Learning Integrable Dynamics with Action-Angle Networks

Abstract: Machine learning has become increasingly popular for efficiently modelling the dynamics of complex physical systems, demonstrating a capability to learn effective models for dynamics which ignore redundant degrees of freedom. Learned simulators typically predict the evolution of the system in a step-by-step manner with numerical integration techniques. However, such models often suffer from instability over long roll-outs due to the accumulation of both estimation and integration error at each prediction step. Here, we propose an alternative construction for learned physical simulators that are inspired by the concept of action-angle coordinates from classical mechanics for describing integrable systems. We propose Action-Angle Networks, which learn a nonlinear transformation from input coordinates to the action-angle space, where evolution of the system is linear. Unlike traditional learned simulators, Action-Angle Networks do not employ any higher-order numerical integration methods, making them extremely efficient at modelling the dynamics of integrable physical systems.

\section{Appendix}

\subsection{Baseline Models}
\label{sec:baselines}
\textbf{Euler Update Network}: This model updates the latent state via the forward Euler method:
\begin{align*}
    \hat{u}(t) &\gets \text{Encode}(u(t)) \\
    \hat{u}(t + \Delta t) &\gets \hat{u}(t) + \Delta t \cdot {\mathcal{F}}(\hat{u}(t)) \\
    u(t + \Delta t) &\gets \text{Decode}(\hat{u}(t + \Delta t))
\end{align*}

\textbf{Neural Ordinary Differential Equations}: A generalization of
Euler Update Networks, Neural ODEs \citep{chen:node} have demonstrated state-of-the-art performance on several time-series forecasting problems. They usually use a higher-order numerical integration scheme
to update the latent state:
\vspace{-0.4em}
\begin{align*}
    \hat{u}(t) &\gets \text{Encode}(u(t))  \\
    \hat{u}(t + \Delta t) &\gets \hat{u}(t) + {\int_{t}^{t + \Delta t}}{\mathcal{F}}(\hat{u}(s)) ds \\
    u(t + \Delta t) &\gets \text{Decode}(\hat{u}(t + \Delta t))
\end{align*}

\textbf{Hamiltonian Neural Network}: Hamiltonian Neural Networks (HNNs) \citep{hnn} models the Hamiltonian in a latent space explicitly and updates the latent coordinates via Hamilton's equations.
\begin{align*}
    \hat{q}(t), \hat{p}(t) &\gets \text{Encode}(u(t))  \\
    \hat{q}(t + \Delta t) &\gets \hat{q}(t) + {\int_{t}^{t + \Delta t}} \pdd{}{\hat{p}}H(\hat{q}(s), \hat{p}(s)) ds \\
    \hat{p}(t + \Delta t) &\gets \hat{p}(t) - {\int_{t}^{t + \Delta t}} \pdd{}{\hat{q}}H(\hat{q}(s), \hat{p}(s)) ds \\
    u(t + \Delta t) &\gets \text{Decode}(\hat{q}(t + \Delta t), \hat{p}(t + \Delta t))
\end{align*}

Wherever applicable, we used the Dormand-Prince 5(4) solver, a 5th order Runge-Kutta method for numerical integration.

All of these baselines can technically simulate the Action-Angle Network by encoding the canonical coordinates into the action-angle coordinates to linearize the dynamics.

\subsection{Harmonic Oscillators}
\label{sec:harmonic}

We model a system of $n$ point masses, which are connected to a wall
via springs of constant $k_w$ and to each other via springs of constant $k_p$.
This can be described by the set of $n$ differential equations:
\begin{align}
    \label{eqn:harmonic}
    m \frac{d^2q_i}{dt^2} = -k_w q_i + {\sum_{j \neq i}} k_p (q_j - q_i).
\end{align}
where $q_i(t)$ is the position of the $i$th point mass.
This forms a system of coupled harmonic oscillators, where $k_p$ controls the strength of the coupling.
Any solution to \autoref{eqn:harmonic} is a linear combination of the `normal modes' of the system \citep{morin:normal-modes}:
\begin{align*}
    q(t) = {\textstyle \sum_{r = 1}^n} A_r c_r \cos{(\omega_r t + \phi_r)}.
\end{align*}
The $n$ angular frequencies $\omega$ and coefficients $c$ are found by solving the following eigenvalue-eigenvector equation $(M + \omega^2 \mathbb{I}_n) c = 0$,
where $M$ is the matrix defined as:
\begin{align}
    M_{ij} =
    \begin{cases}
        -\dfrac{k_w + (n - 1)k_p}{m_i} \ &\text{if} \ i = j \\
        \dfrac{k_p}{m_i} \ &\text{if} \ i \neq j
    \end{cases}
\end{align}
\section*{Checklist}

\begin{enumerate}

\item For all authors...
\begin{enumerate}
    \item Do the main claims made in the abstract and introduction accurately reflect the paper's contributions and     scope?
        \answerYes{We have designed and evaluated Action-Angle Networks, showing how they can efficiently learn the dynamics of integrable systems.}
    \item Did you describe the limitations of your work?
        \answerYes{Action-Angle Networks can be applied to only integrable systems. Their performance on non-integrable Hamiltonian systems still needs investigation.}
    \item Did you discuss any potential negative societal impacts of your work?
        \answerYes{We have mentioned an overview in the Broader Impact statement. We do not expect any negative societal impacts of our work. }
    \item Have you read the ethics review guidelines and ensured that your paper conforms to them?
        \answerYes{Our paper does not utilise or expose any human-derived data. All data for the physical systems discussed here are synthetically generated via numerical integration.}
\end{enumerate}

\item If you are including theoretical results...
\begin{enumerate}
    \item Did you state the full set of assumptions of all theoretical results?
        \answerNA{}
    \item Did you include complete proofs of all theoretical results?
        \answerNA{}
\end{enumerate}

\item If you ran experiments...
\begin{enumerate}
    \item Did you include the code, data, and instructions needed to reproduce the main experimental results (either in the supplemental material or as a URL)?
        \answerYes{Yes, we have added a link to our code in \autoref{sec:experiments}.}
    \item Did you specify all the training details (e.g., data splits, hyperparameters, how they were chosen)?
        \answerYes{Yes, the entire training pipeline and configuration is available at the link for the code in \autoref{sec:experiments}.}
    \item Did you report error bars (e.g., with respect to the random seed after running experiments multiple times)?
        \answerNo{We plan to address this in a future version.}
    \item Did you include the total amount of compute and the type of resources used (e.g., type of GPUs, internal cluster, or cloud provider)?
        \answerYes{Experiments were run on the CPU nodes of MIT SuperCloud, and can be easily reproduced with minimal resources.}
\end{enumerate}

\item If you are using existing assets (e.g., code, data, models) or curating/releasing new assets...
\begin{enumerate}
    \item If your work uses existing assets, did you cite the creators?
        \answerNA{}
    \item Did you mention the license of the assets?
        \answerYes{Our code linked in \autoref{sec:experiments} is licensed under the Apache License 2.0.}
    \item Did you include any new assets either in the supplemental material or as a URL?
        \answerYes{We have released code and simulation tools at the link in \autoref{sec:experiments}.}
    \item Did you discuss whether and how consent was obtained from people whose data you're using/curating?
        \answerNA{}
    \item Did you discuss whether the data you are using/curating contains personally identifiable information or offensive content?
        \answerNA{}
\end{enumerate}

\item If you used crowdsourcing or conducted research with human subjects...
\begin{enumerate}
    \item Did you include the full text of instructions given to participants and screenshots, if applicable?
        \answerNA{}
    \item Did you describe any potential participant risks, with links to Institutional Review Board (IRB) approvals, if applicable?
        \answerNA{}
    \item Did you include the estimated hourly wage paid to participants and the total amount spent on participant compensation?
        \answerNA{}
\end{enumerate}

\end{enumerate}

\section{Conclusion}

Our preliminary experiments indicate that Action-Angle Networks can be a promising alternative for
learning efficient physical simulators.
Action-Angle Networks overcome many of the obstacles -- instability and inefficiency -- faced by
state-of-the-art learned simulators today.
That being said, our
experiments here only model very simple integrable systems.
Next,
we plan to analyse the performance of Action-Angle
Networks on modelling large-scale non-integrable systems
(such as cosmological simulations and molecular dynamics trajectories) to better understand their tradeoffs.

\section{Experiments}
\label{sec:experiments}

We compare the Action-Angle Network to three strong baseline models: the Euler Update Network (EUN), the Neural Ordinary Differential Equations (Neural ODE) \citep{chen:node}, and the physics-inspired Hamiltonian Neural Networks (HNN)
\citep{hnn}. A comparison of these models can be found in \autoref{tab:model_comparison}.
The baseline models are further described in \autoref{sec:baselines}.

\begin{table*}[htbp]
    \centering
    \caption{Comparing different models.}
    \label{tab:model_comparison}
    \rowcolors{2}{}{gray!10}
    \begin{tabular}{*5c}
        \toprule
                                  & Action-Angle Network  & EUN  & Neural ODE     & HNN             \\
        \midrule
        Parameter count           & $\approx 8.5$K        & $\approx 9$K         & $\approx 100$K & $\approx 200$K   \\
        Inference time            & $O(1)$                & $O(1)$                & $O(\Delta t)$  & $O(\Delta t)$    \\
        Learns conservation laws  & \checkmark            &                       &                & \checkmark       \\
        Learns linear dynamics    & \checkmark            &  \checkmark           &                &                  \\
        \bottomrule
    \end{tabular}
\end{table*}

As detailed in \autoref{sec:harmonic},
we simulate a system of coupled harmonic oscillators.\footnote{We have created animations of the system trajectory and model predictions at \href{https://ameya98.github.io/ActionAngleNetworks/webpage/index.html}{this webpage}. Our codebase to run all experiments and analyses is available at \url{https://github.com/ameya98/ActionAngleNetworks}.} \autoref{fig:performance_vs_samples} depicts the prediction error for each of the models as a function of training samples, showing that the Action-Angle Network is much more data-efficient than the other baselines. \autoref{fig:inference_times} shows that the Action-Angle Network can be queried much faster than the Neural ODE and the HNN, with an inference time that is independent of $\Delta t$. \autoref{fig:performance_vs_time} depicts the prediction error as a function of $\Delta t$, showing that the Action-Angle Network also scales much better with the jump size $\Delta t$, even for jump sizes larger than those seen during training $\Delta t_{\max} = 10$. Finally, \autoref{fig:angular_frequencies} shows that the predicted angular frequencies from the Action-Angle Network closely match the true angular frequencies.

