F. Wiener's trick and an extremal problem for $H^p$

Abstract: For $0<p \leq \infty$, let $H^p$ denote the classical Hardy space of the unit disc. We consider the extremal problem of maximizing the modulus of the $k$th Taylor coefficient of a function $f \in H^p$ which satisfies $\|f\|_{H^p}\leq1$ and $f(0)=t$ for some $0 \leq t \leq 1$. In particular, we provide a complete solution to this problem for $k=1$ and $0<p<1$. We also study F. Wiener's trick, which plays a crucial role in various coefficient-related extremal problems for Hardy spaces.

\section{Introduction}
Let $H^p$ denote the classical Hardy space of analytic functions in the unit disc $\mathbb{D} = \left\{z\in\mathbb{C}\,:\,|z|<1\right\}$. Suppose that $k$ is a positive integer. For $0<p \leq\infty$ and $0 \leq t \leq 1$, consider the non-linear extremal problem
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Phi}
	\Phi_k(p,t) = \sup \left\{\mre\frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!}\,:\, \|f\|_{H^p}\leq 1 \,\text{ and }\, f(0)=t\,\right\}.
\end{equation}
By a standard normal families argument, there are extremals $f \in H^p$ attaining the supremum in \eqref{eq:Phi} for every $k\geq1$ and every $0 \leq t \leq 1$.

Parseval's identity shows that $\Phi_k(2,t)=\sqrt{1-t^2}$ and that the unique extremal is $f(z)=t+\sqrt{1-t^2}\,z^k$. The Schwarz--Pick inequality (see e.g.~\cite[VII.17.3]{Sarason07}) shows that $\Phi_1(\infty,t)=1-t^2$ and that the unique extremal is $f(z)=(t+z)/(1+tz)$.

The extremal problem \eqref{eq:Phi} has previously been investigated by Beneteau and Korenblum \cite{BK04} in the range $1 \leq p \leq \infty$. We will enunciate their results in Section~\ref{sec:Phi0inf} and Section~\ref{sec:Phi1inf}, but for now we present a brief account of their approach.

The first step in \cite{BK04} is to compute $\Phi_1(p,t)$ and identify an extremal function. This is achieved by interpolating between the two cases $p=2$ and $p=\infty$ mentioned above, facilitated by the inner-outer factorization of $H^p$ functions. It follows from the argument that the extremal function thusly obtained is unique.

The second step in \cite{BK04} is to show that $\Phi_k(p,t)=\Phi_1(p,t)$ for every $k\geq2$ using a trick attributed to F.~Wiener \cite{Bohr14}, which we shall now recall. Set $\omega_k=\exp(2\pi i/k)$ and suppose that $f(z)=\sum_{n\geq0} a_n z^n$. F.~Wiener's trick is based on the transform
\begin{equation} \label{eq:fwienerdef}
	W_k f(z) = \frac{1}{k}\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} f(\omega_k^j z) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_{kn}z^{kn}.
\end{equation}
The triangle inequality yields that $\|W_k f\|_{H^p} \leq \|f\|_{H^p}$ for $f \in H^p$ if $1 \leq p \leq \infty$. Hence, if $f_1$ is an extremal function for $\Phi_1(p,t)$, then $f_k(z)=f_1(z^k)$ is an extremal function for $\Phi_k(p,t)$ and consequently $\Phi_k(p,t)=\Phi_1(p,t)$. Note that this argument does not guarantee that the extremal $f_k$ is unique for $\Phi_k(p,t)$.

We are interested in the extremal problem \eqref{eq:Phi} for $0<p<1$ and whether the extremal identified using F.~Wiener's trick above for $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ is unique. We shall obtain the following general result, which may be of independent interest.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:fwiener}
	Fix $k\geq2$ and suppose that $0<p\leq \infty$. Let $W_k$ denote the F.~Wiener transform \eqref{eq:fwienerdef}. The inequality
	\[\|W_k f\|_{H^p} \leq \max\big(k^{1/p-1},1\big) \|f\|_{H^p}\]
	is sharp. Moreover, equality is attained if and only if
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item[(a)] $f \equiv 0$ when $0 <p<1$,
		\item[(b)] $W_k f = f$ when $1<p<\infty$.
	\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}
The upper bound in the estimate is easily deduced from the triangle inequality. Hence, the novelty of Theorem~\ref{thm:fwiener} is that the inequality is sharp for $0<p<1$, and the statements (a) and (b). In Section~\ref{sec:fwiener}, we also present examples of functions in $H^1$ and $H^\infty$ which attain equality in Theorem~\ref{thm:fwiener}, but for which $W_k f \neq f$. However, we will conversely establish that if both $f$ and $W_k f$ are inner functions, then $f = W_k f$.

Theorem~\ref{thm:fwiener} shows that the extremal for $\Phi_k(p,t)$ is unique when $1<p<\infty$. We shall see in Section~\ref{sec:Phi1inf} that the extremal problem $\Phi_k(p,t)$ with $k\geq2$ and $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ has a unique extremal except for when $p=1$ and $0\leq t < 1/2$.

In the range $0<p<1$ with $k=1$, the extremal problem \eqref{eq:Phi} has been studied by Conelly \cite[Sec.~4]{Con17}, who resolved the problem in the cases $0 \leq t < 2^{-1/p}$ and $2^{-1/p}\sqrt{p}(2-p)^{1/p-1/2}<t\leq1$. The extremals are unique and of the same form as those found by Beneteau and Korenblum. Conelly also states conjectures on the behavior of $\Phi_1(p,t)$ in the range $2^{-1/p} \leq t \leq 2^{-1/p}\sqrt{p}(2-p)^{1/p-1/2}$. The conjectures are based on numerical analysis (see \cite[Sec.~5]{Con17}).

In Section~\ref{sec:Phi0inf}, we will extend Conelly's result to the full range $0 \leq t \leq1$. Our result demonstrates that for each $0<p<1$ there is a unique $0<t_p<1/2$ such that the extremal for $\Phi_1(p,t_p)$ is not unique, thereby confirming the above-mentioned conjectures.

\begin{figure}
        \centering
        \begin{tikzpicture}
                \begin{axis}
                        [axis equal image,
                        axis lines=middle,
                        axis line style=thin,
                        axis on top,
                        xmin=0,
                        xmax=1.1,
						xtick={0.25,0.5,0.75,1},
						xticklabels={\sfrac{1}{4},\sfrac{1}{2},\sfrac{3}{4},1},
                        ymin=0,
                        ymax=1.43,
                        ytick={0.5,1,1.299},
                        yticklabels={\sfrac{1}{2},1,\sfrac{3${\sqrt{3}}\,$}{4},},
                        ylabel={$\Phi_1(p,t)$},
                        xlabel=$t$,
                        every axis x label/.style={ at={(ticklabel* cs:1.025)}, anchor=west,},
                        every axis y label/.style={ at={(ticklabel* cs:1.025)}, anchor=south,},
                        axis line style={->}, x post scale = 2.31374]
						\addplot[thin, densely dotted, color=blue, domain=0:0.5652, samples=500] {1.299};
						\addplot[thin, color=red, domain=0:1, samples=500] {1-x^2};
						\addplot[thin, color=orange, domain=0:1, samples=500] {sqrt(1-x^2)};
						\addplot[thin, color=green, domain=0:0.5, samples=250] {1};
						\addplot[thin, color=green, domain=0.5:1, samples=250] {2*sqrt(x-x^2)};
                        \input{fig1}
                \end{axis}
        \end{tikzpicture}
		\caption{Plot of the curves $t\mapsto \Phi_1(p,t)$ for {\color{blue}$p=1/2$}, {\color{green}$p=1$}, {\color{orange}$p=2$} and {\color{red}$p=\infty$}.}
		\label{fig:Phi1}
\end{figure}

Brevig and Saksman \cite{BS20} have recently studied the linear extremal problem
\[\Psi_k(p) = \sup \left\{\mre\frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!}\,:\, \|f\|_{H^p}\leq 1 \right\}\]
for $0<p<1$. It is observed in \cite[Sec.~5.3]{BS20} that $\Psi_k(p) = \max_{0\leq t \leq 1} \Phi_k(p,t)$. In particular, the maxima of $\Phi_1(p,t)$ for $0 \leq t \leq 1$ is
\[\Psi_1(p)=(1-p/2)^{1/p}\frac{2}{\sqrt{p(2-p)}}\]
and this is attained for $t=(1-p/2)^{1/p}$. From the main result in \cite{BK04}, it is easy to see that $t \mapsto \Phi_1(p,t)$ is a decreasing function from $\Phi_1(p,0)=1$ to $\Phi_1(p,1)=0$ when $1 \leq p \leq \infty$. Similarly, our main result shows that $\Phi_1(p,t)$ is increasing from $\Phi_1(p,0)=1$ to the maxima mentioned above, then decreasing to $\Phi_1(p,1)=0$. Figure~\ref{fig:Phi1} contains the plot of $t \mapsto \Phi_1(p,t)$ for several values $0<p\leq\infty$, which illustrates this difference between $0<p<1$ and $1 \leq p \leq \infty$.

Another difference between $0<p<1$ and $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ appears when we consider $k\geq2$. Recall that in the latter case, we have $\Phi_k(p,t)=\Phi_1(p,t)$ for every $k\geq2$ and every $0\leq t \leq1$. In the former case, we only get from Theorem~\ref{thm:fwiener} that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Phi1k}
	\Phi_1(p,t) \leq \Phi_k(p,t) \leq k^{1/p-1} \Phi_1(p,t).
\end{equation}
Theorem~\ref{thm:fwiener} also shows that the upper bound in \eqref{eq:Phi1k} is attained if and only if $t=1$, since trivially $\Phi_1(p,1)=0$ for every $0<p\leq\infty$. However, by adapting an example due to Hardy and Littlewood \cite{HL32}, it is easy to see that if $0<p<1$ and $0\leq t<1$ are fixed, then the exponent ${1/p-1}$ in \eqref{eq:Phi1k} cannot be improved as $k\to\infty$. In the final section of the paper, we present some evidence that the lower bound in \eqref{eq:Phi1k} can be attained for sufficiently large $t$, if $k\geq2$ and $0<p<1$ are fixed.

\subsection*{Organization} The present paper is organized into five additional sections and one appendix. In Section~\ref{sec:prelim}, we collect some preliminary results pertaining to $H^p$ and the structure of extremals for $\Phi_k(p,t)$. Section~\ref{sec:fwiener} is devoted to F.~Wiener's trick and the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:fwiener}. A complete solution to the extremal problem $\Phi_1(p,t)$ for $0<p\leq\infty$ and $0\leq t \leq 1$ is presented in Section~\ref{sec:Phi0inf}. In Section~\ref{sec:Phi1inf}, we consider $\Phi_k(p,t)$ for $k\geq2$ and $1\leq p \leq \infty$ and study when the extremal is unique. Section~\ref{sec:Phi201} contains some remarks on $\Phi_k(p,t)$ for $k\geq2$ and $0<p<1$. Appendix~\ref{app:equation} contains the proof of a crucial lemma needed to resolve the extremal problem $\Phi_1(p,t)$ for $0<p<1$.

