
Let p be a prime. In this paper, we study the sum
∑m≥1∑n≥1anλg(m)λf(m+pn)U(mX)V(nH)
for any newforms g∈Bk(1) (or B∗λ(1)) and f∈Bk(p) (or B∗λ(p)), with the aim of determining the explicit dependence on the level, where a={an∈C} is an arbitrary complex sequence. As a result, we prove a uniform bound with respect to the level parameter p, and present that this type of sum is non-trivial for any given H,X≥2.
Citation: Fei Hou, Bin Chen. On triple correlation sums of Fourier coefficients of cusp forms[J]. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 19359-19371. doi: 10.3934/math.20221063
[1] | Ning Cui, Junhong Li . A new 4D hyperchaotic system and its control. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 905-923. doi: 10.3934/math.2023044 |
[2] | Junhong Li, Ning Cui . A hyperchaos generated from Rabinovich system. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 1410-1426. doi: 10.3934/math.2023071 |
[3] | Shutong Liu, Renming Yang . Adaptive predefined-time robust control for nonlinear time-delay systems with different power Hamiltonian functions. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(12): 28153-28175. doi: 10.3934/math.20231441 |
[4] | Xue Geng, Liang Guan, Dianlou Du . Action-angle variables for the Lie-Poisson Hamiltonian systems associated with the three-wave resonant interaction system. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(6): 9989-10008. doi: 10.3934/math.2022557 |
[5] | Mostafa M. A. Khater, Mohammed Zakarya, Kottakkaran Sooppy Nisar, Abdel-Haleem Abdel-Aty . Dynamics and stability analysis of nonlinear DNA molecules: Insights from the Peyrard-Bishop model. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(9): 23449-23467. doi: 10.3934/math.20241140 |
[6] | Weiwei Sun, Mengyang Qiu, Xinyu Lv . H∞ filter design for a class of delayed Hamiltonian systems with fading channel and sensor saturation. AIMS Mathematics, 2020, 5(4): 2909-2922. doi: 10.3934/math.2020188 |
[7] | Jia Li, Xia Li, Chunpeng Zhu . Reducibility for a class of almost periodic Hamiltonian systems which are degenerate. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(1): 2296-2307. doi: 10.3934/math.2023119 |
[8] | A. M. Alqahtani, Shivani Sharma, Arun Chaudhary, Aditya Sharma . Application of Caputo-Fabrizio derivative in circuit realization. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 2415-2443. doi: 10.3934/math.2025113 |
[9] | Erfeng Xu, Wenxing Xiao, Yonggang Chen . Local stabilization for a hyperchaotic finance system via time-delayed feedback based on discrete-time observations. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(9): 20510-20529. doi: 10.3934/math.20231045 |
[10] | Tingting Ma, Yuehua He . An efficient linearly-implicit energy-preserving scheme with fast solver for the fractional nonlinear wave equation. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(11): 26574-26589. doi: 10.3934/math.20231358 |
Let p be a prime. In this paper, we study the sum
∑m≥1∑n≥1anλg(m)λf(m+pn)U(mX)V(nH)
for any newforms g∈Bk(1) (or B∗λ(1)) and f∈Bk(p) (or B∗λ(p)), with the aim of determining the explicit dependence on the level, where a={an∈C} is an arbitrary complex sequence. As a result, we prove a uniform bound with respect to the level parameter p, and present that this type of sum is non-trivial for any given H,X≥2.
In 1965, Zadeh [18] introduced the concept of fuzzy theory, which has since undergone extensive research and various applications, including Choquet integrals of set-valued functions [5,6,20,21,22], fuzzy set-valued measures [9,10,16], fuzzy random variable applications [1,4,17], theory for general quantum systems interacting with linear dissipative systems [3], and more. The relationship between fuzzy theory and probability theory has been a subject of much discussion [1,12,14], as both frameworks aim to capture the concept of uncertainty using membership functions and probability density functions (PDFs) whose values lie within the interval [0, 1].