\begin{figure}[htbp]
     \centering
     \begin{tabular}[c]{cc}
     \begin{subfigure}[c]{0.38\textwidth}
         \centering
         \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/action_angle_prediction_error.pdf}
         \caption{Action-Angle Network}
         \label{fig:action_angle_prediction_error}
     \end{subfigure}
     \hfill
     \begin{subfigure}[c]{0.38\textwidth}
         \centering
         \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/euler_update_prediction_error.pdf}
         \caption{Euler Update Network}
         \label{fig:euler_update_prediction_error}
     \end{subfigure}
     \end{tabular}
     \\
     \begin{tabular}[c]{cc}
     \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.38\textwidth}
         \centering
         \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/neural_ode_prediction_error.pdf}
         \caption{Neural ODE}
         \label{fig:neural_ode_prediction_error}
     \end{subfigure}
          \hfill
     \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.38\textwidth}
         \centering
         \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/hamiltonian_network_prediction_error.pdf}
         \caption{Hamiltonian Neural Network}
         \label{fig:hamiltonian_network_prediction_error}
     \end{subfigure}
     \end{tabular}
     \caption{Prediction errors on test data as a function of training samples.}
     \label{fig:performance_vs_samples}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}[c]{cc}
    \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.45\textwidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/inference_times.pdf}
        \caption{Inference times as a function of jump $\Delta t$.}
        \label{fig:inference_times}
    \end{subfigure}
    \hfill
    \begin{subfigure}[b]{0.42\textwidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/performance_vs_time.pdf}
        \caption{Prediction error as a function of jump $\Delta t$.}
        \label{fig:performance_vs_time}
    \end{subfigure}
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{Evaluating each model on (a) inference time and (b) prediction error.}
    \label{fig:evaluation}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[!htbp]
    \centering
    \begin{tabular}[c]{cc}
    \begin{subfigure}[c]{0.4\textwidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/angular_frequency_0.pdf}
    \end{subfigure}
    \hfill
    \begin{subfigure}[c]{0.4\textwidth}
        \centering
        \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/angular_frequency_1.pdf}
    \end{subfigure}
    \end{tabular}
    \caption{Kernel density plot of angular frequencies predicted by the Action-Angle Network. True angular frequencies are indicated by dashed vertical lines.}
    \label{fig:angular_frequencies}
\end{figure}

\section*{Broader Impact Statement}

In this paper, we have proposed a novel method for modelling the dynamics of Hamiltonian systems, with improvements
in computational efficiency.
There has been much interest in accelerating simulations of various kinds
across scientific domains that could have impact on human lives (for
example, simulating biological cell cycles and immune system responses).
However, given the techniques here apply to highly-constrained physical systems, we do not anticipate any negative social implications of our
work.
\section{Introduction}
\label{sec:intro}

\subsection{Modelling Hamiltonian Systems}

Hamiltonian systems are an important class of physical systems whose dynamics are governed by a scalar function $H$, called the Hamiltonian. The state of a Hamiltonian system is a 2-tuple $u(t) = (q(t), p(t))$, where
$q \in \mathbb{R}^n$ are the positions and  $p \in \mathbb{R}^n$ are the canonical momenta.
We are interested in predicting the
time evolution of a Hamiltonian system as a function of time $t$.
In particular, we seek to learn a model ${\mathcal{M}}_\phi$ (parameterized by $\phi$) that can accurately predict the future state
$u(t + \Delta t)$ given the current state $u(t)$:
\vspace{-0.2em}
\begin{align}
    {\mathcal{M}}_\phi(u(t), \Delta t) \approx u(t + \Delta t).
\end{align}
Previous efforts
towards modelling Hamiltonian systems \citep{hnn,lnn,sympnets,chen:node,kidger:nde} have seen success with neural networks trained via backpropagation on the trajectory prediction objective:
\begin{align*}
    \phi^* = \argmin_\phi \ \sum_{t}
    \norm{{\mathcal{M}}_\phi(u(t), \Delta t) - u(t + \Delta t))}^2.
\end{align*}
Such models are often constrained in some way to  match the underlying physical evolution, which improves their accuracy. However, they suffer from several drawbacks that have restricted their effectiveness: \textbf{(1)} Their predictions tend to be unstable over long roll-outs (when $\Delta t$ is large). \textbf{(2)} They tend to require many parameters and need long training times. Further, the inference times of these models often scale with $\Delta t$.

Based on the principle of \emph{action-angle coordinates} \citep{arnol'd}
from classical mechanics, we
introduce a new paradigm for learning physical simulators which incorporate an inductive bias for learning \emph{integrable} dynamics.
Our Action-Angle Network
learns an invertible transformation to action-angle
coordinates
to linearize the dynamics in this space. In this sense, the Action-Angle Network can be seen as a physics-informed adaptation of DeepKoopman \citep{lusch:koopman}.
The Action-Angle Network
is efficient both in parameter count and inference cost; it
requires much fewer
parameters than previous
methods to reach similar performance and enjoys
an inference time independent of $\Delta t$.

\subsection{Action-Angle Coordinates}
The time evolution of any Hamiltonian system is given by Hamilton's equations:
\vspace{-0.2em}
\begin{align}
        \dd{q}{t} = \pdd{H}{p}, \quad \dd{p}{t} = -\pdd{H}{q}
        \vspace{-0.5em}
\end{align}
where $H$ is the Hamiltonian of the system. The complexity for learning these dynamics arises solely because $H$ is not known and must be inferred; only samples from a trajectory over which $H$ is conserved is available.
The core issue for all physical simulators is the non-linearity of the dynamics
when expressed in the canonical coordinates $(q, p)$.
However, for \emph{integrable} systems
\citep{tong:dynamics} which possess significant symmetry,
the dynamics are actually linear in a set of coordinates termed the \emph{action-angle}
coordinates \citep{arnol'd}.
The actions $I$ and angles $\theta$ are related to the canonical coordinates $(q, p)$ via
a symplectic transformation ${\mathcal{T}}$ \citep{symplectic:meyer2013introduction} as $(I, \theta) = {\mathcal{T}}(q, p)$. In the action-angle coordinates, the Hamiltonian only depends on the actions $I$,
not the angles $\theta$. Thus, Hamilton's equations in this basis tell us that:
\vspace{-0.2em}
\begin{align}
        \dd{I}{t} = -\pdd{H}{\theta} = 0, \quad \dd{\theta}{t} = \pdd{H}{I}.
    \label{eqn:theta-dot}
\end{align}
Thus, the actions $I$ are always constant across a trajectory,
while the angles evolve linearly with constant rate $\dot{\theta} = \frac{\partial H}{\partial I}$.
The action-angle space can be thought of as a torus $\mathbb{T}^n$,
where the actions $I$ are a function of the radii, and the angles
describe the individual phases living in $[0, 2\pi)$.

Learning the mapping ${\mathcal{T}}$ from canonical coordinates $(q, p)$ to action-angle coordinates $(I, \theta)$ for several physical systems
was first explored in \citep{learning-symmetries}, which did not focus on the complete dynamics of integrable systems.
We leverage their framework to additionally incorporate a dynamics model ${\mathcal{F}}$ to learn a complete physical simulator.

\cite{ishikawa:integrable} attempt to model the time evolution of actions for integrable systems by learning the Hamiltonian in action-angle coordinates. However, their overall objective and training setup are different from ours: they have samples of the true action-angle coordinates $(I, \theta)$ as input, while we only observe the canonical coordinates $(q, p)$.

\section{Action-Angle Networks}
\label{sec:method}

\begin{figure}[htbp]
    \centering
    \includegraphics[width=0.78\textwidth]{figures/model_diagram.png}
    \caption{An overview of the Action-Angle Network.}
    \label{fig:model_diagram}
\end{figure}

Suppose we observe the system at time $t$, and we query our model ${\mathcal{M}}_\phi$ to predict the state at a future time $t + \Delta t$. The Action-Angle Network performs the following operations, illustrated in \autoref{fig:model_diagram}:
\begin{itemize}[leftmargin=*]
    \item \textbf{Encode}: Convert the current state in canonical coordinates $q(t), p(t)$ to action-angle coordinates $I(t), \theta(t)$ via a learned map ${\mathcal{T}}$.
    \item \textbf{Evolve}: Compute the angular velocities $\dot{\theta}(t)$ at this instant with the dynamics model ${\mathcal{F}}$: \\$\dot{\theta}(t) \gets {\mathcal{F}}(I(t))$.
    Evolve the angles to time $t + \Delta t$ with these angular velocities:
    \begin{align}
        \theta(t + \Delta t) \gets \theta(t) + \dot{\theta}(t) \cdot \Delta t \pmod{2\pi}
    \end{align}
    \vspace{-1.5em}

    \item \textbf{Decode}: Convert the new state back to canonical coordinates $q(t + \Delta t), p(t + \Delta t)$ via ${\mathcal{T}}^{-1}$.
\end{itemize}

\textbf{Symplectic Normalizing Flows}:
The transformation ${\mathcal{T}}$ from canonical coordinates to action-angle coordinates is guaranteed to be symplectic \citep{arnol'd}.
To constrain our encoder to learn only symplectic transformations, we
compose layers of
symplectic normalizing
flows \citep{sympflow,learning-symmetries,sympnets}.
In particular, we found that the G-SympNet layers \citep{sympnets}
with our modification described below
performed well empirically. G-SympNet was shown to be universal;
they can represent any symplectic transformation given sufficient width and depth.
Similar to affine coupling layers \citep{nice},
each G-SympNet layer $\psi_i$ operates on only one of the coordinates
keeping the other fixed, depending on the parity of $i$:
\begin{align}
    \psi_{2k}(q, p) = (q, p + f(q)), \quad
    \psi_{2k + 1}(q, p) = (q + f(p), p)
\end{align}
where $f$ is of the following form $f(x) = Cx + W^T \text{diag}(A)\sigma(Wx + B)$ with learnable parameters $A \in \mathbb{R}^{d_o}, B \in \mathbb{R}^{d_o}, C \in \mathbb{R}$
and $W \in \mathbb{R}^{d_o \times n}$, where $d_o$ is a hyperparameter.
Our minor modification above allows each layer to model the identity transformation,  enabling the training of deeper models.

\textbf{Action-Angles via Polar Coordinates}:
We found that learning a mapping from canonical coordinates which live in $\mathbb{R}^{2n}$
directly to action-angle coordinates which live in the torus $\mathbb{T}^n$ was challenging for the network.
We hypothesize that the differing topology of these spaces is a major obstacle because of the resulting singularities.
To bypass this, we borrow a trick from \cite{learning-symmetries};
we have the G-SympNet instead output the components of the actions $(I^{(x)}, I^{(y)})$ in the Cartesian coordinate basis.
These are then converted to action-angles $(I, \theta)$ in the polar coordinate basis, by the standard transformation ${\mathcal{T}}_{\text{polar}}$
applied to each pair of $(I^{(x)}_i, I^{(y)}_i)$ coordinates:
\begin{align}
    I_i = \sqrt{(I^{(x)}_i)^2 + (I^{(y)}_i)^2}, \quad
    \theta_i = \arctan(I^{(y)}_i / I^{(x)}_i)
\end{align}
Our encoder can thus be described as ${\mathcal{T}} := {\mathcal{T}}_\text{Polar} \circ \text{G-SympNet}$.

\textbf{Evolve}: From \autoref{eqn:theta-dot}, we know that the angular velocities $\dot{\theta}$ are only a function of the actions $I$
at the instant $t_0$, which we model as a simple multi-layer perceptron (MLP) ${\mathcal{F}}$.
Since the angles $\theta$ are guaranteed to evolve linearly,
we do not need to use higher-order numerical integration schemes.
Instead, a single call to the forward Euler method is exact:
\begin{align}
    \dot{\theta}(t_0) &\gets {\mathcal{F}}(I(t_0)) \quad
    \theta(t_0 + \Delta t) \gets \theta(t_0) + \dot{\theta}(t_0) \cdot \Delta t \pmod{2\pi}
\end{align}
\textbf{Decode}: As ${\mathcal{T}}$ is symplectic, ${\mathcal{T}}$ is invertible.
Thus, our decoder is ${\mathcal{T}}^{-1} := \text{G-SympNet}^{-1} \circ  {\mathcal{T}}_{\text{polar}}^{-1}$.