\subsection*{Acknowledgements} The authors extend their gratitude to Eero Saksman for a helpful discussion pertaining to Theorem~\ref{thm:fwiener}.

\section{Preliminaries} \label{sec:prelim}
Recall that for $0<p<\infty$, the Hardy space $H^p$ consists of the analytic functions $f$ in $\mathbb{D}$ for which the limit of integral means
\[\|f\|_{H^p}^p = \lim_{r\to 1^-} \int_0^{2\pi} |f(r e^{i\theta})|^p\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}\]
is finite. $H^\infty$ is the space of bounded analytic functions in $\mathbb{D}$, endowed with the norm $\|f\|_{H^\infty} = \sup_{|z|<1}|f(z)|$. It is well-known (see e.g.~\cite{Duren}) that $H^p$ is a Banach space when $1\leq p \leq \infty$ and a quasi-Banach space when $0<p<1$.

In the Banach space range $1 \leq p \leq \infty$, the triangle equality is
\begin{equation} \label{eq:triangle1}
	\|f+g\|_{H^p} \leq \|f\|_{H^p} + \|g\|_{H^p}.
\end{equation}
The Hardy space $H^p$ is strictly convex when $1<p<\infty$, which means that it is impossible to attain equality in \eqref{eq:triangle1} unless $g\equiv0$ or $f=\lambda g$ for a non-negative constant $\lambda$. $H^p$ is not strictly convex for $p=1$ and $p=\infty$, so in this case there are other ways to attain equality in \eqref{eq:triangle1}. In the range $0<p<1$, the triangle inequality takes the form
\begin{equation} \label{eq:triangle2}
	\|f+g\|_{H^p}^p \leq \|f\|_{H^p}^p + \|g\|_{H^p}^p,
\end{equation}
so here $H^p$ is not even locally convex \cite{DRS69}. Our first goal is to establish that the triangle inequality \eqref{eq:triangle2} is not attained unless $f\equiv0$ or $g\equiv0$. This result is probably known to experts, but we have not found it in the literature.

If $f \in H^p$ for some $0<p\leq\infty$, then the boundary limit function
\begin{equation} \label{eq:blf}
	f^\ast(e^{i\theta}) = \lim_{r\to 1^-} f(re^{i\theta})
\end{equation}
exists for almost every $\theta$. Moreover, $f^\ast\in L^p= L^p([0,2\pi])$ and
\[\|f\|_{H^p}=\|f^\ast\|_{L^p}=\left(\int_0^{2\pi}\left|f^\ast(e^{i\theta})\right|^p\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}\right)^\frac{1}{p}\]
if $0<p<\infty$ and $\|f\|_{H^\infty}=\sup_{\theta} |f^\ast(e^{i\theta})|$. For simplicity, we henceforth omit the asterisk and write $f^\ast=f$ with the limit \eqref{eq:blf} in mind.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:Delta01}
	Fix $0<p<1$ and suppose that $f,g \in H^p$. If
	\[\|f+g\|_{H^p}^p = \|f\|_{H^p}^p + \|g\|_{H^p}^p\]
	then either $f \equiv 0$ or $g \equiv 0$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	We begin by looking at equality in the triangle inequality for $L^p$ in the range $0<p<1$. Here we have
	\begin{align*}
		\|f+g\|_{L^p}^p &= \int_0^{2\pi} \left|f(e^{i\theta})+g(e^{i\theta})\right|^p\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi} \\

		&\leq \int_0^{2\pi} |f(e^{i\theta})|^p+|g(e^{i\theta})|^p\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi} = \|f\|_{L^p}^p + \|g\|_{L^p}^p.
	\end{align*}
	We used the elementary estimate $|z+w|^p\leq|z|^p+|w|^p$ for complex numbers $z,w$ and $0<p<1$. It is easily verified that this estimate is attained if and only if $zw=0$. Consequently,
	\[\|f+g\|_{L^p}^p = \|f\|_{L^p}^p+\|g\|_{L^p}^p\]
	if and only if $f(e^{i\theta})g(e^{i\theta})=0$ for almost every $\theta$. It is well-known (see \cite[Thm.~2.2]{Duren}) that the only function $h \in H^p$ whose boundary limit function \eqref{eq:blf} vanishes on a set of positive measure is $h \equiv 0$. Hence we conclude that either $f \equiv 0$ or $g \equiv 0$.
\end{proof}

Let us next establish a typical result on the structure of the extremals for the extremal problem \eqref{eq:Phi}. The first step is the following basic result.
\begin{lemma} \label{lem:norm1}
	If $f\in H^p$ is extremal for $\Phi_k(p,t)$, then $\|f\|_{H^p}=1$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Suppose that $f\in H^p$ is extremal for $\Phi_k(p,t)$ but that $\|f\|_{H^p}<1$. For $\varepsilon>0$, set $g(z) = f(z)+\varepsilon z^k$. Note that $g(0)=f(0)=t$ for any $\varepsilon>0$. If $1 \leq p \leq \infty$, then
	\begin{align*}
		\|g\|_{H^p} &\leq \|f\|_{H^p}+\varepsilon < 1
		\intertext{for sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$. If $0<p<1$, then}
		\|g\|_{H^p}^p &\leq \|f\|_{H^p}^p + \varepsilon^p <1,
	\end{align*}
	again for sufficiently small $\varepsilon>0$, so $\|g\|_{H^p}<1$. In both cases we find that
	\[\frac{g^{(k)}(0)}{k!} = \frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!}+\varepsilon,\]
	which contradicts the extremality of $f$ for $\Phi_k(p,t)$.
\end{proof}

Let $(n_j)_{j=1}^k$ denote a sequence of distinct non-negative integers and let $(w_j)_{j=1}^k$ denote a sequence of complex numbers. A special case of the Carath\'eodory--Fej\'er problem is to determine the infimum of $\|f\|_{H^p}$ over all $f \in H^p$ which satisfy
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CF}
	\frac{f^{(n_j)}}{n_j!}(0)=w_j,
\end{equation}
for $j=1,\ldots, k$. Set $k=\max_{1 \leq j \leq k} n_j$. If $f$ is an extremal for the Carath\'eodory--Fej\'er problem \eqref{eq:CF}, then there are complex numbers $|\lambda_j|\leq1$ for $j=1,\ldots,k$ and a constant $C$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:CFstructure}
	f(z) = C \prod_{j=1}^l \frac{\lambda_j-z}{1-\overline{\lambda_j} z} \prod_{j=1}^k (1-\overline{\lambda_j} z)^{2/p}
\end{equation}
for some $0 \leq l \leq k$, and the strict inequality $|\lambda_j|<1$ holds for $0\leq j \leq l$.

For $1 \leq p \leq \infty$, this result is independently due to Macintyre--Rogosinski \cite{MR50} and Havinson \cite{Havinson51}, while in the range $0<p<1$ the result is due to Kabaila \cite{Kabaila60}. An exposition of these results can be found in \cite[Ch.~8]{Duren} and \cite[pp.~82--85]{Khavinson86}, respectively.

Using Lemma~\ref{lem:norm1}, we can establish that the extremals of the extremal problem $\Phi_k(p,t)$ have to be of the same form.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:structure}
	If $f\in H^p$ is extremal for $\Phi_k(p,t)$, then there are complex numbers $|\lambda_j|\leq1$ for $j=1,\ldots,k$ and a constant $C$ such that
	\[f(z) = C \prod_{j=1}^l \frac{\lambda_j-z}{1-\overline{\lambda_j} z} \prod_{j=1}^k (1-\overline{\lambda_j} z)^{2/p}.\]
	for some $0 \leq l \leq k$, and the strict inequality $|\lambda_j|<1$ holds for $0\leq j \leq l$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Suppose that $f$ is extremal for $\Phi_k(p,t)$ and consider the Carath\'eodory--Fej\'er problem with conditions
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:CFcond}
		f(0)=t \qquad \text{and} \qquad \frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!} = \Phi_k(p,t) .
	\end{equation}
	We claim that $f$ is an extremal for the Carath\'eodory--Fej\'er problem \eqref{eq:CFcond}. If it is not, then there must be some $f \in H^p$ with $\|f\|_{H^p}<1$ which satisfies \eqref{eq:CFcond}. However, this contradicts Lemma~\ref{lem:norm1}. Hence the extremal is of the stated form by \eqref{eq:CFstructure}.
\end{proof}

\section{F.~Wiener's trick} \label{sec:fwiener}
Recall from \eqref{eq:fwienerdef} that if $f(z)=\sum_{n\geq0} a_n z^n$ and $\omega_k = \exp(2\pi i /k)$, then
\[W_k f(z) = \frac{1}{k}\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} f(\omega_k^j z) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_{kn}z^{kn}.\]
We begin by giving two examples showing that $\|W_k f \|_{H^p}=\|f\|_{H^p}$ may occur for $f$ such that $W_k f \neq f$ when $p=1$ or $p=\infty$.

\begin{example}
	Let $k\geq2$ and consider $f(z)=(1+z)^{2k}$ in $H^1$. By the binomial theorem, we find that
	\begin{align*}
		f(z) &= \sum_{n=0}^{2k} \binom{2k}{n} z^n, \\
		W_kf(z) &= 1 + \binom{2k}{k}z^k + z^{2k}.
	\end{align*}
	Note that $f \neq W_k f$ since $k\geq2$. By another application of the binomial theorem and a well-known identity for the central binomial coefficient, we find that
	\[\|f\|_{H^1} = \|f^{1/2}\|_{H^2}^{2} = \sum_{n=0}^k \binom{k}{n}^2 = \binom{2k}{k}.\]
	Moreover,
	\[\binom{2k}{k} = \int_0^{2\pi} W_k f(e^{i\theta}) \,\overline{e^{ik\theta}}\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi} \leq \|W_k f\|_{H^1}\]
	by the triangle inequality. Hence
	\[\binom{2k}{k} \leq \|W_k f\|_{H^1} \leq \|f\|_{H^1} = \binom{2k}{k},\]
	so $\|W_k f\|_{H^1} = \|f\|_{H^1}$.
\end{example}

\begin{example}
	Let $k\geq2$ and consider $f(z)=(1+z^k)^2 - z(1-z^k)^2$ in $H^\infty$. It is clear that $W_k f (z) = (1+z^k)^2 \neq f(z)$ since $k\geq2$. Moreover $\|W_k f\|_{H^\infty}=4$. The supremum is attained for $z=\omega_k^j$ for $j=0,1,\ldots,k-1$. We next compute
	\[f(e^{i\theta}) = (1+e^{ik\theta})^2 - e^{i\theta}(1-e^{ik\theta})^2 = 4 e^{ik\theta}\left(\cos^2(k\theta/2)+e^{i\theta}\sin^2(k\theta/2)\right).\]
	Consequently, $\|f\|_{H^\infty}=4$ and here the supremum is attained for $z=\omega_{2k}^{j}$ for $j=0,1,\ldots,2k-1$.
\end{example}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:fwiener}]
	It follows from the triangle inequality \eqref{eq:triangle1} that
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:fwiener1inf}
		\|W_k f\|_{H^p} \leq \|f\|_{H^p}
	\end{equation}
	for every $f \in H^p$ if $1 \leq p \leq \infty$. In the range $0<p<1$, we get from the triangle inequality \eqref{eq:triangle2} the estimate
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:fwiener01}
		\|W_k f\|_{H^p} \leq k^{1/p-1} \|f\|_{H^p}
	\end{equation}
	for every $f \in H^p$. Combining \eqref{eq:fwiener1inf} and \eqref{eq:fwiener01}, we have established that
	\[\|W_k f\|_{H^p} \leq \max\big(k^{1/p-1},1\big)\|f\|_{H^p}.\]
	This is trivially attained for $f(z)=z^k$ when $1 \leq p \leq \infty$. We need to show that the upper bound $k^{1/p-1}$ cannot be improved when $0<p<1$ to finish proof of the first part of the theorem.

