1: \documentstyle{amltd}

2: \begin{document}

3: \input amssym.def

4: \input amssym.tex

5: \annalsline{151}{2000}

6: %\received{March 17, 1997}

7: %\revised{July 21, 1999}

8: \startingpage{1}

9: \def\bye{\end{document}}

10:  \font\tenrm=cmr10

11: 

12: %--------------- Author macros ---------------

13: \def\underset#1#2{{#2}_{#1}}

14: \def\eqref#1{(\ref{#1})}

15: \def\ritem#1{\item[{\rm #1}]}

16: \catcode`\@=11

17: \font\twelvemsb=msbm10 scaled 1100

18: \font\tenmsb=msbm10

19: %\font\ninemsb=msbm7 scaled 1100%msbm9

20: \font\ninemsb=msbm10 scaled 800

21: \newfam\msbfam

22: \textfont\msbfam=\twelvemsb  \scriptfont\msbfam=\ninemsb

23:   \scriptscriptfont\msbfam=\ninemsb

24: \def\msb@{\hexnumber@\msbfam}

25: \def\Bbb{\relax\ifmmode\let\next\Bbb@\else

26:  \def\next{\errmessage{Use \string\Bbb\space only in math

27: mode}}\fi\next}

28: \def\Bbb@#1{{\Bbb@@{#1}}}

29: \def\Bbb@@#1{\fam\msbfam#1}

30: \catcode`\@=12

31: 

32: 

33:  \catcode`\@=11

34: \font\twelveeuf=eufm10 scaled 1100

35: \font\teneuf=eufm10

36: \font\nineeuf=eufm7 scaled 1100%eufm9

37: \newfam\euffam

38: \textfont\euffam=\twelveeuf  \scriptfont\euffam=\teneuf

39:   \scriptscriptfont\euffam=\nineeuf

40: \def\euf@{\hexnumber@\euffam}

41: \def\frak{\relax\ifmmode\let\next\frak@\else

42:  \def\next{\errmessage{Use \string\frak\space only in math

43: mode}}\fi\next}

44: \def\frak@#1{{\frak@@{#1}}}

45: \def\frak@@#1{\fam\euffam#1}

46: \catcode`\@=12

47: 

48:  

49: 

50: 

51: %-------------- Author entries --------------------

52: 

53: \title{Some spherical uniqueness theorems\\ for 

54: multiple trigonometric series} 

55: \shorttitle{Spherical Uniqueness Theorems} 

56: 

57:  \acknowledgements{The research of both authors 

58: was partially supported by NSF grant DMS 9707011 and a grant from the Faculty and Development Program

59: of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, De Paul University.\\

60: \phantom{From*}1991 {\it Mathematics Subject Classification}.

61: Primary 42B05, 42B99; Secondary 42B08, 42B15, 42A63.  }

62:  \twoauthors{J.\  Marshall Ash}{Gang Wang}

63: \institutions{De Paul University,  Chicago, IL\\

64: {\eightpoint {\it E-mail addresses\/}: mash@math.depaul.edu}\\

65:  \hglue.97in {\eightpoint gwang@math.depaul.edu}} 

66: 

67: \phantom{more space}

68: 

69:  \bigbreak \centerline{\bf Abstract}

70: \bigbreak

71: We prove that if a multiple trigonometric series is spherically Abel 

72: sum\-mable everywhere to an everywhere finite function $f(x)$ which is 

73: bounded below by an integrable function, then the series is the Fourier  

74: series of $f(x)$ if the coefficients of the multiple trigonometric series 

75: satisfy a mild growth condition. As a consequence, we show that if a 

76: multiple trigonometric series is spherically convergent everywhere to an 

77: everywhere finite integrable function $f(x)$, then the series is the Fourier  

78: series of $f(x)$. We also show that a singleton is a set of uniqueness. These results are generalizations of a recent theorem of 

79: J. Bourgain and some results of V. Shapiro.

80: 

81: \section{Introduction and summary of results}\label{s:0}

82: 

83: We start with the question of spherical uniqueness of multiple 

84: trigonometric series for integrable functions under Abel summability. Greek

85: letters $\xi, \eta, \cdots$ will denote points of the $d$-dimensional

86: lattice $\Bbb  Z^d$, Roman letters $x, y,\cdots$ points of the 

87: $d$-dimensional torus $\Bbb {T}^d = [-\pi, \pi)^d$, $\langle \cdot, \cdot

88: \rangle$ inner product, and $|\cdot|$ $d$-dimensional Euclidean norm.

89: For a multiple trigonometric series 

90: $\sum_{\xi\in Z^d} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$ 

91: where the coefficients $a_{\xi}$ are arbitrary complex numbers, the Abel 

92: sum is defined to be  the limit of the function 

93: \[

94: f(x, t) ={\sum}_{\xi\in Z^d} a_{\xi} 

95: e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle-|\xi|t}

96: \]

97: as $t\to 0^+$ if such limit exists. In general, denote

98: \begin{eqnarray*}

99: \noalign{\vskip4pt}

100: f^*(x) & =& \limsup_{t\to 0^+} f(x,t)\\

101: \noalign{\vskip4pt}

102: & =& \Re f^*(x) + i \Im f^*(x) 

103: \\

104: \noalign{\vskip-6pt}

105: \end{eqnarray*}

106: $f_*(x) = \Re f_*(x) + i \Im f_*(x)$ is similarly defined with $\limsup$ being 

107: replaced by $\liminf$.

108: 

109: It is well-known, when $d=1$, that if $\sum a_{\xi}e^{i\xi x}$ is Abel 

110: summable to 0 everywhere and if $a_{\xi}=o(|\xi|)$, then all $a_{\xi}=0$.

111: See, for example, \cite{Ve1} and \cite{Ve2}. To see that this theorem is

112: sharp, look at the one dimensional series\break $\delta ^{\prime }(x)=-

113: \sum \xi\sin {\xi x}$, which may be thought of as the derivative

114: of the Dirac delta function. It is easy to check that this series is 

115: Abel summable to $0$, although the growth condition is just 

116: barely violated. Thinking of $\delta ^{\prime }$ as a 

117: degenerate $d$ dimensional function, it is immediately clear that the 

118: hypothesis of a $d$ dimensional uniqueness theorem concerning Abel 

119: summability will necessarily have to carry some growth condition. 

120: One generalization of this fact is due to Victor Shapiro, who extended one 

121: dimensional work of Verblunsky and of Rajchman and Zygmund (\cite{Sh}).

122: 

123: \phantom{hee}

124: 

125: \proclaimtitle{Shapiro}

126: \proclaim{Theorem} \label{t:sh1}

127: Let $\sum a_{\xi}e^{i\langle\xi, x\rangle}$ be a multiple trigonometric 

128: series{\rm .}  Suppose that

129: \begin{itemize}

130: \ritem{1.}  the coefficients $a_{\xi}$ satisfy the following growth rate 

131: condition\/{\rm :}

132: \end{itemize}

133: \begin{equation}\label{0.1}

134: \sum_{R-1<\left| \xi\right| \leq R}\left| a_{\xi}\right| 

135: =o\left(R\right)  \hbox{ as } R\rightarrow \infty ,

136: \end{equation}

137: \begin{itemize}

138: \ritem{2.}  $f^{*}(x)$ and $f_{*}(x)$ are finite for all $x${\rm , }

139: 

140: \ritem{3.}  $a_{\xi}=\overline{a_{-\xi}}$ for all $\xi${\rm ,} and

141: 

142: \ritem{4.}  $\min\{\Re f_{*}(x), \Im f_{*}(x)\} \geq A(x)$ where $A\left( x\right) 

143: $ is in $L^{1}\left( \Bbb  {T}^{d}\right) .$

144: \end{itemize}

145: 

146: \noindent Then $f_{*}\left( x\right) \in L^{1}\left( \Bbb {T}^{d}\right) $ and $\sum

147: a_{\xi}e^{i\langle \xi,x\rangle}$ is the Fourier series of $f_{*}.$

148: \endproclaim 

149: 

150: \phantom{hee}

151: 

152: 

153: This theorem is sharp because the example $\delta ^{\prime }$

154: mentioned above just barely fails to meet condition \eqref{0.1}. Nevertheless

155: condition \eqref{0.1} is disappointingly strong in the sense that when Abel 

156: summability is replaced by regular convergence, condition \eqref{0.1} is not a direct consequence of convergence. However, there is a known theorem concerning the coefficients' growth 

157: rate for spherically convergent multiple trigonometric series. In fact, it is 

158: implied by the following Cantor-Lebesgue type theorem.

159: 

160: \proclaimtitle{Connes}

161: \proclaim{Theorem} \label{t:con} Let ${\cal O}\subset \Bbb  T^d$

162: be a ball or a subset which has full measure and is of Baire second category 

163: relative to $\Bbb  {T}^d$.

164: If $\sum_{|\xi|=R} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$ tends 

165: to $0$ as $R\to\infty$ at every point of ${\cal O}$, then 

166: \begin{equation}\label{0.2}

167: \varepsilon_R^2 = \sum_{|\xi| = R}|a_{\xi}|^2

168: = o(1) \qquad \hbox{ as } R\to\infty.

169: \end{equation}

170: \endproclaim

171: 

172: Connes proved this theorem for dimension $d$ in 1976, twenty years 

173: after Shapiro's Theorem~\ref{t:sh1}. Cooke \cite{C} and shortly thereafter 

174: Zygmund \cite{Z} had completed the $d=2$ case five years before Connes' work.

175: 

176: An easy corollary of Theorem~\ref{t:con} gives the coefficients' growth rate

177: condition for spherically convergent multiple trigonometric series.

178:  

179: \proclaimtitle{Connes}

180: \proclaim{{C}orollary} \label{c:con}

181:  Let ${\cal O}\subset \Bbb  T^d$

182: be a ball or a subset which has full measure and is of Baire second category 

183: relative to $\Bbb  {T}${\rm .}

184: If\/ $\lim_{R\to\infty}\sum_{|\xi|\leq R} a_{\xi} 

185: e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$ exists {\rm (}\/as a finite number\/{\rm )} at each point of

186: ${\cal O}${\rm ,} then 

187: \begin{equation}\label{0.3}

188: \varepsilon_R^2 = \sum_{|\xi| = R}|a_{\xi}|^2

189: = o(1) \qquad \hbox{ as } R\to\infty.

190: \end{equation}

191: \endproclaim

192: 

193: 

194: The coefficients' growth rate condition given by \eqref{0.3} does 

195: not imply condition \eqref{0.1} when $d\geq 3$. To remedy this problem, we 

196: first prove the following analogue of Theorem~\ref{t:sh1} under the condition \eqref{0.3}. We use notation $A\sim B$ to denote $B/2 \leq A < B$. 

197: 

198: \proclaim{Theorem} \label{t:1} Consider the multiple trigonometric series 

199: $\sum_{\xi\in Z^d} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$ where

200: the coefficients $a_{\xi}$ are arbitrary complex numbers{\rm .} Suppose that

201: \begin{itemize}

202: \ritem{1.}  the coefficients of the series $a_{\xi}$ satisfy

203: \end{itemize}

204: \begin{equation}\label{e:bou}

205: \sum_{|\xi|\sim R} |a_{\xi}|^2 = \underset{R/2 \leq |\xi|< R}

206: {\sum} |a_{\xi}|^2 = o(R^2) \hbox{ as } R\to\infty,

207: \end{equation}

208: \begin{itemize}

209: \ritem{2.}   $f^*(x)$ and $f_*(x)$ are finite for all $x${\rm ,} and

210: \ritem{3.}  $\min\{\Re f_*(x), \Im f_*(x)\}$ is bounded below by a function $A(x)$ 

211: in $L^1(\Bbb  T^d)${\rm .}

212: \end{itemize}

213: \noindent Then $f_*(x)$ is in $L^1(\Bbb  T^d)$ and $\sum_{\xi\in Z^d} 

214: a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$ is its Fourier series{\rm .}

215: \endproclaim

216: 

217: Note that condition \eqref{0.3} implies condition \eqref{e:bou} since

218: \[

219: \sum_{|\xi|\sim R} |a_{\xi}|^2 = \sum_{k= R^2/4}^{R^2 - 1} \sum_{|\xi|^2 = k} 

220: |a_{\xi}|^2 = o\left(\sum_{k= R^2/4}^{R^2 - 1} 1 \right) = o(R^2).

221: \]

222: 

223: Since \eqref{0.1} implies 

224: \[

225: \sum_{|\xi|\sim R} |a_{\xi}| = o(R^2),

226: \]

227: \eqref{0.1} implies \eqref{e:bou} if $a_{\xi}$ is bounded. But in 

228: general, and when $d\geq 3$, \eqref{0.1} and \eqref{e:bou} do not relate to 

229: each other. Notice that \eqref{e:bou} implies that 

230: \[

231: \sum_{|\xi|^2\sim R}|a_{\xi}|^2 = \sum_{R/2 \leq |\xi|^2<R}|a_{\xi}|^2 \leq \sum_{|\xi|\sim \sqrt{R}}|a_{\xi}|^2 = o(R).

232: \]

233: 

234: As a consequence of Theorem~\ref{t:con} and Theorem~\ref{t:1}, we obtain the following two

235: spherical uniqueness theorems for multiple trigonometric series which are convergent to a function. These theorems make no assumption whatsoever about coefficient size.

236: 

237: \proclaim{Theorem}\label{t:2}

238: Let $\sum_{\xi\in Z^d} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$ be 

239: a trigonometric series which converges spherically everywhere to an 

240: everywhere finite function $f(x)${\rm ;} i{\rm .}e{\rm .,}

241: \begin{equation}\label{0.4}

242: \lim_{R\to\infty}\sum_{|\xi|\leq R} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi\rangle} = f(x) 

243: \hbox{ for all } x\in \Bbb {T}^d.

244: \end{equation}

245: If $\min\{\Re f(x), \Im f(x)\}\geq g(x)$ for all $x$ and 

246: $g(x) \in L^1(\Bbb {T}^d)${\rm ,} then

247: $f(x)$ is in $L^1(\Bbb {T}^d)$ and  $a_{\xi} $ is the $\xi^{\rm th}$ Fourier 

248: coefficient  of $f(x)$ for all $\xi\in \Bbb {Z}^d${\rm . } 

249: \endproclaim

250: 

251: In particular,

252: 

253: \proclaim{Theorem}\label{t:3}

254: Let $f(x)\in L^1(\Bbb {T}^d)$ be finite at every $x${\rm .} If 

255: $\sum_{\xi\in Z^d} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$ is 

256: a trigonometric series which converges spherically to $f(x)$ at every 

257: point $x${\rm ,} i{\rm .}e{\rm . }

258: \begin{equation}\label{0.5}

259: \lim_{R\to\infty}\sum_{|\xi|\leq R} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi\rangle} = f(x) 

260: \hbox{ for all } x\in \Bbb {T}^d,

261: \end{equation}

262: then $a_{\xi} $ is the $\xi^{\rm th}$ Fourier coefficient  of $f(x)$ for all 

263: $\xi\in \Bbb {Z}^d${\rm .  }

264: \endproclaim

265: 

266: 

267: Special cases of Theorem~\ref{t:3} have been proved by various people. 

268: When $d=1$ and $f(x) \equiv 0$, this is the original uniqueness theorem of 

269: Cantor. For general $f(x)\in L^1(\Bbb  T^1)$, it was first proved by de 

270: la Vall\'ee-Poussin. When  $d=2$, Theorem~\ref{t:sh1} combined with

271: the work of Cooke \cite{C} implies Theorem~\ref{t:1} and thus, 

272: Theorem~\ref{t:2} and Theorem~\ref{t:3}.  The major breakthrough came

273: when Bourgain \cite{B} proved Theorem~\ref{t:3} for the special case of

274: $f(x) \equiv 0$. 

275: For a survey on the uniqueness of multiple trigonometric series under 

276: various summation modes,  as well as many open problems in this area, please 

277: refer to Ash and Wang \cite{AW}. 

278: 

279: The proof of Theorem~\ref{t:1} is mainly based on Shapiro's framework 

280: \cite{Sh}. To avoid assuming condition \eqref{0.1}, we exploit an idea that 

281: Bourgain \cite{B} 

282: used when he proved Theorem~\ref{t:3} for the special case $f(x) \equiv 0$. 

283: We refer to \eqref{e:bou} hereafter as Bourgain's condition, in his honor. This  condition simply asserts that Connes'

284: condition holds ``on the average." 

285: 

286: The detailed proof of Theorem~\ref{t:1} is given in Sections~\ref{s:1}

287: through \ref{s:4}. 

288: 

289: At the end of the paper, we begin the study of sets of uniqueness for spherical convergence. As a first step toward establishing this theory, we show that any singleton is a set of uniqueness.  