\subsection{Training}
We generate a trajectory $\text{Tr} = \{(q(t), p(t))\}_{t = 1}^T$
of $T = 1000$ time steps, by either evaluating the closed-form dynamics equations or via numerical integration.
In practise, this trajectory can also be obtained from raw observations, and does not need to be regularly sampled in time. We train models upto the first $500$ time steps and evaluate performance on the last $500$ time steps, for each trajectory.

\textbf{State Prediction Error}: We wish to learn parameters $\phi := (\phi_{{\mathcal{T}}}, \phi_{{\mathcal{F}}})$ that minimize the prediction loss $L_{\text{predict}}$:
\vspace{-0.8em}
\begin{align}
   L_{\text{predict}} = \textstyle\frac{1}{1 + \Delta t}
   \textstyle\sum_{t_0 \in \text{Tr}} \norm{{\mathcal{M}}_\phi(u(t_0), \Delta t) - u(t_0 + \Delta t)}^2.
\end{align}
\textbf{Regularization of Predicted Actions}:
Additionally, we wish to enforce the fact that the predicted actions $I$ are constant across
the trajectory. We do this by adding a regularizer $L_{\text{action}}$ on the variance of the predicted actions:
\vspace{-0.3em}
\begin{align}
    L_{\text{action}} &= \textstyle\widehat{\mathrm{Var}}(I) = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t_0 \in \text{Tr}} \left(I(t_0) - \widehat{\mathbb{E}}[I]\right)^2
    \text{where} \
    \widehat{\mathbb{E}}[I] = \frac{1}{T}\sum_{t_0 \in \text{Tr}}I(t_0).
\end{align}
We find that this global regularizer works better than the loss proposed in \cite{learning-symmetries}
that minimizes only the local pairwise differences between the predicted actions across the trajectory.
As the Action-Angle Network is completely differentiable,
the parameters $\phi$ can be obtained via
gradient-descent-based minimization of the total loss:
$
    \phi^* = \text{argmin}_\phi \left(L_{\text{predict}} + \lambda L_{\text{action}}\right),
$
where $\lambda$ is a hyperparameter that controls the strength of the regularization.

\textbf{Schedule for $\Delta t$}:
Increasing $\Delta t$ over the course of training helped,
as it corresponded to gradually increasing the complexity of the prediction task.
We set $\Delta t_{\text{max}} = 10$ and sampled $\Delta t$ according to:
\begin{align}
    \Delta t \sim \text{Uniform}\left(0, (\text{Current training step})/(\text{Maximum training steps})\right) \cdot \Delta t_{\text{max}}
\end{align}
\vspace{-2em}

Machine Learning (cs.LG); Computational Physics (physics.comp-ph)


Origami Constructions of Rings of Integers of Imaginary Quadratic Fields

Abstract: In the making of origami, one starts with a piece of paper, and through a series of folds along seed points one constructs complicated three-dimensional shapes. Mathematically, one can think of the complex numbers as representing the piece of paper, and the seed points and folds as a way to generate a subset of the complex numbers. Under certain constraints, this construction can give rise to a ring, which we call an origami ring. We will talk about the basic construction of an origami ring and further extensions and implications of these ideas in algebra and number theory, extending results of Buhler,this http URL. In particular, in this paper we show that it is possible to obtain the ring of integers of an imaginary quadratic field through an origami construction.

\section{Introduction}

In origami, the artist uses intersections of folds as reference points to make new folds. This kind of construction can be extended to points on the complex plane. In \cite{Buhler2010}, the authors define one such mathematical construction. In this construction, one can think of the complex plane as representing the ``paper", and lines representing the ``folds". The question they explored is which points in the plane can be constructed through iterated intersections of lines, starting with a prescribed set of allowable angles and only the points 0 and 1.

First, we say that the set $S=\{0,1\}$ is the set of \emph{seed points}. We fix a set $U$ of angles, or ``directions", determining which lines we can draw through the points in our set. Thus, we can define the ``fold" through the point $p$ with angle $u$ as the line given by $$L_u(p):=\{p+ru:r\in\mathbb R\}.$$

Notice that $U$ can also be comprised of points (thinking of $u\in U$ as defining a direction) on the unit circle, i.e. the circle group $\mathbb{T}$. Moreover, $u$ and $-u$ define the same line, so we can think of the directions as being in the quotient group $\mathbb{T}/\{\pm1\}$.

Finally, if $u$ and $v$ in $U$ determine distinct folds, we say that $$I_{u,v}(p,q)=L_u(p)\cap L_v(q)$$ is the unique point of intersection of the lines $L_u(p)$ and  $L_v(q)$.

Let $R(U)$ be the set of points obtained by iterated intersections $I_{u,v}(p,q)$, starting with the points in $S$. Alternatively, we define $R(U)$ to be the smallest subset of $\mathbb{C}$ that contains $0$ and $1$ and $I_{u,v}(p,q)$ whenever it contains $p$ and $q$, and $u, v$ determine distinct folds. The main theorem of \cite{Buhler2010} is the following.

\begin{theorem}\label{Buhler}
If $U$ is a subgroup of $\mathbb{T}/\{\pm1\}$, and $|U|\geq3$, then $R(U)$ is a subring of $\mathbb{C}$.
\end{theorem}

Let $U_n$ denote the cyclic group of order $n$ generated by $e^{i\pi/n}\mod\{\pm1\}$.  Then Buhler, et. al., obtain the following corollary.

\begin{theorem}
Let $n\geq3$. If $n$ is prime, then $R(U_n)=\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_n]$ is the cyclotomic integer ring. If $n$ is not prime, then $R(U_n)=\mathbb{Z}[\zeta_n,\frac{1}{n}]$.
\end{theorem}

In \cite{nedrenco}, Nedrenco explores whether $R(U)$ is a subring of $\mathbb C$ even if $U$ is not a group, and obtains a negative answer, and some necessary conditions for this to be true. The main result is that given the set of  directions $U=\{1,e^{i\alpha},e^{i\beta}\}$, if $\alpha\not\equiv\beta\bmod\pi$ then $R(U)=\mathbb Z+z\mathbb Z$ for some $z\in\mathbb C$. Clearly, this will not always be a ring.

In this paper, we explore the inverse problem, that is, given an ``interesting" subring of $\mathbb C$, can we obtain it via an origami construction? The answer is affirmative in the case of the ring of integers of an imaginary quadratic field.

The next section of this paper delves deeper into the origami construction, in particular the intersection operator. Some properties in this section are crucial for understanding the proofs of our main results. This section also explores an example of an origami construction in more depth, that of the Gaussian integers, since it illustrates the geometric and algebraic approach through a very well known ring. Finally, in Section 3, we state and prove our main result.

\begin{rem}
Even though Nedrenco essentially proved one of our two results in \cite{nedrenco}, this was accomplished completely independently by us. In fact, our proof is different, since we are interested in the reverse of Nedrenco's question. That is, we explore whether a given ring can be an origami ring. Nedrenco explores the conditions for which his origami construction ends up being a ring of algebraic integers. This distinction is subtle, but important, and we want to clarify that all of what follows, unless otherwise indicated as coming from \cite{Buhler2010}, is original work.
\end{rem}

\subsection*{Acknowledgements.} This work was part of the first author's senior Honors Thesis at Bates College, advised by the second author, and we thank the Bates Mathematics Department, in particular Peter Wong, for useful feedback and discussions throughout the thesis process. We would also like to thank the rest of the Honors committee, Pamela Harris and Matthew Cot\'{e}, for the careful reading of the thesis and their insightful questions. Finally, we would like to thank the 2015 Summer Undergraduate Applied Mathematics Institute (SUAMI) at Carnegie Mellon University for inspiring the research problem.

\section{Properties of Origami Rings}

\subsection{The intersection operator}

Let $U\subset \mathbb T$, as before. There are important properties of the $I_{u,v}(p,q)$ operator that are integral for us to prove our theorem.

\par Let $u,v\in U$ be two distinct angles. Let $p,q$ be points in $R(U)$. Consider the pair of intersecting lines $L_u(p)$ and $L_v(q)$. In \cite{Buhler2010}, it is shown that we can express $I_{u,v}(p,q)$ as
\begin{equation}\tag{$\ast$}
I_{u,v}(p,q)=\frac{u\bar pv-\bar upv}{u\bar v-\bar uv}+\frac{q\bar vu-\bar qvu}{\bar uv-u\bar v}=\frac{[u,p]}{[u,v]}v+\frac{[v,q]}{[v,u]}u
\label{closedform}
\end{equation}
where $[x,y]=\overline{x}y-x\overline{y}$.

From the algebraic closed form (\ref{closedform}) of the intersection operator, we can see by straightforward computation that the following properties hold for for $p,q,u,v\in \mathbb C$.

\begin{description}
\item[Symmetry] $I_{u,v}(p,q)=I_{v,u}(q,p)$
\item[Reduction] $I_{u,v}(p,q)=I_{u,v}(p,0)+I_{v,u}(q,0)$
\item[Linearity] $I_{u,v}(p+q,0)=I_{u,v}(p,0)+I_{u,v}(q,0)$ and $rI_{u,v}(p,0)=I_{u,v}(rp,0)$ where $r\in\mathbb R$.
\item[Projection] $I_{u,v}(p,0)$ is a projection of $p$ on the line $\{rv:r\in\mathbb R\}$ in the $u$ direction.
\item[Rotation] For $w\in \mathbb{T}$, $wI_{u,v}(p,q)=I_{wu,wv}(wp,wq)$.
\end{description}

\subsection{An illustrative example}

Let $S=\{0,1\}$ be our set of seed points. Now, let $U=\{1,e^{i\pi/4},i\}$. This is clearly not a group, since $e^{\frac{i\pi}{4}}i=e^{\frac{3i\pi}{4}}\not\in U$. In figure \ref{fig: gauss}, we show the different stages of the construction, obtained by iterated intersections.

\begin{figure}[!h]
  \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{Gauss1}
  \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{Gauss2}
  \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{Gauss3}
  \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{Gauss4}
  \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{Gauss5}
  \includegraphics[height=.3\textheight]{Gauss6}
  \caption[Generational Expansion]{Each successive graph shows all possible intersections from the previous graph using $U=\{1,e^{i\pi/4},i\}$ as our set of allowable angles.}\label{fig: gauss}
\end{figure}

\begin{rem} All the figures in this document were created by coding the algorithm for iterated intersections into Maple \cite{maple}.
\end{rem}

Notice that a pattern seems to emerge: the points constructed all have the form $a+bi$ where $a,b \in \mathbb Z$. This seems to indicate that this origami construction generates the Gaussian integers, a subring of $\mathbb{C}$. In fact, this is a special case of the main result of \cite{nedrenco}, where $z=i$. We prove in the next section that the ring of algebraic integers of an imaginary quadratic field can always be obtained through an origami construction.

\section{Constructing $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb{Q}(\sqrt{m}))$}

A natural question, related to the previous section is this: Which subrings of $\mathbb C$ can be generated through an origami construction, that is, which subrings are origami rings? We have seen that the cyclotomic integers $\mathbb Z[\zeta_n]$, where $n$ is prime, are origami rings by Theorem \ref{Buhler}.