	Let $\varepsilon>0$ and consider $f_\varepsilon(z) = \left(z-(1+\varepsilon)\right)^{-1/p}$. Clearly $\|f_\varepsilon\|_{H^p} \to \infty$ as $\varepsilon\to 0^+$. Moreover
	\begin{align*}
		\|f_\varepsilon\|_{H^p}^p &= \int_0^{2\pi} \frac{1}{|e^{i\theta}-(1+\varepsilon)|}\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi}\\
		&\leq \int_{|\theta| < \pi/k} \frac{1}{|e^{i\theta}-(1+\varepsilon)|}\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi} + \int_{|\theta|\geq \pi/k} \frac{6}{\theta^2} \,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi} \\
		&\leq \int_{|\theta| < \pi/k} \frac{1}{|e^{i\theta}-(1+\varepsilon)|}\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi} + \frac{6k}{\pi^2},
	\end{align*}
	from which we conclude that
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:mih}
		 \|f_\varepsilon\|_{H^p}^p = \int_{|\theta| < \pi/k} \frac{1}{|e^{i\theta}-(1+\varepsilon)|}\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi} + O(1).
	\end{equation}
	Furthermore,
	\begin{align*}
		\|W_k f_\varepsilon\|_{H^p}^p &= \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \int_{|\theta-2\pi j/k|<\pi/k} \left|\sum_{l=0}^{k-1} \frac{f_\varepsilon\big(e^{i(\theta+2\pi l/k)}\big)}{k}\right|^p \,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi} \\
		&\geq k^{-p} \sum_{j=0}^{k-1} \left(\int_{|\theta-2\pi j/k|<\pi/k} \big|f_\varepsilon\big(e^{i(\theta+2\pi j/k)}\big)\big|^p\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi} - \frac{6k^2}{\pi^2}\right) \\
		&= k^{-p+1} \int_{|\theta| < \pi/k} \frac{1}{|e^{i\theta}-(1+\varepsilon)|}\,\frac{d\theta}{2\pi} - \frac{6k^{-p+3}}{\pi^2}.
	\end{align*}
	By \eqref{eq:mih} we find that
	\[\lim_{\varepsilon\to0^{+}}\frac{\|W_k f_\varepsilon\|_{H^p}^p}{\|f_\varepsilon\|_{H^p}^p} \geq k^{1-p}.\]
	Hence, the constant $k^{1/p-1}$ in \eqref{eq:fwiener01} cannot be replaced by any smaller quantity.

	We next want to show that (a) and (b) holds. For a function $f \in H^p$, define $f_j(z)=f(\omega_k^j z)$ for $j=0,1,\ldots,k-1$ and recall that $\|f\|_{H^p} = \|f_j\|_{H^p}$.

	We begin with (a). Suppose that $\|W_k f\|_{H^p}=k^{1/p-1}\|f\|_{H^p}$, which we can reformulate as
	\[\|f_0 + f_1 + \cdots + f_{k-1}\|_{H^p}^p = \|f_0\|_{H^p}^p+\|f_1\|_{H^p}^p+\cdots+\|f_{k-1}\|_{H^p}^p.\]
	By Lemma~\ref{lem:Delta01}, the triangle inequality can be attained if and only if at least $k-1$ of the $k$ functions $f_j$ are identically equal to zero. Evidently this is possible if and only if $f\equiv0$.

	For (b), we suppose that $f\in H^p$ is such that $\|W_k f\|_{H^p}=\|f\|_{H^p}$. We need to prove that $W_k f = f$. If $f \equiv 0$ there is nothing to do. As in the proof of (a), we note that $\|W_k f\|_{H^p}=\|f\|_{H^p}$ can be reformulated as
	\[\|f_0 + f_1 + \cdots + f_{k-1}\|_{H^p} = \|f_0\|_{H^p}+\|f_1\|_{H^p}+\cdots+\|f_{k-1}\|_{H^p}.\]
	Viewing $H^p$ as a subspace of $L^p$, the strict convexity of the latter implies that there are non-negative constants $\lambda_j$ for $j=1,2,\ldots,k-1$ such that
	\[f = f_0 = \lambda_1 f_1 = \cdots = \lambda_{k-1} f_{k-1}.\]
	We shall only look at $f = \lambda_1 f_1$ which for $f(z)=\sum_{n\geq0} a_n z^n$ is equivalent to
	\[\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n z^n = \lambda_1 \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_n \omega_k^n z^n.\]
	Using $W_k$ on this identity we get
	\[\sum_{n=0}^\infty a_{kn} z^{kn} = \lambda_1 \sum_{n=0}^\infty a_{kn} z^{kn}.\]
	This is only possible if $\lambda_1=1$ or $W_k f \equiv 0$. The latter implies that $f \equiv 0$ since $\|W_k f \|_{H^p}=\|f\|_{H^p}$ by assumption. Therefore we can restrict our attention to the case $\lambda_1=1$. For all integers $n$ that are not a multiple of $k$, we now find that
	\[a_n = \lambda_1 \omega_k^n a_n \qquad \implies \qquad  a_n =0,\]
	since $\lambda_1=1$ and $\omega_k^n \neq 1$. Hence $W_k f = f$ as desired.
\end{proof}

Recall that a function $f \in H^p$ is called inner if $|f(e^{i\theta})|=1$ for almost every $\theta$. We shall require the following simple result later on.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:inner}
	If both $f$ and $W_k f$ are inner functions, then $f = W_k f$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
    Since $|W_k f(e^{i\theta})|=|f(e^{i\theta})|=1$ for almost every $\theta$, we get from \eqref{eq:fwienerdef} that
   	\begin{equation} \label{eq:WkB}
   		1 = |W_kf(e^{i\theta})| = \Bigg|\frac{1}{k}\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} f_j(e^{i\theta})\Bigg| = \frac{1}{k}\sum_{j=0}^{k-1} |f_j(e^{i\theta})|,
   	\end{equation}
   	where $f_j(z)=f(\omega_k^j z)$. The equality on the right hand side of \eqref{eq:WkB} is possible if and only if
   	\[f(e^{i\theta})=f_1(e^{i\theta})=\cdots=f_{k-1}(e^{i\theta})\]
   	for almost every $\theta$. As in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:fwiener} (b), we find that $f = W_k f$.
\end{proof}

\section{The extremal problem $\Phi_1(p,t)$ for $0 < p \leq \infty$} \label{sec:Phi0inf}
In the present section, we resolve the extremal problem \eqref{eq:Phi} in the case $k=1$ completely. We begin with the case $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ which has been solved by Beneteau and Korenblum \cite{BK04}. We give a different proof of their result based on Lemma~\ref{lem:structure}, mainly to illustrate the differences between the cases $0<p<1$ and $1 \leq p \leq \infty$.

\begin{theorem}[Beneteau--Korenblum] \label{thm:BK1}
	Fix $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ and consider \eqref{eq:Phi} with $k=1$.
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item[(i)] If $0 \leq t < 2^{-1/p}$, let $\alpha$ denote the unique real number in the interval $0 \leq \alpha < 1$ such that $t = \alpha(1+\alpha^2)^{-1/p}$. Then
			\begin{align*}
				\Phi_1(p,t) &= \frac{1}{\left(1+\alpha^2\right)^{1/p}}\left(1+ \left(\frac{2}{p}-1\right)\alpha^2\right),\phantom{\frac{2\beta}{p}}
				\intertext{and the unique extremal is}
				f(z) &= \frac{\alpha+z}{1+\alpha z} \frac{\left(1+\alpha z\right)^{2/p}}{\left(1+\alpha^2\right)^{1/p}}.
			\end{align*}
		\item[(ii)] If $2^{-1/p} \leq t \leq 1$, let $\beta$ denote the unique real number in the interval $0 \leq \beta \leq 1$ such that $t = (1+\beta^2)^{-1/p}$. Then
			\begin{align*}
				\Phi_1(p,t) &= \frac{1}{\left(1+\beta^2\right)^{1/p}} \frac{2\beta}{p},\phantom{\left(1+ \left(\frac{2}{p}-1\right)\alpha^2\right)}
				\intertext{and the unique extremal is}
				f(z) &= \frac{\left(1+\beta z\right)^{2/p}}{\left(1+\beta^2\right)^{1/p}}.
			\end{align*}
	\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
	Note that since $k=1$, there are only two possibilities for the extremals in Lemma~\ref{lem:structure}. They are
	\begin{align}
		f_1(z) &= \frac{\alpha+z}{1+\alpha z} \frac{\left(1+\alpha z\right)^{2/p}}{\left(1+\alpha^2\right)^{1/p}}, & & 0\leq \alpha < 1, \label{eq:f1} \\
		f_2(z) &= \frac{\left(1+\beta z\right)^{2/p}}{\left(1+\beta^2\right)^{1/p}}, && 0 \leq \beta \leq 1. \label{eq:f2}
	\end{align}
	Here we have made $\alpha,\beta\geq0$ by rotations. Note that if $p=\infty$, then $f_2$ does not depend on $\beta$. Moreover,
	\begin{align}
		t&= f_1(0) = \frac{\alpha}{(1+\alpha^2)^{1/p}}, \label{eq:talpha} \\
		t&= f_2(0) = \frac{1}{(1+\beta^2)^{1/p}}. \label{eq:tbeta}
	\end{align}
	For $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ it is easy to verify that the function
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:alphafunc}
		\alpha \mapsto\frac{\alpha}{(1+\alpha^2)^{1/p}}
	\end{equation}
	is strictly increasing on $0 \leq \alpha <1$ and maps $[0,1)$ to $[0,2^{-1/p})$. Similarly, for $1 \leq p < \infty$ we find that the function
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:betafunc}
		\beta \mapsto \frac{1}{(1+\beta^2)^{1/p}}
	\end{equation}
	is strictly decreasing on $0 \leq \beta \leq 1$ and maps $[0,1]$ to $[2^{-1/p},1]$. Consequently, if $0 \leq t < 2^{-1/p}$, then the unique extremal is \eqref{eq:f1} with $\alpha$ given by \eqref{eq:talpha}, and if $2^{-1/p} \leq t \leq 1$, then the unique extremal is \eqref{eq:f2} with $\beta$ given by \eqref{eq:tbeta}. The proof is completed by computing
	\begin{align}
		f_1'(0) &= \frac{1}{\left(1+\alpha^2\right)^{1/p}}\left(1+\alpha^2\left(\frac{2}{p}-1\right)\right) = t \left(\frac{1}{\alpha}+\alpha\left(\frac{2}{p}-1\right)\right), \label{eq:f10} \\
		f_2'(0) &= \frac{1}{(1+\beta^2)^{1/p}} \frac{2\beta}{p} = t \frac{2\beta}{p},\label{eq:f20}
	\end{align}
	to obtain the stated expressions for $\Phi_1(p,t)$ in (i) and (ii), respectively.
\end{proof}