290:  

291: \proclaim{Theorem}\label{c:0.1}

292: Let $q$ be a point on $\Bbb  T^d${\rm .} Suppose that a multiple trigonometric 

293: series $\sum_{\xi\in Z^d} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$

294: spherically converges everywhere except at $q$ to a function $f(x)\in L^1 (\Bbb  {T}^d)${\rm .}

295: Furthermore{\rm ,} suppose $f(x)$ is finite for all $x$ except $q${\rm .} Then 

296: $\sum_{\xi\in Z^d} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$ is 

297: the Fourier series of $f(x)${\rm .}

298: \endproclaim

299: 

300: It is easily deduced from Theorem~\ref{t:con} and the following fact about Abel summability,  

301: which is an analogue of a theorem of Shapiro \cite[\S 6]{Sh}:   

302:   

303: \proclaim{Theorem}\label{t:4}

304: Consider the multiple ($d\geq 2$) trigonometric series\break 

305: $\sum_{\xi\in Z^d} a_{\xi} 

306: e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$ where the coefficients $a_{\xi}$ are arbitrary

307: complex numbers{\rm .}  Let $q$ be a point on $\Bbb  T^d${\rm .} Suppose that

308: \begin{itemize}

309: \ritem{1.}  $\sum_{|\xi|\sim R} |a_{\xi}|^2 = o(R^2)$ as

310: $R\to\infty${\rm ,}

311: \ritem{2.}  $f^*(x)$ and $f_*(x)$ are finite for all $x$ except $q${\rm ,} and

312: \ritem{3.}  $f^*(x)$ and $f_*(x)$ are functions in $L^1(\Bbb  T^d)${\rm .}

313: \end{itemize}

314: \noindent Then $\sum_{\xi\in Z^d} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$ is 

315: the Fourier series of $f_*(x)${\rm .}

316: \endproclaim

317: 

318: Note that the theorem is false when $d=1$ since the trigonometric series $\sum

319: e^{i\xi x}$ is Abel convergent to $0$ everywhere in $\Bbb  T \setminus

320: \{0\}$. 

321:  	

322: \section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{t:1}}\label{s:1}

323: 

324: We may assume $d\ge 3$ since the cases $d=1$ and $d=2$ are known. 

325: 

326: We need some preliminary results and some notation before we start the 

327: proof. Without loss of generality, by considering the real and imaginary 

328: parts  separately, we may assume that $a_{\xi} = \overline a_{-\xi}$, where 

329: $\overline a$ is the conjugate of the complex number $a$. Thus $f(x, t), 

330: f^*(x)$ and $f_*(x)$ are all real functions. In addition, we may assume 

331: that  $a_0 = 0$. 

332: 

333: Define 

334: \begin{eqnarray}\label{1.0}

335: f_1(x,t) &=& -\underset{\xi \neq 0}{\sum} \frac{a_{\xi}}{|\xi|} 

336: e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle-|\xi|t}\\

337: \noalign{\vskip6pt}

338: f_2(x,t) &=& -\underset{\xi \neq 0}{\sum} \frac{a_{\xi}}{|\xi|^2} 

339: e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle-|\xi|t}.

340: \nonumber

341: \end{eqnarray}  

342: Under the condition \eqref{e:bou}, it is easy to see that for each 

343: $x\in \Bbb {T}^d$ and $t>0$, $f(x, t), f_1(x, t)$ and $f_2(x, t)$ converge 

344: absolutely and hence are infinitely differentiable as functions of $t>0$. 

345: Thus by the mean value theorem, for $t_1>t_2>0$, there exist $t_3, t_4\in 

346: (t_2, t_1)$ such that $f_1(x, t_1)-f_1(x, t_2) = f(x, t_3)(t_1-t_2)$, and 

347: $f_2(x, t_1)- f_2(x, t_2) = -f_1(x, t_4)(t_1-t_2)$. Since for each $x$, 

348: $f^*(x)$ and $f_*(x)$ are finite,  $f(x, t)$ is bounded for all $t>0$. The 

349: bound depends on $x$ in general. Thus, for each $x$, there exist finite-valued functions $f_1(x)$ and $f_2(x)$ such that   

350: \begin{equation}\label{1.001}

351: f_1(x, t)\to f_1(x) \hbox{ and } f_2(x, t)\to f_2(x) \hbox{ as } t\to 0^+.

352: \end{equation}

353: 

354: On the other hand, if we define the Riemann function $F(x)$ by

355: \begin{equation}\label{1.1}

356: F(x) = -\sum_{\xi \neq 0} \frac{a_{\xi}}{|\xi|^2} e^{i\langle x, \xi\rangle},

357: \end{equation}

358: then, because of the Bourgain condition \eqref{e:bou}, $F(x)\in L^2(\Bbb  T^d)$ 

359: and $f_2(x, t)\break \stackrel{L^2}{\rightarrow} F(x)$ as $t\to 0^{+}$. In fact,  

360: observe that there is an absolute constant $C$ such that 

361: \begin{eqnarray}\label{1.01}

362: \qquad ||f_2(x, t)-F(x)||_2^2 &=& \sum_{\xi\neq

363: 0}\frac{|a_{\xi}|^2}{|\xi|^4}\left(1-e^{-2|\xi|t}\right)\\

364: & \leq & C \sum_{k = 1}^{\infty} 2^{-2k}\left(1 - e^{-2^{k/2+1}t}\right)

365: \sum_{|\xi|^2 \sim 2^{k}}|a_{\xi}|^2\nonumber \\

366: &\leq& C \sum_{k=1}^{\infty} 2^{-k}\left(1- e ^{-2^{k/2+1}t}\right)\nonumber\\

367: &\to& 0 \hbox{ as } t\to 0^+. \nonumber

368: \end{eqnarray} 

369: Thus, 

370: \begin{equation}\label{1.2}

371: f_2(x) =F(x) \quad {\rm a.e.}

372: \end{equation}

373: 

374: The key to the proof is to show that $\Delta f_2(x) = f_*(x)$ almost 

375: everywhere. To this end, we need to use a generalized Laplacian. 

376: 

377: Let $B(x, \rho)$ be an open ball in $\Bbb {T}^d$ centered at $x\in 

378: \Bbb {T}^d$

379: with radius $\rho >0$ and $m(B(x, \rho))$ the volume of $B(x,

380: \rho)$. Then  $m(B(x, \rho)) = v_d \rho^d$, where $v_d$ is the volume of

381: the unit ball in $\Bbb  R^d$. For any locally integrable function $g(x)$, the average 

382: of $g$ over $B(x, \rho)$ is

383: \begin{eqnarray*}

384: A_\rho g(x) &= &\frac{1}{m(B(x, \rho))}\int_{B(x, \rho)} g(y) \, dy\\

385: \noalign{\vskip4pt}

386:             & =& \frac{1}{v_d\rho^d}\int_{B(x, \rho)} g(y) \, dy.

387: \end{eqnarray*}

388:  

389: 

390: Let

391: \[

392: I(x) = \frac{I_{B(0, 1)}(x)}{m(B(0, 1))},

393: \]

394: where $I_{B(0, 1)}(x)$ is the characteristic function of the unit ball. 

395: Denote

396: $\hat I(\xi)$ to be the Fourier transform of $I(x)$. Then $\hat I(\rho

397: \xi)$ satisfies the following properties:

398: \begin{equation}\label{1.3}

399: \lim_{\rho\to 0} \frac{\hat I(\rho\xi)-1}{\rho^2 |\xi|^2} = -\frac12

400: \int_{B(0, 1)} x_1^2 I(x) \, dx = c_d < 0,

401: \end{equation}

402: and for $|\xi| = 1$,

403: \begin{equation}\label{1.4}

404: \int_0^\infty \left|\partial_r\left[\frac{\hat I(\rho r \xi) -1}{\rho^2

405: r^2}\right]\right| \, dr = \int_0^\infty \left|\partial_r\left[\frac{\hat

406: I(r \xi) -1}{r^2}\right]\right| \, dr < c.

407: \end{equation}

408: Note that the constant $c$ in \eqref{1.4} is independent of $\rho$.

409: 

410: The above two equalities are standard. In fact, to see \eqref{1.3}, rotate

411:  (choose the first coordinate axis to be in the direction of 

412: $\xi$) and use polar coordinates to get 

413: \begin{eqnarray}\label{1.5}

414: \hat I(\rho \xi) -1 &= &\frac{1}{v_d} \int_{|x|\le 1}

415: (e^{i\langle x, \rho\xi\rangle}-1)\, dx   \\

416: \noalign{\vskip4pt}

417: & =& \frac{1}{v_d} \int_{|x| \le 1} (e^{i

418: x_1\rho|\xi|}-1)\, dx\nonumber\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

419: & = &\frac{v_{d-1}}{v_d} \int_{-1}^{1} (\cos(\rho |\xi| x_1)-1)

420: (1-x_1^2)^{\frac{d-1}{2}}\, dx_1.\nonumber

421: \end{eqnarray}

422: Since for any $x\in \Bbb {T}$, $|\cos x -1| \le \frac{x^2}{2}$, and 

423: $\lim_{x\to 0} \frac{\cos x -1}{x^2} = -\frac12$,

424: by the bounded convergence theorem and \eqref{1.5}, we have

425: \begin{eqnarray*}

426: \lim_{\rho\to 0} \frac{\hat I(\rho\xi)-1}{\rho^2 |\xi|^2} &=&

427: -\frac{v_{d-1}}{2v_d} \int_{-1}^{1} x_1^2 (1-x_1^2)^{\frac{d-1}{2}}\, dx_1\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

428: & =& -\frac{1}{2}\int_{B(0,1)} x_1^2 I(x) \, dx = c_d < 0.

429: \end{eqnarray*}

430: Observe that the above argument shows $\hat I(\xi_1) = \hat

431: I(\xi_2)$ if $|\xi_1| = |\xi_2|$. Thus, we may abuse our notation and write 

432: $\hat I(\xi) = \hat I(|\xi|)$. 

433: 

434: 

435: Inequality \eqref{1.4} also follows similarly. If $|\xi| = 1$, then

436: \[

437: \partial_r \left[\frac{\hat I(\rho r \xi) -1}{\rho^2 r^2}\right] =

438: -2\frac{v_{d-1}}{v_d} 

439: \int_{-1}^{1} \frac{(1- \frac{1}{2}i r \rho x_1) e^{i r \rho x_1} -1}{r^3

440: \rho^2} (1-x_1^2)^{\frac{d-1}{2}}\, dx_1.

441: \]

442: Thus, for $c= -2v_{d-1}/v_{d}$, 

443: \begin{eqnarray*}

444: && 

445: \hskip-36pt\int_0^\infty \left|\partial_r\left[\frac{\hat I(\rho r \xi) -1}{\rho^2

446: r^2}\right]\right| \, dr\\

447:   &&\qquad \enspace = \  c \int_{0}^{\infty}\left| \int_{-1}^{1}

448: \frac{(1- \frac{1}{2}i r \rho x_1) e^{i r \rho x_1} -1}{r^3 \rho^2}

449: (1-x_1^2)^{\frac{d-1}{2}}\, dx_1 \right|\, dr\\  \noalign{\vskip4pt}  

450: &&\qquad \enspace = \   c \int_{0}^{\infty}\left| \int_{-1}^{1}

451: \frac{(1 -\frac{1}{2} i r x_1) e^{i r x_1} -1}{r^3 }

452: (1-x_1^2)^{\frac{d-1}{2}}\, dx_1 \right|\, dr\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt} 

453: &&\qquad \enspace = \   \int_0^\infty \left|\partial_r\left[\frac{\hat

454: I(r \xi) -1}{r^2}\right]\right| \, dr

455: \end{eqnarray*}

456: by the simple change of variable argument: $\rho r \to r$.

457: The above integral is finite since

458: \[

459: \left|\int_{-1}^{1} \frac{(1- \frac{1}{2}i r x_1) e^{i r x_1} -1}{r^3

460: }(1-x_1^2)^{\frac{d-1}{2}} \, dx_1 \right| \le

461: \frac{c}{r^2} 

462: \hbox{ as } r \to \infty ,

463: \]

464: and

465: \[

466: (1- \frac{1}{2} i r x_1) e^{i r x_1} -1 = \frac{1}{2} i r x_1 + O(r^3)

467: \hbox{ as } r \to 0.

468: \]

469: 

470: Define the generalized Laplacian  operator  on $g(x)\in L^1$ to be

471: \[

472: \tilde \Delta g(x) = \lim_{\rho\to 0}-\frac{1}{c_d} 

473: \frac{A_\rho g(x)-g(x)}{\rho^2}

474: \]

475: if such a limit exists (not necessarily finite), where $c_d<0$ is the

476: constant given in \eqref{1.3}. We can also define the upper and lower 

477: generalized Laplacians $\tilde\Delta^{*} g(x)$ and $\tilde\Delta_{*} g(x)$ 

478: by replacing $\lim$ by $\limsup$ and $\liminf$ respectively  when the 

479: function $g(x)$ is real-valued. It is clear that all three of these generalized Laplacians agree with the usual Laplacian when applied to a $C^2$ function. Recall that $a_0 = 0$. For $f_2(x, t)$ given 

480: by \eqref{1.0}, we have for $x\in \Bbb {T}^d$,  

481: \begin{eqnarray}\label{1.6}

482: %

483: \frac{A_{\rho} f_2(x, t) -f_2(x, t)}{\rho^2} & = & - \sum_{\xi\ne 0} 

484: \frac{a_{\xi}}{|\xi|^2}

485: \frac{\hat I(\rho \xi) -1}{\rho^2} e^{i\langle x, \xi\rangle-|\xi|t}\\  \noalign{\vskip4pt}

486: & = &- \sum_{k\ge 1} \frac{\hat I(\rho \sqrt{k}) -1}{\rho^2 k}\sum_{|\xi|^2 =

487: k} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle-|\xi|t}\nonumber\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt} 

488: & =&- \sum_{k\ge 1} \left(\sum_{|\xi|^2 \le k} a_{\xi}e^{i\langle x,\xi

489: \rangle-|\xi|t}\right)\nonumber\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt} 

490: && \qquad\quad\times \left(\frac{\hat I(\rho\sqrt{k}) -1}{\rho^2 k}-\frac{\hat

491: I(\rho\sqrt{k+1}) -1}{\rho^2 (k+1)}\right)\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt} 

492: & \to & - f(x, t) c_d  \hbox{ as } \rho \to 0 \nonumber

493: \end{eqnarray}

494: since by the fundamental theorem of calculus and \eqref{1.4},

495: \[

496: \sum_{k\ge 1} \left|\frac{\hat I(\rho\sqrt{k}) -1}{\rho^2 k} -\frac{\hat

497: I(\rho\sqrt{k+1}) -1}{\rho^2 (k+1)}\right| \le \int_0^\infty

498: \left|\partial_r\left[\frac{\hat I(\rho r \xi) -1}{\rho^2

499: r^2}\right]\right| \, dr < b <\infty 

500: \]

501: for a constant $b$ independent of $\rho$.  Thus, the above argument shows 

502: that  

503: \begin{equation}\label{1.7}

504: \tilde \Delta f_2(x, t) = \lim_{\rho\to 0}-\frac{1}{c_d}

505: \frac{A_{\rho} f_2(x, t)-f_2(x, t)}{\rho^2}  =

506: f(x, t) 

507: \end{equation}

508: for $x\in \Bbb {T}^d$ and $t> 0$.

509: 

510: To pass to the limit as $t\to 0^+$, we need the following lemma of Shapiro 

511: (Lemma~7 of \cite{Sh2}).  To see that Shapiro's lemma applies,

512: note that $F \in L^2(\Bbb {T}^d)$ implies $F \in L^1(\Bbb {T}^d)$.

513: \proclaim{Lemma}\label{l:1.0}

514: If 

515: {\rm \eqref{e:bou}} holds{\rm ,} then at every point $x$ where $f_*(x)$ and $f^*(x)$ are 

516: finite{\rm ,}  

517: \begin{equation}\label{1.8}

518: \tilde\Delta_* f_2(x) \leq f^*(x) \quad \hbox{ and } \quad f_*(x) 

519: \leq \tilde\Delta^* f_2(x).

520: \end{equation}

521: \endproclaim

522: 

523: The following classical results on the Green's function $G(x)$ appear with proof as  

524: Lemma 8 of Shapiro \cite{Sh2}. (Also see Theorem 6 of Bochner \cite{Bo}.)

525: 

526: \proclaim{Lemma}\label{l:1.1}

527: There is a function $G(x)$ in $L^1(\Bbb {T}^d)$

528: whose Fourier series is given by $\sum_{|\xi|\ne 0} |\xi|^{-2}

529: e^{i\langle x, \xi\rangle}${\rm .} Further{\rm ,} $G(x)$ has the following properties\/{\rm :}

530: \begin{itemize}

531: \ritem{1.} $G(x)$ is in class $C^{\infty}(\Bbb {T}^d)$ away from $0$ and $\Delta G(x) = 1$ for $x\ne 0${\rm .} 

532: \ritem{2.} $G(x) = \Phi (x) + H^{*}(x)$ where $H^{*}$ is continuous on

533: $\Bbb  T^d$ and $\Delta H^*(x) = 1$ for $x\in\Bbb {T}^d\setminus \{0\}$ and where $\Phi(x) = C_d |x|^{-(d-2)}$ 

534: for $d\ge 3$ with 

535: $C_d = 2^{d-1}{\pi}^{d/2}\Gamma(d/2)/(d-2)$ and $\Phi(x)=-2\pi\log |x|$ when $d=2$. 