Fuzzy theory and probability theory are two distinct mathematical frameworks, each with their own approach to modeling uncertainty. Fuzzy theory represents imprecision and vagueness in human reasoning using fuzzy sets, which assign degrees of membership to elements of a universe of discourse. Probability theory deals with randomness and uncertainty using probability distributions, which assign probabilities to outcomes of a random event. Despite their differences, both frameworks allow the expression of uncertainty using values that lie within the range of [0, 1], and they provide a means for decision-making under uncertainty, incorporating expert knowledge and data.
Research has explored the relationships between fuzzy theory and probability theory, revealing similarities in terms of mathematical structure and some analytical tools. For instance, fuzzy measures can be viewed as a generalization of probability measures, and Choquet integrals of set-valued functions are analogous to probability integrals. While the majority of fuzzy probability measure theories [7,13,15,19] have traditionally considered probability as the expected value of the membership function of fuzzy events, however, by using fuzzifying a PDF we define the fuzzifying probability of crisp events.
In this study, we propose the concept of fuzzifying probability for continuous random variables in the context of crisp events, along with its properties and associations with conventional probability theories. Therefore, fuzzy theory can be seen as an extension or generalization of probability theory. The main objective of this study is to introduce fuzzifying probability density functions and to investigate related properties by applying the concepts of fuzzifying probability of crisp events. This approach enables investigation of the ambiguities of the PDF and their impact on probability theories. Relevant definitions in probability theory will be briefly recalled to facilitate this investigation.
Definition 1.1. [8] Let S be a sample space and X be a real-valued continuous random variable on S. Then, a function fX:S→R+ is a PDF of X if it satisfies the following criteria:
(i) fX(x) is positive everywhere in the support S, i.e., fX(x)>0 for all x∈S, and
(ii) ∫SfX(x)dx=1.
If fX(x) is a PDF of the random variable X, then the probability P that X belongs to an event E is defined as
P(X∈E)=∫EfX(x)dx. |
Definition 1.2. [8] Let A be the σ-algebra of a sample space S. A real-valued function P on A is a probability if P satisfies the following properties:
(i) P(E)≥0 for all E∈A,
(ii) P(S)=1 and P(∅)=0, and
(iii) For any sequence of events {E1,E2,⋯} with Ei∩Ej=∅(i≠j), it holds
P(∪∞n=1En)=∞∑n=1P(En). |
We next recall some basic fuzzy theory notions and definitions. Let U and V be two universal sets and g:U→V be a crisp function between these sets. Then the fuzzifying function ˜g:U→F(V) is a mapping from the same domain to a new range F(V) comprising the family of all fuzzy sets on V. The fuzzy set ˜A∈F(V) of V can be expressed as
˜A={(v,m˜A(v))|v∈V}, |
where m˜A:V→[0,1] is a membership function of ˜A (For more details see [2,11]). Recall that a fuzzy set ˜A is said to be normal if there exists v0∈V such that m˜A(v0)=1.
Let I([0,1]) be the set of all intervals in [0,1] whose elements are described as
I([0,1]):={[a−,a+]|0≤a−≤a+≤1}. |
In particular, we consider a=[a,a] for any a∈[0,1]. Then the interval operators in I([0,1]) are defined as follows.
Definition 1.3. [5,6,12] For each ˉa=[a−,a+],ˉb=[b−,b+]∈I([0,1]), the arithmetic, comparison, and inclusion operators can be expressed as follows.
(i) ˉa+ˉb=[a−+b−,a++b+],
(ii) kˉa=[ka−,ka+] for all k∈[0,1],
(iii) ˉaˉb=[a−b−,a+b+],
(iv) ˉa∧ˉb=[a−∧b−,a+∧b+],
(v) ˉa∨ˉb=[a−∨b−,a+∨b+],
(vi) ˉa≤ˉb if and only if a−≤b− and a+≤b+,
(vii) ˉa<ˉb if and only if ˉa≤ˉb and ˉa≠ˉb, and
(viii) ˉa⊆ˉb if and only if b−≤a− and a+≤b+.
