\mu_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta} from μα1,β\mu_{\alpha_{1},\beta}, α1\alpha_{1} and α2\alpha_{2}. The point mass at infinity can be handled similarly by comparing residues of mα1,α2,β(1/z)m_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}(1/z) and mα1,β(1/z)m_{\alpha_{1},\beta}(1/z) at 0.

Now, by the identity mα1,α2,β(0)=Rα1,α2cot(β)m_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}(0)=R_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}}\cot(\beta) and Theorem 2.1, the spectral measure μα1,α2,β\mu_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta} and boundary conditions α1\alpha_{1}, α2\alpha_{2} and β\beta uniquely determine the inner function Θα1,α2,β\Theta_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta} and hence the m-function mα1,α2,βm_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}. We know that mα1,β=Rα1Rα1,α21mα1,α2,βm_{\alpha_{1},\beta}=R_{\alpha_{1}}R^{-1}_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2}}m_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}, so mα1,βm_{\alpha_{1},\beta} is uniquely determined. Then we can follow the same steps we used in the proof of Theorem 2.7, starting at the unique determination of mα,βm_{\alpha,\beta} step, and get the desired result. ∎

Proof of Theorem 2.8.

By Theorem 2.4 and the arguments we used at the beginning of the proof of Theorem 2.6, the given spectral data uniquely determine the MIF Θα1,α2,β\Theta_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta} and hence the MHF mα1,α2,βm_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}. Then we can follow the same steps we used in the proof of Theorem 2.6 and get the desired result. ∎

Proof of Theorem 2.9.

By Theorem 2.5 and the arguments we used at the beginning of the proof of Theorem 2.7, the given spectral data uniquely determine the MIF Θα1,α2,β\Theta_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta} and hence the MHF mα1,α2,βm_{\alpha_{1},\alpha_{2},\beta}. Then we can follow the same steps we used in the proof of Theorem 2.6 and get the desired result. ∎

5. Acknowledgments

Part of this work was conducted at Georgia Institute of Technology, where the author was a postdoc of Svetlana Jitomirskaya. The author thanks funding from NSF DMS-2052899, DMS-2155211, and Simons 681675.

References