536: \ritem{3.}  Let $u(x)$ be an upper semi\/{\rm -}\/continuous function on $\Bbb  T^d$

537: which is also\break in $L^1(\Bbb  T^d)${\rm .} Define $U(x) = (2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d} 

538: G(x-y) u(y)\, dy$ and $u_0 =\break (2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d} u(y)\, dy${\rm .}  Then $U(x)$

539: is upper semi\/{\rm -}\/continuous on $\Bbb {T}^d${\rm ,}\break $U(x)\in L^1(\Bbb  T^d)${\rm ,} and 

540: $\tilde\Delta_{*}U(x) \ge -u(x) + u_0$ for $x\in \Bbb {T}^d${\rm .} Moreover{\rm ,}

541: $\tilde\Delta^{*}U(x) = \tilde\Delta_{*}U(x) = - u(x) + u_0$ almost 

542: everywhere in $\Bbb  T^d${\rm .} 

543: \end{itemize}

544: 

545: \endproclaim

546: 

547: A consequence of Lemma~\ref{l:1.1} is that for any integrable  

548: function $u$, the Fourier series of $U(x) = (2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d} G(x-y)

549: u(y)\, dy$ is $\sum_{|\xi|\ne 0} u_{\xi} |\xi|^{-2}e^{i\langle x, \xi

550: \rangle}$, where $u_0 + \sum_{|\xi|\ne 0}  u_{\xi}e^{i\langle x, \xi

551: \rangle}$ is the Fourier series of $u$. 

552: 

553: We now state the following key lemma which will be proved in 

554: Section~\ref{s:2}. The function $\overline U$ will not in general be periodic, so we have to work in $\Bbb  R^d$, rather than in $\Bbb  T^d$. 

555: 

556: \proclaim{Lemma}\label{l:1.2}

557: Let $f_2(x)$ be as  given in {\rm \eqref{1.001}} where $f(x, t)$ satisfies the 

558: conditions in Theorem~{\rm \ref{t:1}.} Suppose that $\overline U(x)$ is an 

559: upper semi\/{\rm -}\/continuous function and that it is in $L_{\rm loc}^1(\Bbb  {R}^d)${\rm .}

560:  Let $S(x) = f_2(x)+\overline U(x)${\rm .} If 

561: $\tilde\Delta^* S(x) \geq 0${\rm ,} then $S(x)$ is subharmonic in $\Bbb  R^d${\rm .}

562: \endproclaim

563: 

564: \demo{{R}emark\/ {\rm 2.1}}

565: By modifying the proof of Lemma~\ref{l:1.2} in Section~\ref{s:2}, 

566: Lemma~\ref{l:1.2} can be shown to hold locally. Explicitly, we can replace 

567: $\Bbb 

568: R^d$ everywhere in Lemma~\ref{l:1.2} by any open ball $B\subset \Bbb 

569: R^d$ and $L_{\rm loc}^1(\Bbb  {R}^d)$ by $L^1(B)$.

570: \enddemo 

571:  

572: 

573: We now are ready to prove Theorem~\ref{t:1}. 

574: 

575: Since $A(x)\in L^1(\Bbb {T}^d)$, there exists an upper 

576: semi-continuous function $u(x)$ (see p.75 of \cite{S}, for example) such 

577: that $u(x) \leq A(x)$. As in Lemma~\ref{l:1.1}, define 

578: $U(x) = (2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d} G(x-y) u(y)\, dy$,  

579: $u_0 = (2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d} u(y)\, dy$ and 

580: $S(x) = f_2(x) + U(x) - u_0|x|^2/(2d)$. Then by Lemma~\ref{l:1.0}, 

581: $\tilde\Delta^{*} f_2(x) \geq f_*(x) \geq A(x)  \geq u(x)$. Consequently, 

582: by periodicity, Lemmas~\ref{l:1.1} and \ref{l:1.2}, $S(x)$ is subharmonic in 

583: $\Bbb  R^d$. Therefore, by Riesz's representation for subharmonic functions and a theorem of Saks \cite{S}, $\tilde\Delta^{*} S(x) = \tilde\Delta_{*} S(x)$ almost everywhere and is in $L^{1}$ locally. Since $\tilde\Delta^* U(x) = \tilde\Delta_* U(x)$ almost everywhere and is in $L^{1}$ locally, this shows that $\tilde\Delta^{*} f_2(x) = \tilde\Delta_{*} f_2(x)$ almost everywhere and is in $L^{1}$ locally. Thus by assumption and Lemma~\ref{l:1.0}, $f_*(x)$ is in $L^1$ locally.  

584: 

585: Let $B(x) = \min\{f^*(x), \tilde\Delta^{*} f_2(x)\}$. Then by Lemma~\ref{l:1.0}, $\tilde\Delta_* f_2(x) \leq B(x) \leq \tilde\Delta^{*} 

586: f_2(x)$. Consequently,  $B(x) = \tilde\Delta^{*} f_2(x)$ almost everywhere, 

587: and is in $L_{\rm loc}^{1}(\Bbb  R^d)$. By a theorem of Vitali-Carath\'eodory (p. 75 of \cite{S}), there exists a nondecreasing sequence of upper semi-continuous functions $\{u^k(x)\}$ on $\Bbb {R}^d$, which are also in $L_{\rm loc}^{1}(\Bbb  R^d)$, such that each $u^k(x)$

588:  is bounded above and $u^{k}(x) \leq B(x)$ for all $x\in \Bbb  R^d$, 

589: \begin{equation}\label{1.9}

590: \lim_{k\to\infty} u^k(x) = B(x) \hbox{ for almost all } x\in \Bbb {R}^d

591: \end{equation}

592: and 

593: \begin{equation}\label{1.10}

594: \lim_{k\to\infty}\int_E u^{k}(y)\, dy= \int_E B(y)\,dy

595: \end{equation}

596: for any bounded set $E\subset\Bbb {R}^d$. 

597: Set $U^k(x) = (2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d} G(x-y) u^k(y)\, dy$ and   

598: $u^k_0 = (2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d} u^k(y)\, dy$. Then \eqref{1.10} implies that 

599: $u^k_0$ is convergent to\break $b_0 = (2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d} B(y)\, dy$ as 

600: $k \to \infty$. By Lemma~\ref{l:1.0}--Lemma~\ref{l:1.2},

601: we have $S^k(x) =  f_2(x) + U^k(x) -u^k_0|x|^2/(2d)$ is subharmonic in

602: $\Bbb {R}^d$.  

603: 

604: Note that $0\leq  B(x) - u^k(x) \leq  B(x) - u^1(x)$. Since $B(x)$ and $u^1(x)$ 

605: are locally integrable  on $\Bbb {R}^d$, by Lemma~\ref{l:1.1}, \eqref{1.9}, and

606: the dominated convergence theorem, 

607: \[

608: \lim_{k\to\infty} U^{k}(x) =  U(x) = (2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d} G(x-y) B(y)

609: \,  dy  \quad\hbox{ in } L_{\rm loc}^1(\Bbb  R^d)

610: \]

611: and hence there exists a subsequence, still called $U^k$ for notational

612: simplicity, such that 

613: \[

614: \lim_{k\to\infty} U^k(x) = U(x)\quad\hbox{ a.e.}

615: \]

616: Since for any sequence of subharmonic functions convergent in $L^1$, there is a subharmonic function which is almost everywhere the $L^1$ limit of that sequence (see p. 20 of \cite{R}); $S(x) = f_2(x) + U(x)-b_0|x|^2/(2d)$ is almost everywhere equal to a subharmonic function $S_*(x)$ in $\Bbb  R^d$.

617: 

618: Similarly, there exists a sequence of nonincreasing lower semi-continuous

619: functions $v^k(x)$ on $\Bbb {R}^d$, which are also

620: in $L_{\rm loc}^1(\Bbb {R}^d)$, such that each $v^{k}(x)$ is bounded below and $v^{k}(x) \geq B(x)$, 

621: \[

622: \lim_{k\to\infty} v^k(x) = B(x) \hbox{ for almost all } x\in \Bbb {R}^d

623: \]

624: and 

625: \[

626: \lim_{k\to\infty}\int_E v^{k}(y)\, dy= \int_E B(y)\,dy

627: \]

628: for any bounded set $E\subset \Bbb {R}^d$. Since $-v^k(x)$ is 

629: nondecreasing the above arguments show that there exists a superharmonic 

630: function $S^{*}(x)$, which is almost  everywhere  equal to $S(x)$.

631: 

632: Therefore $S_*(x) = S^*(x)$ almost  everywhere. The subharmonicity of $S_*$

633: and superharmonicity of $S^*$ show that at every $x$

634: \begin{equation}\label{1.11}

635: S_*(x) \leq  A_1 S_*(x) = A_1 S(x) = A_1 S^*(x) \leq  S^*(x).

636: \end{equation}

637: In addition, if both $S_*(x)$ and $S^*(x)$ are finite, for any $\epsilon >0$, there exists $\delta>0$, such that

638: \begin{equation}\label{1.12}

639: S_*(y) \leq  S_*(x) + \epsilon \hbox{ and } S^*(y) \geq S^{*}(x) -\epsilon

640: \end{equation}

641: for all $y\in B(x, \delta)$. Thus the fact that $S_* = S^*$ almost  everywhere and \eqref{1.12} imply that $ S^*(x) \leq  S_*(x) + 2\epsilon$.

642: So $S^*(x) \leq  S_{*}(x)$. In fact, a similar argument shows that for all $x$, $S_*(x) > -\infty$ and $S^*(x) < \infty$ since $S_*(x) < \infty$ and $S^*(x) > - \infty$ by sub- or superharmonicity. Thus $S_*(x)$ and $S^*(x)$ are finite for all $x$ and $S^*(x) \leq S_*(x)$. Consequently, by \eqref{1.11} $S^*(x) = S_*(x)$ everywhere and hence it is harmonic in $\Bbb {R}^d$.

643: 

644: But then,

645: \begin{eqnarray*}

646: \noalign{\vskip4pt}

647: S^*(x) & =& \frac{1}{v_d}\int_{|y-x|\leq  1} S^*(y)\, dy\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

648:        & =& \frac{1}{v_d}\int_{|y-x|\leq  1} S(y)\, dy\\\noalign{\vskip4pt}

649:      & =& \frac{1}{v_d}\int_{|y-x|\leq  1} f_2(y)\, dy +

650: \frac{1}{v_d}\int_{|y-x|\leq  1} U(y)\, dy \\\noalign{\vskip4pt}

651: && \qquad-\frac{b_0}{2d}

652: \frac{1}{v_d}\int_{|y-x|\leq  1} |y|^2\, dy\\\noalign{\vskip4pt}

653:      & = &I + II + III.

654: \end{eqnarray*}

655: Since $f_2$ and $U$ are periodic, $I$ and $II$ are bounded. Thus, $S^*(x) =

656: O(|x|^2)$. By the penultimate inequality of Section 2.13 of \cite{PW} it follows that every second order partial derivative of $S^{*}$ is a bounded harmonic function and hence constant, so that $S^{*}$ itself is a quadratic polynomial. (An alternative argument can be based on expanding $S^*(x)$ into spherical harmonics.) Thus, the periodic function $f_{2} +U$ is almost everywhere equal to a quadratic polynomial $Q(x)=c_{1,0,\cdots,0}x^2_{1}+\cdots$. A simple countability argument shows that for almost every $x\in \Bbb  R^d$ we have $(f_2+U)(x+2\pi ne_{1})=Q(x+2\pi ne_{1})$ for $n=1,2,3,\cdots$, where $e_1= (1,0,\cdots,0).$ Let $n\to\infty$ to see that $c_{1,0,\cdots,0}=0$. Similar reasoning shows that $Q(x)$ reduces to a constant $K$. 

657: Consequently, we have $f_2(x) = -U(x) +K$ almost  everywhere. However,

658: both $U$ and $F$ are integrable over $\Bbb  T^d$. The integrals of $U$ and

659: $f_2$ over $\Bbb  T^d$ are both $0$ by \eqref{1.2} and Lemma~\ref{l:1.1}.

660: So $K = 0$. Hence, 

661: \begin{eqnarray*}

662: \noalign{\vskip-9pt}

663: f_2(x) & = &  - (2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d}G(x-y)B(y)\, dy\quad {\rm a.e.} \\

664: & =& -(2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d}G(x-y)\tilde\Delta^*f_2(y)\, dy\quad {\rm a.e.}\\

665: \noalign{\vskip-16pt}

666: \end{eqnarray*}

667: Finally,  by \eqref{1.2}, we have 

668: \[

669: F(x) = -(2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d}G(x-y)\tilde\Delta^* f_2(y)\, dy\quad {\rm a.e.}

670: \]

671: Comparing the Fourier series of both sides, we see that the $a_{\xi}$ 

672: are the Fourier 

673: coefficients of $\tilde\Delta^* f_2(x)- K_1$ for some constant $K_1$. The

674: Fourier series of the integrable function $\tilde\Delta^* f_2(x)- K_1$, $\sum

675: a_{\xi} e^{i\langle \xi, x\rangle}$ is Abel summable to $\tilde\Delta^*

676: f_2(x)- K_1$ almost everywhere (Theorem 2 of \cite{Sh2}). Thus, from the

677: definition of $f_*(x)$,  $f_*(x) = \tilde\Delta^* f_2(x)- K_1$ almost

678: everywhere. Therefore $f_*(x) \in L^1(\Bbb {T}^d)$ and $a_{\xi}$ is the 

679: $\xi^{\rm th}$ Fourier coefficient of $f_*(x)$. In fact, $K_1 = 0$ by 

680: Lemma~\ref{l:1.0}.  This  completes the proof that 

681: Lemma~\ref{l:1.2} will imply Theorem~\ref{t:1}. 

682:  

683: We end this section with the following observation. It is well known that if $u(x)$ is an 

684: upper semi-continuous function in $B= B(x_0, h_0)\subset \Bbb  T^d$ and $G_B$ denotes the Green function of $B$, 

685: then when $d\geq 3$, the function 

686: \[

687: U'(x) = \frac{1}{\sigma_d(d-2)}\int_{B} G_B(x, y) u(y)\, dy ,

688: \]

689: where $\sigma_d$ is the surface area of the unit ball in $\Bbb  R^d$,

690: satisfies

691: \[

692: \tilde\Delta_{*}  U'(x) \geq - u(x), \hbox{ for all } x\in B(x_0, h_0).

693: \]

694: Replacing $U$ everywhere by $U'$ in the proof of Theorem~\ref{t:1}, we

695: have the following lemma. Notice that we include the case where $a_0$ may not be zero.  

696: 

697: \proclaim{Lemma}\label{l:1.3} Let 

698: $\sum_{\xi\in Z^d} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$ be a 

699: multiple $(d\geq 3)$ trigonometric series with

700:  $\overline a_{\xi} = a_{-\xi}${\rm .} Suppose that the coefficients  $a_{\xi}$ 

701: satisfy condition  {\rm \eqref{e:bou}; }

702: \begin{itemize} 

703: \ritem{1.} $f^*(x)$ and $f_*(x)$ are finite for all $x\in B$ where $B\subset

704: \Bbb  T^d$ is a ball\/{\rm ;} and

705: \ritem{2.} $f_*(x) \geq A(x)$ for almost all $x\in B${\rm ,}  where

706: $A(x)$ is in  $L^1(B)${\rm .}

707: \end{itemize}

708: \noindent Then for any ball $B_1\subset \overline{B_1}\subsetneqq B${\rm ,} $f_*$ is in $L^1(B_1)${\rm .} Moreover{\rm ,  }

709: \[

710: \overline f_2(x) = f_2(x)+

711: \frac{1}{\sigma_d(d-2)}\int_{B_1}G_{B_1}(x, y) f_*(y)\, dy

712: + a_0|x|^2/(2d)

713: \]

714: is finite everywhere and is almost everywhere equal to a function $h(x)$

715: harmonic in $B_1${\rm .} In addition{\rm ,} if $f^*(x) = f_*(x)$

716: everywhere in $B${\rm ,} is in $L^1(B)${\rm ,}  and  is continuous in $B${\rm ,} then 

717: \[

718: f_2(x) + \frac{1}{\sigma_d(d-2)}\int_{B}G_{B}(x, y) f_*(y)\, dy

719: + a_0|x|^2/(2d)

720: \]

721: is harmonic on $B${\rm .}

722: \endproclaim

723: 

724: Note that under condition \eqref{e:bou}, 

725: \[

726: F(x) = -\sum_{\xi\neq 0}\frac{a_{\xi}}{|\xi|^2}e^{i\langle \xi, x\rangle}

727: \]

728: is in $L^{2}(\Bbb  T^d)$ and $F(x) = f_2(x)$ almost everywhere in $\Bbb 

729: T^d$. Combining the above lemma with Lemma~5 of Shapiro \cite{Sh1}, we have

730: the following analogue of Lemma~3 of Shapiro \cite{Sh4}.

731: 

732: Let $B^{o}$ denote the interior of $B$.