Define $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as functions of $t$ implicitly through \eqref{eq:talpha} and \eqref{eq:tbeta}. Then $\alpha$ is increasing on $0 \leq t < 2^{-1/p}$ and $\beta$ is decreasing on $2^{-1/p}\leq t \leq 1$. Inspecting the left hand side of \eqref{eq:f10} and \eqref{eq:f20}, we extract the following result.
\begin{corollary} \label{cor:dec}
	If $1 \leq p \leq \infty$, then the function $t \mapsto \Phi_1(p,t)$ is decreasing and takes the values $[0,1]$.
\end{corollary}

In the range $0<p<1$ a more careful analysis is required. This is due to the fact that the function \eqref{eq:alphafunc} is increasing on the interval $0 \leq \alpha \leq \alpha_2$ and decreasing on the interval $\alpha_2 \leq \alpha < 1$, where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:alpha2}
	\alpha_2 = \sqrt{\frac{p}{2-p}}.
\end{equation}
Inspecting \eqref{eq:talpha}, we conclude that for each $2^{-1/p}<t<2^{-1/p}\sqrt{p}(2-p)^{1/p-1/2}$ there are two possible $\alpha$-values which give the same $t=f_1(0)$. Let $\alpha_1$ denote the unique real number in the interval $(0,1)$ such that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:alpha1}
	1+\alpha_1^2= 2\alpha_1^p.
\end{equation}
Note that $\alpha_1$ gives the value $t=2^{-1/p}$ in \eqref{eq:talpha}.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:smallisbig}
	If $\alpha_1 < \alpha< \alpha_2$ and $\alpha_2<\widetilde{\alpha}<1$ produce the same $t=f_1(0)$ in \eqref{eq:talpha}, then the quantity $f'_1(0)$ from \eqref{eq:f10} is maximized by $\alpha$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
	Since $\alpha$ and $\widetilde{\alpha}$ give the same $t=f_1(0)$ in \eqref{eq:f10}, we only need to prove that
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:alphatilde}
		\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{\alpha}{\alpha_2^2}>\frac{1}{\widetilde{\alpha}}+\frac{\widetilde{\alpha}}{\alpha_2^2}.
	\end{equation}
	Fix $\alpha_1 < \alpha <\alpha_2$. The unique number $\alpha_2<\xi<1$ such that
	\[\frac{1}{\alpha}+\frac{\alpha}{\alpha_2^2} = \frac{1}{\xi}+\frac{\xi}{\alpha_2^2}\]
	is $\xi=\alpha_2^2/\alpha$. Since the function
	\[x \mapsto \frac{1}{x}+\frac{x}{\alpha_2^2}\]
	is increasing for $x>\alpha_2$ it is sufficient to prove that $\xi>\widetilde{\alpha}$ to obtain \eqref{eq:alphatilde}. Since
	\[x \mapsto \frac{x}{(1+x^2)^{1/p}}\]
	is decreasing for $x>\alpha_2$, we see that $\xi>\widetilde{\alpha}$ if and only if
	\[\frac{\widetilde{\alpha}}{(1+\widetilde{\alpha}^2)^{1/p}}>\frac{\xi}{(1+\xi^2)^{1/p}} \qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad \frac{\alpha}{(1+\alpha^2)^{1/p}}> \frac{\alpha_2^2/\alpha}{(1+(\alpha_2^2/\alpha)^2)^{1/p}}.\]
	Here we used that $\alpha$ and $\widetilde{\alpha}$ give the same $t=f_1(0)$ in \eqref{eq:talpha} on the left hand side and the identity $\xi = \alpha_2^2/\alpha$ on the right hand side. We now substitute $\alpha = \alpha_2 \sqrt{x}$ for $0<x<1$ to obtain the equivalent inequality
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:xalpha}
		\frac{x}{(1+\alpha_2^2 x)^{1/p}}>\frac{1}{(1+\alpha_2^2/x)^{1/p}}.
	\end{equation}
	Actually, we only need to consider $(\alpha_1/\alpha_2)^2<x<1$, but the same proof works for $0<x<1$. We raise both sides of \eqref{eq:xalpha} to the power $p$, multiply by $x^{1-p}$ and rearrange to get the equivalent inequality $F(x)>0$ where
	\[F(x) = \left(x-x^{1-p}\right)+\alpha_2^2 \left(1-x^{2-p}\right).\]
	Recalling that $\alpha_2^2 = p/(2-p)$, we compute
	\[F'(x) = \left(1-(1-p)x^{-p}\right) - px^{1-p} \quad \text{and}\quad F''(x) = p(1-p)x^{-p-1}-p(1-p)x^{-p}.\]
	Since $F(1)=F'(1)=0$, we get from Taylor's theorem that for every $0<x<1$ there is some $x<\eta<1$ such that
	\[F(x) = \frac{F''(\eta)}{2}(x-1)^2 = \frac{p(1-p)}{2}\eta^{-p}\left(\eta^{-1}-1\right)(x-1)^2 >0,\]
	which completes the proof.
\end{proof}

By Lemma~\ref{lem:smallisbig}, we now only need to compare $f_1'(0)$ from \eqref{eq:f10} for $\alpha_1 \leq \alpha \leq \alpha_2$ with $f_2'(0)$ from \eqref{eq:f20} for $\beta$ such that $f_1(0)=t=f_2(0)$. Inspecting \eqref{eq:talpha} and \eqref{eq:tbeta}, we find that
\begin{equation} \label{eq:beta}
	\frac{\alpha}{\left(1+\alpha^2\right)^{1/p}} = \frac{1}{\left(1+\beta^2\right)^{1/p}} \qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad \beta = \sqrt{\frac{1+\alpha^2}{\alpha^p}-1}.
\end{equation}
Next, we consider the equation $f_1'(0)=f_2'(0)$ with $\beta$ as in \eqref{eq:beta}. Inspecting \eqref{eq:f10} and \eqref{eq:f20} and dividing by $t$, we get the equation
\begin{equation} \label{eq:alpha}
	\frac{1}{\alpha}+\alpha\left(\frac{2}{p}-1\right) = \frac{2\beta}{p} = \frac{2}{p}\sqrt{\frac{1+\alpha^2}{\alpha^p}-1}.
\end{equation}
We square both sides, multiply by $p^2$ and rearrange to find that \eqref{eq:alpha} is equivalent to the equation $F_p(\alpha)=0$, where
\begin{equation} \label{eq:Fpa}
	F_p(\alpha) = p^2 \alpha^{-2}+2p(2-p) + (2-p)^2 \alpha^2 - 4\left(\alpha^{-p}+\alpha^{2-p}-1\right).
\end{equation}
Suppose that $\alpha_1 \leq \alpha \leq \alpha_2$. If
\begin{itemize}
	\item $F_p(\alpha)>0$, then $f_1$ from \eqref{eq:f1} is the unique extremal for $\Phi_1(p,t)$.
	\item $F_p(\alpha)=0$, then $f_1$ from \eqref{eq:f1} and $f_2$ from \eqref{eq:f2} are extremals for $\Phi_1(p,t)$.
	\item $F_p(\alpha)<0$, then $f_2$ from \eqref{eq:f2} is the unique extremal for $\Phi_1(p,t)$.
\end{itemize}
Note that any solutions of $F_p(\alpha)=0$ with $0<\alpha<\alpha_1$ are of no interest since this implies that $\beta>1$ by \eqref{eq:beta}. Similarly, any solutions of $F_p(\alpha)=0$ with $\alpha_2<\alpha<1$ can be ignored due to Lemma~\ref{lem:smallisbig}. The following result shows that there is only one solution, which is in the pertinent range.

\begin{lemma} \label{lem:equation}
	Let $F_p$ be as in \eqref{eq:Fpa}. The equation $F_p(\alpha)=0$ has a unique solution, denoted $\alpha_p$, on the interval $(0,1)$. Moreover,
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item[(a)] if $0<\alpha<\alpha_p$, then $F_p(\alpha)>0$.
		\item[(b)] if $\alpha_p<\alpha<1$, then $F_p(\alpha)<0$.
		\item[(c)] $\alpha_1<\alpha_p<\alpha_2$ where $\alpha_1$ and $\alpha_2$ are from \eqref{eq:alpha1} and \eqref{eq:alpha2}, respectively.
	\end{enumerate}
\end{lemma}

The proof of Lemma~\ref{lem:equation} is a rather laborious calculus exercise, which we postpone to Appendix~\ref{app:equation} below. Let $\alpha_p$ be as in Lemma~\ref{lem:equation} and define
\begin{equation} \label{eq:tp}
	t_p = \frac{\alpha_p}{\left(1+\alpha_p^2\right)^{1/p}}.
\end{equation}
Note that $2^{-1/p}< t_p < 2^{-1/p} \sqrt{p}(2-p)^{1/p-1/2}$ by the fact that $\alpha_1 < \alpha_p < \alpha_2$. By the analysis above, Lemma~\ref{lem:smallisbig} and Lemma~\ref{lem:equation}, we obtain the following version of Theorem~\ref{thm:BK1} in the range $0<p<1$.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:Phi01}
	Fix $0<p<1$ and consider \eqref{eq:Phi} with $k=1$. Let $t_p$ be as in \eqref{eq:tp} and set $\alpha_2 = \sqrt{p/(2-p)}$.
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item[(i)] If $0 \leq t \leq t_p$, let $\alpha$ denote the unique real number in the interval $0 \leq \alpha < \alpha_2$ such that $t = \alpha(1+\alpha^2)^{-1/p}$. Then
			\begin{align*}
				\Phi_1(p,t) &= \frac{1}{\left(1+\alpha^2\right)^{1/p}}\left(1+ \left(\frac{2}{p}-1\right)\alpha^2\right),\phantom{\frac{2\beta}{p}}
				\intertext{and an extremal is}
				f(z) &= \frac{\alpha+z}{1+\alpha z} \frac{\left(1+\alpha z\right)^{2/p}}{\left(1+\alpha^2\right)^{1/p}}.
			\end{align*}
		\item[(ii)] If $t_p \leq t \leq 1$, let $\beta$ denote the unique real number in the interval $0 \leq \beta \leq 1$ such that $t = (1+\beta^2)^{-1/p}$. Then
			\begin{align*}
				\Phi_1(p,t) &= \frac{1}{\left(1+\beta^2\right)^{1/p}} \frac{2\beta}{p},\phantom{\left(1+ \left(\frac{2}{p}-1\right)\alpha^2\right)}
				\intertext{and an extremal is}
				f(z) &= \frac{\left(1+\beta z\right)^{2/p}}{\left(1+\beta^2\right)^{1/p}}.
			\end{align*}
	\end{enumerate}
	The extremals are unique for $0 \leq t \neq t_p \leq 1$. The only extremals for $\Phi_1(p,t_p)$ are the functions given in \textnormal{(i)} and \textnormal{(ii)}.
\end{theorem}

\begin{figure}
	\centering
	\begin{tikzpicture}
		\begin{axis}
			[axis equal image,
			axis lines=middle,
			axis line style=thin,
			axis on top,
			xmin=0,
			xmax=1.1,
			xtick={0.25,0.5,0.75,1},
			xticklabels={\sfrac{1}{4},\sfrac{1}{2},\sfrac{3}{4},1},
			ymin=0,
			ymax=.55,
			ytick={.25,.5},
			yticklabels={\sfrac{1}{4},\sfrac{1}{2}},
			ylabel=$t$,
			xlabel=$p$,
			every axis x label/.style={ at={(ticklabel* cs:1.025)}, anchor=west,},
			every axis y label/.style={ at={(ticklabel* cs:1.025)}, anchor=south,},
			axis line style={->}, x post scale=1.5,
			axis line style={->}, y post scale=1.6855]
			\addplot[thin, name path=t1, densely dotted, color=blue, draw opacity=1, domain=0:1, samples=500] {2^(-1/x)};
			\addplot[thin, name path=t2, densely dotted, color=blue, draw opacity=1, domain=0:1, samples=500] {(1-x/2)^(1/x)*(x/(2-x))^(1/2)};
			\addplot[thin, blue, draw opacity=0, name path=l1, domain=0:1] {0};
			\addplot[thin, blue, draw opacity=0, name path=l2, domain=0:1] {0.5};