Also, algebraic operations of fuzzy sets are defined as follows.
Definition 1.4. [11] Let X be a nonempty set and ˜A and ˜B be fuzzy sets of X.
(i) The α-cut ˜Aα of a fuzzy set ˜A is defined as
˜Aα={x∈X|m˜A(x)≥α}. |
(ii) The algebraic sum ˜A+˜B of two fuzzy sets ˜A and ˜B of X is defined as
(˜A+˜B)α=˜Aα+˜Bα for all α∈[0,1], |
provided ˜Aα+˜Bα⊆[0,1].
(iii) The algebraic product ˜A˜B of two fuzzy sets ˜A and ˜B of X is defined as
(˜A˜B)α=˜Aα˜Bα for all α∈[0,1]. |
Let A be a measurable subset of U and f be an integrable function on U. If ˜f is a fuzzifying function, then the fuzzifying integral [11] of ˜f over A is defined as
(F)∫A˜f(x)dx:={([∫Af−α(x)dx,∫Af+α(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}, | (1.1) |
where f−α and f+α are α-cut functions of ˜f(x), i.e.,
(˜f(x))α=[f−α(x),f+α(x)] for all x∈A. |
Let S be a sample space with continuous random variable X:S→R and F(R+) be the family of all fuzzy sets on [0,∞). Using the concepts [2] of fuzzifying functions to a PDF fX:S→[0,∞), we define a fuzzifying PDF ˜fX as follows. In order to facilitate theoretical development throughout the remainder of the paper, it is assumed that the fuzzifying PDF ˜fX is integrable for all α-cuts.
Definition 2.1. Let X be a continuous random variable and fX be a PDF of X. Then we define the fuzzifying PDF ˜fX:S→F(R+) by fuzzifying fX that satisfies the following conditions:
(i) ˜fX(x)>0 for all x∈S, i.e.,
m˜fX(x)>0 for all x∈S, |
where m˜fX(x)>0 means that there exists u∈R+ such that m˜fX(x)(u)>0.
(ii) The fuzzifying integration (1.1) of ˜fX satisfies
(F)∫S˜fX(x)dx=˜1, |
where ˜1 is a convex fuzzy set [11] of 1 with m˜1(1)=1.
Note that from (1.1), the fuzzy set ˜1 in Definition 2.1 (ii) has its α-cuts
(˜1)α={[∫Sf−Xα(x)dx,∫Sf+Xα(x)dx] if 0≤α<1,∫SfX(x)dx=1 if α=1. |
If ˜fX is a fuzzifying PDF of X, then the fuzzifying probability ˜P that X belongs to some event E is given by the fuzzifying integral of ˜fX over E, i.e.,
˜P(X∈E)=(F)∫E˜fX(x)dx. | (2.1) |
We consider the fuzzifying probability using the concept of fuzzifying functions in a similar way.
Definition 2.2. Let A be a σ-algebra of a sample space S and P:A→[0,1] be a probability. Then the fuzzifying function ˜P:A→F([0,1]) is called the fuzzifying probability if the following conditions are satisfied:
(i) 0≤˜P(E)≤1 for each event E of S.
(ii) ˜P(S)=˜1, where ˜1 is a convex fuzzy set satisfying m˜1(1)=1.
(iii) For any sequence of events {E1,E2,⋯} with Ei∩Ej=∅(i≠j), it holds
˜P(∞⋃n=1En)=∞∑n=1˜P(En). |
The following theorem follows from Definitions 2.1 and 2.2.
Theorem 2.3. Let ˜fX be a fuzzifying PDF for a continuous random variable X and ˜P be the fuzzifying probability with the density function ˜fX given by (2.1). Then ˜P is a fuzzifying probability.
Proof. We need only show that ˜P satisfies the three conditions in Definition 2.2.
(i) Let E be an element of S. Then from (1.1) and (2.1),
˜P(X∈E)=(F)∫E˜fX(x)dx={([∫Ef−Xα(x)dx,∫Ef+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}. |
Since 0≤∫Ef−Xα(x)dx≤∫Ef+Xα(x)dx≤1 for all α∈[0,1], it implies 0≤˜P(X∈E)≤1. Thus the first condition holds.