733: 

734: \proclaim{Lemma}\label{l:1.4} Let 

735: $\sum_{\xi\in Z^d} a_{\xi} e^{i\langle x, \xi \rangle}$

736: be a multiple trigonometric series 

737: with

738: $\overline a_{\xi} = a_{-\xi}${\rm .} Suppose that the coefficients $a_{\xi}$

739: satisfy condition {\rm \eqref{e:bou},}

740: \begin{itemize} 

741: \ritem{1.} $f^*(x)$ and $f_*(x)$ are finite for all $x\in B$ where $B\subset

742: \Bbb  T^d$ is a ball {\rm (}\/open or closed\/{\rm ),} and

743: \ritem{2.} $f_*(x) =0$ for almost all $x\in B${\rm .}

744: \end{itemize}

745: \noindent Then for any ball $B_1 \subset \overline{B_1}\subset B^{o}$, $f(x,t)$ converges to $0$ as 

746: $t

747: \to 0^+$ uniformly in $B_1${\rm .} In particular{\rm ,} $f^*(x) = f_*(x) = 0$ in

748: $B${\rm . }

749: \endproclaim 

750: 

751:  

752: 

753: \section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{l:1.2}}\label{s:2}

754: 

755: The proof of Lemma~\ref{l:1.2} is so difficult that this section will be given the following preface.

756: 

757: The proof of Lemma~\ref{l:1.2} is extremely delicate, incorporating all the subtle ideas from Bourgain's landmark work \cite{B} as well as an additional Baire category argument that overcomes the unpleasant fact that an upper semi-continuous function on a compact set

758: need  not be uniformly upper semi-continuous. Some of the difficulty is pushed into Lemmas~\ref{l:2.1} and

759: \ref{l:2.2}. The proof of Lemma~\ref{l:2.1} contains a great deal of hard analysis. Even after   so much of the

760: work in Lemmas~\ref{l:2.1} and \ref{l:2.2} has been hidden, the reasoning involved in the proof of Lemma~\ref{l:1.2} is

761: still tortuous, and so we will provide an overview here.

762: 

763: We assume that the set $W$ where $S$ fails to be upper semi-continuous is nonempty and then reason down a path which eventually divides into two paths each ending in a contradiction. First, a Baire category argument produces a nonempty portion $Z$ of $W$ ($Z=W\cap B$ for some ball $B$) such that $S$ restricted to $Z$ is ``very good," $f_2$ restricted to $Z$ is ``very good,"

764: et~cetera. 

765: 

766: Next, for each $\varepsilon>0$, let $W_\varepsilon$ be the points of $W$ where $S$ has a jump of at least~$\varepsilon$: 

767: \[

768: \limsup_{y\to x} S(y)\geq S(x)+\varepsilon, \hbox{ for every } x\in W_\varepsilon.

769: \]

770: For each $\varepsilon>0$ and each $x\in B\setminus \overline W_{\varepsilon}$ consider the harmonic measure $\omega$ of $\partial W_\varepsilon$ with respect to $B\setminus \overline W_\varepsilon$ at $x$. Our path splits depending on whether the harmonic measure is ``thin:"

771: \begin{equation}\label{I}

772: \omega (B\setminus\overline W_\varepsilon, \partial W_\varepsilon, x) = 0

773: \hbox{ for all pairs } (\varepsilon, x) \hbox{ with } \varepsilon >0 \hbox{ and } x\in B\setminus\overline W_\varepsilon,

774: \end{equation}

775: or whether it is ``thick:"

776: \begin{equation}\label{II}

777: \omega (B\setminus\overline W_\varepsilon, \partial W_\varepsilon, x) > 0

778: \hbox{ for some } \varepsilon >0 \hbox{ and some } x\in B\setminus\overline W_\varepsilon.

779: \end{equation}

780: 

781: If \eqref{I} holds, from Lemma~\ref{l:2.1} it follows that $S$ is bounded above and Lemma~\ref{l:2.2} then applies and asserts that $W\cap B=\emptyset$, a contradiction.

782: 

783: On the other hand, if \eqref{II} is the case, we apply a second Baire category argument to strengthen assumption \eqref{II} by producing an $\varepsilon>0$ and a subset $Z_\varepsilon$ of $W_\varepsilon$ so that $U$ is ``uniformly $\varepsilon/40$ subharmonic" when restricted to $Z_\varepsilon$. Furthermore, the set $Z_\varepsilon$ is still ``thick:" $\omega (B\setminus\overline Z_\varepsilon, \partial Z_\varepsilon, x) >0$. 

784: 

785: Finally a very careful procedure involving picking balls within balls within balls 

786: is used to find a point $p_1$ of $W_\varepsilon$ and a very nearby point $p_2$ of $B$ so that $S(p_2)-S(p_1)$ is small

787: relative to $\varepsilon$ because of Lemma~\ref{l:2.1}, but large relative to $\varepsilon$ because of $S$ having large

788: (relative to $\varepsilon$) jumps at each point of $W_\varepsilon$. This contradiction will complete the proof of

789: Lemma~\ref{l:1.2} which we begin here.

790: 

791: Since $\tilde\Delta^* S(x) \geq 0$ and $S(x)$ is in $L^1$ locally, we have  $S(x)<\infty$ for all $x\in \Bbb  R^d$.

792: $S(x)\not\equiv -\infty$ since $S(x)$ is in $L^1$ locally. 

793: We first show that $S(x) = f_2(x) + \overline U(x)$ is 

794: upper semi-continuous in $\Bbb {R}^d$. 

795: 

796: Let

797: \begin{equation}\label{2.1}

798: W_{\varepsilon} = \left\{x\in \Bbb  R^d: \sup_{|x-y| <\delta}

799:  S(y)-S(x) > \varepsilon \hbox{

800: for all } \delta > 0\right\}.

801: \end{equation}

802: Then the set where $S(x)$ in $\Bbb {R}^d$ is not upper semi-continuous is

803: given by

804: \[

805: W =\bigcup_{\varepsilon >0} W_\varepsilon .

806: \]

807: 

808: If $W = \emptyset$, then $S(x)$ is upper-semicontinuous. Now we assume 

809: $W\ne \emptyset$ and  construct the set $Z$. Bourgain's condition \eqref{e:bou} implies that $f(x,t)=\sum a_{\xi} e^{i\langle \xi,x\rangle-|\xi|t}$ is a uniform limit of its partial sums and hence is continuous on $\Bbb {T}^d\times [\frac1j,\infty)$ for every positive integer $j$. Taking periodicity into account, we see that for each $k$, $f(x,t)$ is uniformly continuous on $\Bbb {R}^d\times [\frac{1}{k+1},\frac1k]$. So we may partition $[\frac12,1]$ into $1=t_1>t_2>\cdots>t_r=\frac12$ so that for $i=1,2,\cdots,r-1$, 

810: \begin{equation}\label{e:locdelta}

811: \sup_{ x\in R^d}\,\sup_{t_i\ge t\ge t_{i+1}} |f(x,t_i)-f(x,t)|\le 1\ .

812: \end{equation}

813: Then partition $[\frac13,\frac12]$ into $\frac12=t_r>t_{r+1}>\cdots>t_s=\frac13$ so that inequality \eqref{e:locdelta} holds for $i=r,r+1,\cdots,s-1$ and so on, thereby producing a sequence 

814: ${\cal T} = \{t_{n}\}$ satisfying $1=t_1>t_2>\cdots$, $\lim_{k\to\infty} t_k =0$, and 	

815: \begin{equation}\label{e:locdelta1}

816: \sup_{ x\in R^d}\,\sup_{t_i\ge t\ge t_{i+1}} |f(x,t_i)-f(x,t)|\le 1 

817: \end{equation}

818: holds for all $k$. Since $f(x,t)$ is bounded as $t\to 0^+$ for each $x\in\Bbb  R^d$,  

819: \[

820: \bigcup_{n\geq 1}\bigcap_{t\in {\cal T}}\left\{x\in\Bbb 

821: R^d: |f(x, t)|\leq n \right\} = 

822: \Bbb  R^d.

823: \]

824: Therefore,

825: \[

826: \bigcup_{n\geq 1}\bigcap_{t\in {\cal T}} \left\{x\in 

827: \overline W: |f(x, t)|\leq n \right\} 

828: = \overline W. 

829: \]

830: Since for each positive integer $n$ and each $t\in{\cal T}$, the set

831: \[

832: \left\{x\in \overline W:

833: |f(x, t)|\leq n \right\}

834: \]

835: is relatively closed with respect to $\overline W$, by Baire's

836: category theorem applied to the space $\overline W$ (the intersection of countably many relatively open dense sets

837:  is not empty), for some $N_0\geq 1$, 

838: \[

839: \bigcap_{t\in {\cal T}}\left\{x\in \overline W: |f(x, t)| \leq  N_0  \right\}

840: \]

841: has a nonempty interior relative to $\overline W$. This means that there exist an

842: open ball $B(p, \rho_0), p\in W$, and a constant $N_0$ such that

843: \begin{equation}\label{2.06}

844: \sup_{t\in {\cal T}} \,\sup_{x\in B(p, \rho_0)\cap\overline W} \,

845: |f(x, t)|\leq N_0 <\infty.

846: \end{equation}

847: Bourgain's condition implies that $\sup_{x\in\Bbb  R^d} |f(x,t)|\le C$, $\sup_{x\in\Bbb  R^d}|f_1(x,t)|\le C$, and $\sup_{x\in\Bbb  R^d}|f_2(x,t)|\le C$ whenever $t\ge 1$. Use 

848: \[

849: f_1(x,t)=\int_{1}^{t} f(x,s)\, ds +f_1(x,1),

850: \] 

851: \eqref{e:locdelta1} and \eqref{2.06} to see that there is a constant $N>0$ such that 

852: \begin{equation}\label{l:2.01-1}

853: \sup_{x\in Z\atop t>0}  |f_1 (x,t)|\le N,

854: \end{equation}

855: where $Z=B(p, \rho_0)\cap\overline W$. 

856: Similarly, since  

857: \[

858: f_2(x,t)=-\int_{0}^{t} f_1(x,s)\, ds +f_2(x)

859: \] 

860: by \eqref{1.001},  

861: \begin{equation}\label{2.3}

862: \sup_{{x\in Z\atop t>0}}|f_2(x) - f_2(x, t)|\leq N t.

863: \end{equation}

864: Therefore, $f_2(x)$ is continuous when restricted to $Z$. It follows that $S(x)$ is upper semi-continuous restricted to $Z$.

865: 

866: We will show  a contradiction if $W\ne \emptyset$. Once $S$

867: is everywhere upper semi-continuous, it is subharmonic since $\tilde\Delta_* S\geq 0$. For this, see p.14 of \cite{R}. This

868: will complete the proof of Lemma~\ref{l:1.2}.

869: 

870: The following lemmas are needed in proving $W = \emptyset$.  

871: 

872: \smallbreak

873: 

874: For a bounded open set $G$ and Borel measurable set $F$, we denote $\omega (G, F, x)$ to be the harmonic measure of a Borel

875: set

876: $F$ relative to $G$ at $x\in G$. Harmonic measure is closely related to Brownian motion. Let $(\{X_t\}_t,  {\cal F}_t, P)$ 

877: be the standard Brownian motion in $\Bbb {R}^d$.  For $x\in G$, let $T$ be the exiting time of $X_t$ from~$G$:

878: \[

879: T = \inf\{t\geq 0: X_t\notin G\}.

880: \] 

881: Then $X_T\in \partial G$ since $X_t$ is continuous in $t$. Let $P^x$

882: denote the probability measure such that $X_0 = x$ almost  everywhere. 

883: Then the harmonic measure $\omega (G, F, x) = P^x(X_T\in F)$. 

884: 

885: The following properties of harmonic measure are well-known. We summarize 

886: them as a preliminary lemma.

887: 

888:  

889: 

890: \proclaim{Lemma}\label{l:2.0} Let $F_0\subset F_1\subset F_2$ be closed subsets of a

891: bounded open set~$G${\rm .} Then for $x\in G\setminus F_2${\rm ,}

892: \begin{eqnarray}

893: \quad \omega (G\setminus F_2, \partial F_2, x)&\geq &\omega (G\setminus F_1, \partial F_1, x)\\

894: \noalign{\vskip4pt}

895: &\geq&

896: \omega (G\setminus F_1, \partial F_0, x)\geq\omega (G\setminus F_2, \partial F_0, x).

897: \nonumber

898: \end{eqnarray}

899: \endproclaim 

900:  

901: To see the last inequality, let $T_i = \inf\{t\geq 0: X_t\notin G\setminus F_i\},\, i = 1, 2$. Then $T_2\leq  T_1$. Note

902: that  on

903: $\{ T_2< T_1\}$, we must have $X_{T_2} \in \overline G\setminus F_1$. Otherwise, $X_{T_2}\in \overline G\setminus

904: (\overline G \setminus F_1) = F_1$. Thus by definition $T_2 \geq T_1$, a contradiction. But $\{T_2< T_1\}\subset \{

905: X_{T_2}\in

906: \overline G\setminus F_1\}$ implies that $\{ X_{T_2}\in F_1\} \subset \{

907: T_1 = T_2\}$. Consequently, $\{ X_{T_2}\in \partial F_0\}\subset \{

908: X_{T_2}\in F_0\}\subset \{

909: X_{T_2}\in F_1\} \subset \{ T_1 = T_2\}$. This proves the inequality since

910: \[

911: P^x(X_{T_2}\in \partial F_0) = P^x(X_{T_2}\in \partial F_0, T_1 = T_2) \leq 

912: P^x(X_{T_1}\in \partial F_0).

913: \]

914: 

915: The middle inequality is simply the monotonicity of the harmonic measure. 

916: To see the left inequality, observe that  on $\{ X_{T_1}\in \partial F_1\}$, $X_{T_2} \in \partial F_2$. Otherwise,

917: $X_{T_2}\in

918: \partial G$ and $T_2\leq T_1$ imply that $X_{T_1}\in \partial G$, a contradiction. Consequently, $\{ X_{T_1}\in \partial

919: F_1\} \subset \{ X_{T_2}\in \partial F_2\}$. This completes the proof.

920: 

921: The next three lemmas are essential to the proof of Lemma~\ref{l:1.2}.

922: 

923:   

924: \proclaim{Lemma}\label{l:2.1} Let $S${\rm ,} $f_2${\rm ,} and $\overline U$ be as given

925: in Lemma~{\rm \ref{l:1.2}.} Let $W$ be the set where $S$ is not upper

926: semi\/{\rm -}\/continuous{\rm .}

927:  Assume that there is a open ball $B(p, \rho_0)${\rm ,} $p\in W${\rm ,}

928:  such that when restricted to $Z =B(p, \rho_0)\cap\overline W${\rm ,}

929: $f_2(x)$ is continuous and {\rm \eqref{2.3}} holds{\rm .} Then{\rm ,}

930:  for $p_1\in W, B(p_1,\rho_1) \subset B(p, \frac12\rho_0)$ and $p_2\in

931: B(p_1, \frac12\rho_1)${\rm ,} there exists a constant $c>0$ such that for almost all such $\rho_1${\rm ,} 

932: \begin{eqnarray}\label{2.4}

933: \qquad \enspace S(p_2) - S(p_1)  &\leq & c\biggl( \left[|f_2(p_1)|

934: +\rho_1^{-\frac34(d-1)}\right]\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

935:  && \times\ [1-\omega (B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus\overline

936: W, \partial(W\cap B(p_1, \rho_1)), p_2)]^{\frac14}\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

937:   && +\ \sup_{q\in B(p_1, 2\rho_1)\cap\overline W} \, |f_2(q)- f_2(p_1)|\nonumber\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

938: && +\ 2\sup_{q\in B(p_1, 2\rho_1)}\, \left(\overline U(q) 

939: -\overline U(p_1)\right)\biggr). \nonumber

940: \end{eqnarray}

941: \endproclaim

942: 

943: Lemma~\ref{l:2.1} is a one-sided version of Bourgain's key lemma in 

944: \cite{B}.  The proof is also similar and is given in Section~\ref{s:3}. It

945: follows from Lemma~\ref{l:2.1} that $S(x)$ is bounded from above in $B(p,

946: \frac{\rho_0}{4})$ when  $p_1 =p$. 