			\addplot [
			    thick,
			    color=blue,
			    fill=blue,
			    fill opacity=0.05
			]
			fill between[
			    of=t1 and l1,
			    soft clip={domain=0:1},
			];

			\addplot [
			    thick,
			    color=blue,
			    fill=blue,
			    fill opacity=0.05
			]
			fill between[
			    of=l2 and t2,
			    soft clip={domain=0:1},
			];
			\input{fig2}
		\end{axis}
	\end{tikzpicture}
	\caption{\label{fig:t_p} Plot of the curve $p \mapsto t_p$. Points $(p,t)$ above and below the curve correspond to the cases (i) and (ii) of Theorem~\ref{thm:Phi01}, respectively. The estimates $2^{-1/p}<t_p<2^{-1/p}\sqrt{p}(2-p)^{1/p-1/2}$ are represented by dotted curves. In the shaded area and in the range $1/2 \leq t \leq 1$, Theorem~\ref{thm:Phi01} is originally due to Conelly \cite{Con17}.}
\end{figure}

Theorem~\ref{thm:Phi01} extends \cite[Thm.~4.1]{Con17} to general $0 \leq t \leq1$. The analysis in \cite{Con17} is similar to ours, and we are able to conclude also in the range
\[2^{-1/p}\leq t \leq 2^{-1/p}\sqrt{p}(2-p)^{1/p-1/2}\]
due to Lemma~\ref{lem:smallisbig} and Lemma~\ref{lem:equation}. It is also demonstrated in \cite[Thm.~4.1]{Con17} that when $p=1/2$ there must exist at least one value of $0<t<1$ for which the extremal is not unique. Theorem~\ref{thm:Phi01} shows that there is precisely one such $t$ and that this observation is not specific to $p=1/2$, but in fact holds for any $0<p<1$. Figure~\ref{fig:t_p} shows the value $t_p$ for which the extremal is not unique as a function of $p$.

Inspecting Theorem~\ref{thm:Phi01}, we get the following result similarly to how we extracted Corollary~\ref{cor:dec} from Theorem~\ref{thm:BK1}.

\begin{corollary} \label{cor:inc}
	If $0<p<1$, then the function $t \mapsto \Phi_1(p,t)$ is increasing from $\Phi_1(p,0)=1$ to
	\[\Phi_1\big(p,(1-p/2)^{1/p}\big)=(1-p/2)^{1/p}\frac{2}{\sqrt{p(2-p)}}\]
	and then decreasing to $\Phi_1(p,1)=0$.
\end{corollary}

\section{The extremal problem $\Phi_k(p,t)$ for $k\geq 2$ and $1 \leq p \leq \infty$} \label{sec:Phi1inf}
We begin by recalling how F.~Wiener's trick was used in \cite{BK04} to obtain the solution to the extremal problem $\Phi_k(p,t)$ for $k\geq2$ from Theorem~\ref{thm:BK1}.

\begin{theorem}[Benetau--Korenblum] \label{thm:BK2}
	Let $k\geq2$ be an integer. For every $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ and every $0 \leq t \leq 1$,
	\[\Phi_k(p,t)=\Phi_1(p,t).\]
	If $f_1$ is the extremal function for $\Phi_1(p,t)$, then $f_k(z)=f_1(z^k)$ is an extremal function for $\Phi_k(p,t)$.
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}
	Suppose that $f$ is an extremal for $\Phi_k(p,t)$. Since $\|W_k f\|_{H^p} \leq \|f\|_{H^p}$,
	\[f(0)=W_k f(0) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!} = \frac{(W_kf)^{(k)}(0)}{k!},\]
	we conclude that $W_k f$ is also an extremal for $\Phi_k(p,t)$. Thus we may restrict our attention to extremals $\widetilde{f_k}$ of the form $\widetilde{f_k}(z)=\widetilde{f}(z^k)$ for $\widetilde{f} \in H^p$. The stated claims now follow at once from Theorem~\ref{thm:BK1}, since $\|\widetilde{f_k}\|_{H^p}=\|\widetilde{f}\|_{H^p}$.
\end{proof}

The purpose of the present section is to answer the following question. For which trios $k\geq2$, $1 \leq p \leq \infty$ and $0 \leq t \leq 1$ is the extremal for $\Phi_k(p,t)$ unique? Note that while Theorem~\ref{thm:BK2} provides an extremal $f_k(z)=f_1(z^k)$ where $f_1$ denotes the extremal from (the statement of) Theorem~\ref{thm:BK1}, it might not be unique.

In the case $1<p<\infty$ it follows at once from Theorem~\ref{thm:fwiener} (b) that this extremal is unique, although it is perhaps easier to use the strict convexity of $H^p$ and Lemma~\ref{lem:norm1} directly. Since $H^p$ is not strictly convex for $p=1$ and $p=\infty$, these cases require further analysis.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:unique}
	Consider the extremal problem \eqref{eq:Phi} for $k\geq2$ and $1 \leq p \leq \infty$.
	\begin{enumerate}
		\item[(a)] If $1<p\leq \infty$, then the unique extremal is $f_k(z)=f_1(z^k)$.
		\item[(b)] If $p=1$ and $1/2 \leq t \leq 1$, then the unique extremal is $f_k(z)=f_1(z^k)$.
		\item[(c)] If $p=1$ and $0 \leq t < 1/2$, then the extremals are the functions of the form
			\[f(z) = C \prod_{j=1}^k \big(\lambda_j-z\big)\big(1-\overline{\lambda_j}z\big)\]
			with $|\lambda_j|\leq1$ such that $\|f\|_{H^1}=1$, $f(0)=t$ and $f^{(k)}(0)>0$.
	\end{enumerate}
\end{theorem}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:unique} {\normalfont(a)}]
	In view of the discussion above, we need only consider the case $p=\infty$. By Lemma~\ref{lem:structure}, we know that any extremal must be of the form
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:infext}
		f(z) = e^{i\theta} \prod_{j=1}^l \frac{\lambda_j-z}{1-\overline{\lambda_j} z}
	\end{equation}
	for some $0 \leq l \leq k$, constants $\lambda_j \in \mathbb{D}$ and $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$. If $f$ is extremal for $\Phi_k(\infty,t)$, then so is $W_k f$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:BK2}. Consequently, $W_k f$ is also of the form \eqref{eq:infext}. In particular, since both $f$ and $W_k f$ are inner, we get from Lemma~\ref{lem:inner} that $f = W_k f$. From the definition of $W_k$, we know that $f(z)=W_k f(z)=g(z^k)$ for some analytic function $g$. This shows that the only possibility in \eqref{eq:infext} is
	\[f(z) = e^{i\theta} \frac{\lambda-z^k}{1-\overline{\lambda}z^k}\]
	for some $\lambda \in \mathbb{D}$ and $\theta \in \mathbb{R}$. The unique extremal has $\theta=\pi$ and $\lambda=-t$.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:unique} {\normalfont(b)}]
	Suppose that $f$ is extremal for $\Phi_k(1,t)$. By rotations, we extend our scope to functions $f$ such that $|f(0)|=t$. In this case, we can use Lemma~\ref{lem:structure} and write $f=gh$ for
	\begin{align*}
		g(z) &= C \prod_{j=1}^l (z+\alpha_j)\prod_{j=l+1}^k(1+\overline{\alpha_j}z), \\
		h(z) &= C \prod_{j=1}^k (1+\overline{\alpha_j}z).
	\end{align*}
    The constant $C>0$ satisfies
	\[\frac{1}{C^2} = \sum_{j=0}^k \Bigg|\sum_{j_1+j_2+\cdots+j_k = j} \alpha_1^{j_1}\alpha_2^{j_2}\cdots \alpha_k^{j_k}\Bigg|^2 ,\]
	where $j_1,j_2,\ldots,j_k$ take only the values $0$ and $1$. Evidently $\|g\|_{H^2}=\|h\|_{H^2}=1$. Set $A_l = |\alpha_1 \cdots \alpha_l|$ and $B_l = |\alpha_{l+1}\cdots \alpha_k|$. By keeping only the terms $j=0$ and $j=k$ we obtain the trivial estimate
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:trivialest}
		\frac{1}{C^2} \geq 1 + |\alpha_1\alpha_2\cdots \alpha_k|^2 = 1 + A_l^2 B_l^2.
	\end{equation}
	We will adapt an argument due to F.~Riesz \cite{FRiesz19} to get some additional information on the relationship between $g$ and $h$. Write
	\[f(z) = \sum_{j=0}^{2k} a_j z^j, \qquad g(z) = \sum_{j=0}^k b_j z^j \qquad\text{and}\qquad h(z) = \sum_{j=0}^k c_j z^j\]
	and note that $|b_0| = t/|c_0|=t/C$. By the Cauchy product formula we find that
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:cauchy}
		a_k = \sum_{j=0}^k b_j c_{k-j} = t \frac{c_k}{C}\frac{b_0}{|b_0|} + \sum_{j=1}^k b_j c_{k-j}
	\end{equation}
	Suppose that $\widetilde{g} \in H^2$ satisfies $|\widetilde{g}(0)|=t/C$ and $\|\widetilde{g}\|_{H^2}\leq1$. Define $\widetilde{f}=\widetilde{g}h$. The Cauchy--Schwarz inequality shows that $\|\widetilde{f}\|_{H^1}\leq1$, so the extremality of $f$ implies that $|\widetilde{a}_k|\leq|a_k|$. Inspecting \eqref{eq:cauchy} and using the Cauchy--Schwarz inequality, we find that the optimal $g$ must therefore satisfy
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:goptimal}
		g(z) = \frac{t}{C}\frac{\overline{c_k}}{|c_k|} + \sqrt{\frac{1-t^2/C^2}{1-|c_k|^2}} \sum_{j=1}^k \overline{c_{k-j}}z^j,
	\end{equation}
	where we used that $\|h\|_{H^2}=1$. Using that $c_0=C$, we compare the coefficients for $z^k$ in \eqref{eq:goptimal} with the definition of $g$, to find that
	\[\sqrt{\frac{1-t^2/C^2}{1-|c_k|^2}} C = C \prod_{j=l+1}^{k} \overline{\alpha_j} \qquad \implies \qquad \frac{1-t^2/C^2}{1-|c_k|^2} = B_l^2.\]
	Next we insert $t=C^2 A_l$ from the definition of $f=gh$ and $|c_k|^2 = C^2 A_l^2 B_l^2$ from the definition of $h$ to obtain
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:gzk}
		\frac{1-C^2 A_l^2}{1-C^2 A_l^2 B_l^2} = B_l^2 \qquad \Longleftrightarrow \qquad \frac{(1-B_l^2)(1-C^2 A_l^2(1+B_l^2))}{1-C^2 A_l^2 B_l^2}=0.
	\end{equation}
	The additional information we require is encoded in the equation on the right hand side of \eqref{eq:gzk}.