(ii) Since ˜fX1(x)=fX(x) for all x∈S, the α-cut of ˜P(X∈S) at α=1 can be expressed as
(˜P(X∈S))1=[∫Sf−X1(x)dx,∫Sf+X1(x)dx]=[∫SfX(x)dx,∫SfX(x)dx]=1. |
Hence the second condition is satisfied.
(iii) Let {E1,E2,⋯} be a sequence of disjoint events. Then
˜P(X∈∞⋃n=1En)={([∫∞⋃n=1Enf−Xα(x)dx,∫∞⋃n=1Enf+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}={([∞∑n=1(∫Enf−Xα(x)dx,∫Enf+Xα(x)dx]),α)|α∈[0,1]}=∞∑n=1{([∫Enf−Xα(x)dx,∫Enf+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}=∞⋃n=1˜P(X∈En). |
Thus, third condition is satisfied, which completes the proof.
Remark 2.4. Theorem 2.3 confirms the fuzzifying probability is a fuzzifying probability. Thus, we consider the fuzzifying probability to be ˜P(E)=˜P(X∈E).
Recall the negative-scalar product [11]: for k∈R−=(−∞,0) and some interval [a,b] in R=(−∞,∞) with a≤b, the product [a,b] by k can be expressed as
k[a,b]=[kb,ka]. | (2.2) |
Consider a fuzzy set ˜P∗(E) for E⊆S whose α-cuts are defined by
(˜P∗(E))α={[∫Ef+Xα(x)dx,∫Ef−Xα(x)dx] if 0≤α<1,∫EfX(x)dx=P(E) if α=1. | (2.3) |
Then the fuzzifying probability establishes the following property.
Theorem 2.5. Let X be a continuous random variable on a sample space S and ˜P be a fuzzifying probability. Then
(i) ˜P(Ec)=˜1−˜P∗(E) for E⊆S,
(ii) ˜P(∅)=0,
(iii) If E1⊆E2 in S, then ˜P(E1)≤˜P(E2).
Proof. We need only show that ˜P satisfies the conditions.
(i) From (2.2) with Ec=S−E,
˜P(Ec)=(F)∫Ec˜fX(x)dx={([∫Ecf−Xα(x)dx,∫Ecf+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}={([∫Sf−Xα(x)dx−∫Ef−Xα(x)dx,∫Sf+Xα(x)dx−∫Ef+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}={([∫Sf−Xα(x)dx,∫Sf+Xα(x)dx]−[∫Ef+Xα(x)dx,∫Ef−Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}=˜1−˜P∗(E), |
where the fuzzy set ˜P∗(E) is given by (2.3).
(ii) The second condition is trivially satisfied by the definition
˜P(∅)={([∫∅f−Xα(x)dx,∫∅f+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}=0. |
(iii) Since ∫E2f−Xα(x)dx≤∫E1f−Xα(x)dx and ∫E1f+Xα(x)dx≤∫E2f+Xα(x)dx for all α∈[0,1],
˜P(E1)={([∫E1f−Xα(x)dx,∫E1f+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}≤{([∫E2f−Xα(x)dx,∫E2f+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}=˜P(E2). |
We present an example of the fuzzifying probability obtained from a fuzzifying PDF.
Example 2.6. Let X be a continuous random variable with PDF fX(x)=3x2,0≤x≤1. Then, we consider the fuzzifying PDF ˜fX(x)=˜3x2,0≤x≤1 of fX, where a fuzzy set ˜3 of the constant 3 is given by
m˜3(u)={u−2 if 2≤u≤3,−12u+52 if 3<u≤5. |
Note that the membership function of the fuzzifying function is given by
m˜fX(x)(u)=m˜3x2(u)={(u−2)x2 if 2≤u≤3,(−12u+52)x2 if 3<u≤5. |
From Definition 2.1 (iii), the corresponding fuzzifying probability can be expressed as
˜P(0<X<13)=(F)∫130˜fX(x)dx={([∫130f−Xα(x)dx,∫130f+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}, | (2.4) |
where
˜fXα(x)=[f−Xα(x),f+Xα(x)]:=[(α+2)x2,(5−2α)x2] for all α∈[0,1]. |
Thus, from (2.4),
˜P(0<X<13)={([∫130(α+2)x2dx,∫130(5−2α)x2dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}={([α+234,5−2α34],α)|α∈[0,1]}, | (2.5) |
and hence,
(˜P(0<X<13))α=[α+234,5−2α34]. |
Therefore, the membership of the fuzzifying probability ˜P for 0<X<13 is given by
m˜P(0<X<13)(u)={34u−2 if 234≤u≤133,5−34u2 if 133≤u≤534. |
Note that the probability P over 0<X<13 is given by
P(0<X<13)=∫1303x2dx=133. |
Therefore, as observed in the graph of the membership function m˜P(0<X<13) in Figure 2, we see that ˜P(0<X<13) establishes a normal fuzzy set of 133 since m˜P(0<X<13)(133)=1.
We define the fuzzifying expected value of a random variable X with the fuzzifying PDF ˜fX as
˜E(X)=(F)∫x˜fX(x)dx={([∫xf−Xα(x)dx,∫xf+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]} |
and the fuzzifying expected value for a measurable function g(X) of X for ˜fX as
˜E(g(X))=(F)∫g(x)˜fX(x)dx. |
Thus, we can derive the fuzzifying n-th moment of a random variable as follows.
Theorem 3.1. Let X be a continuous random variable with PDF fX and μn=E(Xn) be the n-th moment about the origin for X. If ˜fX is a fuzzifying PDF, then ˜E(Xn)=˜μn is a fuzzy set of μn and (˜μn)1=μn for each n∈N.
Proof. The definition of ˜E directly provides that
˜E(Xn)=(F)∫xn˜fX(x)dx={([∫xnf−Xα(x)dx,∫xnf+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}, | (3.1) |
hence ˜E(Xn)=˜μn is a fuzzy set of μn. The α-cut of ˜E(Xn) at α=1 in (3.1) can be expressed as
(˜E(Xn))1=[∫xnf−X1(x)dx,∫xnf+X1(x)dx]=[∫xnfX(x)dx,∫xnfX(x)dx]=E(Xn), | (3.2) |
thus (˜μn)1=μn.
We now proceed to introduce the concept of the fuzzifying variance of a random variable with a fuzzifying PDF, expressed in terms of the fuzzifying expected value.
Theorem 3.2. If X is a random variable with a fuzzifying PDF fX and μ=E(X) is the expected value of X, then fuzzifying variance ~Var(X) of X can be expressed as
~Var(X)=˜E((X−μ)2)=˜E(X2)−2μ˜μ+˜1μ2, |
where ˜μ=˜E(X) and ˜1={([∫f−Xα(x)dx,∫f+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}.
Proof. From the definition of the fuzzifying variance,
~Var(X)=˜E((X−μ)2)={([∫x2f−Xα(x)dx,∫x2f+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}−2μ{([∫xf−Xα(x)dx,∫xf+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}+μ2{([∫f−Xα(x)dx,∫f+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}=˜E(X2)−2μ˜μ+˜1μ2. |
Remark 3.3. Theorem 3.2 shows the fuzzy set
˜1={([∫f−Xα(x)dx,∫f+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]} |
is a generalization of the constant 1. Since f−X1=f+X1=fX when α=1, (˜1)1 is a PDF of X, hence
(˜1)1=[∫f−X1(x)dx,∫f+X1(x)dx]=[∫fX(x)dx,∫fX(x)dx]=∫fX(x)dx=1. |
We extend Example 2.6 to introduce the concept of fuzzifying expected value and fuzzifying variance, and establish their relationship with the corresponding crisp measures.
Example 3.4. Consider ˜fX(x)=˜3x2 in Example 2.6. Then, the fuzzifying expected value of X when n=1 in Theorem 3.1 is
˜E(X)={([∫xf−Xα(x)dx,∫xf+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}, | (3.3) |
where ˜f−Xα(x)=(α+2)x2 and ˜f+Xα(x)=(5−2α)x2 for all α∈[0,1].
Therefore,
˜E(X)={([∫x3(α+2)dx,∫x3(5−2α)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}={([α+24,5−2α4],α)|α∈[0,1]}. | (3.4) |
Thus, (˜E(X))α=[α+24,5−2α4], and hence
m˜E(X)(u)={4u−2 if 12≤u≤34,5−4u2 if 34≤u≤54. | (3.5) |
Since E(X)=∫10x3dx=34, ˜E(X) can be represented by a fuzzy set ~34 (see Figure 3).
We can express ˜E(X2) and E(X2) as
˜E(X2)={([∫x4(α+2)dx,∫x4(5−2α)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}={([α+25,5−2α5],α)|α∈[0,1]}, | (3.6) |
hence (˜E(X))α=[α+25,5−2α5] for all α∈[0,1] and E(X2)=∫103x4dx=35. Thus ˜E(X2) comprises a fuzzy set ~35 (Figure 3). From Theorem 3.2,
~Var(X)=˜E(X2)−2˜μ+˜1μ2, |
where ˜1 satisfies
˜1={([∫10x2(α+2)dx,∫10x2(5−2α)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}={([α+23,5−2α3],α)|α∈[0,1]}, |
and hence the membership function of ˜1 is
m˜1(u)={3u−2 if 23≤u≤1,5−3u2 if 1≤u≤53. |
From (2.2),
(~Var(X))α=(˜E(X2))α−2μ(˜μ)α+μ2(˜1)α=[α+280,5−2α80] |
for each α∈[0,1]. Thus, the fuzzifying variance ~Var(X) is
~Var(X)={([α+280,5−2α80],α)|α∈[0,1]}, |
and the membership function of the fuzzifying variance is
m~Var(X)(u)={80u−2 if 140≤u≤380,5−80u2 if 380≤u≤580. |
Since Var(X)=E(X2)−(E(X))2=35−(34)2=380, ~Var(X) is a fuzzy set of 380 (see Figure 4).
In conclusion, the expression for the linearity of expectations for a random variable with a fuzzifying PDF is as follows.
Theorem 3.5. Let gj be integrable functions of a random variable X and kj be positive integers for j=1,2,⋯,m. Then,
˜E(m∑j=1kjgj(X))=m∑j=1kj˜E(gj(X)). |
Proof. Since gj(X)˜fX(x)=gj(X)[f−Xα(x),f+Xα(x)]=[gj(X)f−Xα(x),gj(X)f+Xα(x)] for all x,
˜E(m∑j=1kjgj(X))=(F)∫m∑j=1kjgj(X)˜fX(x)dx={([∫m∑j=1kjgj(X)f−Xα(x)dx,∫m∑j=1kjgj(X)f+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}={([m∑j=1kj∫gj(X)f−Xα(x)dx,m∑j=1kj∫gj(X)f+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}={m∑j=1kj([∫gj(X)f−Xα(x)dx,∫gj(X)f+Xα(x)dx],α)|α∈[0,1]}=m∑j=1kj((F)∫gj(X)˜fX(x)dx), |
which confirms linearity of fuzzifying expectations ˜E(gj(X)).
In this study, the concept of fuzzifying functions has been introduced to probability theory as a means of developing a fuzzifying PDF and a fuzzifying probability. Through this approach, we aim to investigate the ambiguities inherent in probability theories that are affected by uncertainties in the PDF. The validity of the fuzzifying probability was established through Theorem 2.3, while Theorems 3.1 and 3.2 provided the fuzzifying n-th moment about the origin of a random variable and the fuzzifying variance, respectively. To demonstrate the utility of our approach, we presented modeled examples in which the fuzzifying functions were shown to generalize crisp functions in probability theory. Examples 2.6 and 3.4 illustrated the fuzzifying probability and the fuzzifying expected value, respectively. Furthermore, we extended the concept of fuzzifying functions to Bernoulli, Poisson, and geometric random variables, among others, thus enabling us to investigate the uncertainties in probability theories arising from the ambiguities in PDFs. In summary, our approach of employing fuzzifying functions allows for the investigation of the impact of uncertainties in PDFs on probability theories, and our findings suggest that the concept of fuzzifying functions has the potential to enhance our understanding of probability theory.
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
[1] |
V. Blomer, Shifted convolution sums and subconvexity bounds for automorphic L-functions, IMRN, 2004 (2004), 3905–3926. https://doi.org/10.1155/S1073792804142505 doi: 10.1155/S1073792804142505
![]() |
[2] |
V. Blomer, On triple correlations of divisor functions, Bull. Lond. Math. Soc., 49 (2017), 10–22. https://doi.org/10.1112/blms.12004 doi: 10.1112/blms.12004
![]() |
[3] |
V. Blomer, G. Harcos, P. Michel, A Burgess-like subconvex bound for twisted L-functions (with Appendix 2 by Z. Mao), Forum Math., 19 (2007), 61–105. https://doi.org/10.1515/FORUM.2007.003 doi: 10.1515/FORUM.2007.003
![]() |
[4] | T. D. Browning, The divisor problem for binary cubic form, J. Théor. Nombr. Bordx., 23 (2011), 579–602. |
[5] |
W. Duke, J. B. Friedlander, H. Iwaniec, Bounds for automorphic L-functions, Invent. Math., 112 (1993), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01232422 doi: 10.1007/BF01232422
![]() |
[6] | D. Goldfeld, Automorphic forms and L-functions for the group GL(n,R), Cambridge Studies in Advanced Mathematics, Vol. 99, Cambridge University Press, 2009. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511542923 |
[7] |
A. Good, Beitrage zur theorie der Dirichletreihen, die spitzenformen zugeordnet sind, J. Number Theory, 13 (1981), 18–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-314X(81)90028-7 doi: 10.1016/0022-314X(81)90028-7
![]() |
[8] |
A. Good, Cusp forms and eigenfunctions of the Laplacian, Math. Ann., 255 (1981), 523–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01451932 doi: 10.1007/BF01451932
![]() |
[9] |
G. Harcos, P. Michel, The subconvexity problem for Rankin-Selberg L-functions and equidistribution of Heegner points, Ⅱ, Invent. Math., 163 (2006), 581–655. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00222-005-0468-6 doi: 10.1007/s00222-005-0468-6
![]() |
[10] |
G. Harcos, N. Templier, On the sup-norm of Maaß cusp forms of large level, Ⅲ, Math. Ann., 356 (2013), 209–216. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-012-0844-7 doi: 10.1007/s00208-012-0844-7
![]() |
[11] |
D. R. Heath-Brown, The fourth power moment of the Riemann zeta function, Proc. Lond. Math. Soc., S3-38 (1979), 385–422. https://doi.org/10.1112/plms/s3-38.3.385 doi: 10.1112/plms/s3-38.3.385
![]() |
[12] |
R. Holowinsky, K. Soundararajan, Mass equidistribution for Hecke eigenforms, Ann. Math., 172 (2010), 1517–1528. http://doi.org/10.4007/annals.2010.172.1517 doi: 10.4007/annals.2010.172.1517
![]() |
[13] |
T. A. Hulse, C. I. Kuan, D. Lowry-Duda, A. Walker, Second moments in the generalized Gauss circle problem, Forum Math. Sigma, 6 (2018), 1–49. https://doi.org/10.1017/fms.2018.26 doi: 10.1017/fms.2018.26
![]() |
[14] |
T. A. Hulse, C. I. Kuan, D. Lowry-Duda, A. Walker, Triple correlation sums of coefficients of cusp forms, J. Number Theory, 220 (2021), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnt.2020.08.007 doi: 10.1016/j.jnt.2020.08.007
![]() |
[15] | A. Ivić, A note on the Laplace transform of the square in the circle problem, Studia Sci. Math. Hung., 37 (2001), 391–399. |
[16] | H. Iwaniec, E. Kowalski, Analytic number theory, Vol. 53, American Mathematical Society Colloquium Publications, 2004. |
[17] |
M. Jutila, Sums of the additive divisor problem type and the inner product method, J. Math. Sci., 137 (2006), 4755–4761. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10958-006-0271-y doi: 10.1007/s10958-006-0271-y
![]() |
[18] |
E. Kowalski, P. Michel, J. VanderKam, Rankin-Selberg L-functions in the level aspect, Duke Math. J., 114 (2002), 123–191. https://doi.org/10.1215/S0012-7094-02-11416-1 doi: 10.1215/S0012-7094-02-11416-1
![]() |
[19] | Y. K. Lau, J. Liu, Y. Ye, Shifted convolution sums of Fourier coefficients of cusp forms, In: Number theory: Sailing on the sea of number theory, 2007,108–135. https://doi.org/10.1142/9789812770134_0005 |
[20] |
Y. Lin, Triple correlations of Fourier coefficients of cusp forms, Ramanujan J., 45 (2018), 841–858. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11139-016-9874-1 doi: 10.1007/s11139-016-9874-1
![]() |
[21] |
G. Lü, P. Xi, On triple correlations of Fourier coefficients of cusp forms, J. Number Theory, 183 (2018), 485–492. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnt.2017.08.028 doi: 10.1016/j.jnt.2017.08.028
![]() |
[22] |
G. Lü, P. Xi, On triple correlations of Fourier coefficients of cusp forms. Ⅱ, Int. J. Number Theory, 15 (2019), 713–722. https://doi.org/10.1142/S1793042119500374 doi: 10.1142/S1793042119500374
![]() |
[23] |
R. Munshi, The circle method and bounds for L-functions-Ⅱ. Subconvexity for twists of GL(3) L-functions, Amer. J. Math., 137 (2012), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.1353/AJM.2015.0018 doi: 10.1353/AJM.2015.0018
![]() |
[24] | R. Munshi, The circle method and bounds for L-functions-Ⅲ. t-aspect subconvexity for GL(3) L-functions, J. Amer. Math. Soc., 28 (2015), 913–938. |
[25] | R. Munshi, On some recent applications of circle method, Math. Students, 84 (2015), 23–38. |
[26] |
R. Munshi, On a shifted convolution sum problem, J. Number Theory, 230 (2022), 225–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnt.2020.12.011 doi: 10.1016/j.jnt.2020.12.011
![]() |
[27] |
A. Saha, Sup-norms of eigenfunctions in the level aspect for compact arithmetic surfaces, Math. Ann., 376 (2020), 609–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00208-019-01923-3 doi: 10.1007/s00208-019-01923-3
![]() |
[28] |
S. K. Singh, On double shifted convolution sum of SL(2,Z) Hecke eigenforms, J. Number Theory, 191 (2018), 258–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jnt.2018.03.008 doi: 10.1016/j.jnt.2018.03.008
![]() |
[29] | G. N. Watson, A treatise on the theory of Bessel functions, Cambridge Mathematical Library, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995. |
1. | Hui Kang, Chunlan Jiang, Ming Li, Liang Mao, Study on the method of transfer alignment based on the distributed inertial network of guided submunition, 2024, 149, 12709638, 109153, 10.1016/j.ast.2024.109153 | |
2. | Jacob Wood, Dojin Kim, Lee-Chae Jang, Evaluation of subjective policy reflection using the Choquet integral and its applications, 2024, 488, 01650114, 109012, 10.1016/j.fss.2024.109012 | |
3. | Weihao Pan, Hualong Li, Xiaobo Zhou, Jun Jiao, Cheng Zhu, Qiang Zhang, Research on Pig Sound Recognition Based on Deep Neural Network and Hidden Markov Models, 2024, 24, 1424-8220, 1269, 10.3390/s24041269 |