947: 

948:  

949: 

950: \proclaim{Lemma}\label{l:2.2} Assume  $\overline U$ is  defined on 

951: $\overline B(p, r)$ and is upper semi\/{\rm -}\/continuous on  $B(p, r)${\rm .} Let $f_2$ be 

952: a function in $\overline B(p, r)$ such 

953: that $S(x)= f_2(x) + \overline U(x)$ is bounded from above in $\overline B(p,

954: r)${\rm ,} in $L^1(\overline B(p, r))${\rm ,}  and satisfies

955: \begin{equation}\label{2.5}

956: \tilde\Delta^* S(x)  \geq 0, \hbox{ and } \tilde\Delta_* f_2(x) <\infty

957: \end{equation}

958: for each $x\in B(p, r).$

959: If $S$ is upper semi\/{\rm -}\/continuous when restricted to 

960: $\overline W= \{x \in B(p, r): $S(x)$ \hbox{ is not upper 

961: semi\/{\rm -}\/continuous}\}${\rm ,} and for all $x\in B(p, r)\setminus\overline W_{\varepsilon}$ the harmonic measure

962: \begin{equation}\label{2.7}

963: \omega(B(p, r)\setminus\overline W_{\varepsilon}, B(p,r)\cap W_{\varepsilon}, x) = 0 

964: \end{equation}

965: for all $\varepsilon>0$ where $W_{\varepsilon}$ is given by {\rm \eqref{2.1},}

966:  then $W$ must be empty and $S(x)$ is subharmonic on $B(p, r)${\rm . }

967: \endproclaim

968: 

969:  

970: 

971: The proof of Lemma~\ref{l:2.2} is given in Section~\ref{s:4}. The special

972: case when  $\overline U\equiv 0$ was proved by Bourgain. 

973: 

974: The next lemma provides a harmonic measure version of a point density.

975: 

976:  

977: 

978: \proclaim{Lemma}\label{l:2.3}  Let $B(p_0, r)$ be a ball in $\Bbb  R^d$ and

979: $F$ a closed set such that $B(p_0, r)\cap F\ne\emptyset${\rm .} Suppose for some 

980: $x\in B(p_0, r)\setminus F${\rm , }

981: \[

982: \omega(B(p_0, r)\setminus F, \partial (B(p_0, r)\cap F), x) >0.

983: \]

984: Then there exists $p_1\in B(p_0, r)\cap F${\rm ,} such that

985: \begin{equation}\label{2.8}

986: \inf_{\delta_1> 0}\liminf_{\delta_2\to 0}\inf_{x\in B(p_1,

987: \delta_2)} \, \omega(B(p_1, \delta_1)\setminus F, \partial (B(p_1,

988: \delta_1)\cap F), x) = 1.

989: \end{equation}

990: \endproclaim	

991: 

992: The proof of Lemma~\ref{l:2.3} is outlined in \cite{B}. For a detailed proof,

993: see the proof of Theorem 3.14 in \cite{AW}. 

994: 

995: We now return to the proof of Lemma~\ref{l:1.2}. 

996: By \eqref{1.2} and the fact that 

997: $F(x) \in L^2(\Bbb  T^d)$,  we have $S$ is in $L^1_{\rm loc}(\Bbb {R}^d)$.  

998: For the duration of this proof, we abbreviate $B(p, \rho_0/8)$ to $B$. There are two cases. 

999: \medbreak

1000: Case one: for all  $\epsilon > 0$,  

1001: \[

1002: \omega(B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}, 

1003: \partial (B\cap W_{\epsilon}), x) = 0

1004: \]

1005: for all $x\in B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}$. Then by Lemma~\ref{l:2.1}, $S$ is bounded

1006:  from above and by Lemma~\ref{l:1.0}, $\tilde\Delta_{*} f_2<\infty$ everywhere. Also $B(p, p_0)$ was chosen so that $S$

1007: is upper semi-continuous when restricted to $B(p,p_0)\cap \overline W$. Thus all the hypotheses of Lemma~\ref{l:2.2} are

1008: satisfied and $W\cap B = \emptyset$, which is a  contradiction.

1009: \medbreak

1010: Case two: for some $\epsilon > 0$ and for some 

1011: $x_0\in B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}$, we have

1012: \begin{equation}\label{2.10}

1013: \omega(B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}, 

1014: \partial (B\cap W_{\epsilon}), x_0) > 0.

1015: \end{equation}

1016: 

1017: Even though $\overline U$ is upper semi-continuous everywhere, it may

1018: not be uniformly upper semi-continuous on $W_{\epsilon}$. This presents

1019: a problem which did not arise at the corresponding point in Bourgain's

1020: proof. To deal with this, we now introduce a subset of $W_{\epsilon}$

1021: called $Z_{\epsilon}$, on a portion of which there holds a kind of

1022: uniform upper semi-continuity.

1023: 

1024: Let 

1025: \[

1026: Z_\epsilon = \{y\in B\cap W_\epsilon: 

1027: \omega(B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}, 

1028: \overline{B(y, \delta)\cap W_{\epsilon}}, x_0)>0, \hbox{ for all }

1029: \delta>0\}.

1030: \]

1031: Then, 

1032: \begin{equation}\label{2.11}

1033: \omega(B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}, 

1034: \partial Z_\epsilon, x_0)>0.

1035: \end{equation}

1036: In fact, by definition, for each $z\in B\cap

1037: W_\epsilon\setminus \overline {Z_\epsilon}$, there exists a ball 

1038: $B(z, \delta_z)$, such that 

1039: \begin{equation}\label{2.12}

1040: \omega(B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}, 

1041: \overline{B(z, \delta_z)\cap W_{\epsilon}}, x_0)=0. 

1042: \end{equation}

1043: The open cover $\{B(z, \delta_z)\}$ of $B\cap

1044: W_\epsilon\setminus \overline {Z_\epsilon}$ has a countable subcover $\{B(z_i,\delta_{z_i})\}$. 

1045: Thus, \eqref{2.12} implies

1046: \[

1047: \omega(B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}, 

1048: B\cap W_\epsilon\setminus \overline {Z_\epsilon}, x_0)=0 .

1049: \]

1050: So \eqref{2.11} follows from \eqref{2.10} as $\omega(B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}, 

1051: \overline {Z_\epsilon}, x_0)=\omega(B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}, 

1052: \partial {Z_\epsilon}, x_0)$.

1053: 

1054: Since $\overline U$ is upper semi-continuous, 

1055: \[

1056: \bigcup_{m\geq 1}\left\{y\in \overline {Z_\epsilon}: \sup_{|z-y|\leq

1057: 2/m} \overline U(z) -\overline U(y) \leq  \frac{\epsilon}{40}\right\} =

1058: \overline {Z_\epsilon}.

1059: \]

1060: Apply Baire's category theorem to the space $\overline {Z_\epsilon}$ to see that there exists $m\geq 1$ and an open ball 

1061: $B(q, \rho)\subset B, q\in Z_\epsilon$, 

1062: such that 

1063: \[

1064: B(q, \rho)\cap \overline {Z_\epsilon} \subset \overline{\left\{y\in 

1065: \overline {Z_\epsilon}: \sup_{|z-y|\leq  2/m}

1066: \overline U(z) -\overline U(y) \leq  \frac{\epsilon}{40}\right\}}.

1067: \]

1068: Equivalently, for any fixed $y\in B(q, \rho)\cap \overline {Z_\epsilon}$, 

1069: there exists a sequence $y_n\in B(q, \rho)\cap Z_\epsilon$ convergent to $y$ such that  

1070: \begin{equation}\label{2.13}

1071: \sup_{|z-y_n|\leq  2/m} \overline U(z) - \overline U(y_n) \leq 

1072: \frac{\epsilon}{40}.

1073: \end{equation}

1074: However, $\overline U$ is upper semi-continuous. So there exists $0< \delta <

1075: \frac{1}{m}$ such that for $|y_n-y|< \delta$,  

1076: \[

1077: \overline U(y_n) - \overline U(y) < \frac{\epsilon}{40}.

1078: \]

1079: Thus, for $|z-y|< \frac{1}{m}$, since $|z-y_n|<\frac{2}{m}$ if

1080: $|y_n-y|<\delta$, 

1081: \begin{equation}\label{2.14}

1082: \sup_{|z-y|<\frac{1}{m}}\overline U(z) < \overline U(y_n) +

1083: \frac{\epsilon}{40} < \overline U(y) +\frac{\epsilon}{20}.

1084: \end{equation}

1085: Without loss of generality, we assume that $\frac{1}{m} \leq 

1086: \frac{\rho}{2}$. 

1087: 

1088: Because $q\in Z_\epsilon$, we also have 

1089: \begin{equation}\label{2.15}

1090: \omega(B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}, 

1091: \overline {B(q, \frac{\rho}{2})\cap W_\epsilon}, x_0)=\omega(B\setminus \overline {W_{\epsilon}}, 

1092: \partial (B(q, \frac{\rho}{2})\cap W_\epsilon), x_0) >0.

1093: \end{equation}

1094: 

1095: Set $F_\epsilon = B(q, \frac{\rho}{2})\cap W_\epsilon$. Then the rightmost inequality of 

1096: Lemma~\ref{l:2.0} and \eqref{2.15} imply that 

1097: \[

1098: \omega(B\setminus \overline F_{\epsilon}, 

1099: \partial F_\epsilon, x_0) \geq \omega(B\setminus \overline 

1100: W_{\epsilon},  \partial F_\epsilon, x_0) >0.

1101: \]

1102: 

1103: From Lemma~\ref{l:2.3}, there exists $p'\in \overline F_{\epsilon}$ 

1104: such that 

1105: \begin{equation}\label{2.16}

1106: \inf_{\delta_1> 0}\underset{\delta_2\to 0}\liminf\inf_{x\in B(p',

1107: \delta_2)} \, \omega(B(p', \delta_1)\setminus\overline F_{\epsilon}, 

1108: \partial  (B(p',\delta_1)\cap F_{\epsilon}), x) = 1.

1109: \end{equation}

1110: 

1111: Notice that Lemma~\ref{l:2.3} requires the set $F$ to be closed, so we cannot be sure that $p'\in F_\varepsilon$. 

1112: Although $F_\varepsilon$ may not be closed, the uniformity implied by \eqref{2.16} allows us to continue.

1113: 

1114: Since $f_2$ restricted to $\overline W \cap B$ 

1115: is continuous, we may select $1/(8m) > \delta_1>0$ such that 

1116: \begin{equation}\label{2.17}

1117: |f_2(z) - f_2(y)| \leq  \frac{\varepsilon}{10}

1118: \end{equation}

1119: for all $y, z\in B(p', 8\delta_1)\cap \overline W$.

1120: 

1121: Let $\eta>0$ be any positive number. From \eqref{2.16}, it follows that 

1122: there exists $0< \delta_2 = \delta_2(\eta, \delta_1)< \delta_1$ such that 

1123: \[

1124: \omega(B(p', \delta_1)\setminus \overline F_{\epsilon}, 

1125: \partial (B(p', \delta_1)\cap

1126: F_{\epsilon}), y) > 1-\eta\hbox{ for all }y\in B(p', \delta_2).

1127: \]

1128: 

1129: We may also assume that $\delta_1+\delta_2 = \delta_3^{'}$ satisfies

1130: $B(p', \delta_3^{'})\subset B(p, \frac{\rho_0}{2})$. Pick any $\delta_3$ bigger than $\delta'_3$ but small enough to force $B(p', \delta_3) \subset B(p, \frac{\rho_0}{2})$. Note

1131: that 

1132: $p'\in \overline F_\varepsilon$ implies that there exists 

1133: $p_1\in B(p', \frac{\delta_2}{2})\cap F_\epsilon$. Since 

1134: $B(p', \delta_1) \subset B(p_1, \delta_3)$, 

1135: \[

1136: B(p_1, \delta_3)\setminus\overline{[F_\varepsilon\cup \{B(p_1, \delta_3)\setminus B(p', \delta_1)\}]}=B(p',\delta_1)\setminus\overline F_\varepsilon  .

1137: \]

1138: So by the rightmost inequality of Lemma~\ref{l:2.0},

1139: \begin{eqnarray*}

1140: && \hskip-48pt \omega(B(p_1, \delta_3)\setminus \overline F_{\epsilon}, 

1141:  \partial (B(p', \delta_1)\cap

1142: F_{\epsilon}), y)\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1143: \quad & \geq& \omega (B(p_1, \delta_3)\setminus\overline{[F_\varepsilon\cup \{B(p_1, \delta_3)\setminus B(p',

1144: \delta_1)\}]},

1145: \partial (B(p', \delta_1)\cap F_{\epsilon}), y) \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1146: \quad & =& \omega(B(p', \delta_1)\setminus \overline F_{\epsilon}, 

1147: \partial (B(p', \delta_1)\cap

1148: F_{\epsilon}), y)\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1149: \quad &\geq& 1-\eta\hbox{ for all }y\in B(p_1, \frac{\delta_2}{2}).

1150: \end{eqnarray*}

1151: Consequently,

1152: \[

1153: \omega(B(p_1, \delta_3)\setminus \overline F_{\epsilon}, 

1154: \partial (B(p_1, \delta_3)\cap

1155: F_{\epsilon}), y) \geq  1-\eta\hbox{ for all }y\in B(p_1,

1156: \frac{\delta_2}{2}),

1157: \]

1158: since $B(p', \delta_1)\cap F_{\epsilon} \subset B(p_1,

1159: \delta_3)\cap F_{\epsilon}$.

1160: Finally, by the left inequality of Lemma~\ref{l:2.0}

1161: \[

1162: \omega(B(p_1, \delta_3)\setminus \overline W, 

1163: \partial (B(p_1, \delta_3)\cap

1164: W), y) \geq \omega(B(p_1, \delta_3)\setminus \overline F_{\epsilon}, 

1165: \partial (B(p_1, \delta_3)\cap F_{\epsilon}), y).

1166: \]

1167: We therefore have 

1168: \begin{equation}\label{2.18}

1169: \omega(B(p_1, \delta_3)\setminus \overline W, 

1170: \partial (B(p_1, \delta_3)\cap

1171: W), y)> 1-\eta\hbox{ for all }y\in B(p_1,

1172: \frac{\delta_2}{2}).

1173: \end{equation}

1174: By definition, $p_1\in W_{\epsilon}$ implies that there exists $p_2\in

1175: B(p_1, \frac{\delta_2}{2})$ such that 

1176: \[

1177: S(p_2)-S(p_1) \geq \frac{\varepsilon}{2}.

1178: \]

1179: Apply Lemma~\ref{l:2.1} at $p_1, p_2,$ and $\rho_1 = \delta_3$ where the 

1180: inequality \eqref{2.4} holds for $\delta_3$. Then by \eqref{2.14},  

1181: \eqref{2.17}, \eqref{2.18}, and the above inequality, we 

1182: have 

1183: \begin{equation}\label{2.19}

1184: \frac{\varepsilon}{2} \leq   S(p_2) - S(p_1) \leq  c[|f_2(p_1)| +

1185: \delta_3^{-\frac34 (d-1)}]\eta^{1/4} + \frac{\varepsilon}{5}.

1186: \end{equation}

1187: Note here that $p_1, p_2$, and $\delta_3$ depend on $\eta$. However, since $f_2$ is continuous and hence bounded on $B(p,

1188: \rho_0)\cap\overline W$  and $\delta_3$ is bounded below by $\delta_1$ as $\eta \to 0$, so \eqref{2.19} becomes a

1189: contradiction upon choosing $\eta$ sufficiently small.

1190: 

1191: \section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{l:2.1}}\label{s:3}

1192: 

1193: For any  bounded measurable function $f(x)$ defined on $\partial G$, 

1194: \begin{equation}\label{3.1}

1195: H_f(x) = \int_{\partial G} f(z)\, \omega(G, dz, x) 

1196: \end{equation}

1197: is harmonic in $G$. If every point on $\partial G$ satisfies the  exterior 

1198: cone condition and $f$ is continuous at $x\in \partial G$, then 

1199: \[

1200: \lim_{{y\rightarrow x\atop y\in G}} H_f(y)=f(x).

1201: \] 

1202: Since any upper semi-continuous function is the limit of a decreasing sequence of continuous functions, so the maximum principle for subharmonic functions and \eqref{3.1} imply that 

1203: \begin{equation}\label{3.1.1}

1204: f(x) \leq \int_{\partial G} f(z)\, \omega(G, dz, x) 

1205: \end{equation}

1206: for any function $f$ subharmonic on an open set $\tilde G\supset \overline G \supset G$.

1207: 

1208: We need only to consider $p_2\notin \overline W$. Let $\tau = \hbox{dist}(p_2, \overline W) \leq  \frac12 \rho_1$. For $\kappa \ll \tau$, define

1209: \[

1210: G_\kappa = \{x\in B(p_1, \rho_1): \hbox{dist} (x, \overline W) < \kappa\}.

1211: \]

1212: Clearly $\overline W \cap B(p_1, \rho_1)\subset G_\kappa$. We know that 

1213: $S$ is upper semi-continuous and $\tilde \Delta^* S(x) \geq 0$ on 

1214: $B(p, \rho_0)\setminus\overline W$. This is the hypothesis of a 

1215: classical theorem (see for example \cite[p.~14]{R}) which concludes that 

1216: $S$ is subharmonic on $B(p, \rho_0)\setminus \overline W$. Thus, 

1217: $S(x) - S(p_1)$ is subharmonic on $B(p, \rho_0)\setminus \overline

1218: W$. In particular, $S(x) - S(p_1)$ is subharmonic on an open set containing $\overline {B(p_1, \rho_1)

1219: \setminus \overline G_\kappa}$. Note that $B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline

1220: G_\kappa$ satisfies the exterior cone condition everywhere on the boundary.