	Suppose that $l\geq1$. Evidently $A_l<1$, since $|\alpha_j|<1$ for $j=1,\ldots,l$ by Lemma~\ref{lem:structure}. It follows that the second factor on the right hand side of \eqref{eq:gzk} can never be $0$, since the trivial estimate \eqref{eq:trivialest} implies that
	\begin{equation} \label{eq:C2est}
		C^2 \leq \frac{1}{1+A_l^2 B_l^2}<\frac{1}{A_l^2(1+B_l^2)}.
	\end{equation}
	From the right hand side of \eqref{eq:gzk} we thus find that $B_l=1$, which shows that $C^2<1/(2 A_l^2)$ by \eqref{eq:C2est}. Since $t = C^2 A_l$, we conclude that $0 \leq t <1/2$.

	By the contrapositive, we have established that if $1/2 \leq t \leq 1$, then the extremal for $\Phi_k(1,t)$ has $l=0$. In this case $A_0=1$ by definition, which shows that $C=\sqrt{t}$. The right hand side of \eqref{eq:gzk} becomes
	\[\frac{(1-B_0^2)(1-t(1+B_0^2))}{1-tB_0^2}=0,\]
	so either $B_0=1$ or $B_0^2 = 1/t-1$. Returning to the definition of $h$ we find that $|c_0|^2 = t$ and $|c_k|^2 = t B_0^2$. Consequently,
	\[1 = \|h\|_{H^2}^2 = t(1+B_0^2)+\sum_{j=1}^{k-1}|c_j|^2.\]
	Since $1/2 \leq t \leq1$, we find that both $B_0=1$ and $B_0^2=1/t-1$ will imply that $c_j=0$ for $j=1,\ldots,k-1$. Thus $h(z)=\sqrt{t}+\sqrt{1-t}\,z^k$. When $l=0$ we have $g=h$, which shows that the unique extremal is
	\[f(z)=\big(\sqrt{t}+\sqrt{1-t}\,z^k\big)^2,\]
	which is of the form $f_k(z)=f_1(z^k)$ as claimed.
\end{proof}

\begin{proof}[Proof of Theorem \ref{thm:unique} \normalfont{(c)}]
	In the case $0\leq t < 1/2$, we know from Theorem~\ref{thm:BK1} and Theorem \ref{thm:BK2} that $\Phi_k(1,t)=1$. See also Figure~\ref{fig:Phi1}. The stated claim follows from Exercise~3 on page~143 of \cite{Duren} by scaling and rotating the function
	\[f(z) = C \prod_{j=1}^k \big(\lambda_j-z\big)\big(1-\overline{\lambda_j}z\big)\]
	to satisfy the conditions $\|f\|_{H^1}=1$, $f(0)>0$ and $f^{(k)}(0)>0$. If the resulting function satisfies $f(0)=t$, then it is an extremal for $\Phi_k(p,t)$ and every extremal is obtained in this way. (This can be established similarly to the case (b) above.)
\end{proof}

\section{The extremal problem $\Phi_k(p,t)$ for $k\geq2$ and $0<p<1$} \label{sec:Phi201}
The purpose of this final section is to record some observations pertaining to the extremal problem \eqref{eq:Phi} in the unresolved case $k\geq2$ and $0<p<1$.

Suppose that $k\geq0$ and consider the related linear extremal problem
\[\Psi_k(p) = \sup \left\{\mre\frac{f^{(k)}(0)}{k!}\,:\, \|f\|_{H^p}\leq 1 \right\}.\]
Evidently, $\Psi_0(p)=1$ for every $0<p\leq\infty$ and the unique extremal is $f(z)=1$. Recall (from \cite{BS20} or \cite{Kabaila60}) that the extremals for $\Psi_k$ satisfy a structure result identical to Lemma~\ref{lem:structure}. Note that the parameter $l$ in Lemma~\ref{lem:structure} describes the number of zeroes of the extremal in $\mathbb{D}$. Conjecture~1 from \cite[Sec.~5]{BS20} states that the extremal for $\Psi_k(p)$ does not vanish in $\mathbb{D}$ when $0<p<1$. The conjecture has been verified in the cases $k=0,1,2$ and for $(k,p)=(3,2/3)$.

Let us now suppose that $k\geq1$. There are two obvious connections between the extremal problems $\Phi_k$ and $\Psi_k$. Namely,
\[\Phi_k(p,0)=\Psi_{k-1}(p) \qquad \text{and} \qquad \max_{0 \leq t \leq 1} \Phi_k(p,t) = \Psi_k(p).\]
Assume that the above-mentioned conjecture from \cite{BS20} holds. This assumption yields that the extremal for $\Phi_k(p,0)$ has precisely one zero in $\mathbb{D}$ and the extremal for the $t$ which maximizes $\Phi_k(p,t)$ does not vanish in $\mathbb{D}$. Note that the extremal for $\Phi_k(p,1)$, which is $f(z)=1$, does not vanish in $\mathbb{D}$.

\begin{question}
	Suppose that $0<p<1$. Is it true that the extremal for $\Phi_k(p,t)$ has at most one zero in $\mathbb{D}$?
\end{question}

We have verified numerically that the question has an affirmative answer for $k=2$. Note that for $1<p\leq\infty$, the extremal for $\Phi_k(p,t)$ either has $0$ or $k$ zeroes in $\mathbb{D}$ by Theorem~\ref{thm:unique} (a). In the case $p=1$, the extremal may have anywhere from $0$ to $k$ zeroes by Theorem~\ref{thm:unique} (b) and (c).

As mentioned in the introduction, Theorem~\ref{thm:fwiener} yields the estimates
\[\Phi_1(p,t) \leq \Phi_k(p,t) \leq k^{1/p-1} \Phi_1(p,t).\]
The upper bound is only attained if $\Phi_1(p,t)=0$ which happens if and only if $t=1$. Of course, since $\Phi_1(p,1)=0$ the lower bound is also attained.

\begin{question}
	Fix $k\geq2$ and $0<p<1$. Is there some $t_0$ such that $\Phi_k(p,t)=\Phi_1(p,t)$ holds for every $t_0 \leq t \leq 1$?
\end{question}

By a combination of numerical and analytical computations, we have verified that the question has an affirmative answer for $k=2$ and that in this case
\[t_0 = \left(1+\left(\frac{p}{2-p}\right)^2\right)^{1/p}.\]
Let us close by briefly explaining our reasoning. We began by considering the case case $l=0$ in Lemma~\ref{lem:structure}. Setting
\[\widetilde{f}=\widetilde{g} h^{2/p-1}\]
and arguing as in the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:unique} (b) (see also \cite{BS20}), we found if $t\geq t_0$, then the only possible extremal for $\Phi_2(p,t)$ with $l=0$ is of the form $f_2(z)=f_1(z^2)$ where $f_1$ is the corresponding extremal for $\Phi_1(p,t)$. Next, if $l=2$ then (as in the case $k=1$) we can only obtain $t$-values in the range $0 \leq t \leq 2^{-1/p} \sqrt{p}(2-p)^{1/p-1/2}$. However, since
\[2^{-1/p} \sqrt{p}(2-p)^{1/p-1/2} < t_0\]
for $0<p<1$ we can ignore the case $l=2$. The case $l=1$ was excluded by numerical computations.

Complex Variables (math.CV); Classical Analysis and ODEs (math.CA)


On the Maximum Density of Graphs with Good Edge-Labellings

Abstract: A good edge-labelling of a simple, finite graph is a labelling of its edges with real numbers such that, for every ordered pair of vertices (u,v), there is at most one nondecreasing path from u to v. In this paper we prove that any graph on n vertices that admits a good edge-labelling has at most n log_2(n)/2 edges, and that this bound is tight for infinitely many values of n. Thus we significantly improve on the previously best known bounds. The main tool of the proof is a combinatorial lemma which might be of independent interest. For every n we also construct an n-vertex graph that admits a good edge-labelling and has n log_2(n)/2 - O(n) edges.

\section{Introduction}

Let $G$ be a finite, simple graph.
A \emph{good edge-labelling} of $G$ is a labelling of its edges with real numbers such that, for any ordered pair of vertices $(u,v)$, there is at most one nondecreasing path from $u$ to $v$. This notion was introduced in~\cite{origin} to solve wavelength assignment problems for specific categories of graphs. We say $G$ is \emph{good} if it admits a good edge-labelling.

Let $f(n)$ be the maximum number of edges of a good graph on $n$ vertices. Ara{\'u}jo, Cohen, Giroire, and Havet~\cite{gn} initiated the study of this function.
They observed that hypercube graphs are good and that any graph containing $K_3$ or $K_{2,3}$ is not good.
From these observations they concluded that if $n$ is a power of two, then
$$
f(n) \ge \frac{n}{2} \log_2(n) \:,
$$
and that for all $n$,
$$
f(n) \leq \frac{n\sqrt n}{\sqrt 2} + O\left(n^{4/3}\right) \:.
$$
The first author of this paper proved that any good graph whose maximum degree is within a constant factor of its average degree (in particular, any good regular graph) has at most $n^{1+o(1)}$ edges---see~\cite{abbas} for more details.

Before we state the main result of this paper, we need one more definition.
Let $b(n)$ be the function that counts the total number of $1$'s in the binary expansions of all integers from $0$ up to $n-1$. This function was studied in~\cite{binary}.
Our main result is the following theorem.

\begin{theorem}\label{thm:main}
For all positive integers $n$,
$$
\frac{n}{2} \log_2 \left( \frac{3n}{4} \right) \leq b(n) \leq f(n) \leq \frac{n}{2} \: \log_2(n) \:.
$$
\end{theorem}

It follows that the asymptotic value of $f(n)$ is
$n \log_2(n) / 2 - O(n)$.
Note that Theorem~\ref{thm:main} implies that \emph{any} good graph on $n$ vertices has at most $n\log_2(n)/2$ edges,
significantly improving the previously known upper bounds.
Moreover, this bound is tight if $n$ is a power of two.
We also give an explicit construction of a good graph with $n$ vertices and $b(n)$ edges for every $n$.

\section{The Proofs}

This section is devoted to prove the main result, Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.

\subsection{The upper bound}

For a graph $G$, an edge-labelling $\phi:E(G) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$, and an integer $t \geq 0$, a \emph{nice $t$-walk from $v_0$ to $v_t$} is a sequence $v_0v_1\dots v_t$ of vertices such that $v_{i-1}v_i$ is an edge for $1\leq i\leq t$, and $v_{i-1}\neq v_{i+1}$ and $\phi(v_{i-1} v_{i}) \leq \phi (v_{i}v_{i+1})$ for $1 \leq i \leq t-1$. We call $v_t$ the \emph{last vertex} of the walk. When $t$ does not play a role, we simply refer to a \emph{nice walk}.  The existence of a self-intersecting nice walk implies that the edge-labelling is not good: let $v_0 v_1 \dots v_t$ be a shortest such walk with $v_0 = v_t$. Then there are two nondecreasing paths $v_0 v_1 \dots v_{t-1}$ and $v_0 v_{t-1}$ from $v_0$ to $v_{t-1}$. Thus if for some pair of distinct vertices $(u,v)$ there are two nice walks from $u$ to $v$, then the labelling is not good. Also, if for some vertex $v$, there is a nice $t$-walk from $v$ to $v$ with $t>0$, then the labelling is not good. Consequently, if the total number of nice walks is larger than $2\binom{n}{2}+n=n^2$, then the labelling is not good.

The following lemma will be very useful.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem:Edgelabel}
Let $G$ and $H$ be graphs with good edge-labellings on disjoint vertex sets. Then if we add a matching between the vertices of $G$ and $H$ (i.e., add a set of edges, such that each added edge has an endpoint in either of $V(G)$ and $V(H)$, and every vertex in $V(G) \cup V(H)$ is incident to at most one added edge), then the resulting graph is good.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
Consider a good edge-labelling  of $G$ and $H$, and let $M$ be a number greater than all existing labels. Then label the matching edges with $M, M+1, M+2$, etc. It is not hard to verify that the resulting edge-labelling is still good.
\end{proof}

\begin{corollary}
\label{cor:recursive}
We have $f(1) = 0$ and for all $n > 1$,
$$f(n) \geq \max \Big\{ f(n_1) + f(n_2) + \min \{ n_1, n_2\}: 1 \leq n_1, 1\leq n_2, n_1 + n_2 = n \Big\} \:.$$
\end{corollary}

The proof of the upper bound in Theorem~\ref{thm:main} relies on the analysis of a one-player game, which is defined next.
The player, who will be called Alice henceforth, starts with $n$ sheets of paper, on each of which a positive integer is written.
In every step, Alice does an operation as follows. She chooses any two sheets. Assume that the numbers written on them are $a$ and $b$. She erases these numbers, and writes $a+b$ on both sheets. We denote the move by a pair $(a,b)$. The \emph{configuration} of the game is a multiset of size $n$, containing the numbers written on the sheets, in which the multiplicity of number $x$ equals the number of sheets on which $x$ is written. Notice that there may be multiple pairs of sheets with numbers $a$ and $b$ written on them, and we treat choosing any such pair as the same move, since they all result in the same configuration (that is, all moves are isomorphic). Note also that the moves $(a,b)$ and $(b,a)$ have the same effect.

Clearly, after playing the move $(a,b)$, the sum of the numbers is increased by $a+b$. The aim of the game is to keep the sum of the numbers smaller than a certain threshold. Let $S$ be  the \emph{starting configuration} of the game, namely, a multiset of size $n$ containing the numbers initially written on the sheets, and let $k\geq0$ be an integer. We denote by $opt(S,k)$ the smallest sum Alice can get after doing $k$ operations. An intuitively good-looking strategy is the following: in each step, choose two sheets with the smallest numbers. We call this the \emph{greedy} strategy, and show that it is indeed an optimal strategy.
Specifically, we prove the following theorem, which may be of independent interest.

\begin{theorem} \label{thm:greedy}
For any starting configuration $S$ and any nonnegative integer $k$, if Alice plays the greedy strategy, then the sum of the numbers after $k$ moves equals $opt(S,k)$.
\end{theorem}

Before proving Theorem~\ref{thm:greedy}, we show how this implies our upper bound.

\begin{proof}
[Proof of the upper bound of Theorem~\ref{thm:main}]
\label{thm:upper_bd}
Let $G$ be a graph with $n$ vertices and $m>{n} \log_2(n) / 2$ edges.
We need to show that $G$ does not have a good edge-labelling.
Consider an arbitrary edge-labelling $\phi:E(G) \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$.
Enumerate the edges of $G$ as $e_1,e_2,\dots,e_m$ such that
$$\phi(e_1) \leq \phi(e_2) \leq \dots \leq \phi(e_m) \:.$$
We may assume that the inequalities are strict.
Indeed, if some label $L$ appears $p > 1$ times, we can assign the labels $L,L+1,\ldots,L+(p-1)$ to the edges originally labelled $L$,
and increase  by $p$ the label of edges with original label larger than $L$.
It is easy to see that the modified edge-labelling is still good, and by repeatedly applying this operation all ties are broken.

Let us denote by $G_i$ the subgraph of $G$ induced by $\{e_1,e_2,\dots,e_i\}$.
For each vertex $v$ and $0\leq i \leq m$, let $a_v^{(i)}$ be the number of nice walks with last vertex $v$ in $G_i$.
Clearly, $a_v^{(0)} = 1$ for all vertices $v$.
Suppose the graph is initially empty and we add the edges $e_1,e_2,\dots,e_m$ one by one, in this order. Fix an $i$ with $1\leq i \leq m$. Let $u$ and $v$ be the endpoints of $e_i$.
After adding the edge $e_i$, for any $t$, any nice $t$-walk with last vertex $u$ (respectively, $v$)
in $G_{i-1}$ can be extended via $e_i$ to a nice $(t+1)$-walk with last vertex $v$ (respectively, $u$) in $G_i$.
So, we have $a_u^{(i)} = a_v^{(i)} = a_u^{(i-1)} + a_v^{(i-1)}$ and $a_w^{(i)} = a_w^{(i-1)}$ for $w\notin\{u,v\}$.

Thus we are in the same setting as the one-player game described before, with starting configuration $S = \{1,1,\dots,1\}$, so we have
$$
\sum_{v\in V(G)} a_v^{(m)} \geq opt(S, m)\:.
$$
Hence, in order to prove that $\phi$ is not a good edge-labelling, it is sufficient to show that $opt(S,m) > n^2$.

Let $m_0$ be the largest number for which $opt(S,m_0) \leq n^2$,
and let $\alpha = \lfloor \log_2(n) \rfloor$.
First, assume that $n$ is even.
By Theorem~\ref{thm:greedy}, we may assume that Alice plays according to the greedy strategy.
The smallest number on the sheets is initially 1, and is doubled after every $n/2$ moves.
Hence after $\alpha n/2$ moves, the smallest number becomes $2^{\alpha}$,
so the sum of the numbers would be
$2^{\alpha} n$.
In every subsequent move, the sum is increased by
$2^{\alpha+1}$,
so Alice can play at most $(n^2 - 2^{\alpha} n) / 2^{\alpha+1}$ more moves before the sum of the numbers becomes greater than $n^2$.
Consequently,
$$m_0 \leq \alpha \: \frac{n}{2} + \frac{n (n-2^{\alpha})}{2^{\alpha+1}} \:.$$

Now, define $h(x) := \log_2(x) - x + 1$.
Then $h$ is concave {in $[1,2]$} and $h(1)=h(2)=0$, which implies that $h(x) \geq 0$ for all $x \in [1,2]$.
In particular, for $x_0 = n / 2^{\alpha}$, we have
$$\frac{n-2^{\alpha}}{2^{\alpha}} = x_0-1 \leq \log_2(x_0) = \log_2\left(\frac{n}{2^{\alpha}}\right) = \log_2(n) - \alpha \:.$$
Therefore,
$$m_0 \leq \frac{n}{2}\: \alpha + \frac{n}{2} \: \frac{n - 2^{\alpha}}{2^{\alpha}} \leq \frac{n}{2}\: \log_2(n) < m\:,$$
which completes the proof.

Finally, assume that $n$ is odd.
Since $2n$ is even, we have
$$f(2n) \leq n \log_2(2n) = n\log_2(n) + n \:.$$
On the other hand, by Corollary~\ref{cor:recursive},
$$f(2n) \geq 2f(n) + n \:.$$
Combining these inequalities gives
$$f(n) \leq \frac{n}{2} \log_2(n) \:,$$
completing the proof of the lemma.
\end{proof}

The rest of this section is devoted to prove Theorem~\ref{thm:greedy}. Let $S = \{s_1,s_2,\dots,s_n\}$ be the starting configuration of the game. Note that after each step, the sum of the  numbers is of the form $\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_i s_i$ for some positive integers $\{c_i\}_{i=1}^{n}$. The sequence $\{c_i\}_{i=1}^{n}$ depends only on the sheets Alice chooses in each step, and does not depend on $\{s_i\}_{i=1}^{n}$. We say that $(c_1,c_2,\dots,c_n)$ is \emph{$k$-feasible} if {after $k$ steps} Alice can actually get a sum of the form $\sum_{i=1}^{n} c_i s_i$. For example, $(1,1,\dots,1)$ is the only $0$-feasible $n$-tuple, and there exist $\binom{n}{2}$ different 1-feasible $n$-tuples, one of them being $(2,2,1,1,\dots,1)$. Notice that for any permutation $\pi$ of $\{1,2,\dots,n\}$, if $(c_1,c_2,\dots,c_n)$ is $k$-feasible, then so is $(c_{\pi(1)},c_{\pi(2)},\dots,c_{\pi(n)})$, since Alice can first permute the sheets according to the permutation $\pi$, and then apply the same strategy as before.

For multisets $S$ and $T$ of size $n$, we write $S \leq T$ if for all $k \geq 0$ we have $opt(S,k) \leq opt(T,k)$. Note that if we can arrange the elements of $S$ and $T$ as $S=\{s_1,s_2,\dots,s_n\}$ and $T=\{t_1,t_2,\dots,t_n\}$ such that $s_i \leq t_i$ holds for all $1\leq i \leq n$, then $S \leq T$.

First, we make two useful observations.

\begin{lemma}\label{lem_3best}
Let $k\geq 2 $ and assume that the starting configuration is
$$
S = \{a, b, c, x_1, x_2, \dots, x_m \},
$$
where $a\leq b \leq c$. Also suppose that either there is an optimal $k$-step strategy in which Alice plays $(b,c)$ and $(a,b+c)$ in the first and second steps, or there is an optimal $k$-step strategy in which Alice plays $(a,c)$ and $(b,a+c)$ in the first and second steps. Then, there exists an optimal $k$-strategy in which Alice plays $(a,b)$ and $(c,a+b)$ in the first and second steps.
\end{lemma}
\begin{proof}
In the first case, the configuration after the second step is
$$
U = \{b+c, a+b+c, a + b + c, x_1,x_2,\dots,x_m\}.
$$
In the second case, the configuration after the second step is
$$
V = \{a+c, a+b+c, a+b+c, x_1,x_2,\dots,x_m\}.
$$
In the third case, the configuration after the second step is
$$
T = \{a+b, a+b+c, a+b+c, x_1,x_2,\dots, x_m\}.
$$
Since $a\leq b\leq c$, we have $T \leq U$ and $T \leq V$, and therefore $opt(T,k-2) \leq opt(U,k-2)$ and $opt(T,k-2) \leq opt(V,k-2)$. Hence, the strategy starting with moves $(a,b)$ and $(c,a+b)$ is also an optimal $k$-step strategy.
\end{proof}

\bigskip

\begin{lemma}
\label{lem:weights}
Let $x_1,x_2,\dots,x_m,a,b,c,d$ be positive integers with $a \leq b \leq c \leq d$.
Define $S$, $T$, and $U$ as follows:
 \begin{align*}
S & := \{x_1,x_2, \dots, x_m, a + b, a + b, c + d, c + d\}\:;  \\
T & := \{x_1, x_2,\dots, x_m, a + c, a + c, b + d, b + d\}\:; \\
U & := \{x_1, x_2, \dots, x_m, a + d, a + d, b + c, b + c\} \:.
\end{align*}
Then, we have $S \leq T$ and $S \leq U$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
Let $k \geq 0$.
We first show that $opt(S,k) \leq opt(T,k)$.
Let $w_1,w_2,\dots,w_n$ be such that
$$opt(T,k) = \sum_{i=1}^m w_i x_i + w_{m+1} (a+c) + w_{m+2} (a+c) + w_{m+3} (b+d) + w_{m+4} (b+d) \:.$$
Since
$(w_1,w_2,\dots,w_m, w_{m+1}, w_{m+2}, w_{m+3}, w_{m+4})$
and
$(w_1,w_2,\dots,w_m, w_{m+3}, w_{m+4}, w_{m+1}, w_{m+2})$
are $k$-feasible, we have
\begin{align*}
opt(S,k) & \leq \sum_{i=1}^m w_i x_i + w_{m+1} (a+b) + w_{m+2} (a+b) + w_{m+3} (c+d) + w_{m+4} (c+d)
\\ & = opt(T,k) + (w_{m+1}+w_{m+2} - w_{m+3} - w_{m+4}) (b-c) \:,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
opt(S,k) & \leq \sum_{i=1}^m w_i x_i + w_{m+3} (a+b) + w_{m+4} (a+b) + w_{m+1} (c+d) + w_{m+2} (c+d) \\
& = opt(T,k) + (w_{m+1}+w_{m+2}-w_{m+3}-w_{m+4}) (d-a) \:.
\end{align*}
Now, if $ w_{m+1}+w_{m+2} - w_{m+3} - w_{m+4}  \geq 0$,
then the first inequality gives $opt(S,k) \leq opt(T,k)$,
and otherwise, the second inequality gives $opt(S,k) \leq opt(T,k)$.

Similarly, we show that $opt(S,k) \leq opt(U,k)$.
Let $w_1,w_2,\dots,w_n$ be such that
$$opt(U,k) = \sum_{i=1}^m w_i x_i + w_{m+1} (a+d) + w_{m+2} (a+d) + w_{m+3} (b+c) + w_{m+4} (b+c) \:.$$
As before, let us notice that both
$(w_1,w_2,\dots,w_m, w_{m+1}, w_{m+2}, w_{m+3}, w_{m+4})$
as well as
$(w_1,w_2,\dots,w_m, w_{m+3}, w_{m+4}, w_{m+1}, w_{m+2})$
are $k$-feasible, hence we have
\begin{align*}
opt(S,k) & \leq \sum_{i=1}^m w_i x_i + w_{m+1} (a+b) + w_{m+2} (a+b) + w_{m+3} (c+d) + w_{m+4} (c+d)
\\ & = opt(U,k) + (w_{m+1}+w_{m+2} - w_{m+3} - w_{m+4}) (b-d) \:,
\end{align*}
and
\begin{align*}
opt(S,k) & \leq \sum_{i=1}^m w_i x_i + w_{m+3} (a+b) + w_{m+4} (a+b) + w_{m+1} (c+d) + w_{m+2} (c+d) \\
& = opt(U,k) + (w_{m+1}+w_{m+2}-w_{m+3}-w_{m+4}) (c-a) \:.
\end{align*}
Now, if $ w_{m+1}+w_{m+2} - w_{m+3} - w_{m+4}  \geq 0$,
then the first inequality gives $opt(S,k) \leq opt(U,k)$,
and otherwise, the second inequality gives $opt(S,k) \leq opt(U,k)$.
\end{proof}

Lemma~\ref{lem:weights} immediately implies the following corollary.
\begin{corollary}\label{cor_opt}
Let $k \geq 2$ and let $a\leq b \leq c \leq d$ be four numbers in the starting configuration. Suppose that either  there is an optimal $k$-step strategy in which Alice plays $(a,c)$ and $(b,d)$ in the first two steps, or there is an optimal $k$-step strategy in which Alice plays $(a,d)$ and $(b,c)$ in the first two steps. Then there exists an optimal $k$-step strategy in which Alice plays $(a,b)$ and $(c,d)$ in the first and second steps.
\end{corollary}

The following lemma finishes the proof of Theorem~\ref{thm:greedy}.
\begin{lemma}
Let $k\geq 0$, and let $S = \{s_1,s_2,\dots, s_n\}$ be the starting configuration, arranged such that $s_1\leq s_2 \leq \dots \leq s_n$.  Then there exists an optimal $k$-step strategy with the first move $(s_1,s_2)$.
\end{lemma}

\begin{proof}
We prove the lemma by induction on $k$. The induction base is obvious for $k = 0$ and easy for $k=1$, so assume that $k\geq 2$. Consider an optimal $k$-step strategy. Assume that the first move is $(s_i,s_j)$, where $1\leq i < j \leq n$. If $i=1$ and $j=2$, then we are done. Otherwise, there are 5 cases to consider:
\begin{description}
\item [$\{i,j\}=\{1,3\}$.]
There are two subcases:

\begin{enumerate}
\item If $s_1 + s_3 \leq s_4$, then by the induction hypothesis, for the configuration that arose after the first step, there is an optimal $(k-1)$-step strategy in which Alice's first move is $(s_2,s_1+s_3)$. That is, there is an optimal $k$-step strategy for the initial configuration in which Alice plays $(s_1,s_3)$ and $(s_2,s_1+s_3)$ in the first two steps. Thus, by Lemma~\ref{lem_3best} there also exists an optimal $k$-step strategy (for the initial configuration) with first move $(s_1,s_2)$.

\item If $s_1 + s_3 > s_4$, then by the induction hypothesis, there is an optimal strategy with second move $(s_2,s_4)$. Then, by Lemma~\ref{lem:weights},  there exists an optimal  strategy with first move $(s_1,s_2)$.
\end{enumerate}

\item [$\{i,j\}=\{2,3\}$.]
As before, there are two subcases:
\begin{enumerate}
\item If $s_2 + s_3 \leq s_4$, then by the induction hypothesis, there is an optimal strategy with second move $(s_1,s_2+s_3)$.  As before, by Lemma~\ref{lem_3best},  there exists an optimal  strategy with  first move $(s_1,s_2)$.

\item If $s_2 + s_3 > s_4$, then by the induction hypothesis, there is an optimal strategy with second move $(s_1,s_4)$. Then, by Lemma~\ref{lem:weights}, there exists an optimal  strategy with first move $(s_1,s_2)$.
\end{enumerate}

\item [$i=1$ and $j>3$.] By the induction hypothesis, there is an optimal strategy with second move $(s_2,s_3)$, and thus by Lemma~\ref{lem:weights}, there exists an optimal strategy with first move $(s_1,s_2)$.

\item [$i=2$ and $j>3$.] By the induction hypothesis, there is an optimal strategy with second move $(s_1,s_3)$, and again, Lemma~\ref{lem:weights} implies that  there exists an optimal strategy with  first move $(s_1,s_2)$.

\item [$i>2$ and $j>3$.] By the induction hypothesis, there is an optimal strategy with second move $(s_1,s_2)$. Swapping the first and second moves gives an optimal strategy with first move $(s_1,s_2)$.\qedhere
\end{description}
\end{proof}

\subsection{The lower bound}

In this section we prove the lower bound in Theorem~\ref{thm:main}.
Recall that $b(n)$ is equal to the total number of $1$'s in the binary expansions of all integers from $0$ up to $n-1$.
It is known~\cite{binary} that $b(1)=0$ and $b(n)$ satisfies the recursive formula
$$b(n) = \max \{ b(n_1) + b(n_2) + \min \{ n_1, n_2\}: 1 \leq n_1, 1\leq n_2, n_1 + n_2 = n\} \:,$$
and the lower bound in Theorem~\ref{thm:main} follows by using induction and applying Corollary~\ref{cor:recursive}.
Moreover, McIlroy~\cite{binary} proved that $b(n) \geq {n} \log_2 \left( \frac{3}{4} n \right) / 2$.

For every $n$ we also give an explicit construction of a good graph with $n$ vertices and $b(n)$ edges.
It is easy to see that $b(n)$ equals the number of edges
in the graph $G_n$ with vertex set $\{0,1,\dots,n-1\}$, and with vertices $i$ and $j$ being adjacent
if the binary expansions of $i$ and $j$ differ in exactly one digit.
This graph is an induced subgraph of the $\lceil \log_2(n) \rceil$-dimensional hypercube graph.
It can be shown by induction and Lemma~\ref{lem:Edgelabel} that the hypercube graph is good,
which implies that $G_n$ is also good
(since the restriction of a good edge-labelling for the supergraph
to the edges of the subgraph is a good edge-labelling for the subgraph).
Hence $G_n$ is a good graph with $n$ vertices and $b(n)$ edges.

\section{Concluding Remarks}

We proved that any $n$-vertex graph with a good edge-labelling has at most $n\log_2(n)/2$ edges,
and for every $n$ we constructed a good $n$-vertex graph with $n\log_2(n)/2 - O(n)$ edges.
Thus we proved
$f(n) = n\log_2(n)/2 - O(n)$.
One can try to investigate the second order term of the function $f(n)$.
Perhaps it is the case that our construction is best possible; that is, in fact $f(n) = b(n)$?

It would be interesting to further investigate the connection between
having a good edge-labelling and other parameters of the graph;
in particular, the length of the shortest cycle (known as the girth) of the graph (see, e.g.,~\cite{conjecture}).
Ara{\'u}jo~et~al.~\cite{gn} proved that any planar graph with girth at least 6 has a good edge-labelling,
and asked whether 6 can be replaced with 5 in this result.
The first author~\cite{abbas} proved that any graph with maximum degree $\Delta$
and girth at least $40\Delta$ is good.
This does not seem to be tight, and improving the dependence on $\Delta$ is an interesting research direction.