Let $m<0$ be a square-free integer, so $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m})$ is an imaginary quadratic field. Denote by $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m}))$ the ring of algebraic integers in $\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m})$. Recall that a complex number is an algebraic integer if and only if it is the root of some monic polynomial with coefficients in $\mathbb Z$. Then we have the following well-known theorem (for details see, for example, \cite[pg. 15]{marcus}).

\begin{theorem}
The set of algebraic integers in the quadratic field $\mathbb Q (\sqrt{m})$ is
\begin{align*}
\{a+b\sqrt{m}: a,b\in\mathbb Z\} & \text{ if $m\equiv 2$ or $3 \mod 4$}\\
\left\{\frac{a+b\sqrt{m}}{2}: a,b\in\mathbb Z , a\equiv b \mod 2\right\} & \text{ if $m\equiv 1 \mod 4$}
\end{align*}
\end{theorem}

And so, we can state our main theorem.

\begin{theorem}\label{ourtheorem}
Let $m<0$ be a squarefree integer, and let $\theta=\arg(1+\sqrt{m})$. Then $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m}))=R (U)$ where
\begin{enumerate}
\item $U=\{1,i,e^{i\theta}\}$, if $m\equiv 2$ or $3 \mod 4$.
\item $U=\{1, e^{i\theta},e^{i(\pi-\theta)}\}$, if $m\equiv 1 \mod 4$.
\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

 Notice that the Gaussian integers are a special case of Theorem \ref{ourtheorem}.1.

\subsection{Proof of Theorem \ref{ourtheorem}.1}

Let $m\equiv 2$ or $3 \mod 4$ and $m<0$. Let $U=\{1,i,e^{i\theta}\}$ where $\theta$ is the principal argument of $1+\sqrt{m}$.

\begin{lemma}\label{cases1}
$I_{u,v} (p,q)\in \mathbb Z[\sqrt{m}]$ whenever $u,v\in U$ and $p,q\in \mathbb Z[\sqrt{m}] $.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Since there are three possible directions, there are ${3\choose 2}=6$ cases to consider. Let $p=a+b\sqrt{m}$ and $q=c+d\sqrt{m}$. Then
\begin{enumerate}
\item $I_{1,i} (p,q)=c+b\sqrt{m}$\\
\item $I_{1,e^{i\theta}} (p,q)=b+c-d+b\sqrt{m}$\\
\item $I_{i,1} (p,q)=a+d\sqrt{m}$\\
\item $I_{i,e^{i\theta}} (p,q)=a+ (a-c+d)\sqrt{m}$\\
\item $I_{e^{i\theta},1} (p,q)=a-b+d+d\sqrt{m}$\\
\item $I_{e^{i\theta},i} (p,q)=c+ (-a+b+c)\sqrt{m}$\\
\end{enumerate}

In other words, if $p,q\in\mathbb Z[\sqrt{m}]$, then so is $I_{u,v} (p,q)$. All of these can be obtained from straightforward computations using equation (\ref{closedform}). For example,
$$I_{1,i} (p,q)=\frac{[1,a+b\sqrt{m}]}{[1,i]}i+\frac{[i,c+d\sqrt{m}]}{[i,1]}=c+b\sqrt{m}.$$

\end{proof}

\par This concludes the proof for the closure of the intersection operator. In other words, as long as our seed set starts with elements in $\mathbb Z[\sqrt{m}]$, then the intersections will also be in $\mathbb Z[\sqrt{m}]$. We can also express this claim as $R (U)\subseteq \mathbb Z[\sqrt{m}]$. It remains to be shown that any element in $\mathbb Z[\sqrt{m}]$ is also an element in $R (U)$.

\begin{lemma}
$\mathbb Z[\sqrt{m}]\subseteq R (U)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}

\par Let $a+b\sqrt{m}$ be an element in in $\mathbb Z[\sqrt{m}]$. We want to show that it can be constructed from starting with $\{0,1\}$ and the given set $U$.

We can reduce the problem by showing that given points $\{n+k\sqrt{m},n+1+k\sqrt{m}\}$ we can construct $$n-1+k\sqrt{m}, n+2+k\sqrt{m}, n+ (k-1)\sqrt{m} \hspace{3pt} \text{and}  \hspace{3pt} n+1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}.$$ In Figure \ref{redux} we give an illustration of this step of the proof. In essence, the following is the induction step to a double induction on the real and imaginary components of an arbitrary integer we are constructing. That is, we prove that for any two adjacent points in the construction, we can construct points that are adjacent in every direction. This, and the fact that our seed is $\{0,1\}$, is enough to show that we can construct all of the integers.

\begin{figure}[!h]
  \includegraphics[ height=0.3\textheight]{redux12}
  \includegraphics[ height=0.3\textheight]{redux22}
  \caption[Reduction]{Given two points next to each other, we want to show that we can generate all the points immediately around them. This results in more points next to each other, upon which we can repeat the process. Notice that there are six adjacent points to an adjacent pair and we only prove this for four, but it is easy to see that this is enough. Think of this as two overlapping ``crosses". }\label{redux}
\end{figure}

We will now construct the desired points using the appropriate reference points.

\begin{description}
\item[Constructing $n+2+k\sqrt{m}$] Consider $$I_{i,1} (I_{1,e^{i\theta}} (I_{e^{i\theta},i} (n+k\sqrt{m},n+1+k\sqrt{m}),n+1+k\sqrt{m}),n+1+k\sqrt{m}).$$ Notice that we can evaluate this expression using the six cases enumerated in Lemma \ref{cases1}. In particular, we apply case  (6) first to get  $$I_{i,1} (I_{1,e^{i\theta}} (n+1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m},n+1+k\sqrt{m}),n+1+k\sqrt{m})$$ Next, we apply case  (2) to get  $$I_{i,1} (n+1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m},n+1+k\sqrt{m})$$ Finally, we use case  (3) to get $$n+2+k\sqrt{m}$$
\item[Constructing $n-1+k\sqrt{m}$] Consider $$I_{i,1} (I_{1,e^{i\theta}} (I_{i,e^{i\theta}} (n+k\sqrt{m},n+1+k\sqrt{m}),n+k\sqrt{m}),n+k\sqrt{m})$$ First, we apply case  (4) to get $$I_{i,1} (I_{1,e^{i\theta}} (n+ (k-1)\sqrt{m},n+k\sqrt{m}),n+k\sqrt{m})$$ Next, we apply case  (2) to get $$I_{i,1} (n-1+ (k-1)\sqrt{m},n)$$ Finally, we apply case  (3) to get $$n-1+k\sqrt{m}$$
\item[Constructing $n+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}$ and $n+1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}$] Consider $$I_{e^{i\theta},i} (n+k\sqrt{m},n+1+k\sqrt{m})$$ Using case  (6) we get $$n+1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}$$ Now consider $$I_{i,1} (n+k\sqrt{m},n+1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m})$$ Using case  (3) we get $$n+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}$$
\item[Constructing $n+ (k-1)\sqrt{m}$ and $n+1+ (k-1)\sqrt{m}$] Consider $$I_{i,e^{i\theta}} (n+k\sqrt{m},n+1+k\sqrt{m})$$ Using case  (4) we get $$n+ (k-1)\sqrt{m}$$ Consider $$I_{i,1} (n+1+k\sqrt{m},n+ (k-1)\sqrt{m})$$ Using case  (3) we get $$n+1+ (k-1)\sqrt{m}$$
\end{description}

\end{proof}

With this we have shown that $\mathbb Z[\sqrt{m}]\subseteq R (U)$, completing the proof.

\subsection{Proof of \ref{ourtheorem}.2}

The proof for \ref{ourtheorem}.2 employs the same strategy as the proof for \ref{ourtheorem}.1, with a subtle  difference given by the slightly different structure of the ring.

Let $m\equiv 1 \mod 4$ and $m<0$. Let $U=\{1, e^{i\theta},e^{i (\pi-\theta)}\}$ where $\theta$ is the principal argument of $1+\sqrt{m}$.

\begin{lemma}
 $I_{u,v} (p,q)\in \mathcal{O}(\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m}))$ where $u,v\in U$ and $p,q\in \mathcal{O}(\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m}))$.
 \end{lemma}

 \begin{proof}

  Again, there are six cases to consider. Let $p=\frac{a+b\sqrt{m}}{2}$ and $q=\frac{c+d\sqrt{m}}{2}$, where $a\equiv b\bmod 2$ and $c\equiv d\bmod2$.

\begin{enumerate}
\item $I_{1,e^{i\theta}} (p,q)=b+c-d+b\sqrt{m}$\\
\item $I_{1,e^{i (\pi-\theta)}} (p,q)=c+d-b+b\sqrt{m}$\\
\item $I_{e^{i\theta},1} (p,q)=a-b+d+d\sqrt{m}$\\
\item $I_{e^{i\theta},e^{i (\pi-\theta)}} (p,q)=\frac{ (a-b+c+d)+ (b-a+c+d)\sqrt{m}}{2}$\\
\item $I_{e^{i (\pi-\theta)},1} (p,q)=a+b-d+d\sqrt{m}$\\
\item $I_{e^{i (\pi-\theta)},e^{i\theta}} (p,q)=\frac{ (a+b+c-d)+ (a+b-c+d)\sqrt{m}}{2}$\\
\end{enumerate}

All of these cases can be obtained, again, by straightforward computation using (\ref{closedform}), and are left as a exercise. Notice that (1), (2), (3), and (5) all are clearly in the ring of algebraic integers. The only additional fact to show is that (4) and (6) are as well. But it's easy to see that $$a-b+c+d\equiv b-a+c+d \bmod 2,$$  since $a\equiv b\bmod 2$. And similarly $$a+b+c-d\equiv a+b-c+d \bmod 2,$$ because $c\equiv d\bmod 2$.
\end{proof}

\par This concludes the proof for the closure of the intersection operator. In other words, as long as our seed set starts with elements in $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m}))$, then the intersections will also be in $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m}))$. That is, $R (U)\subseteq \mathcal{O}(\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m}))$. It remains to be shown that any element in $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m}))$ is also an element in $R (U)$.

\begin{lemma}
$\mathcal{O}(\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m}))\subseteq R(U)$.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
\par Let $\dfrac{a+b\sqrt{m}}{2}$ be an element in in $\mathcal{O}(\mathbb Q(\sqrt{m}))$. As before, we can reduce the problem to one of double induction. This is done by showing that given points
 $$\left\{\frac{n+k\sqrt{m}}{2},\frac{n+2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right\}$$
  we can construct $$\dfrac{n-2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}, \dfrac{n+4+k\sqrt{m}}{2}, \dfrac{n+1+ (k-1)\sqrt{m}}{2} \hspace{3pt} \text{and}  \hspace{3pt}\dfrac{n+1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}}{2}.$$ Figure \ref{redux2} is an illustration of the points we want to construct.

\begin{figure}[!h]
  \includegraphics[ height=0.2\textheight]{redux12}
  \includegraphics[ height=0.2\textheight]{redux32}
  \includegraphics[ height=0.2\textheight]{redux312}
  \caption[Reduction]{Given two points next to each other, we want to show that we can generate all the points immediately around them. Notice that this results in more points next to each other, upon which we can repeat the process. As before, we do not need to actually make all eight adjacent points, since it suffices to make the two points on either side of where we start, and the two points above and below where we start. The graph on the left illustrates the starting points. The graph in the center are all points adjacent to the two starting points. The graph on the right shows the points whose construction is sufficient to prove the theorem.}\label{redux2}
\end{figure}

  We will now show how to construct the desired points.

\begin{description}
\item[Constructing $\frac{n+1+ (k-1)\sqrt{m}}{2}$] Consider $$I_{e^{i \theta},e^{i (\pi-\theta)}} \left(\frac{n+k\sqrt{m}}{2},\frac{n+2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right)$$
By applying case  (4) from above, we see that $$I_{e^{i \theta},e^{i (\pi-\theta)}} \left(\frac{n+k\sqrt{m}}{2},\frac{n+2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right)=\frac{n+1+ (k-1)\sqrt{m}}{2}$$
\item[Constructing $\frac{n+1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}}{2}$] Consider $$I_{e^{i (\pi-\theta)},e^{i \theta}} \left(\frac{n+k\sqrt{m}}{2},\frac{n+2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right)$$
By applying case  (6) from above, we see that $$I_{e^{i (\pi-\theta)},e^{i \theta}} \left(\frac{n+k\sqrt{m}}{2},\frac{n+2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right)=\frac{n+1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}}{2}$$

\item[Constructing $\frac{n-2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}$] Consider $$I_{e^{i\theta},1} \left(I_{1,e^{i (\pi-\theta)}} \left(\frac{n+1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}}{2},\frac{n+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right),\frac{n+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right)$$
By applying case  (1) from above, we can reduce the previous expression to $$I_{e^{i\theta},1} \left(\frac{n-1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}}{2},\frac{n+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right)$$
We further reduce the expression using case  (5) from above. The result is $$I_{e^{i\theta},1} \left(\frac{n-1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}}{2},\frac{n+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right)=\frac{n-2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}$$
\item[Constructing $\frac{n+4+k\sqrt{m}}{2}$] Consider $$I_{e^{i (\pi-\theta)},1} \left(I_{1,e^{\pi\theta}} \left(\frac{n+1+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}}{2},\frac{n+2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right),\frac{n+2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right)$$
By applying case  (5) from above, we can reduce the previous expression to $$I_{e^{i (\pi-\theta)},1} \left(\frac{n+3+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}}{2},\frac{n+2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right)$$
We further reduce the expression using case  (1) from above. The result is $$I_{e^{i (\pi-\theta)},1} \left(\frac{n+3+ (k+1)\sqrt{m}}{2},\frac{n+2+k\sqrt{m}}{2}\right)=\frac{n+4+k\sqrt{m}}{2}$$
\end{description}

\end{proof}

With this we have shown that $$\left\{\frac{a+b\sqrt{m}}{2}: a,b\in\mathbb Z , a\equiv b \mod 2\right\}\subseteq R (U)$$ completing the proof.

\subsection{Some final illustrations and remarks}

In Figure \ref{fig: gausspartial} we see that when we use $U=\{1,i,e^{i\theta}\}$ as our angle set, then the origami ring grows into the first and third quadrants, and bleeds into the others. As discussed, $R(U)=\mathbb Z[i]$.

In Figure \ref{fig: partialhalfs} we see that when we use $U=\{1,e^{i\arg(1+\sqrt{-3})},e^{i(\pi-\arg(1+\sqrt{-3}))}\}$ as our angle set, then the origami ring grows along the real line, and slowly bleeds into the rest of the complex plane.
This is an illustration of the second case of Theorem \ref{ourtheorem}. In this case, $R(U)=\mathcal{O}(\mathbb Q(\sqrt{-3}))$.

Of course, $R(U)$ is assumed to be closed under the intersection operator, so the growth pattern doesn't matter in an abstract sense. However, computationally, it means that the number of steps it takes to construct a point is not related to that point's modulus. In fact, we get an entirely different measure of distance if we only consider the number of steps it takes to generate a point. One possible additional exploration is, given more general starting angles and points, to describe the dynamics of the iterative process.

These examples also serve to illustrate the progression of the iterative process, which was coded into Maple to produce the graphs.

\begin{figure}[!h]
  \includegraphics[ height=.3\textheight]{Gauss5}
  \caption[Five Generations of the Easy Case]{This graph depicts the first 5 generations of origami points using $U=\{1, i,e^{i\frac{\pi}{4}}\}$}\label{fig: gausspartial}
\end{figure}

\begin{figure}[!h]
  \includegraphics[ height=.3\textheight]{batman21}
  \caption[Five Generations of the Hard Case]{This graph depicts the first 5 generations of origami points using $$U=\{1,e^{i\arg(1+\sqrt{-3})},e^{i(\pi-\arg(1+\sqrt{-3}))}\}$$}\label{fig: partialhalfs}
\end{figure}
\pagebreak


An Extension of Young's Inequality

Abstract: Young's inequality is extended to the context of absolutely continuous measures. Several applications are included.

\section{Introduction}

Young's inequality \cite{Y1912} asserts that every strictly increasing
continuous function $f:\left[  0,\infty\right)  \longrightarrow\left[
0,\infty\right)  $ with $f\left(  0\right)  =0$ and $\underset{x\rightarrow
\infty}{\lim}f\left(  x\right)  =\infty$ verifies an inequality of the
following form
\begin{equation}
ab\leq\int_{0}^{a}f\left(  x\right)  dx+\int_{0}^{b}f^{-1}\left(  y\right)
dy, \label{youngineq
\end{equation}
whenever $a$ and $b\ $are nonnegative real numbers. The equality occurs if and
only if $f\left(  a\right)  =b$. See \cite{HLP}, \cite{Mit}, \cite{NP2006} and
\cite{RV} for details and significant applications.

Several questions arise naturally in connection with this classical result.

\begin{enumerate}
\item[(Q1):] Is the restriction on strict monotonicity (or on continuity)
really necessary?

\item[(Q2):] Is there any weighted analogue of Young's inequality?

\item[(Q3):] Can Young's inequality be improved?
\end{enumerate}

F. Cunningham Jr. and N. Grossman \cite{CG1971} noticed that the question (Q1)
has a positive answer (correcting the prevalent belief that Young's inequality
is the business of strictly increasing continuous functions). The aim of the
present paper is to extend the entire discussion to the framework of locally
absolutely continuous measures and to prove several improvements.

As well known, Young's inequality is an illustration of the Legendre duality.
Precisely, the function
\[
F(a)=\int_{0}^{a}f\left(  x\right)  dx\text{ and }G(b)=\int_{0}^{b
f^{-1}\left(  x\right)  dx,
\]
are both continuous and convex on $\left[  0,\infty\right)  $ and
(\ref{youngineq}) can be restated a
\begin{equation}
ab\leq F(a)+G(b)\text{\quad for all }a,b\in\left[  0,\infty\right)  ,
\label{youngineq2
\end{equation}
with equality if and only if $f\left(  a\right)  =b.$ Because of the equality
case, the formula (\ref{youngineq2}) leads to the following connection between
the functions $F$ and $G:
\begin{equation}
F(a)=\sup\left\{  ab-G(b):b\geq0\right\}  \label{defF
\end{equation}
and
\[
G(b)=\sup\left\{  ab-F(a):a\geq0\right\}  .
\]

It turns out that each of these formulas produces a convex function (possibly
on a different interval). Some details are in order.

By definition, the \emph{conjugate} of a convex function $F$ defined on a
nondegenerate interval $I$ is the functio
\[
F^{\ast}:I^{\ast}\rightarrow\mathbb{R},\text{\quad}F^{\ast}(y)=\sup\left\{
xy-F(x):x\in I\right\}  ,
\]
with domain $I^{\ast}=\left\{  y\in\mathbb{R}:F^{\ast}(y)<\infty\right\}  $.
Necessarily $I^{\ast}$ is an non-empty interval and $F^{\ast}$ is a convex
function whose level sets $\left\{  y:F^{\ast}(y)\leq\lambda\right\}  $ are
closed subsets of $\mathbb{R}$ for each $\lambda\in\mathbb{R}$ (usually such
functions are called \emph{closed} convex functions).

A convex function may not be differentiable, but it admits a good substitute
for differentiability.

The \emph{subdifferential\ }of a real function\emph{\ }$F$ defined on an
interval $I$ is a multivalued function $\partial F:I\rightarrow\mathcal{P
(\mathbb{R})$ defined b
\[
\partial F(x)=\left\{  \lambda\in\mathbb{R}:F(y)\geq F(x)+\lambda(y-x)\text{,
for every}\,\,y\in I\right\}  .
\]

Geometrically, the subdifferential gives us the slopes of the supporting lines
for the graph of $F$. The sub\allowbreak differential at a point\emph{\ }is
always a convex set, possibly empty, but the convex functions $F:I\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ have the remarkable property that $\partial F(x)\neq\emptyset$ at
all interior points. It is worth noticing that $\partial F(x)=\left\{
F^{\prime}(x)\right\}  $ at each point where $F$ is differentiable (so this
formula works for all points of $I$ except for a countable subset). See
\cite{NP2006}, page 30.

\begin{lemma}
\label{Lem1}\noindent\emph{(}Legendre duality, \emph{\cite{NP2006}}, page
\emph{41)}. Let $F:I\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$\ be a closed convex function. Then
its conjugate $F^{\ast}:I^{\ast}\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is also convex and
closed and:

$i)$ $xy\leq F(x)+F^{\ast}(y)$ for all $x\in I,$ $y\in I^{\ast};$

$ii)$ $xy=F(x)+F^{\ast}(y)$ if, and only if, $y\in\partial F(x);$

$iii)$ $\partial F^{\ast}=\,\left(  \partial F\right)  ^{-1}$ \emph{(}as
graphs\emph{)}$;$

$iv)$ $F^{\ast\ast}=F.$
\end{lemma}

Recall that the inverse of a graph $\Gamma$ is the set $\Gamma^{-1}=\left\{
\left(  y,x\right)  :(x,y)\in\Gamma\right\}  .$

How far is Young's inequality from the Legendre duality? Surprisingly, they
are pretty closed in the sense that in most cases the Legendre duality can be
converted into a Young like inequality. Indeed, every continuous convex
function admits an integral representation.

\begin{lemma}
\label{Lem2}\noindent\emph{(}See \emph{\cite{NP2006}}, page \emph{37)}. Let
$F$\ be a continuous convex function defined on an interval $I$ and let
$\varphi:I\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ be a function such that $\varphi
(x)\in\partial F(x)$ for every $x\in\,I.$\ Then for every $a<b$ in $I$ we
have
\[
F(b)-F(a)=\int_{a}^{b}\,\varphi(t)\,dt.
\]

\end{lemma}

As a consequence, the heuristic meaning of the formula $i)$ in Lemma
\ref{Lem1} is the following Young like inequality,
\[
ab\leq\int_{a_{0}}^{a}\varphi\left(  x\right)  dx+\int_{b_{0}}^{b}\psi\left(
y\right)  dy\text{\quad for all }a\in I,\ b\in I^{\ast},
\]
where $\varphi$ and $\psi$ are selection functions for $\partial F$ and
respectively $\left(  \partial F\right)  ^{-1}$. Now it becomes clear that
Young's inequality should work outside strict monotonicity (as well as outside
continuity). The details are presented in Section 2. Our approach (based on
the geometric meaning of integrals as areas) allows us to extend the framework
of integrability to all positive measures $\rho$ which are locally absolutely
continuous with respect to the planar Lebesgue measure $dxdy$. See Theorem
\ref{ThmYoungNondecr}\ below.

A special case of Young's inequality i
\[
xy\leq\frac{x^{p}}{p}+\frac{y^{q}}{q},
\]
which works for all $x,y\geq0$, and $p,q>1$ with $1/p+1/q=1$. Theorem
\ref{ThmYoungNondecr} yields the following companion to this inequality in the
case of Gaussian measure $\frac{4}{2\pi}e^{-x^{2}-y^{2}}dxdy$ on
$[0,\infty)\times\lbrack0,\infty):$
\[
\operatorname{erf}(x)\operatorname{erf}(y)\leq\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0
^{x}\operatorname{erf}\left(  s^{p-1}\right)  e^{-s^{2}}ds+\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi
}}\int_{0}^{y}\operatorname{erf}\left(  t^{q-1}\right)  e^{-t^{2}}dt,
\]
wher
\begin{equation}
\operatorname{erf}(x)=\frac{2}{\sqrt{\pi}}\int_{0}^{x}e^{-s^{2}}ds \label{erf
\end{equation}
is the \emph{Gauss error function} (or the erf function).

The precision of our generalization of Young's inequality makes the objective
of Section 3.

In Section 4 we discuss yet another extension of Young's inequality, based on
recent work done by J. Jak\v{s}eti\'{c} and J. E. Pe\v{c}ari\'{c} \cite{P}.

The paper ends by noticing the connection of our result to the theory of
$c$-convexity (that is, of convexity associated to a cost density function).

Last but not the least, all results in this paper can be extended verbatim to
the framework of nondecreasing functions $f:[a_{0},a_{1})\rightarrow\lbrack
A_{0},A_{1})$ such that $a_{0}<a_{1}\leq\infty$ and $A_{0}<A_{1}\leq\infty,$
$f(a_{0})=A_{0}$ and $\lim_{x\rightarrow a_{1}}f(x)=A_{1}.$ In other words,
the interval $[0,\infty)$ plays no special role in Young's inequality.

Besides, there is a straightforward companion of Young's inequality for
nonincreasing functions, but this is outside the scope of the present paper.

\section{Young's inequality for weighted measures}

In what follows $f:\left[  0,\infty\right)  \longrightarrow\left[
0,\infty\right)  $ will denote a nondecreasing function such that $f\left(
0\right)  =0$ and $\underset{x\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}f\left(  x\right)
=\infty.$ Since $f$ is not necessarily injective we will attach to $f$ a
\emph{pseudo-inverse} by the following formula
\[
f_{\sup}^{-1}:\left[  0,\infty\right)  \longrightarrow\left[  0,\infty\right)
,\quad f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  =\inf\{x\geq0:f(x)>y\}.
\]

Clearly, $f_{\sup}^{-1}$ is nondecreasing and $f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  f\left(
x\right)  \right)  \geq x$ for all $x.$ Moreover, with the convention
$f(0-)=0,$
\[
f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  =\sup\left\{  x:y\in\left[  f\left(  x-\right)
,f\left(  x+\right)  \right]  \right\}  ;
\]
here $f\left(  x-\right)  $ and $f\left(  x+\right)  $ represent the lateral
limits at $x$. When $f$ is also continuous
\[
f_{\sup}^{-1}(y)=\max\left\{  x\geq0:y=f(x)\right\}  .
\]

\begin{remark}
$($F. Cunningham Jr. and N. Grossman \cite{CG1971}$)$. \emph{Since
pseudo-inverses will be used as integrands, it is convenient to enlarge the
concept of pseudo-inverse by referring to any function} $g$ \emph{such that
\[
f_{\inf}^{-1}\leq g\leq f_{\sup}^{-1},
\]
\emph{where} $f_{\inf}^{-1}(y)=\sup\{x\geq0:f(x)<y\}$. \emph{Necessarily,} $g$
\emph{is nondecreasing and any two} \emph{pseudo-inverses agree except on a
countable set (so their integrals will be the same)}.
\end{remark}

Given $0\leq a<b,$ we define the \emph{epigraph} and the \emph{hypograph} of
$f|_{[a,b]}$ respectively b
\[
\operatorname{epi}f|_{[a,b]}=\left\{  \left(  x,y\right)  \in\left[
a,b\right]  \times\left[  f\left(  a\right)  ,f\left(  b\right)  \right]
:y\geq f\left(  x\right)  \right\}  ,
\]
an
\[
\operatorname{hyp}f|_{[a,b]}=\left\{  \left(  x,y\right)  \in\left[
a,b\right]  \times\left[  f\left(  a\right)  ,f\left(  b\right)  \right]
:y\leq f\left(  x\right)  \right\}  .
\]

Their intersection is the \emph{graph} of $f|_{[a,b]},$
\[
\operatorname*{graph}f|_{[a,b]}=\left\{  \left(  x,y\right)  \in\left[
a,b\right]  \times\left[  f\left(  a\right)  ,f\left(  b\right)  \right]
:y=f\left(  x\right)  \right\}  .
\]

Notice that our definitions of epigraph and hypograph are not the standard
ones, but agree with them in the context of monotone functions.

We will next consider a measure $\rho$ on $\left[  0,\infty\right)
\times\left[  0,\infty\right)  ,$ which is locally absolutely continuous with
respect to the Lebesgue measure $dxdy,$ that is, $\rho$ is of the form
\[
\rho\left(  A\right)  =\int_{A}K\left(  x,y\right)  dxdy,
\]
where $K:\left[  0,\infty\right)  \times\left[  0,\infty\right)
\longrightarrow\lbrack0,\infty)\ $is a Lebesgue locally integrable function,
and $A$ is any compact subset of $\left[  0,\infty\right)  \times\left[
0,\infty\right)  $.

Clearly
\begin{align*}
\rho\left(  \operatorname{hyp}f|_{[a,b]}\right)  +\rho\left(
\operatorname{epi}f|_{[a,b]}\right)   &  =\rho\left(  \left[  a,b\right]
\times\left[  f\left(  a\right)  ,f\left(  b\right)  \right]  \right) \\
&  =\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  b\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dydx.
\end{align*}

Moreover
\[
\rho\left(  \operatorname{hyp}f|_{[a,b]}\right)  =\int_{a}^{b}\left(
\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)
dy\right)  dx.
\]
an
\begin{equation}
\rho\left(  \operatorname{epi}f|_{[a,b]}\right)  =\int_{f\left(  a\right)
}^{f\left(  b\right)  }\left(  \int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy.\nonumber
\end{equation}

The discussion above can be summarized as follows:

\begin{lemma}
\label{Lem3}Let $f:\left[  0,\infty\right)  \longrightarrow\left[
0,\infty\right)  $ be a nondecreasing function such that $f\left(  0\right)
=0$ and $\underset{x\rightarrow\infty}{\lim}f\left(  x\right)  =\infty$. Then
for every Lebesgue locally integrable function $K:\left[  0,\infty\right)
\times\left[  0,\infty\right)  \longrightarrow\lbrack0,\infty)$ and every pair
of nonnegative numbers $a<b,
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  b\right)
}\left(  \int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)
dx\right)  dy\\
=\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  b\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dydx.
\end{multline*}

\end{lemma}

We can now state the main result of this section:

\begin{theorem}
\label{ThmYoungNondecr}\emph{(}Young's inequality for nondecreasing
functions\textbf{\emph{)}. }Under the assumptions of Lemma $3$, for every pair
of nonnegative numbers $a<b,$ and every number $c\geq f(a)$ we have
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx\\
\leq\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(
\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy.
\end{multline*}
If in addition $K$ is strictly positive almost everywhere, then the equality
occurs if and only if $c\in\left[  f\left(  b-\right)  ,f\left(  b+\right)
\right]  .$

\begin{proof}
We start with the case where $f\left(  a\right)  \leq c\leq f\left(
b-\right)  $. See Figure \ref{fig1}. \
\begin{figure}
[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=5.7464cm,
width=6.491cm

{fig1.jpg
\caption{The geometry of Young's inequality when $f\left(  a\right)  \leq
c\leq f\left(  b-\right)  .$
\label{fig1
\end{center}
\end{figure}

In this case
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int
_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
=\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)
}^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(
a\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
+\int_{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)
}^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx\\
=\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }\int_{f\left(  a\right)
^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx+\int_{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)
^{b}\left(  \int_{c}^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx\\
+\int_{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)
^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx\\
\geq\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx,
\end{multline*}
with equality if and only if $\int_{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)
^{b}\left(  \int_{c}^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)
dx=0.$ When $K$ is strictly positive almost everywhere, this means that
$c=f\left(  b-\right)  $.

If $c\geq f\left(  b+\right)  ,$ the
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int
_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
=\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)
}^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(
a\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
-\int_{b}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)
}^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx\\
=\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }\int_{f\left(  a\right)
^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx\\
-\left(  \int_{b}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }\left(  \int_{f\left(
a\right)  }^{f\left(  c\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)
dx-\int_{f\left(  b+\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(
y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\right)  \\
\geq\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx.
\end{multline*}
Equality holds if and only if$\ \int_{f\left(  b+\right)  }^{c}\left(
\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy$,
that is, when $c=f\left(  b+\right)  $ (provided that $K$ is strictly positive
almost everywhere). See Figure 2
\begin{figure}
[ptb]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=5.3927cm,
width=6.6558cm

{fig2.jpg
\caption{The case $c\geq f\left(  b+\right)  .$
\label{fig2
\end{center}
\end{figure}

If $c\in\left(  f\left(  b-\right)  ,f\left(  b+\right)  \right)  ,$ then
$f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  =b$ and the inequality in the statement of
Theorem \ref{ThmYoungNondecr} is actually an equality. See Figure \ref{fig3}
\begin{figure}
[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=6.1593cm,
width=6.9216cm

{fig3.jpg
\caption{The equality case.
\label{fig3
\end{center}
\end{figure}

\end{proof}
\end{theorem}

\begin{corollary}
\label{CorContIncr}\emph{(}Young's inequality for continuous increasing
functions\emph{)}\textbf{. }If $f:\left[  0,\infty\right)  \longrightarrow
\left[  0,\infty\right)  $ is also continuous and increasing, the
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx\\
\leq\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(
\int_{a}^{f^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy
\end{multline*}
for every real number $c\geq f(a)$. Assuming $K$ strictly positive almost
everywhere, the equality occurs if and only if $\ c=f\left(  b\right)  .$
\end{corollary}

If $K\left(  x,y\right)  =1$ for every $x,y\in\left[  0,\infty\right)  $, then
Corollary \ref{CorContIncr} asserts tha
\[
bc-af\left(  a\right)  <\int_{a}^{b}f\left(  x\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(
a\right)  }^{c}f^{-1}\left(  y\right)  dy\text{\quad for all }0<a<b\text{ and
}c>f(a);
\]
equality occurs if and only if $c=f\left(  b\right)  $. In the special case
where $a=f\left(  a\right)  =0$, this reduces to the classical inequality of Young.

\begin{remark}
$($The probabilistic companion of Theorem \ref{ThmYoungNondecr}$)$.
\emph{Suppose there is given a nonnegative random variable} $X:[0,\infty
)\rightarrow\lbrack0,\infty)$ \emph{whose cumulative distribution function}
$F_{X}(x)=P\left(  X\leq x\right)  $ \emph{admits a density, that is, a
nonnegative Lebesgue-integrable function} $\rho_{X}$ \emph{such} \emph{that}
\[
P\left(  x\leq X\leq y\right)  =\int_{x}^{y}\rho_{X}(u)du\text{\quad for all
}x\leq y.
\]
\emph{The} quantile function \emph{of the distribution function} $F_{X}$
$($\emph{also known as the} increasing rearrangement \emph{of the random
variable} $X)$ \emph{is defined by
\[
Q_{X}(x)=\inf\left\{  y:F_{X}(y)\geq x\right\}  .
\]
\emph{Thus, a quantile function is nothing but a pseudo-inverse of} $F_{X}$.
\emph{Motivated by Statistics, a number of fast algorithms were developed for
computing the quantile functions with high accuracy. See} \cite{A}.
\emph{Without entering the details, we recall here the remarkable formula}
\emph{(due to} \emph{G.} \emph{Steinbrecher)} \emph{for the quantile function
of the normal distribution:
\[
\operatorname{erf}^{-1}(z)=\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}\frac{c_{k}\left(  \frac
{\sqrt{\pi}}{2}z\right)  ^{2k+1}}{2k+1},
\]
\emph{where} $c_{0}=1$ \emph{and}
\[
c_{k}=\sum_{m=0}^{k-1}\frac{c_{m}c_{k-m-1}}{\left(  m+1\right)  \left(
2m+1\right)  }\text{\quad\emph{for all} }k\geq1.
\]

\emph{According to Theorem} \ref{ThmYoungNondecr}, \emph{for every pair of
continuous random variables} $Y,Z:[0,\infty)\rightarrow\lbrack0,\infty)$
\emph{with density} $\rho_{Y,Z},$ \emph{and every positive numbers} $b$
\emph{and} $c,$ \emph{the following inequality holds:
\[
P\left(  Y\leq b;Z\leq c\right)  \leq\int_{0}^{b}\left(  \int_{0}^{F_{X
(x)}\rho_{Y,Z}\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{0}^{c}\left(  \int
_{0}^{Q_{X}(y)}\rho_{Y,Z}\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy.
\]
\emph{This can be seen as a principle of uncertainty, since it shows that the
functions}
\[
x\rightarrow\int_{0}^{F_{X}(x)}\rho_{Y,Z}\left(  x,y\right)  dy\text{ and
}y\rightarrow\int_{0}^{Q_{X}(y)}\rho_{Y,Z}\left(  x,y\right)  dx
\]
\emph{cannot be made simultaneously small.}
\end{remark}

\begin{remark}
$($The higher dimensional analogue of Theorem $1).$ \emph{Consider a locally
absolutely continuous} \emph{kernel} $K:\left[  0,\infty\right)
\times...\times\left[  0,\infty\right)  \longrightarrow\lbrack0,\infty
),\ K=K\left(  s_{1},s_{2},...,s_{n}\right)  ,$ \emph{and a family} $\phi
_{1},...,\phi_{n}:[a_{i},b_{i}]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}\ $\emph{of nondecreasing
functions defined on subintervals of} $\left[  0,\infty\right)  .$
\emph{Then}
\begin{multline*}
\int_{\phi_{1}\left(  a_{1}\right)  }^{\phi_{1}\left(  b_{1}\right)
\int_{\phi_{2}\left(  a_{2}\right)  }^{\phi_{2}\left(  b_{2}\right)
\cdots\int_{\phi_{n}\left(  a_{n}\right)  }^{\phi_{n}\left(  b_{n}\right)
}K\left(  s_{1},s_{2},...,s_{n}\right)  ds_{n}...ds_{2}ds_{1}\\
\le
{\displaystyle\sum\limits_{i=1}^{n}}
\int_{\phi_{i}\left(  a_{i}\right)  }^{\phi_{i}\left(  b_{i}\right)  }\left(
\int_{\phi_{1}\left(  a_{1}\right)  }^{\phi_{1}\left(  s\right)  }\cdots
\int_{\phi_{n}\left(  a_{n}\right)  }^{\phi_{n}\left(  s\right)  }K\left(
s_{1},...,s_{n}\right)  ds_{n}...ds_{i+1}ds_{i-1}...ds_{1}\right)  ds.\
\end{multline*}

\emph{The proof is based on mathematical induction (which is left to the
reader). The above inequality cover the n-variable generalization of Young's
inequality as obtained by Oppenheim \cite{O1927} (as well as the main result
in \cite{Pa1992}).}
\end{remark}

The following stronger version of Corollary \ref{CorContIncr} incorporates the
Legendre duality.

\begin{theorem}
\label{extYoung}Let $f:\left[  0,\infty\right)  \longrightarrow\left[
0,\infty\right)  $ be a continuous nondecreasing function and $\Phi
:[0,\infty)\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ a convex function whose conjugate is also
defined on $[0,\infty)$. Then for all $b>a\geq0,$ $c\geq f(a),$ and
$\varepsilon>0$ we have
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\Phi\left(  \varepsilon\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(
x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f(a)}^{c}\Phi^{\ast
}\left(  \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dx\\
\geq\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)
dydx-(c-f(a))\Phi\left(  \varepsilon\right)  -(b-a)\Phi^{\ast}\left(
1/\varepsilon\right)  .
\end{multline*}

\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
According to the Legendre duality
\begin{equation}
\Phi(\varepsilon u)+\Phi^{\ast}(v/\varepsilon)\geq uv\text{\quad for all
}u,v,\varepsilon\geq0. \label{fi
\end{equation}
For $u=\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)
dy$ and $v=1$ we ge
\[
\Phi\left(  \varepsilon\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  +\Phi^{\ast}\left(  1/\varepsilon\right)
\geq\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy,
\]
and by integrating both sides from $a$ to $b$ we obtain the inequalit
\[
\int_{a}^{b}\Phi\left(  \varepsilon\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(
x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+(b-a)\Phi^{\ast}\left(
1/\varepsilon\right)  \geq\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)
}^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx.
\]
In a similar manner, starting with $u=1$ and $v=\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(
y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx,$ we arrive first at the inequality
\[
\Phi\left(  \varepsilon\right)  +\Phi^{\ast}\left(  \frac{1}{\varepsilon
\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)
\geq\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx,
\]
and then t
\begin{multline*}
(c-f(a))\Phi\left(  \varepsilon\right)  +\int_{f(a)}^{c}\Phi^{\ast}\left(
\frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dx\right)  dx\\
\geq\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(
y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy.
\end{multline*}
Therefore
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\Phi\left(  \varepsilon\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(
x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f(a)}^{c}\Phi^{\ast
}\left(  \frac{1}{\varepsilon}\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dx\\
\geq\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(
\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
-(b-a)\Phi^{\ast}\left(  1/\varepsilon\right)  -(c-f(a))\Phi\left(
\varepsilon\right)  .
\end{multline*}
According to Theorem \ref{ThmYoungNondecr}
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int
_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
\geq\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx,
\end{multline*}
and the inequality in the statement of Theorem \ref{extYoung} is now clear.
\end{proof}

In the special case where $K\left(  x,y\right)  =1,$ $a=f\left(  a\right)  =0$
and $\Phi(x)=x^{p}/p$ (for some\emph{\ }$p>1$), Theorem \ref{extYoung} yields
the following inequality
\[
\int_{0}^{b}f^{p}\left(  x\right)  dx+\int_{0}^{c}\left(  f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(
y\right)  \right)  ^{p}dy\geq pbc-\left(  p-1\right)  \left(  b+c\right)
,\ \text{for every }b,c\geq0.
\]

This remark extends a result due to W. T. Sulaiman \cite{S}.

We end this section by noticing the following result that complements Theorem
\ref{ThmYoungNondecr}.

\begin{proposition}
\label{PropMerkle}Under the assumptions of Lemma \ref{Lem3}
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int
_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
\leq\max\left\{  \int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  b\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx,\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)
\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx\right\}  .
\end{multline*}
Assuming $K$ strictly positive almost everywhere, the equality occurs if and
only if $c=f\left(  b\right)  .$
\end{proposition}

\begin{proof}
If $c<f\left(  b\right)  $, then from Lemma \ref{Lem3} we infer tha
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int
_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
=\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  b\right)
}\left(  \int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)
dx\right)  dy\\
-\int_{c}^{f\left(  b\right)  }\left(  \int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(
y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
\leq\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  b\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dydx
\end{multline*}
The other case, $c\geq f\left(  b\right)  $, has a similar approach.
\end{proof}

Proposition \ref{PropMerkle} extends a result due to M. J. Merkle \cite{Me}.

\section{The precision in Young's inequality}

The main result of this section is as follows:

\begin{theorem}
\label{ThmPrec}Under the assumptions of Lemma \ref{Lem3}, for all $b\geq
a\geq0$ and $c\geq f(a),
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int
_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
-\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx\leq
\left\vert \int_{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }^{b}\int_{c}^{f\left(
b\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx\right\vert \text{.
\end{multline*}
Assuming $K$ strictly positive almost everywhere, the equality occurs if and
only if $c=f\left(  b\right)  $.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
The case where $f\left(  a\right)  \leq c\leq f\left(  b-\right)  $ is
illustrated in Figure \ref{fig4}. The left-hand side of the inequality in the
statement of Theorem \ref{ThmPrec} represents the measure of the cross-hatched
curvilinear trapezium, while right-hand side is the measure of the $ABCD$
rectangle
\begin{figure}
[h]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=5.4696cm,
width=6.9787cm

{fig4.jpg
\caption{The geometry of the case $f\left(  a\right)  \leq c\leq f\left(
b-\right)  .$
\label{fig4
\end{center}
\end{figure}

Therefore
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int
_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
-\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx=\int
_{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }^{b}\left(  \int_{c}^{f\left(  x\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx\\
\leq\int_{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }^{b}\int_{c}^{f\left(  b\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx.
\end{multline*}
The equality holds if and only if $\int_{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)
^{b}\left(  \int_{c}^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)
dx=0,$ that is, when $f\left(  b-\right)  =c.$

The case where $c\geq f\left(  b+\right)  $ is similar to the precedent one.
The first term will be
\begin{multline*}
\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(
x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(  \int
_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
-\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx=\int
_{b}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }\left(  \int_{f\left(  b\right)
}^{f\left(  x\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx\\
\leq\int_{b}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }\int_{f\left(  b\right)
^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx.
\end{multline*}
Equality holds if and only if $\int_{b}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)
\int_{f\left(  b\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx=0,\ $so we must have
$f\left(  b+\right)  =c$.

The case where $c\in\left[  f\left(  b-\right)  ,f\left(  b+\right)  \right]
$ is trivial, both sides of our inequality being equal to zero.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
\label{CorMing}\emph{(}E. Minguzzi\emph{\ }\cite{M}\emph{)}. If moreover
$K\left(  x,y\right)  =1$ on $\left[  0,\infty\right)  \times\left[
0,\infty\right)  $, and $f$ is continuous and increasing, then
\[
\int_{a}^{b}f\left(  x\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}f^{-1}\left(
y\right)  dy\ -bc+af\left(  a\right)  \leq\left(  f^{-1}\left(  c\right)
-b\right)  \cdot\left(  c-f\left(  b\right)  \right)  .
\]
The equality occurs if and only if $c=f\left(  b\right)  $.
\end{corollary}

More accurate bounds can be indicated under the presence of convexity.

\begin{corollary}
\label{CorJP}Let $f$ be a nondecreasing continuous function, which is convex
on the interval $\left[  \min\left\{  f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)
,b\right\}  ,\max\left\{  f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  ,b\right\}  \right]
$. Then
\begin{multline*}
i)~\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(
\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
-\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx\\
\leq\int_{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }^{b}\int_{c}^{c+\frac{f(b)-c
{b-f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }(x-f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)
)}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx\text{,\quad for every }c\leq f\left(  b\right)  ;
\end{multline*
\begin{multline*}
ii)~\int_{a}^{b}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  x\right)
}K\left(  x,y\right)  dy\right)  dx+\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}\left(
\int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  y\right)  }K\left(  x,y\right)  dx\right)  dy\\
-\int_{a}^{b}\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{c}K\left(  x,y\right)  dydx\\
\geq\int_{b}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  }\int_{f\left(  b\right)
}^{f(b)+\frac{c-f(b)}{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  -b}(x-b)}K\left(
x,y\right)  dydx\text{,\quad for every }c\geq f\left(  b\right)  .
\end{multline*}
If $\ f$ is concave on the aforementioned interval, then the inequalities
above work in the reverse way.

Assuming $K$ strictly positive almost everywhere, the equality occurs if and
only if$\ f$ is an affine function or $f\left(  b\right)  =c$.

\begin{proof}
We will restrict here to the case of convex functions, the argument for the
concave functions being similar.

The left-hand side term of each of the inequalities in our statement
represents the measure of the cross-hatched surface. See Figure 5 and Figure 6.

\medski
\raisebox{-0cm}{\parbox[b]{5.9638cm}{\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=4.9446cm,
width=5.9638cm

{fig5.jpg
\\
Figure 5. The geometry of the case $c\leq f\left(  b\right)  .
\end{center}}
\raisebox{-0cm}{\parbox[b]{5.9594cm}{\begin{center}
\includegraphics[
height=4.9776cm,
width=5.9594cm

{fig6.jpg
\\
Figure 6. The geometry of the case $c\geq f\left(  b\right)  .
\end{center}}
\qquad\medskip

As the points of the graph of the convex function $f$ (restricted to the
interval of endpoints $b$ and $f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  )$ are under the
chord joining $\left(  b,f\left(  b\right)  \right)  $ and $\left(  f_{\sup
}^{-1}\left(  c\right)  ,c\right)  ,$ it follows that this measure is less
than the measure of the enveloping triangle $MNQ$ when $c\leq f(b).$ This
yields $i)$. The assertion $ii)$ follows in a similar way.
\end{proof}
\end{corollary}

Corollary \ref{CorJP} extends a result due to J. Jak\v{s}eti\'{c} and J. E.
Pe\v{c}ari\'{c}\textit{\ \cite{P}.} They considered the special case were
$K\left(  x,y\right)  =1$ on $\left[  0,\infty\right)  \times\left[
0,\infty\right)  $ and $f:\left[  0,\infty\right)  \rightarrow\left[
0,\infty\right)  $ is increasing and differentiable, with an increasing
derivative on the interval $\left[  \min\left\{  f^{-1}\left(  c\right)
,b\right\}  ,\max\left\{  f^{-1}\left(  c\right)  ,b\right\}  \right]  $ and
$f(0)=0.$ In this case the conclusion of Corollary \ref{CorJP} reads as
follows
\begin{align*}
i)\text{ }\int_{0}^{b}f\left(  x\right)  dx+\int_{0}^{c}f^{-1}\left(
y\right)  dy\ -bc  &  \leq\frac{1}{2}\left(  f^{-1}\left(  c\right)
-b\right)  \left(  c-f\left(  b\right)  \right)  \ \text{for }c<f\left(
b\right)  ;\\
ii)\text{ }\int_{0}^{b}f\left(  x\right)  dx+\int_{0}^{c}f^{-1}\left(
y\right)  dy\ -bc  &  \geq\frac{1}{2}\left(  f^{-1}\left(  c\right)
-b\right)  \left(  c-f\left(  b\right)  \right)  \ \text{for }c>f\left(
b\right)  .
\end{align*}

The equality holds if $f\left(  b\right)  =c$ or $f$ is an affine function.
The inequality sign should be reversed if $f$ has a decreasing derivative on
the interval
\[
\left[  \min\left\{  f^{-1}\left(  c\right)  ,b\right\}  ,\max\left\{
f^{-1}\left(  c\right)  ,b\right\}  \right]  .
\]

\section{The connection with $c$-convexity}

Motivated by the mass transportation theory, several people \cite{D1988},
\cite{EN1974} drew a parallel to the classical theory of convex functions by
extending the Legendre duality. Technically, given two compact metric spaces
$X$ and $Y$ and a \emph{cost density} function $c:X\times Y\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ (which is supposed to be continuous), we may consider the
following generalization of the notion of convex function:

\begin{definition}
\label{cConv}A function $F:X\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ is $c$-convex if there
exists a function $G:Y\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$ such that
\begin{equation}
F(x)=\sup_{y\in Y}\left\{  c(x,y)-G(y)\right\}  ,\;\text{for all }x\in X.
\label{c-conv
\end{equation}

\end{definition}

We abbreviate (\ref{c-conv}) by writing $F=G^{c}$. A useful remark is the
equalit
\[
F^{cc}=F,
\]
that is
\begin{equation}
F(x)=\sup_{y\in Y}\left\{  c(x,y)-F^{c}(y)\right\}  ,\;\text{for all }x\in X.
\label{cdual
\end{equation}

The classical notion of convex function corresponds to the case where $X$ is a
compact interval and $c(x,y)=xy$. The details can be found in \cite{NP2006},
pp. 40-42.

Theorem \ref{ThmYoungNondecr} illustrates the theory of $c$-convex functions
for the spaces $X=[a,\infty]$, $Y=[f(a),\infty]$ (the Alexandrov one point
compactification of $[a,\infty)$ and respectively $[f(a),\infty)$), and the
cost function
\begin{equation}
c(x,y)=\int_{a}^{x}\int_{f(a)}^{y}K\left(  s,t\right)  dtds\text{.}
\label{cKrelation
\end{equation}
In fact, under the hypotheses of this theorem, the function
\[
F(x)=\int_{a}^{x}\left(  \int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{f\left(  s\right)
}K\left(  s,t\right)  dt\right)  ds,\quad x\geq a,
\]
an
\[
G(y)=\int_{f\left(  a\right)  }^{y}\left(  \int_{a}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}\left(
t\right)  }K\left(  s,t\right)  ds\right)  dt,\quad y\geq f(a),
\]
verify the relations $F^{c}=G$ and $G^{c}=F$ (due to the equality case as
specified in the statement of Theorem \ref{ThmYoungNondecr}, so they are both
$c$-convex.

On the other hand, a simple argument shows that $F$ and $G$ are also convex in
the usual sense.

Let us call the functions $c$ that admits a representation of the form
(\ref{cKrelation}) with $K\in L^{1}(\mathbb{R\times R}),$ \emph{absolutely}
\emph{continuous in the hyperbolic sense}. With this terminology, Theorem
\ref{ThmYoungNondecr} can be rephrased as follows:

\begin{theorem}
\label{ThmcConv}Suppose that $c:[a,b]\times\lbrack A,B]\rightarrow\mathbb{R}$
is an absolutely continuous function in the hyperbolic sense with mixed
derivative $\frac{\partial^{2}c}{\partial x\partial y}\geq0,$ and
$f:[a,b]\rightarrow\lbrack A,B]$ is a nondecreasing function such that
$f(a)=A.$ The
\begin{equation}
c(x,y)-c(a,f(a))\leq\int_{a}^{x}\frac{\partial c}{\partial t}(t,f(t))dt+\int
_{f(a)}^{y}\frac{\partial c}{\partial s}(f_{\sup}^{-1}(s),s)ds \label{cyineq
\end{equation}
for all $(x,y)\in\lbrack a,A]\times\lbrack b,B]$.

If $\frac{\partial^{2}c}{\partial x\partial y}>0$ almost everywhere,\ then
(\ref{cyineq}) becomes an equality if and only if $y\in\left[
f(x-),f(x+)\right]  ;$ here we made the convention $f(a-)=f(a)$ and
$f(b+)=f(b).$
\end{theorem}

Necessarily, an absolutely continuous function $c$ in the hyperbolic sense, is
continuous. It admits partial derivatives of the first order and a mixed
derivative $\frac{\partial^{2}c}{\partial x\partial y}$ almost everywhere.
Besides, the functions $y\rightarrow\frac{\partial c}{\partial x}(x,y)$ and
$x\rightarrow\frac{\partial c}{\partial y}(x,y)$ are defined everywhere in
their interval of definition and represent absolutely continuous functions;
they are also nondecreasing provided that $\frac{\partial^{2}c}{\partial
x\partial y}\geq0$ almost everywhere.

A special case of Theorem \ref{ThmcConv} was proved by Zs. P\'{a}les
\cite{Pa1990}, \cite{Pa1992} (assuming $c:[a,A]\times\lbrack b,B]\rightarrow
\mathbb{R}$ a continuously differentiable function with nondecreasing
derivatives $y\rightarrow\frac{\partial c}{\partial x}(x,y)$ and
$x\rightarrow\frac{\partial c}{\partial y}(x,y),$ and $f:[a,b]\rightarrow
\lbrack A,B]$ an increasing homeomorphism). An example which escapes his
result but is covered by Theorem \ref{ThmcConv} is offered by the functio
\[
c(x,y)=\int_{0}^{x}\left\{  \frac{1}{s}\right\}  ds\int_{0}^{y}\left\{
\frac{1}{t}\right\}  dt,\,\quad x,y\geq0,
\]
where $\left\{  \frac{1}{s}\right\}  $ denotes the fractional part of
$\frac{1}{s}$ if $s>0,$ and $\left\{  \frac{1}{s}\right\}  =0$ if $s=0$.
According to Theorem \ref{ThmcConv}
\begin{multline*}
\int_{0}^{x}\left\{  \frac{1}{s}\right\}  ds\int_{0}^{y}\left\{  \frac{1
{t}\right\}  dt\\
\leq\int_{0}^{x}\left(  \left\{  \frac{1}{s}\right\}  \int_{0}^{f(s)}\left\{
\frac{1}{t}\right\}  dt\right)  ds+\int_{0}^{y}\left(  \left\{  \frac{1
{t}\right\}  \int_{0}^{f_{\sup}^{-1}(t)}\left\{  \frac{1}{s}\right\}
ds\right)  dt,
\end{multline*}
for every nondecreasing function $f:[0,\infty)\rightarrow\lbrack0,\infty)$
such that $f(0)=0.$

\medskip

\noindent\textbf{Acknowledgement.} The authors were supported by CNCSIS Grant
PN2 ID\_$420.$

An Extension of Young's Inequality