1221: So by \eqref{3.1.1}, we 

1222: have 

1223: \begin{eqnarray*}

1224: \noalign{\vskip6pt}

1225: &&\hskip-.5in S(p_2) - S(p_1)   \leq    \int\limits_{\partial (B(p_1,

1226: \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_\kappa)}\, 

1227: [S(x) - S(p_1)]\, \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus

1228: \overline G_\kappa, dx, p_2)\\ \noalign{\vskip6pt}

1229: &&\quad =\ \int\limits_{\partial B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus (B(p_1, \rho_1)\cap 

1230: \partial G_{\kappa})}\,

1231: [S(x) - S(p_1)]\, \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus

1232: \overline G_\kappa, dx, p_2)\\ \noalign{\vskip6pt}

1233: &&\qquad+ \ \int\limits_{B(p_1, \rho_1)\cap\partial G_\kappa}\,

1234: [S(x)-S(p_1)]\, \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus

1235: \overline G_\kappa, dx, p_2)\\ \noalign{\vskip6pt}

1236: &&\quad  =\ I_1 + I_2.

1237: \end{eqnarray*}

1238: 

1239: We first estimate $I_1$.  When $p_2\in B(p_1, \rho_1/2)$, a classical result on

1240: harmonic measure shows that $\omega = 

1241: \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_\kappa, dx, p_2)$ is absolutely

1242: continuous with respect to the surface Lebesgue measure $\sigma$ when 

1243: restricted to the sphere $B(p_1, \rho_1)$. (See \cite{D} or

1244: (4.39) of \cite{AW}.) By \eqref{1.2}, $f_2(x) = F(x)$ 

1245: almost everywhere with respect to Lebesgue measure; thus, for almost every 

1246: $\rho_1>0$, $f_2(x) = F(x)$ almost everywhere with respect to the surface Lebesgue measure on $B(p_1, \rho_1)$ and hence with respect to the harmonic measure $\omega$ for all $p_2\in B(p_1, \rho_1/2)$. 

1247: Consequently,

1248: \begin{eqnarray*}

1249: \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1250: I_1 &\leq&  \int\limits_{\partial B(p_1, \rho_1)} |F(p_2) - f_2(p_1)|\,

1251: \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_\kappa, dx, p_2)\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1252: &&+\ \underset{q\in B(p_1, \rho_1)}\sup \overline U(q) -\overline

1253: U(p_1)\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt} 

1254: & =& I_3 + I_4. 

1255: \end{eqnarray*}

1256: A result of Bourgain \cite{B}  (see also Lemma 4.5 of \cite{AW})  shows that 

1257: \[

1258: I_3 \leq  c\left( \left[|f_2(p_1)|

1259: +\rho_1^{-\frac34(d-1)}\right] [1-\omega (B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus\overline

1260: W, \partial(W\cap B(p_1, \rho_1)), p_2)]^{\frac14}\right).

1261: \]

1262: \demo{{R}emark\/ {\rm 4.1}} 

1263: In fact, Lemma 4.5 of \cite{AW} was based on Connes' condition

1264: \eqref{0.3}. But a careful reading of the proof shows the conclusion of

1265:   Lemma 4.5 holds true under Bourgain's condition \eqref{e:bou} since

1266: inequalities (4.18) and (4.19) in Lemma 4.2 and Corollary 4.3

1267: respectively can be replaced by 

1268: \[

1269: \sup_{k} \frac{1}{2^{k}}\sum_{|\xi|^2\sim 2^k}|c_{\xi}|^2 \leq M

1270: \]

1271: as they are used only in (4.21).

1272: \enddemo 

1273: 

1274: This gives the first half of \eqref{2.4}.  Now we estimate $I_2$. 

1275: 

1276: For any $x\in B(p_1, \rho_1)\cap \partial G_{\kappa}$, there exists

1277: $\tilde x \in \overline W\cap B(p_1, 2\rho_1)$, such that $|x-\tilde x| =

1278: \kappa$. Since $S$ is subharmonic at $x$, 

1279: \begin{equation}\label{3.2}

1280: S(x) \leq  A_\kappa f_2(x) + A_\kappa \overline U(x).

1281: \end{equation}

1282: Since $\tilde x\in \overline W\cap B(p, \rho_0)$, by assumption,  

1283: \begin{equation}\label{3.3}

1284: |f_2(\tilde x) - f_2(\tilde x, \kappa)| \leq N \kappa.

1285: \end{equation}

1286: 

1287: Thus combining \eqref{3.2} and \eqref{3.3}, we have 

1288: \begin{eqnarray*}

1289: S(x) - S(\tilde x) &\leq&  A_{\kappa} f_2(x) - 

1290: A_{\kappa} f_2(\tilde x, \kappa) + A_{\kappa} f_2(\tilde x, \kappa)-

1291: f_2(\tilde x, \kappa)\\

1292: && +\ A_{\kappa} \overline U(x)-\overline U(\tilde x) + N\kappa.

1293: \end{eqnarray*}

1294: Consequently, 

1295: \begin{eqnarray*}

1296: S(x) - S(p_1) & = &  S(x) - S(\tilde x) + S(\tilde x) - S(p_1)\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1297: &\leq&  A_\kappa f_2(x) - A_\kappa f_2(\tilde x, \kappa) + 

1298: A_{\kappa} f_2(\tilde x, \kappa)- f_2(\tilde x, \kappa)\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1299: && +\  f_2(\tilde x) -f_2(p_1) + A_\kappa\overline U(x) - \overline

1300: U(p_1) + N\kappa\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1301: &\leq&  A_\kappa f_2(x) - A_\kappa f_2(\tilde x, \kappa) + A_{\kappa}

1302: f_2(\tilde x, \kappa)- f_2(\tilde x, \kappa)\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1303: && +\  \underset{q\in B(p_1, 2\rho_1)\cap \overline W}\sup |f_2(q)-

1304: f_2(p_1)|\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1305: && +\ \underset{q\in B(p_1, 2\rho_1)}\sup \overline U(q)- 

1306: \overline U(p_1) + N\kappa.

1307: \end{eqnarray*} 

1308: From \eqref{1.2} and the definition of $A_\rho f_2(x)$, we have $A_\rho

1309: f_2(x) = A_\rho F(x)$ for all $x$. Thus 

1310: \begin{eqnarray}\label{3.4}

1311: %

1312: && \\ 

1313: I_2 &\leq& \int\limits_{B(p_1, \rho_1)\cap \partial G_\kappa} 

1314: |A_\kappa F(x) - A_\kappa f_2(\tilde x, \kappa)| \, 

1315: \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_\kappa,

1316: dx, p_2)\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1317: &&+ \ \int\limits_{B(p_1, \rho_1)\cap \partial G_\kappa} 

1318: |A_\kappa f_2(\tilde x, \kappa) - f_2(\tilde x, \kappa)| \, 

1319: \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_\kappa,

1320: dx, p_2)\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1321: && +\  \underset{q\in B(p_1,

1322: 2\rho_1)\cap \overline W} \sup |f_2(q)-f_2(p_1)|\nonumber \\

1323: && +\ \underset{q\in B(p_1, 2\rho_1)}\sup

1324: \overline U(q)- \overline U(p_1)  + N\kappa\nonumber\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1325: & = &I_5 + I_6 + \underset{q\in B(p_1,

1326: 2\rho_1)\cap \overline W} \sup |f_2(q)-f_2(p_1)|\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1327: &&+\  \underset{q\in B(p_1, 2\rho_1)}\sup

1328: \overline U(q)- \overline U(p_1) + N\kappa. \nonumber

1329: \end{eqnarray} 

1330: 

1331: It is enough to show that $I_5\to 0$ and $I_6\to 0 $ as $\kappa\to 0$. 

1332: Observe that 

1333: \begin{eqnarray*}

1334: I_5 &\leq& \int\limits_{B(p_1, \rho_1)\cap \partial G_\kappa} 

1335: |A_\kappa F(x) - A_\kappa F(\tilde x)| \, 

1336: \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_\kappa,

1337: dx, p_2)\\

1338: && + \ \int\limits_{B(p_1, \rho_1)\cap \partial G_\kappa} 

1339: |A_\kappa F(\tilde x) - A_\kappa f_2(\tilde x, \kappa)| \, 

1340: \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_\kappa,

1341: dx, p_2)\\

1342: & =& I_7 +I_8.

1343: \end{eqnarray*}

1344: A result of Bourgain \cite{B} (again, see also Lemma 4.4 of \cite{AW}),

1345: shows that $I_7\to 0$ as $\kappa\to 0$. However, the same proof of 

1346: Lemma 4.4 in \cite{AW} shows that if $a_{\xi}$ satisfies Bourgain's

1347: condition \eqref{e:bou}, then 

1348: \begin{equation}\label{3.5}

1349: \lim_{\kappa\to 0} \kappa \int\limits_{B(p_1, \rho_1)\cap \partial G_\kappa}

1350: \left|\sum_{|\xi|\neq 0} \frac{a_{\xi}}{|\xi|}\hat I(\kappa |\xi|) 

1351: e^{i\langle \overline x, \xi\rangle}\right| \, 

1352: \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_\kappa, dx, p_2) = 0,

1353: \end{equation}

1354: where $|\overline x - x|\leq \kappa$.

1355: Note that

1356: \[

1357: A_\kappa F(\tilde x) - A_\kappa f_2(\tilde x, \kappa) = -\sum_{|\xi|\neq 0} 

1358: \frac{a_{\xi}}{|\xi|^2}\hat I(\kappa |\xi|)e^{i\langle\tilde x, \xi\rangle}

1359: (1-e^{-|\xi|\kappa}),

1360: \]

1361: while by the mean value theorem, for each $\xi\neq

1362: 0$, there exists $t_{\xi} > 0$ such that 

1363: \[

1364: \sum_{|\xi|\neq 0} \frac{a_{\xi}}{|\xi|^2}\hat I(\kappa |\xi|)e^{i\langle 

1365: \tilde x, \xi\rangle}(1-e^{-|\xi|\kappa}) = \kappa \sum_{|\xi|\neq 0}\frac{a_{\xi}

1366: e^{-|\xi|t_{\xi}}}{|\xi|}\hat I(\kappa |\xi|) 

1367: e^{i\langle\tilde x, \xi\rangle}.

1368: \]

1369: Since $e^{-|\xi|t_{\xi}} < 1$, $\{a_{\xi}e^{-|\xi|t_{\xi}}\}$ satisfies

1370: Bourgain's condition \eqref{e:bou} as $\{a_{\xi}\}$ does. Thus by

1371: \eqref{3.5}, $I_8\to 0$ as $\kappa\to 0$. This shows that $I_5\to 0$ as

1372: $\kappa \to 0$. 

1373: 

1374: The method that Bourgain used to prove that $I_7\to 0$ as $\kappa\to 0$

1375: can also be used to prove $I_6\to 0$ as $\kappa\to0$. To establish this, we will use the following lemma of Bourgain \cite {B}. (See also the proof of Corollary~4.3 of \cite{AW}.)

1376: \proclaim{Lemma}\label{l:3.1}

1377: Let $k\geq 1, \gamma>0, \eta\leq 2^{-k}${\rm .} Let $E_{k, \gamma, \eta}$ be

1378: a set of $\eta$\/{\rm -}\/separated points $x\in B(p, q)\subset \Bbb  R^d$

1379: satisfying

1380: \[

1381: \left|\sum_{|\xi|\sim 2^k} \frac{b_{\xi}}{|\xi|^2} e^{i\langle x,

1382: \xi\rangle}\right|\geq \gamma.

1383: \]

1384: Then{\rm ,} the cardinality of $E_{k,\gamma, \eta}$ satisfies

1385: \[

1386: |E_{k,\gamma,\eta}|\leq c \gamma^{-2}\eta^{-d}2^{-2k}\nu_k^2,

1387: \]

1388: where $c$ is an absolute constant and 

1389: \[

1390: \nu_k^2 = 2^{-2k}\sum_{|\xi|\sim 2^{k}} |b_{\xi}|^2.

1391: \]

1392: \endproclaim

1393: Let

1394: \[

1395: \alpha_{k} = \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} c\alpha [\log(1+2^k \kappa)]^{-2}, &

1396: \hbox{ for } 2^k\geq \kappa^{-1}\\

1397:                            c\alpha [\log(1+2^{-k} \kappa^{-1})]^{-2}, &

1398: \hbox{ for } 2^k < \kappa^{-1} .\end{array} \right. 

1399: \]

1400: The positive constant $c$ is chosen so that $\sum_{k\geq 1}\alpha_{k}

1401: \leq 2c\alpha\sum_{n\geq 0}(\log(1+2^n))^{-2}\break = \alpha$ for all $\alpha> 0$. Clearly, $c$ is an absolute constant. 

1402: For $\alpha >0$, let

1403: \[

1404: S_{\kappa, \alpha} = \{ x\in B(p_1, \rho_1)\cap \partial G_{\kappa}: 

1405: |A_{\kappa}f_2(\tilde x, \kappa) - f_2(\tilde x, \kappa)| > \alpha\}.

1406: \]

1407: Then

1408: \begin{equation}\label{3.6}

1409: I_6 = \int_{0}^{\infty}\omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus\overline

1410: G_{\kappa}, S_{\kappa, \alpha}, p_2)\, d\alpha.

1411: \end{equation}

1412: 

1413: Let

1414: \begin{eqnarray*}

1415: S_{\kappa, k,\alpha_{k}} & = &  \{x\in B(p_1, \rho_1)\cap \partial G_{\kappa}: 

1416: |A_{\kappa}f_{2, k}(\tilde x, \kappa) - f_{2, k}(\tilde x, \kappa)| > 

1417: \alpha_{k}\},\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1418: S'_{\kappa, k, \alpha_{k}} & =& \{x\in B(p_1, \rho_1): 

1419: |A_{\kappa}f_{2, k}(x, \kappa) - f_{2, k}(x, \kappa)| > 

1420: \alpha_{k}\},

1421: \end{eqnarray*}

1422: where

1423: \begin{eqnarray*}

1424: f_{2, k}(x, \kappa) & = &  \sum_{|\xi|\sim 2^k} \frac{a_{\xi}}{|\xi|^2}

1425: e^{i\langle x, \xi\rangle-\kappa|\xi|}, \hbox{ and} \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1426: A_{\kappa}f_{2, k}(x, \kappa)& = & \sum_{|\xi|\sim 2^k} \frac{a_{\xi}}{|\xi|^2}\hat I(\kappa|\xi|)

1427: e^{i\langle x, \xi\rangle-\kappa|\xi|}.

1428: \end{eqnarray*}

1429: Then

1430: \begin{equation}\label{3.7}

1431: S_{\kappa, \alpha} \subset \bigcup_{k\geq 1} S_{\kappa, k, \alpha_k}.

1432: \end{equation}

1433: Since $|x-\tilde x|= \kappa$, observe that a collection of balls of radius 

1434: $\eta\leq 2^{-k}$ centered at points in $S'_{\kappa, k, \alpha_k}$ covering  

1435: $S'_{\kappa, k, \alpha_k}$ will cover $S_{\kappa, k, \alpha_k}$ if the

1436: radius of each ball is enlarged by $\kappa$. 

1437: 

1438: Bourgain's condition \eqref{e:bou} may be restated as $\delta_k\to 0$, where 

1439: \[

1440: \delta^2_k=2^{-2k}\sum_{|\xi|\sim 2^k}|a^2_{\xi}|.

1441: \]

1442: In particular, $\delta^2_k$ is bounded for all $k$. Now apply Lemma~\ref{l:3.1} and use the fact that $\hat I(|\xi|) = O(|\xi|^{-(d+1)/2})$ as $|\xi|\to \infty$ and 

1443: also use \eqref{1.3}. We find that the number of balls of radius $\eta\leq 2^{-k}$ centered at $S'_{\kappa, k, \alpha_k}$

1444: covering

1445: $S'_{\kappa, k,\alpha_k}$ is at most

1446: \begin{eqnarray}\label{3.8}

1447: %

1448: |E_{k, \alpha_k, \eta}| 

1449: &\leq &c\alpha_k^{-2}\eta^{-d}2^{-2k}  e^{-\kappa 2^k}\delta_k^2\sup_{2^{k-1}\leq j <2^{k}}|\hat I(\kappa j) -1|^2\\

1450: & \leq & \left\{

1451: \begin{array}{ll} c\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 \eta^{-d} 2^{-2k} e^{-

1452: \kappa 2^k}, & \quad  \kappa 2^k \geq 1\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1453: c\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 \eta^{-d} 2^{-2k} (\kappa 2^{k})^4,  & \quad

1454: \kappa 2^k < 1. \end{array} \right. 

1455: \end{eqnarray}

1456: 

1457: We estimate $\omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_{\kappa}, 

1458: S_{\kappa, k,\alpha_k}, p_2)$ according to the size of $k$.  

1459: 

1460: \demo{Case {\rm (i):} $\kappa 2^k \geq 1$}

1461: By \eqref{3.8} with $\eta= 2^{-k}$ and the observation made after 

1462: \eqref{3.7},  the number of balls of radius $2\kappa$ covering $S_{\kappa, k, \alpha_k}$ is at most

1463:  $M = c\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 2^{(d-2)k}e^{-\kappa 2^{k}}$. Let $\{B_i\}_{1\le i\le M_1}, M_1\le M$,  denote these balls.

1464: Then 

1465: \begin{eqnarray}\label{3.9}

1466: && \nonumber \\

1467: \noalign{\vskip-24pt}

1468: &&\\

1469: \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_{\kappa}, S_{\kappa, k,

1470: \alpha_k}, p_2) &\leq &\omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus S_{\kappa, k,

1471: \alpha_k}, S_{\kappa, k,

1472: \alpha_k}, p_2)\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip5pt}

1473: &\leq&\omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline{\cup B_i}, \partial(\cup B_i), p_2)\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip5pt}

1474: & = & \sum_{i=1}^{M_1} \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline{\cup B_i}, \partial{B_i}, p_2)\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip5pt}

1475: &\leq& \sum_{i=1}^{M_1} \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline{B_i}, \partial{B_i}, p_2)\nonumber \\

1476: \noalign{\vskip5pt} 

1477: &\leq& c\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 2^{(d-2)k}e^{-\kappa

1478: 2^{k}}\left(\frac{\kappa}{\tau}\right)^{d-2}\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip5pt}

1479: & =& \frac{c}{\tau^{d-2}}\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 (\kappa 2^{k})^{d-2} 

1480: e^{-\kappa 2^k}\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip5pt}

1481: & \leq& \frac{c}{\tau^{d-2}}\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 (\kappa 2^{k})^{-1}, \nonumber

1482: \end{eqnarray} 

1483: where $c$ is a constant which may vary from line to line. The first line

1484: of \eqref{3.9} follows from the rightmost inequality of Lemma~\ref{l:2.0},

1485: since $B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_{\kappa}$ has been relaced by

1486: $B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus S_{\kappa, k,

1487: \alpha_k}$. The second line follows from the left-most inequality of

1488: Lemma~\ref{l:2.0}, since both occurrences of $S_{\kappa, k, \alpha_k}$ have

1489: been replaced by the union of balls $\bigcup_{i=1}^{M_1} B_i$ of radius

1490: $2\kappa$ covering it. The third line follows from the subadditivity of

1491: harmonic measure in the second coordinate. The fourth line follows from the

1492: right-most inequality of Lemma~\ref{l:2.0}, since $\bigcup_{i=1}^{M_1} B_i$

1493: has been replaced by $B_i$ in each term. To see the next line, write $B_i$

1494: as $B(q_i, \rho_i)$; use the explicit formula for the Poisson integral to

1495: estimate each term $\omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline{B_i},

1496: \partial{B_i}, p_2)$ by $\frac{\rho_i^{d-2}}{|p_2-q_i|^{d-2}}$, where

1497: $\rho_i=2\kappa$ and $|p_2 -q_i|\geq \tau-3\kappa>\tau/2$; and finally use

1498: the first line of \eqref{3.8} to estimate the number of terms. 

1499: \enddemo

1500: 

1501: \vglue6pt 

1502: \demo{Case {\rm (ii):} $\kappa^{-1/2}\leq 2^{k} < \kappa^{-1}$} 

1503: By \eqref{3.8} with $\eta = 2^{-k}$, the number of balls of radius $2\cdot 2^{-k}$ covering $S_{\kappa, k, \alpha_k}$ is  at

1504: most $c\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 2^{(d-2)k} (\kappa 2^{k})^{4}$. So as shown in Case (i),

1505: \begin{eqnarray}\label{3.10}

1506: && \nonumber \\

1507: \noalign{\vskip-24pt}

1508: &&\\

1509: \noalign{\vskip-6pt}

1510: \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_{\kappa}, S_{\kappa, k,

1511: \alpha_k}, p_2) &\leq& c\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 2^{(d-2)k}(\kappa

1512: 2^{k})^4\left(\frac{1}{2^{k}\tau}\right)^{d-2}\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip5pt}

1513: & \leq&\frac{c}{\tau^{d-2}}\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 (\kappa 2^k)^{2}. \nonumber

1514: \end{eqnarray}

1515: \enddemo

1516: \demo{Case {\rm (iii):} $2^{k}< \kappa^{-1/2}$}

1517: By \eqref{3.8} with $\eta = \sqrt{\kappa}$, the number of balls of radius $2\sqrt{\kappa}$ covering $S_{\kappa, k,

1518: \alpha_k}$ is at most $\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 2^{-2k} \kappa^{-d/2}(\kappa 2^{k})^{4}$. So, 

1519: \begin{eqnarray}\label{3.11}

1520: %

1521: &&\\ 

1522: \noalign{\vskip-6pt}

1523: \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_{\kappa}, S_{\kappa, k,

1524: \alpha_k}, p_2) &\leq& c\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 2^{-2k}\kappa^{-d/2}(\kappa

1525: 2^{k})^4\left(\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}}{\tau}\right)^{d-2}\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1526: &\leq& c\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 2^{-2k}\kappa^{-d/2}(\kappa

1527: 2^{k})^2\left(\frac{\sqrt{\kappa}}{\tau}\right)^{d-2}\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1528: &\leq& \frac{c}{\tau^{d-2}}\alpha_k^{-2} \delta_k^2 \kappa. \nonumber

1529: \end{eqnarray}

1530: When \eqref{3.9}, \eqref{3.10}, and \eqref{3.11} are combined, it follows from

1531: \eqref{3.7} and the definitions of $\alpha_k$ that

1532: \begin{eqnarray}\label{3.12}

1533: %

1534: &&\\ 

1535: \noalign{\vskip-6pt}

1536:  \omega(B(p_1, \rho_1)\setminus \overline G_{\kappa}, S_{\kappa, \alpha},

1537: p_2)   &\leq &\frac{c}{\tau^{d-2}}\left\{\sum_{2^k \geq \kappa^{-1}}

1538: \alpha_k^{-2}\delta_k^2(2^k\kappa)^{-1} +  \right. \nonumber\\

1539: \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1540: && 

1541: \sum_{\kappa^{-1/2}\leq 2^k <\kappa^{-1}} \left.\alpha_k^{- 2}\delta_k^2(2^k\kappa)^{2}+

1542: \sum_{2^k<\kappa^{-1/2}}\alpha_k^{- 2}\delta_k^2\kappa\right\}\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1543: &\leq& \frac{c}{\tau^{d-2}}\alpha^{-2} \left\{\max_{2^k>\kappa^{-

1544: 1/2}}\delta_k^2 + \kappa |\log\kappa|^5\right\}. \nonumber

1545: \end{eqnarray}

1546: Choose 

1547: \[

1548: \beta_{\kappa} = \left\{\max_{2^k>\kappa^{-1/2}}\delta_k^2 + 

1549: \kappa |\log\kappa|^5\right\}^{1/2}.

1550: \]

1551: Then by \eqref{3.6}, 

1552: \[

1553: I_6 \leq \int_{0}^{\beta_\kappa}\, d\alpha + \frac{c}{\tau^{d-

1554: 2}}\beta_\kappa^2\int_{\beta_\kappa}^{\infty} \alpha^{-2}\, d\alpha

1555:  = \left(\frac{c}{\tau^{d-2}}+1\right)\beta_{\kappa}\to 0 

1556: \]

1557: as $\kappa\to 0$. This completes the proof. 

1558: 

1559: \section{Proof of Lemma~\ref{l:2.2}}\label{s:4}

1560: 

1561: Let the average of $H$ on the surface of $B(x, \rho)$  be denoted by   

1562: \[

1563: D_\rho H(x) = \frac{1}{\sigma_d \rho^{d-1}} \int_{\partial B(x,

1564: \rho)} H(z)\, d\sigma(z),

1565: \]

1566: where $\sigma$ is the surface measure, and $\sigma_d = d v_d$ is the surface 

1567: area of the unit ball in $\Bbb {R}^d$. Then, 

1568: 

1569: \begin{eqnarray}

1570: &&\nonumber \\

1571: \noalign{\vskip-32pt}

1572: A_\rho H(x) & = &  \frac{1}{v_d \rho^d}\int_{B(x,\rho)} H(z)\, dz\label{4.1}\\

1573: \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1574: & = &\frac{1}{v_d\rho^d}\int_{0}^{\rho} \int_{\partial B(x, \beta)} H(z)\,

1575: d\sigma(z)\, d\beta\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1576: & =& \frac{\sigma_d}{v_d\rho^d}\int_{0}^{\rho} D_\beta H(x)\beta^{d-1}\,

1577: d\beta \nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1578: & = &\frac{d}{\rho^d}\int_{0}^{\rho} D_\beta H(x)\beta^{d-1}\,

1579: d\beta .  \nonumber

1580: \end{eqnarray} 

1581: For any $\eta >0$ and $x\in B(p, r)$, by \eqref{2.5}  there

1582: exist  two sequences $\rho_{i,n} = \rho_{i, x, \eta, n} \downarrow 0$ 

1583: (with $\rho_{i,n} < r - |x-p|$), $i=1, 2$, such that for all $n\geq 1$,  

1584: \[

1585: A_{\rho_{1,n}} S(x)- S(x) \geq -\eta \rho_{1,n}^2 \hbox{ and } A_{\rho_{2,n}}f_2(x) - f_2(x) \leq c_x \rho_{2,n}^2,

1586: \]

1587: where $c_x$ is a positive constant independent of $\rho_{2,n}$.

1588: Thus, by \eqref{4.1}, the above inequalities imply for all $n \geq 1$, 

1589: \begin{eqnarray}

1590: %

1591: \int_{0}^{\rho_{1,n}}[ D_\beta S(x) - S(x) + a\eta \beta^2] \beta^{d-1}\, d\beta

1592: &\geq& 0\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1593: \int_{0}^{\rho_{2,n}}[ D_\beta f_2(x) - f_2(x) - ac_x \beta^2] \beta^{d-1}\, d\beta

1594: &\leq&  0 \nonumber

1595: \end{eqnarray}

1596: where $a=\frac{d+2}{d}$. So there exist $\beta_n =

1597: \beta_{x, \eta, n}\leq  \rho_{1,n}, \beta_n \downarrow 0$, and 

1598: $r_n = r_{x, \eta, n}\break\leq  \rho_{2,n}, r_n \downarrow 0$, such that 

1599: \begin{equation}\label{4.2}

1600: D_{\beta_n}S(x) - S(x) \geq -a\eta \beta_n^2\hbox{ and } D_{r_n}f_2(x) - f_2(x) \leq ac_x  r_n^2.

1601: \end{equation}

1602: Let $B(q, \rho_1) \subset B(p, r)$. We show, for $y\in B(q,

1603: \rho_1)\setminus\overline W$, that  

1604: \begin{eqnarray}\label{4.4}

1605: %

1606: S(y) & \leq&  \int_{\partial B(q, \rho_1)} S(z) \omega(B(q, \rho_1), dz, y)\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1607: & = &\frac{1}{\sigma_d \rho_1} \int_{\partial B(q, \rho_1)}

1608: \frac{\rho_1^2-|q-y|^2}{|z-y|^d} S(z)\, d\sigma (z). \nonumber

1609: \end{eqnarray}

1610: 

1611: If \eqref{4.4} holds, then for $q\in W$, by \eqref{4.2}, there exists a

1612: decreasing sequence $r_n$ of positive numbers going to $0$ such that for

1613: each $n$  

1614: \begin{equation}\label{4.5}

1615: f_2(q) - D_{r_n}f_2(q) \geq - ac_q r_n^2. 

1616: \end{equation}

1617: For any given $\epsilon>0$, using upper semi-continuity of $\overline U$ at 

1618: $q$, we have for large~$n$,  

1619: \[

1620: \overline U(q) \geq \sup_{|y-q|\leq  r_n}\overline U(y) - \epsilon. 

1621: \]

1622: Thus, for large $n$, 

1623: \[

1624: \overline U(q) \geq D_{r_n}\overline U(q) -\epsilon.

1625: \]

1626: Consequently

1627: \begin{equation}\label{4.6}

1628: S(q) \geq D_{r_n} S(q)-ac_q r_n^2 -\epsilon.

1629: \end{equation}

1630: Note that for each $r>0$, by the mean value theorem, there exists a 

1631: constant~$c$ such that

1632: \[

1633: \left|\frac{1}{r^{d-2}} -\frac{r^2 - |q-y|^2}{|z-y|^{d}}\right|\leq 

1634: c\frac{|q - y|}{r^{d-1}},

1635: \] 

1636: if $|y-q|< \frac12 |z-q|=\frac12r$. Therefore, for $|y-q|<\frac12r$,  

1637: \begin{eqnarray}\label{4.7}

1638: %

1639: && \hskip-48pt \left|\frac{1}{\sigma_d r} \int_{\partial B(q, r)}

1640: \frac{r^2-|q-y|^2}{|z-y|^d} S(z)\, d\sigma (z) - D_r S(q)\right|\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1641: &\leq &

1642: \frac{1}{\sigma_d r}\int_{\partial B(q, r)}

1643: \left|\frac{1}{r^{d-2}} -\frac{r^2 - |q-y|^2}{|z-y|^{d}}\right|\,

1644: |S(z)| d\sigma(z)\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt} 

1645: &\leq&  c\frac{|q-y|}{r} D_r|S(q)|. \nonumber

1646: \end{eqnarray} 

1647: Combining \eqref{4.4}--\eqref{4.7}, we have for any given $\epsilon$, for

1648: $n$ large,   

1649: \[

1650: S(y) - S(q)\leq  a c_q r_n^2 +c\frac{|q-y|}{r_n} D_{r_n} |S(q)| + \epsilon,

1651: \]

1652: if $|y-q|\leq  \frac12 r_n$ and $y\in B(q, r_n)\setminus \overline W$. 

1653: Letting $y\to q$, then $n \to\infty$, and then $\epsilon \to 0$, we have

1654: \[

1655: \limsup_{{y\to q\atop  y \in B(q, \rho_1)\setminus\overline W}}

1656: S(y) \leq  S(q).

1657: \]

1658: Thus, $S$ is upper semi-continuous at $q$ since $S$ is upper

1659: semi-continuous when restricted to $B(p, r)\cap \overline W$.

1660: Consequently, $W$ must be the empty set. So $S$ is upper semi-continuous 

1661: in $B(p, r)$. Inequality \eqref{4.4} also implies that $S(q) \leq  A_\rho

1662: S(q)$ for all $B(q, \rho) \subset B(p, r)$. Thus $S$ is subharmonic in

1663: $B(p, r)$ since it is also in $L^1$. 

1664: 

1665: It only remains to prove \eqref{4.4}.  Let $\{X_t\}_{t\geq 0}$ be the 

1666: standard Brownian motion starting from a fixed point $y\in B(q, \rho_1)\setminus\overline W$ 

1667: in the probability space $(\Omega, {\cal F}, P^{y})$. Define

1668: \[

1669: T = \inf\{t\geq 0: X_t\in \partial B(q, \rho_1)\}

1670: \]

1671: to be the exit time of $X_t$ from $B(q, \rho_1)$. Then by \eqref{3.1}, 

1672: inequality \eqref{4.4} is equivalent to

1673: \begin{equation}\label{4.8}

1674: S(y) \leq  E^{y} [S(X_T)].

1675: \end{equation}

1676: 

1677: We first show that for any stopping time $S\leq  T$,

1678: \begin{equation}\label{4.9}

1679: P^y(X_S\in  W) = 0.

1680: \end{equation}

1681: This is implied by 

1682: \begin{equation}\label{4.91}

1683: P^y(X_S\in \overline W_{\varepsilon})=0

1684: \end{equation}

1685: as $W\subset \bigcup\limits_{\varepsilon>0} W_{\varepsilon}$.

1686: Let $R$ be the hitting time of $X_t$ with $\partial (B(q,

1687: \rho_1)\setminus\overline W_{\varepsilon})$: 

1688: \[

1689: R = \inf\{t\geq 0: X_t \in \partial (B(q, \rho_1)\setminus\overline W_{\varepsilon})\}.

1690: \]

1691: Then $R \leq  T$. Since $y\in B(q, \rho_1)\setminus\overline W\subset B(q, \rho_1)\setminus\overline W_{\varepsilon}$

1692: and, by assumption,

1693: \begin{eqnarray}\label{4.11}

1694: %

1695: 0 & = &  \omega(B(q, \rho_1)\setminus\overline W_{\varepsilon},

1696: \partial (B(q, \rho_1)\cap\overline W_{\varepsilon}), y)\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1697: & =&P^y(X_R\in \partial (B(q, \rho_1)\cap\overline W_{\varepsilon}))\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1698: & =& P^y(X_R\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}), \nonumber

1699: \end{eqnarray}

1700: we see that 

1701: \begin{equation}\label{4.10}

1702: P^y(X_R\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}) = 0.

1703: \end{equation} 

1704: Next, by definition,

1705: \[

1706: \{R<T\} \subset \{X_R\in \partial W_{\varepsilon}\}.

1707: \]

1708: So 

1709: \begin{equation}\label{4.12}

1710: P^y(R <T) \leq  P^y(X_R\in \partial W_{\varepsilon}) = 0.

1711: \end{equation}

1712: Thus, by \eqref{4.11} and \eqref{4.12} we have

1713: \begin{eqnarray}\label{4.13}

1714: %

1715: \qquad \enspace P^y(X_T\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}) & = &  P^y(X_T \in\overline W_{\varepsilon}, R =T) + P^y

1716: (X_T\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}, R < T)\\  \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1717: & \leq&  P^y(X_R \in\overline W_{\varepsilon} ) + P^y (R< T)\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1718: & =& 0. \nonumber

1719: \end{eqnarray}

1720: To show \eqref{4.91} for a general stopping time $S$, note that for any 

1721: $\tau>0$, there exists an open set $G$ such that $\overline {W_{\varepsilon}} \subset G$ 

1722: and

1723: \begin{equation}\label{4.14}

1724: \omega(B(q, \rho_1)\setminus\overline G, \partial (B(q, \rho_1)\cap G), y)

1725: <\tau. 

1726: \end{equation}

1727: Define a function $u$ on $\overline B(q, \rho_1)$ as follows:

1728: \[

1729: u(x)= \left\{ \begin{array}{ll} \omega(B(q, \rho_1)\setminus\overline G, \partial (B(q,

1730:                        \rho_1)\cap G), x) 

1731:                  & \hbox{ on } x\in B(q, \rho_1)\setminus\overline G,\\

1732:              1 &\hbox{ on } \overline{B(q, \rho_1)\cap G},\\

1733:      0  &\hbox{ on } \partial B(q, \rho_1) \setminus \partial (B(q, \rho_1)\cap G). 

1734: \end{array} \right.

1735: \]

1736: Then $u$ is superharmonic on $B(q, \rho_1)$.

1737: Let $\tilde r_n$ be an increasing sequence going up to $\rho_1$ and $y\in B(q,

1738: \tilde r_1)$. Denote $T_n$ to be the exit time of $X_t$ from $B(q, \tilde

1739: r_n)$. Clearly $T_n$ is increasing and convergent to $T$. Since Brownian

1740: motion is continuous, we have  

1741: \[

1742: \{X_S\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}, S < T\}\subset \underset{n\geq 1}\bigcup 

1743: \{X_{S\wedge T_n}\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}, S < T\},  

1744: \]

1745: where $S\wedge T_n = \min\{S, T_n\}$. So \eqref{4.91} is implied by the 

1746: following:

1747: \begin{equation}\label{4.15}

1748: P^{y}(X_{S\wedge T_n}\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}) = 0, \hbox{ for each } n,

1749: \end{equation}

1750: since by \eqref{4.13}

1751: \begin{eqnarray*}

1752: P^y(X_S\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}) & = &  P^y(X_S\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}, S=T) +

1753: P^y(X_S\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}, S< T)\\ 

1754: & \leq&  P^y(X_T\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}) +P^y(X_S\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}, S<T)\\

1755: &\leq & \lim_{n\to\infty} P^y(X_{S\wedge T_n}\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}, S< T).

1756: \end{eqnarray*}

1757: For a superharmonic function $u$ and for each $n \geq 1$, there exists a 

1758: sequence of increasing superharmonic functions $\{u_j\}$ such that $u_j\in C^2$ and 

1759: \begin{equation}\label{4.16}

1760: \lim_{j\to\infty} u_j = u \hbox{ on }\overline B(q, \tilde r_n)

1761: \end{equation}

1762: (see, for example, Theorem 4.20 of \cite{H}). Applying It\^o's formula to

1763: $u_j(X_{S\wedge T_n})$, we have  

1764: \[

1765: E^y [u_j(X_{S\wedge T_n})] \leq  u_j(y).

1766: \] 

1767: Let $j$ go to infinity and apply \eqref{4.16} to see that

1768: \[

1769: E^y [u(X_{S\wedge T_n})] \leq  u(y).

1770: \]

1771: Consequently

1772: \[

1773: \tau \geq u(y) \geq E^y[u(X_{S\wedge T_n})] \geq P^y(X_{S\wedge T_n}\in

1774: \overline {B(q, \rho_1)\cap G})\geq P^y(X_{S\wedge T_n}\in\overline W_{\varepsilon}).

1775: \]

1776: Letting $\tau \to 0$ proves \eqref{4.15}. 

1777: 

1778: As a consequence of \eqref{4.9}, since $S$ is upper semi-continuous on 

1779: $\overline B(p, r)\setminus W$, we have almost everywhere with respect to the 

1780: probability measure $P^y$

1781: \begin{equation}\label{4.17}

1782: \limsup_{n\to\infty}S(X_{S_n}) \leq  S(X_{S_\infty})  \hbox{ if }

1783: S_n\uparrow S_{\infty}\leq  T.

1784: \end{equation}   

1785: 

1786: Let $\eta>0$. Then by \eqref{4.2}, for any $y\in B(q, \rho_1)$, there exists 

1787: $0<\beta = \beta_{y, \eta} < \rho_1-|y-q|$, such that

1788: \begin{equation}\label{4.18}

1789: S(y) - D_{\beta} S(y) \leq a\eta \beta^2.

1790: \end{equation}

1791: Consider a family of stopping times

1792: \[

1793: {\frak S} = \{S\leq  T: S(y) - E^y S(X_S) \leq  a\eta E^y|y - X_S|^2\}.

1794: \]

1795: Define

1796: \[

1797: S_0 = \inf\{ t\geq 0: |X_t- y|\geq \beta_{y,\eta}\}.

1798: \]

1799: Then $X_{S_0}$ is uniformly distributed on $\partial B(y,

1800: \beta_{y,\eta})$. So by \eqref{4.18}, we have

1801: \[

1802: S(y) - E^y S(X_{S_0}) \leq  a\eta E^y|y - X_{S_0}|^2.

1803: \]

1804: Thus $S_0\in {\frak S}$ and hence ${\frak S}$ is not empty.

1805: 

1806: For a sequence of increasing stopping times $S_n$ in ${\frak S}$, let

1807: $S_\infty = \underset{n\geq 1}\lim S_n$. Then by \eqref{4.17} and

1808: Fatou's lemma,  we have

1809: \[

1810: S(y) - E^y S(X_{S_\infty}) \leq  a\eta E^y |y - X_{S_\infty}|^2.

1811: \]

1812: So $S_\infty\in {\frak S}$. Thus by an argument given in Halmoe [Ha] on page 121\footnote{See [A] for the details.}, there

1813: exists

1814: $S^{*}\in {\frak S}$ such that $S^{*}$ is a maximum of ${\frak S}$. We show that

1815: $S^{*} = T$ almost  everywhere with respect to $P^y$. In fact, if $S^{*} < T$ with positive $P^y$ probability, then    

1816: \[

1817: S^{*}_1 = \inf\{T\geq t\geq S^{*}: |X_t - X_{S^{*}}| \geq \beta_{X_{S^{*}},

1818: \eta}\},

1819: \]

1820: where for $x\in \partial B(q, \rho_1)$, we define $\beta_{x, \eta}$ to be $0$.

1821: Then, clearly, $S^{*}_1 \geq S^{*}$ with strict inequality on 

1822: $\{S^{*} < T\}$. On the other hand, conditional on $X_{S^{*}}$, 

1823: $X_{S^{*}_1}$ is uniformly distributed on the surface of $B(X_{S^{*}}, 

1824: \beta_{X_{S^{*}}, \eta})$, if $S^{*} < S^{*}_1$. So by~\eqref{4.2}

1825: \begin{eqnarray}\label{4.19}

1826: %

1827: S(X_{S^{*}}) - E^{X_{S^{*}}} S(X_{S^{*}_1}) & =& S(X_{S^{*}}) -

1828: D_{\beta_{X_{S^{*}}, \eta}}S(X_{S^{*}}) \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt} 

1829: & \leq & a\eta |\beta_{X_{S^{*}}, \eta}|^2\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1830: & =& a\eta E^{X_{S^*}}|X_{S^*} - X_{S^*_1}|^2. \nonumber

1831: \end{eqnarray}

1832: Hence, by \eqref{4.19}, the strong Markovian property, orthogonality between\break

1833: $X_{S^*_1} - X_{S^*}$ and $X_{S^*} - y$, and $S^*\in {\frak S}$, we have 

1834: \begin{eqnarray*}

1835: S(y)- E^y S(X_{S^*_1}) & =& S(y) - E^y S(X_{S^*}) + E^y[S(X_{S^*}) -

1836: S(X_{S^*_1})]\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1837: & \leq&  a\eta E^y |y - X_{S^*}|^2 + E^y[S(X_{S^*}) - S(X_{S^*_1}), S^* <

1838: S^*_1]\nonumber\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt} 

1839: & =& a\eta E^y |y - X_{S^*}|^2%\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}&&

1840: +\  E^y[S(X_{S^*}) - E^{X_{S^*}}S(X_{S^*_1}),S^* < S^*_1]\nonumber \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}  

1841: & \leq & a\eta E^y |y - X_{S^*}|^2 + a\eta E^y[E^{X_{S^*}}|X_{S^*} -

1842: X_{S^*_1}|^2, S^* < S^*_1]\nonumber\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt} 

1843: & = &a\eta E^y |y - X_{S^*}|^2 + a\eta E^y |X_{S^*} - X_{S^*_1}|^2\nonumber\\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1844: & = & a\eta E^y|y - X_{S^*_1}|^2.\nonumber

1845: \end{eqnarray*}

1846: Thus $S^*_1 \in {\frak S}$. This contradicts the maximality of $S^*$ in

1847: ${\frak S}$ since $S^*_1 \geq S^*$ and $S^{*}_1 \ne S^{*}$.  Thus we

1848: have shown that $T\in {\frak S}$. So 

1849: \begin{eqnarray*}

1850: S(y)  - \int_{\partial B(q, \rho_1)} S(z)\, \omega(B(q, \rho_1), dz, y) & = &  S(y) -

1851: E^y S(X_T) \\ \noalign{\vskip4pt}

1852: &\leq&  a\eta E^y |X_T -y|^2 \leq   4a\eta \rho_1^2.

1853: \end{eqnarray*}

1854: This implies \eqref{4.4} by letting $\eta \to 0$. We have finished the proof.

1855:  

1856: \section{Proof of Theorem~\ref{t:4}}\label{s:5}

1857: 

1858: Without loss of generality, we assume that $q = 0$, the origin. As in the

1859: proof of Theorem~\ref{t:1}, we have that  $\tilde \Delta^{*} f_2(x) =

1860: \tilde\Delta_* f_2(x)$ almost everywhere in $\Bbb  {T}^d

1861: \setminus\{0\}$, and that $\tilde\Delta^* f_2(x)$ is in

1862: $L^1(\Bbb {T}^d\setminus B(0, r))$ for any $r>0$. Consequently,

1863: $\tilde\Delta^*f_2(x) = \tilde\Delta_* f_2(x)$ almost everywhere in

1864: $\Bbb  T^d$. 

1865: 

1866: As in Section~\ref{s:1}, let $B(x) = \min\{f^*(x), \tilde\Delta^*

1867: f_2(x)\}$. Then by Lemma~\ref{l:1.0}, on 

1868: $\Bbb {T}^d\setminus \{0\}$, $f_*(x) \leq B(x)\leq f^*(x)$ and 

1869: $\tilde\Delta_{*} f_2(x)\leq B(x)\leq \tilde\Delta^{*}f_2(x)$. Thus,

1870: $B(x)\in L^{1}(\Bbb  T^d)$. Consequently, when we proceed  as in 

1871: Section~\ref{s:1}, there exists a function $S^*(x)$, which is harmonic

1872: on $\Bbb {R}^d\setminus M$ and almost everywhere equals

1873: \[

1874: S(x) = f_2(x) + (2\pi)^{-d}\int_{T^d} G(x-y)B(y)\, dy - b_0|x|^2/(2d),

1875: \]

1876: where $M= \{2\mu\pi: \mu\in \Bbb  Z^d\}$. The rest of the proof is

1877: identical to that of Theorem~2 of Shapiro ([Sh, p.479]). 

1878: 

1879: \medbreak {\it Acknowledgment}.

1880: We are grateful to Jean Bourgain, Robert Kaufman, and Victor Shapiro for helpful conversations.

1881: 

1882:  \vglue-6pt

1883: \AuthorRefNames [AFR]

1884: 

1885: \begin{references}

1886: 

1887: \bibitem{A}

1888: \name{J. M. Ash}, Uniqueness for spherically convergent multiple trigonometric series, in {\it Handbook on

1889: Analytic-Computational Methods in Applied Mathematics} (G. Anastassiou, ed.), CRC Press, Boca Raton, 2000.

1890: 

1891: \bibitem{AW} 

1892: \name{J.\ M.\ Ash} and\name{ G.\ Wang}, A survey of uniqueness

1893: questions in multiple trigonometric series, in {\it Harmonic Analysis 

1894: and Nonlinear Differential Equations\/} (Riverdale, CA 1995), 

1895: Contemp.\  Math.\ {\bf 208} (1997), 35--71.

1896:  

1897: \bibitem{Bo} 

1898: \name{S.\ Bochner}, Zeta functions and Green's

1899: functions for linear partial differential operators of elliptic type

1900: with constant coefficients, {\it Ann.\ of Math.}\ {\bf 57} (1953), 32--56.

1901: 

1902: \bibitem{B}  \name{J.\ Bourgain}, Spherical summation and uniqueness of

1903: multiple trigonometric series, {\it IMRN}, no.\ 3  (1996), 93--107.

1904: 

1905: \bibitem{Co}  \name{B.\  Connes}, Sur les coefficients des s\'eries

1906: trigonom\'etriques convergentes sph\'eriquement,  {\it CR Acad.\ Sci.\ Paris

1907: S\'er.}\ A {\bf 283} (1976), 159--161.

1908: 

1909: \bibitem{C} \name{R.\ Cooke}, A Cantor-Lebesgue theorem in two

1910: dimensions, {\it Proc.\ A.M.S.} {\bf 30} (1971), 547--550.

1911: 

1912: \bibitem{D} \name{B.\ Dahlberg}, Estimates of harmonic measure, {\it Arch.\ Rat.\

1913: Mech.\  Anal.}\ {\bf 65} (1977), 275--288.

1914: 

1915: \bibitem{H} \name{L.\ Helms}, {\it Introduction to Potential Theory}, John

1916: Wiley \& Sons, New York, 1969. 

1917: 

1918: \bibitem{Ha}

1919: \name{P. R. Halmos}, {\it Measure Theory}, D. Van Nostrand, Princeton, 1956.

1920: 

1921: \bibitem{K} \name{O.\ D.\ Kellogg}, {\it Foundations of Potential Theory},

1922: Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1929.

1923: 

1924: \bibitem{PW} \name{M.\ H.\  Protter} and \name{H.\ F.\  Weinberger}, 

1925: {\it Maximum Principles in Differential Equations}, 

1926: Prentice-Hall, Inc., Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1967.

1927: 

1928: \bibitem{R} \name{T.\ Rado}, {\it Subharmonic Functions}, Chelsea, New York,

1929: 1949.

1930: 

1931: \bibitem{S} \name{S.\ Saks}, {\it Theory of the Integral},  Dover, New York, 1964.

1932: 

1933: \bibitem{Sh} \name{V.\  L.\  Shapiro}, Uniqueness of multiple trigonometric

1934: series, {\it Ann.\ of   Math.}\ {\bf 66} (1957), 467--480.

1935: 

1936: \bibitem{Sh1} \bibline, The divergence theorem for

1937: discontinuous vector fields, {\it Ann.\ of  Math.}\ {\bf 68} (1958), 604--624.

1938: 

1939: \bibitem{Sh2} \bibline, Fourier series in several

1940: variables, {\it Bull.\ A.M.S}. {\bf 70} (1964), 48--93.

1941: 

1942: \bibitem{Sh3} \bibline, Removable sets for pointwise

1943: solutions of the generalized Cauchy-Riemann equations, {\it Ann.\ of  Math.}\

1944: {\bf 92} (1970), 82--101.

1945: 

1946: \bibitem{Sh4} \bibline, Sets of uniqueness on the 

1947: $2$-torus, {\it Trans.\ A.M.S.} {\bf 165} (1972), 127--147.

1948: 

1949: \bibitem{Ve1} \name{S.\  Verblunsky}, On the theory of trigonometric series, 

1950: (I),  {\it Proc.\ London Math.\  Soc.}\ {\bf 34} (1932), 441--456.

1951: 

1952: \bibitem{Ve2} \name{S.\  Verblunsky},  On the theory of trigonometric series, 

1953: (II),  {\it Proc.\ London Math.\ Soc}.\ {\bf 34}  (1932), 457--491.

1954: 

1955: \bibitem{Z} \name{A.\  Zygmund}, A Cantor-Lebesgue theorem for double

1956: trigonometric series, {\it Studia Math.}\ {\bf 43} (1972), 173--178.

1957: \end{references}  

1958: 

1959: \vglue-16pt

1960: \centerline{\ninerm (Received March 17, 1997)}

1961:  \centerline{\ninerm (Revised July 21, 1999)}

1962:  

1963: \end{document}

1964: 

1965: