1: %%%%%%
2: %%%%%% File-Name: BIPNEW.TEX
3: %%%%%%
4: %%%%%% Last change: 18.04.02 ES
5: %%%%%%
6: \documentclass{amsproc}
7:
8: \usepackage{graphics}
9:
10: %% General layout
11:
12: \setlength{\textwidth}{150mm}
13: \setlength{\textheight}{220mm}
14: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{25pt} %% Preprint-Layout
15: \setlength{\evensidemargin}{0pt}
16: \setlength{\topmargin}{0pt}
17:
18: %%\setlength{\textwidth}{125mm}
19: %%\setlength{\textheight}{185mm}
20: %%\setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0pt} %% Book-Layout
21: %%\setlength{\evensidemargin}{0pt}
22:
23: \frenchspacing
24: \parindent0pt
25:
26: %% Theorem environments
27: \newtheorem{theorem}{Theorem}[section]
28: \newtheorem{lemma}[theorem]{Lemma}
29: \newtheorem{corollary}[theorem]{Corollary}
30: \newtheorem{proposition}[theorem]{Proposition}
31: %\theoremstyle{definition}
32: \newtheorem{definition}[theorem]{Definition}
33: \newtheorem{example}[theorem]{Example}
34: %\theoremstyle{remark}
35: \newtheorem{remark}[theorem]{Remark}
36: \newtheorem{notation}[theorem]{Notation}
37:
38: \numberwithin{equation}{section}
39:
40: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
41: %% List of defined makros in alphabetical order %%%
42: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
43:
44: \newcommand{\bz}{{\mathbb B}}
45: \newcommand{\cz}{{\mathbb C}}
46: \newcommand{\hz}{{\mathbb H}}
47: \newcommand{\nz}{{\mathbb N}}
48: \newcommand{\rz}{{\mathbb R}}
49:
50: \newcommand{\calC}{\mathcal{C}}
51: \newcommand{\calD}{\mathcal{D}}
52: \newcommand{\calH}{\mathcal{H}}
53: \newcommand{\calK}{\mathcal{K}}
54: \newcommand{\calL}{\mathcal{L}}
55: \newcommand{\calM}{\mathcal{M}}
56: \newcommand{\calO}{\mathcal{O}}
57: \newcommand{\calS}{\mathcal{S}}
58:
59: \newcommand{\amax}{A_{\text{\rm max}}}
60: \newcommand{\amin}{A_{\text{\rm min}}}
61: \newcommand{\ci}{\mathcal{C}^\infty}
62: \newcommand{\cicomp}{\mathcal{C}^\infty_{\text{\rm comp}}}
63: \newcommand{\cigb}{\mathcal{C}^{\infty,\gamma}({\mathbb B})}
64: \newcommand{\dbar}{d\hspace*{-0.08em}\bar{}\hspace*{0.1em}}
65: \newcommand{\dvz}{\,\mbox{\rm div}\,}
66: \newcommand{\eps}{\varepsilon}
67: \newcommand{\grad}{\,\mbox{\rm grad}\,}
68: \newcommand{\hsgp}{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}_p}
69: \newcommand{\hsgb}{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}({\mathbb B})}
70: \newcommand{\hsgpb}{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}_p({\mathbb B})}
71: \newcommand{\hsgqb}{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}_{Q}({\mathbb B})}
72: \newcommand{\hsgpqb}{\mathcal{H}^{s,\gamma}_{p,Q}({\mathbb B})}
73: \newcommand{\im}{\text{\rm Im}\,}
74: \newcommand{\intb}{\text{\rm int}\,{\mathbb B}}
75: \newcommand{\op}{\text{\rm op}}
76: \newcommand{\opm}[1]{\text{\rm op}_M^{#1}}
77: \newcommand{\pit}{\,{\widehat{\otimes}}_\pi\,}
78: \newcommand{\re}{\text{\rm Re}\,}
79: \newcommand{\rpbar}{\overline{{\mathbb R}}_+}
80: \newcommand{\skp}[2]{\langle#1,#2\rangle}
81: \newcommand{\spk}[1]{\left<#1\right>}
82: \newcommand{\st}{\mbox{\boldmath$\;|\;$\unboldmath}}
83: \newcommand{\trinorm}[1]%
84: {|\hspace*{-1pt}|\hspace*{-1pt}|#1|\hspace*{-1pt}|\hspace*{-1pt}|}
85:
86: \renewcommand{\Re}{{\rm Re}\,}
87: \renewcommand{\Im}{{\rm Im}\,}
88: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
89:
90: %%% Blank box placeholder for figures (to avoid requiring any
91: %%% particular graphics capabilities for printing this document).
92: \newcommand{\blankbox}[2]{%
93: \parbox{\columnwidth}{\centering
94: %%% Set fboxsep to 0 so that the actual size of the box will match the
95: %%% given measurements more closely.
96: \setlength{\fboxsep}{0pt}%
97: \fbox{\raisebox{0pt}[#2]{\hspace{#1}}}%
98: }%
99: }
100:
101: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
102:
103: \begin{document}
104:
105: \title[Bounded Imaginary Powers of Cone Differential Operators]
106: {Bounded Imaginary Powers of Differential Operators\\
107: on Manifolds with Conical Singularities}
108: %%%%%%%% Sandro 25.04.01
109: \author{S.\ Coriasco$^\dagger$}
110: \address{Universit\'a di Torino, Dipartimento di Matematica,
111: Via Carlo Alberto 10, 10123 Torino, Italy}
112: \email{coriasco@dm.unito.it}
113: \author{E.\ Schrohe}
114: \address{Universit\"at Potsdam, Institut f\"ur Mathematik,
115: Postfach 60 15 53, 14415 Potsdam, Germany}
116: \email{schrohe@math.uni-potsdam.de}
117: \author{J.\ Seiler}
118: \address{Universit\"at Potsdam, Institut f\"ur Mathematik,
119: Postfach 60 15 53, 14415 Potsdam, Germany}
120: \email{seiler@math.uni-potsdam.de}
121: \subjclass{58G15, 47A10, 35S10}
122: \date{\today}
123: %%%%%%%%%%% Sandro 24.04.01
124: \keywords{Complex powers, Manifolds with conical singularities,
125: Resolvent.\newline
126: \mbox{\hspace{0.65cm}$^\dagger$}Supported by the E.U.
127: Research and Training Network ``Geometric Analysis''.}
128: %%%%%%%%%%%
129: \begin{abstract}
130: We study the minimal and maximal closed extension of a differential
131: operator $A$ on a manifold $B$ with conical singularities, when $A$
132: acts as an
133: unbounded operator on weighted $L_p$-spaces over $B$, $1<p<\infty$.
134:
135: Under suitable ellipticity assumptions we can define a family of complex
136: powers $A^z$, $z\in\cz$. We also obtain sufficient information on the resolvent
137: of $A$ to show the boundedness of the purely imaginary powers.
138:
139: Examples concern unique solvability and maximal regularity for the solution
140: of the Cauchy problem for the Laplacian on
141: conical manifolds as well as certain quasilinear diffusion equations.
142: \end{abstract}
143:
144: \maketitle
145:
146: %%%%%%%%%% Sandro 24.04.01
147: %%%%%%%%%% To insert footnote on first page but not on all subsequent
148: %%%%%%%%%% ones
149: \markboth{\uppercase{Bounded Imaginary Powers of Cone Differential Operators}}
150: {\uppercase{S.\ Coriasco, E.\ Schrohe, J.\ Seiler}}
151: %%%%%%%%%%
152:
153: \tableofcontents
154:
155: %%%%%%% Sandro and Elmar 24.04.01
156: \setlength{\parskip}{5pt}
157: %%%%%%%
158:
159: \section{Introduction}
160: Seeley's classical paper \cite{Seel0}, published in 1967, showed in a
161: striking way how pseudodifferential techniques could be applied to analyze
162: complex powers of elliptic (pseudo-)differential operators on closed
163: manifolds. Replacing the resolvent in the Dunford integral by a
164: parameter-dependent parametrix, he obtained a representation of the powers
165: that was precise enough to deduce a wealth of information on eigenvalue
166: asymptotics, zeta functions, and index theory. Seeley also extended his
167: results to differential boundary value problems. In 1971 he showed the
168: boundedness of the purely imaginary powers on $L_p$-spaces, \cite{Seel2}.
169:
170: At that time the principal motivation for these studies was the
171: description of interpolation spaces. Additional interest in
172: the behavior of imaginary powers came from Dore and Venni's 1987 article
173: \cite{DoVe}, in which they showed how the boundedness of imaginary
174: powers can be used to derive results on maximal regularity for evolution
175: equations.
176:
177: Meanwhile, bounded imaginary powers or even the existence of a bounded
178: $H^\infty$ calculus \cite{Mci} have been established in many situations,
179: e.g.\ in abstract settings \cite{PrSo2},
180: for classes of differential operators on $\rz^n$ and smooth manifolds
181: \cite{AHS}, boundary value problems on bounded and certain unbounded
182: domains in $\rz^n$, \cite{Duon}, \cite{PrSo}, \cite{SoTh}, as well as for
183: operators in Boutet de Monvel's calculus \cite{Sohr}.
184:
185: We shall focus here on the case of a manifold with conical singularities.
186: This is a Hausdorff space,~$B$, that is a smooth manifold outside a
187: finite number of singular points, while, close to each of these, it has the
188: structure of a cone with smooth, closed cross-section. Blowing up $B$ near
189: its singular points, we obtain a manifold $\bz$ with boundary
190: $\partial\bz=:X$.
191:
192: \begin{center}
193: \includegraphics{figures.2}
194: \end{center}
195:
196: Near the boundary, we fix a splitting of coordinates $(t,x)\in[0,1[\times
197: X$. Rather than on $B$, the analysis will be performed on $\bz$
198: (respectively the interior of $\bz$). We consider so-called {\em cone} or
199: {\em Fuchs-type} differential operators, i.e., operators which close to the
200: boundary are of the form
201: \begin{equation}\label{intro1}
202: A=t^{-\mu}\mathop{\mbox{\Large$\sum$}}_{j=0}^\mu
203: a_j(t)(-t\partial_t)^j,
204: \end{equation}
205: where each $a_j\in\ci(\rpbar,\text{\rm Diff}^{\mu-j}(X))$ is a smooth
206: family of differential operators on the cross-section. Such an $A$ acts as
207: an unbounded operator
208: $A:\cicomp(\intb)\subset\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)\to\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)$,
209: where the space $\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)$ away from the boundary coincides
210: with $L_p(\bz)$ and near the boundary with
211: $$t^{\gamma-\frac{n+1}{2}}L_p([0,1[\times X,\mbox{$\frac{dt}{t}$}dx),\qquad
212: n=\dim X.$$
213: Here, $1<p<\infty$, and $\gamma$ is an arbitrary real number.
214: Justified by the fact that a change to polar coordinates shows the
215: equivalence
216: $L_p(\rz^{n+1})=t^{-\frac{n+1}{p}}L_p(\rz_+\times
217: S^n,\mbox{$\frac{dt}{t}$}d\varphi)$
218: we define the space $L_p(B)$ as $\calH_p^{0,\gamma_p}(\bz)$ for
219: $\gamma_p=(n+1)(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p})$.
220:
221: Let $\Lambda_\Delta=\Lambda_\Delta(\theta)$ denote a closed sector in the
222: complex plane, symmetric about the negative real half-axis and of
223: aperture $2(\pi-\theta)$ for some $0<\theta<\pi$. We find conditions
224: (Definition \ref{ellipticity}) on $A$, which depend on $\gamma\in\rz$ but
225: not on $1<p<\infty$, that ensure the following:
226: \begin{itemize}
227: \item[i)] the {\em closure} $\amin$ of $A$ has no spectrum in
228: $\Lambda_\Delta\cap\{|\lambda|>R\}$;
229: \item[ii)] the resolvent satisfies the uniform estimate
230: $\|(\lambda-A)^{-1}\|_{\calL(\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz))}\le
231: c_p\,|\lambda|^{-1}$.
232: \end{itemize}
233: Moreover, we obtain very precise information on the structure of the
234: resolvent. For this and i) see Theorem \ref{parametrix}; ii) is shown in
235: Proposition \ref{estimate}. We also give conditions (Remark
236: \ref{ellipticity2}) implying that the {\em maximal extension} $\amax$
237: satisfies statements analogous to i) and ii). The symmetry
238: about the negative real axis, which here plays the role of a
239: ray of minimal growth in the sense of Agmon \cite{Agmo},
240: \cite{Seel2}, is not essential.
241: The case of an arbitrary symmetry axis $\{te^{i\varphi}\st t\ge0\}$ can be
242: reduced to our situation, replacing $A$ by $e^{-i\varphi}A$.
243:
244: Since $\amin$ (respectively $\amax$) in the above case has compact
245: resolvent, any ``keyhole'' region $\Lambda$, consisting
246: of the sector $\Lambda_\Delta$ and an arbitrarily small ball around
247: zero, only contains finitely many elements
248: of the spectrum. Assuming that zero is the only spectral point in the
249: keyhole (or, alternatively, shrinking the angle of the sector and possibly
250: rotating $A$ a little), we define {\em complex powers} $A^z_{\min}$
251: (respectively $A^z_{\max}$) for all complex $z$ with negative real part.
252: This is done in terms of a Dunford integral, integrating the resolvent
253: against $\lambda^z$ along the boundary of the keyhole. Using the specific
254: structure of the resolvent, we show (Theorem \ref{bip}) that
255: \begin{itemize}
256: \item[iii)] $\|A^z_{\min}\|_{\calL(\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz))}\le
257: c_p\,e^{|\im z|\theta}$ uniformly for all $z$ with $|\re z|$
258: sufficiently small
259: \end{itemize}
260: as well as the analogous estimate for $A^z_{\max}$ (Theorem
261: \ref{bip2}). Consequently, the purely imaginary powers $A^{iy}_{\min}$
262: (respectively $A^{iy}_{\max}$), $y\in\rz$, exist as suitable limits and
263: satisfy an estimate as in iii).
264:
265: It should be noted that both the construction of the complex powers
266: and the boundedness of the imaginary powers only rely on the
267: information about the resolvent provided by Theorem \ref{parametrix}.
268: Our conclusions therefore carry over to all situations where the
269: resolvent has this structure.
270:
271: The key to the above described results is, similar to Seeley's classical
272: concept, to view $\lambda-A$ as an element of a calculus of
273: parameter-dependent pseudodifferential operators on $\bz$, and to express
274: $(\lambda-A)^{-1}$ within this calculus. In our context, the appropriate
275: calculus is Schulze's parameter-dependent cone algebra, cf.\
276: for example \cite{Schu1}, \cite{EgSc}.
277: The conditions we impose on $A$ are,
278: more or less, ellipticity conditions on $\lambda-A$ within this calculus.
279: We require three associated objects not to have
280: spectrum in the sector $\Lambda_\Delta$. The first is the usual homogeneous
281: principal symbol of $A$, defined on the cotangent bundle over the interior
282: of $\bz$. The second is the so-called {\em rescaled symbol}, which reflects
283: the behavior of the principal symbol near the boundary. The third is the
284: so-called {\em model cone} operator $\widehat{A}$, which acts as an
285: unbounded operator in Sobolev spaces on the infinite cylinder $\rz_+\times
286: X$. It is induced by freezing the coefficients of $A$ at the boundary, i.e.,
287: using the notation from \eqref{intro1}, $\widehat{A}=t^{-\mu}\sum_{j=0}^\mu
288: a_j(0)(-t\partial_t)^j$.
289:
290: In order to separate the more general functional-analytic issues from
291: the specific difficulties related to conical singularities,
292: we give a review of several basic facts about complex powers of unbounded
293: operators on a Banach space in Section \ref{semigroup}, while in Section
294: \ref{diffop} we briefly discuss Fuchs-type operators. Sections \ref{resolvent},
295: \ref{boimpo} and \ref{closed} are devoted to the proof of the results
296: stated above.
297:
298: In Section \ref{laplace} we treat an example and show how our work can be
299: combined with that of Dore and Venni to obtain results on unique solvability
300: and maximal regularity for the non-homogeneous Cauchy problem in $L_p(B)$:
301: $$\dot u(\tau)-\Delta u(\tau)=f(\tau),\qquad u(0)=0.$$
302: Here, $\Delta$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator for a Riemannian metric with
303: a conical degeneracy, and we assume $\dim \bz>4$.
304: Based on this observation,
305: we consider in Section \ref{sec:quasi} quasilinear diffusion equations of
306: the form
307: $$\dot u(\tau) - \dvz(a(t^cu)\grad u)(\tau) = f(u,\tau)+g(\tau), \qquad u(0) =
308: u_0,$$
309: in weighted $L_p$-spaces on $\bz$, and show unique solvability with the help
310: of an abstract result by Cl\'ement and Li
311: \cite{ClLi}.
312: Here, $a$, the diffusion coefficient, is a smooth positive function;
313: we assume that it depends on $t^cu$, where $t$ is is a smooth function on
314: $\bz$, coinciding with the distance to the boundary near $\partial \bz$, and
315: $c$ is a positive constant.
316:
317: It is clear that physically relevant applications would require our
318: understanding of the Laplacian on lower-dimensional
319: manifolds and of boundary value problems.
320: Both topics are presently under investigation.
321: As their analysis, however, is considerably more
322: complicated, it makes sense to focus first on
323: the present situation, where the ideas and techniques
324: can be explained more easily.
325:
326: An appendix relates the structure of the resolvent as
327: we use it to that given in earlier work by Schulze and that of Gil
328: \cite{Gil}. Moreover, we collect a few definitions and
329: notions in Section \ref{notation}.
330:
331: \vspace{0.2cm}
332:
333: {\sc Acknowledgement}: We thank M.\ Korey (Potsdam) and M.\ Hieber
334: (Darmstadt) for several valuable discussions.
335: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
336:
337: \section{Complex powers of operators in a Banach space}\label{semigroup}
338: Let us recall some well-known facts on complex powers of a closed, densely
339: defined operator
340: \begin{equation*}
341: A:\calD(A)\subset F\longrightarrow F
342: \end{equation*}
343: in a Banach space $F$, cf.\ for example \cite{Seel2}. We denote by
344: $\Lambda=\Lambda(\delta,\theta)$ the keyhole region
345: $$\Lambda(\delta,\theta)=\{\lambda\in\cz\st|\lambda|\le\delta
346: \text{ or }|\arg\lambda|\ge\theta\}$$
347: with $\delta>0$ and $0<\theta<\pi$. We assume that
348: \begin{itemize}
349: \item[(A1)] The spectrum of $A$ has empty intersection with
350: $\Lambda\setminus\{0\}$.
351: \item[(A2)] $\|(\lambda-A)^{-1}\|_{\calL(F)} |\lambda|$ is uniformly
352: bounded for large $\lambda\in\Lambda$.
353: \end{itemize}
354: If $\calC$ is the parametrization of the boundary of $\Lambda$, cf.\
355: \eqref{not3}, we let
356: \begin{equation}\label{atoz}
357: A^z=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_\calC\lambda^z(\lambda-A)^{-1}\,d\lambda,\qquad
358: z\in\hz=\{z\in\cz\st\re z<0\}.
359: \end{equation}
360: Here, $\lambda^z$ is defined via the logarithm
361: $\log\lambda=\log|\lambda|+i\arg\lambda$, where $-\pi<\arg\lambda<\pi$.
362: Since the integrand is $O(|\lambda|^{-1+\re z})$, the integral is
363: absolutely convergent, and thus \eqref{atoz} defines continuous operators
364: $A^z\in\mathcal{L}(F)$. The notation $A^z$ should be viewed with a little
365: care, since $A^{-1}$ in general is not the inverse of $A$, which is not
366: required to exist.
367: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
368: \begin{remark}\label{group}
369: Under conditions \text{\rm (A1), (A2)}, the function
370: $z\mapsto A^z:\hz\to\calL(F)$ is holomorphic and satisfies the semi-group
371: property
372: $$A^zA^w=A^{z+w},\qquad z,w\in\hz.$$
373: \end{remark}
374: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
375: If one furthermore imposes that for some positive constant $c$
376: \begin{itemize}
377: \item[(A3)] $\|A^z\|_{\calL(F)}$ is uniformly bounded in the rectangle
378: $-c\le\re z<0$, $|\im z|\le k$ for any $k\in\nz$,
379: \end{itemize}
380: then the limits of $A^z$ for $z\to iy$ exist for any real $y$. More
381: precisely:
382: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
383: \begin{remark}\label{limit}
384: Under conditions \text{\rm (A1), (A2)}, and \text{\rm (A3)}, the limits
385: $$A^{iy}f=\lim_{\hz\,\ni z\to iy}A^zf$$
386: exist for any real number $y$ and any $f\in F$, and thus define
387: operators $A^{iy}\in\mathcal{L}(F)$. Furthermore $A^{iy}f=A^{-1+iy}Af$ for
388: $f\in\calD(A)$. In particular, if we set
389: $$E_0=\frac{1}{2\pi i}\int_{|\lambda|=\delta}
390: (\lambda-A)^{-1}\,d\lambda,$$
391: then $E_0$ is a projection in $F$ and $A^0=1-E_0$.
392: \end{remark}
393: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
394: Remark \ref{limit} could be rephrased as follows: Under conditions
395: \text{\rm (A1), (A2)}, and \text{\rm (A3)}, the operators
396: $$T^z:=A^z+E_0,\qquad z\in\hz,$$
397: form an analytic semi-group (with $\lim_{z\to 0}T^zf=f$ for any $f\in F$)
398: and there exist constants $c\ge1$ and $\omega\ge0$ such that
399: $$\|T^z\|_{\mathcal{L}(F)}\le c\,e^{\omega|z|}, \qquad z\in\hz.$$
400: Moreover, $(1-E_0)A+E_0:\mathcal{D}(A)\to F$ is an isomorphism, whose
401: inverse is $T^{-1}$.
402:
403: In concrete situations the problem is to analyze whether an operator $A$
404: satisfies conditions (A1), (A2), (A3), and then to find the best possible
405: constant $\omega$. Fundamental works on this topic are due to Seeley
406: \cite{Seel0}, \cite{Seel1}, \cite{Seel2}, where he gives criteria ensuring
407: that a differential operator on a compact manifold (with boundary) has
408: these properties. The main object of the present paper is to give such
409: criteria for differential operators on manifolds with conical
410: singularities.
411:
412: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
413:
414: \section{Cone differential operators}\label{diffop}
415: We consider a differential operator $A: \calC^\infty(\bz,E)\to
416: \calC^\infty(\bz,E)$ acting on sections of a vector bundle $E$ over $\bz$.
417: We may assume that $E$ respects the product structure near the boundary
418: $\partial \bz = X$,
419: i.e.\ is the pull-back of a vector bundle $E_X$ over $X$ under the
420: canonical projection $[0,1[\times X\to X$. The operator $A$ is called a
421: {\em cone differential} or {\em Fuchs-type} operator, cf.\ \cite{EgSc},
422: \cite{Lesc}, if, near the boundary it is of the form
423: \begin{equation}\label{diffop1}
424: A=t^{-\mu}\mathop{\mbox{\Large$\sum$}}_{j=0}^\mu a_j(t)(-t\partial_t)^j,
425: \end{equation}
426: where $a_j\in\ci(\rpbar,\text{\rm Diff}^{\mu-j}(X; E_X,E_X))$
427: are functions, smooth
428: up to the boundary, with values in the differential operators on $X$.
429: In order to keep the notation simple, we shall not indicate the bundles and
430: write $\calC^\infty (\bz)$, ${\rm Diff}^{\mu-j}(X)$, etc.
431:
432: We can
433: rewrite \eqref{diffop1} as
434: \begin{equation}\label{diffop2}
435: A=t^{-\mu}\opm{\gamma+\mu-\frac{n}{2}}(f),\qquad
436: f(t,z)=\mathop{\mbox{\Large$\sum$}}_{j=0}^\mu a_j(t)z^j,
437: \end{equation}
438: where the Mellin pseudodifferential operator is defined by
439: \begin{equation}\label{mellop}
440: [\opm{\gamma+\mu-\frac{n}{2}}(f)u](t)=
441: \int_{\re z=\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma-\mu}t^{-z}f(t,z)(\calM u)(z)\,\dbar z,
442: \qquad u\in\cicomp([0,1[\times X).
443: \end{equation}
444: Here, $\gamma\in\rz$ is arbitrary, and \eqref{mellop} is
445: independent of the choice of $\gamma$. We keep $\gamma$ in the
446: notation, since we shall consider extensions of $A$ to different weighted
447: Sobolev spaces, the weight being given by $\gamma$:
448: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
449: \begin{definition}\label{sobolev}
450: For $s\in\nz_0$, $\gamma\in\rz$, and $1<p<\infty$ we introduce $\hsgpb$ as
451: the space of all functions $u\in H^s_{p,\text{\rm loc}}(\intb)$ such that
452: $$t^{\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma}(t\partial_t)^k\partial_x^\alpha
453: (\omega u)(t,x)\;\in\;
454: L_p(\rz_+\times X,\mbox{$\frac{dt}{t}dx$})\qquad
455: \forall\;k+|\alpha|\le s$$
456: for some cut-off function $\omega\in\cicomp([0,1[)$.
457: \end{definition}
458: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
459: Recall that a cut-off function is a function $\omega\in \cicomp(\intb)$ such that $\omega \equiv 1$ near $t=0$.
460: The definition of the Banach spaces $\hsgpb$ naturally extends to real $s$ as
461: well as to spaces of vector bundles over $\bz$. For more details see Section
462: \ref{notation}.
463:
464: For any $s$, $\gamma$, and $p$, the operator $A$ induces continuous
465: mappings
466: $$
467: A:\calH^{s+\mu,\gamma+\mu}_p(\bz)\longrightarrow\hsgpb.
468: $$
469: With $A$ we associate three symbols. The first is the usual
470: {\em homogeneous principal symbol}
471: $\sigma^{\mu}_\psi(A)\in\ci(T^*(\intb)\setminus0)$, taking values in the
472: corresponding bundle homomorphisms. In local coordinates
473: near the boundary
474: \begin{equation}\label{principal}
475: \sigma^{\mu}_\psi(A)(t,x,\tau,\xi)=t^{-\mu}
476: \mathop{\mbox{\Large$\sum$}}_{j=0}^\mu
477: \sigma^{\mu-j}_\psi(a_j)(t,x,\xi)(-it\tau)^j
478: \end{equation}
479: Dropping the factor $t^{-\mu}$, replacing $t\tau$ by $\tau$, and inserting
480: $t=0$, we obtain
481: $$\widetilde{\sigma}^{\mu}_\psi(A)(x,\tau,\xi):=
482: \mathop{\mbox{\Large$\sum$}}_{j=0}^\mu
483: \sigma^{\mu-j}_\psi(a_j)(0,x,\xi)(-i\tau)^j,$$
484: which yields the {\em rescaled symbol} of $A$,
485: \begin{equation}\label{principal2}
486: \widetilde{\sigma}^{\mu}_\psi(A)\;\in\;\ci((T^*X\times\rz)\setminus0).
487: \end{equation}
488: The third one is the {\em conormal symbol}
489: \begin{equation}\label{conormal}
490: \sigma^\mu_M(A)(z)=f(0,z)=
491: \mathop{\mbox{\Large$\sum$}}_{j=0}^\mu a_j(0)z^j,
492: \end{equation}
493: a function of $z\in\cz$ with values in the differential operators on $X$.
494: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
495: \begin{remark}\label{coneell}
496: The operator $A$ is called elliptic with respect to the weight
497: $\gamma+\mu$, if both the homogeneous principal symbol and
498: the rescaled symbol are invertible on their respective domains, and
499: \begin{equation}\label{conormal2}
500: \sigma^\mu_M(A)(z):H^s(X)\to H^{s-\mu}(X),\qquad
501: \re z=\mbox{$\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma-\mu$},
502: \end{equation}
503: is an isomorphism for all $z$ on that line.
504:
505: It can be shown, \cite{ScSe1},
506: Theorem \text{\rm 3.13}, that $A$ is elliptic if and only if the operators
507: $A:\calH^{s+\mu,\gamma+\mu}_p(\bz)$ $\longrightarrow\hsgpb$
508: are Fredholm for any $s$ and $p$.
509: \end{remark}
510: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
511: We shall consider $A$ as the operator
512: \begin{equation}\label{extension}
513: A:\calD(A)=\calH^{\mu,\gamma+\mu}_p(\bz)\subset
514: \calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)\longrightarrow\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz).
515: \end{equation}
516: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
517: \begin{remark}
518: \begin{itemize}
519: \item[a)] In case $A$ is elliptic with respect to $\gamma+\mu$,
520: \eqref{extension} is
521: the closure of $A$ considered on the domain $\cicomp(\intb)$.
522: \item[b)] By the spectral invariance of the cone algebra,
523: \cite{ScSe1}, Theorem \text{\rm 3.14}, the spectrum of $A$ is
524: independent of $1<p<\infty$.
525: \end{itemize}
526: \end{remark}
527: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
528: With $A$ we associate the {model cone operator}, which acts in
529: Sobolev spaces on the infinite cylinder
530: \begin{equation}\label{xwedge}
531: X^\wedge:=\rz_+\times X.
532: \end{equation}
533: Let $(t,x)$ denote cylindrical coordinates on $X^\wedge$. Then
534: $H^s_{p,\text{\rm cone}}(X^\wedge)$ is the space of all
535: distributions $u$ whose push-forward under conical coordinates
536: $(t,tx)$ belongs to $H^s_{p}(\rz^{1+n})$ $($for details see
537: \cite{ScSc}, Section {\rm 4.2}$)$.
538: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
539: \begin{definition}\label{ksgp}
540: For $s,\gamma\in\rz$ and $1<p<\infty$ the spaces
541: $\calK^{s,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge)$ consist of all distributions $u\in
542: H^s_{p,\text{\rm loc}}(X^\wedge)$ satisfying, for some cut-off function
543: $\omega\in\cicomp([0,1[)$,
544: $$\omega u\in\hsgpb,\qquad
545: (1-\omega)u\in H^s_{p,\text{\rm cone}}(X^\wedge).$$
546: \end{definition}
547: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
548: Freezing the coefficients of $A$ at $t=0$, we obtain the
549: model cone operator $\widehat{A}$,
550: \begin{equation}\label{ahat}
551: \widehat{A}=t^{-\mu}\mathop{\mbox{\Large$\sum$}}_{j=0}^\mu
552: a_j(0)(-t\partial_t)^j:
553: \calK^{\mu,\gamma+\mu}_p(X^\wedge)\longrightarrow
554: \calK^{0,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge).
555: \end{equation}
556: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
557: \begin{remark}
558: \begin{itemize}
559: \item[a)] If $A$ is elliptic with respect to the weight $\gamma+\mu$ and
560: satisfies the ellipticity condition \text{\rm (E1)} introduced below,
561: then it can be shown that \eqref{ahat} is the closure of $\widehat{A}$
562: considered on the domain $\cicomp(X^\wedge)$.
563: \item[b)] If we set $\widehat{a}(\lambda)=\lambda-\widehat{A}$ with
564: $\widehat{A}$ from \eqref{ahat}, then $\widehat{a}(\lambda)$ corresponds to
565: the so-called {\em principal edge symbol} of $\lambda-A$, if we view
566: $\lambda-A$ as a constant coefficient edge symbol in the framework of
567: Schulze's theory of pseudodifferential operators on manifolds with
568: edges, cf.\ for example \cite{EgSc}.
569: \end{itemize}
570: \end{remark}
571: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
572: It is worth mentioning that $\widehat{a}(\lambda)=\lambda-\widehat{A}$ is a
573: homogeneous function in a specific way. Namely if we define for $\varrho>0$
574: \begin{equation}\label{kappa}
575: \kappa_\varrho:\cicomp(X^\wedge)\to\cicomp(X^\wedge),\quad
576: (\kappa_\varrho u)(t,x)=\varrho^{\frac{n+1}{2}}u(\varrho t,x),
577: \end{equation}
578: then these operators extend by continuity to isomorphisms in
579: $\calL(\calK^{s,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge))$ and
580: \begin{equation}\label{twisted}
581: \widehat{a}(\varrho^\mu\lambda)=
582: \varrho^\mu\,\kappa_\varrho\,\widehat{a}(\lambda)\,\kappa_\varrho^{-1}.
583: \end{equation}
584: In particular, $\text{\rm spec}(\widehat{A})$ is a closed conic subset of
585: the complex plane.
586:
587: Near the boundary of $\bz$ we can write
588: $\lambda-A=t^{-\mu}\opm{\gamma+\mu-\frac{n}{2}}(h)(\lambda)$
589: with the parameter-dependent Mellin symbol
590: \begin{equation}\label{tildeh}
591: h(t,z,\lambda)=\tilde{h}(t,z,t^\mu\lambda),\qquad
592: \tilde{h}(t,z,\lambda)=\lambda-f(t,z),
593: \end{equation}
594: and $f$ from \eqref{diffop2}.
595: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
596:
597: \section{The resolvent of cone differential operators}\label{resolvent}
598: To describe the structure of the resolvent we
599: recall some elements from the theory of parameter-dependent cone
600: pseudodifferential operators, starting with
601: the smoothing remainders of the calculus.
602: To this end we introduce a family of Fr\'echet spaces of smooth functions on
603: $\intb$ and $X^\wedge$, respectively.
604: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
605: \begin{definition}\label{test}
606: For $\gamma\in\rz$ we let $\cigb$ denote the space of all $u \in
607: \ci(\intb)$ such that
608: \begin{equation}\label{cig}
609: \sup_{0<t<1}t^{\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma}
610: \trinorm{\log^l t~(t\partial_t)^k( u)(t,\cdot)}<\infty\qquad
611: \forall\;k,l\in\nz_0
612: \end{equation}
613: for any semi-norm $\trinorm{\cdot}$ of $\ci(X)$. Similarly,
614: $\calS^\gamma_0(X^\wedge)$ is the space of all $u \in
615: \ci(X^\wedge)$ which are rapidly decreasing as $t \to \infty$ and
616: satisfy \eqref{cig}.
617: \end{definition}
618: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
619: We shall say that an operator $G$ has a kernel $k$ with respect to the
620: $\calH^{0,0}_2(\bz)$-scalar product if
621: $$(Gu)(y)=\skp{k(y,\cdot)}{\overline{u}}_{\calH^{0,0}_2(\bz)}=
622: \int_\bz k(y,y')u(y')\,t(y')^ndy',\qquad u\in\cicomp(\intb),$$
623: where $t$ denotes a boundary defining function on $\bz$ and $dy'$ refers
624: to a density on $2\bz$, the double of $\bz$. We shall
625: use the analogous notion for operators on $X^\wedge$, based on the
626: scalar product of $\calK^{0,0}_2(X^\wedge)=L_2(X^\wedge,t^ndtdx)$.
627: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
628: \begin{definition}\label{green1}
629: An operator-family $G=G(\lambda)$, $\lambda \in \Lambda$, belongs to
630: $C^{-\infty}_G(\bz;\Lambda,\gamma)$, $\gamma\in\rz$, if there exists
631: an $\eps=\eps(G)>0$ such that $G(\lambda)$ has a kernel
632: $k(\lambda)=k(\lambda,\cdot,\cdot)$ with
633: respect to the $\calH^{0,0}_2(\bz)$-scalar product and
634: $$k(\lambda,y,y')\in\calS(\Lambda,
635: \calC^{\infty,\gamma+\eps}(\bz_y)\pit
636: \calC^{\infty,-\gamma+\eps}(\bz_{y'})),$$
637: \end{definition}
638: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
639: cf. \eqref{not5}; $\pit$ denotes the completed projective tensor product.
640: $C^{-\infty}_G(\bz;\Lambda,\gamma)$ is the residual class of the calculus.
641: For every choice of $s$, $p$, and $\lambda$, the operator $G(\lambda)$
642: maps $\hsgpb$ into $\cigb$. For the description of the resolvent we shall
643: need another class of operator-families. For each fixed $\lambda$, they are
644: smoothing over $X^\wedge$, yet they have a finite order in $\lambda$:
645: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
646: \begin{definition}\label{green2}
647: Let $\gamma,\mu\in\rz$ and $d>0$. We define
648: $R^{\mu,d}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,\gamma)$ as the space of all
649: operator-families $G=G(\lambda)$ that have a kernel with respect to the
650: $\calK^{0,0}_2(X^\wedge)$-scalar product of the form
651: $$k(\lambda,t,x,t',x')=[\lambda]^{\frac{n+1}{d}}
652: \tilde{k}(\lambda,[\lambda]^{\frac{1}{d}}t,x,
653: [\lambda]^{\frac{1}{d}}t',x'),$$
654: where $[\cdot]$ is a smoothed norm-function $($i.e., $[\cdot]$ is
655: smooth, positive on $\cz$ and $[\lambda] = |\lambda|$ for large
656: $\lambda)$ and for some $\eps=\eps(G)>0$
657: $$\tilde{k}(\lambda,t,x,t',x')\in S^{\frac{\mu}{d}}_{cl}(\Lambda)\pit
658: \calS^{\gamma+\eps}_0(X^\wedge_{(t,x)})\pit
659: \calS^{-\gamma+\eps}_0(X^\wedge_{(t',x')}).$$
660: \end{definition}
661: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
662: In this case, $G(\lambda)$ maps $\calK^{s,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge)$ into
663: $\calS^\gamma_0(X^\wedge)$ for any $s$ and $p$. See also the Appendix for
664: more information on such operator-families. Trivially, a symbol
665: $a\in S^{\frac{\mu}{d}}_{cl}(\Lambda)$ satisfies the estimate
666: \begin{equation}\label{decay}
667: |a(\lambda)|\le c\,(1+|\lambda|)^{\frac{\mu}{d}},\qquad
668: \lambda\in\Lambda.
669: \end{equation}
670: Recall from Section \ref{diffop} that if $A$ is a cone differential
671: operator, then $\lambda-A$ can be written in terms of Mellin symbols taking
672: values in the differential operators on $X$, cf.\ \eqref{tildeh}. In that
673: case the Mellin symbol is a polynomial in $z$. A general Mellin
674: symbol is an entire function with values in
675: the pseudodifferential operators on $X$; more precisely:
676: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
677: \begin{definition}\label{holom}
678: For $\mu\in\rz$ and $d>0$ let $M^{\mu,d}_{\calO}(X;\Lambda)$ denote the
679: space of all functions $\tilde{g}(z,\lambda)$, which are holomorphic in
680: $z\in\cz$ with values in $L^{\mu,d}(X;\Lambda)$, and for which
681: $$\tilde{g}_\beta(\tau,\lambda):=\tilde{g}(\beta+i\tau,\lambda)\;\in\;
682: L^{\mu,d}(X;\rz_\tau\times\Lambda)$$
683: is locally bounded as a function of $\beta\in\rz$. This is a Fr\'echet
684: space in a canonical way.
685: \end{definition}
686: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
687: Let us now state the ellipticity assumptions on $A$, which ensure
688: the existence of its resolvent in a keyhole region:
689: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
690: \begin{definition}\label{ellipticity}
691: We call $A$ elliptic with respect to the weight $\gamma+\mu$ and the
692: sector $\Lambda_\Delta$, cf.\ \eqref{not4}, if
693: the following two conditions are satisfied: \begin{itemize}
694: \item[(E1)] Both the homogeneous principal symbol $\sigma_\psi^\mu(A)$
695: and the rescaled symbol $\widetilde{\sigma}_\psi^\mu(A)$, cf.\
696: \eqref{principal2}, have no spectrum in $\Lambda_\Delta$, pointwise on
697: $T^*({\rm int}\,\bz)\setminus 0$ and $(T^*X\times \rz)\setminus 0$,
698: respectively,
699: \item[(E2)] the model cone operator $\widehat{A}$, acting as in \eqref{ahat},
700: has no spectrum in $\Lambda_\Delta\setminus\{0\}$.
701: \end{itemize}
702: \end{definition}
703: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
704: If conditions (E1) and (E2) are satisfied, they automatically hold for a
705: slightly larger keyhole region (by closedness of the spectrum, compactness
706: of $\bz$, and the homogeneity of the rescaled symbol, the homogeneous
707: principal symbol, as well as $\widehat{a}(\lambda)$, cf.\ \eqref{twisted}).
708: Moreover, one can show that condition (E2) implies that \eqref{conormal2} is
709: a family of isomorphisms.
710:
711: We would like to point out that, although the above conditions seem to
712: be quite strong, it follows from more general considerations that they
713: are essentially necessary.
714:
715: Under conditions (E1) and (E2) we can now describe the resolvent of $A$:
716: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
717: \begin{theorem}\label{parametrix}
718: If $A$ is elliptic with respect to $\Lambda_\Delta = \Lambda_{\Delta}(\theta)$
719: and $\gamma+\mu$,
720: then $A$ has no spectrum in $\Lambda_\Delta\cap\{|\lambda|>R\}$ for some
721: $R>0$, and for large $\lambda\in\Lambda_\Delta$
722: \begin{equation}\label{inverse}
723: (\lambda-A)^{-1}=\sigma\left\{t^\mu\opm{\gamma-\frac{n}{2}}(g)(\lambda)+
724: G(\lambda)\right\}\sigma_0+(1-\sigma)P(\lambda)(1-\sigma_1)+
725: G_\infty(\lambda),
726: \end{equation}
727: where $\sigma,\sigma_0,\sigma_1\in\cicomp([0,1[)$ are cut-off functions
728: satisfying $\sigma_1\sigma=\sigma_1$, $\sigma\sigma_0=\sigma$, and
729: there exists a $\delta > 0$ such that, for $\Lambda =
730: \Lambda(\delta,\theta)$,
731: \begin{itemize}
732: \item[i)]
733: $g(t,z,\lambda)=\tilde{g}(t,z,t^\mu\lambda)$ with
734: $\tilde{g}\in \ci(\rpbar,M^{\mu,d}_{\calO}(X;\Lambda))$,
735: \item[ii)] $P(\lambda)\in L^{-\mu,\mu}(\intb;\Lambda)$, cf.
736: \eqref{not6},
737: \item[iii)] $G(\lambda)\in
738: R^{-\mu,\mu}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,\gamma)$, and
739: $G_\infty(\lambda)\in C^{-\infty}_G(\bz;\Lambda,\gamma)$.
740: \end{itemize}
741: \end{theorem}
742: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
743: In view of the fact that $A$ has compact resolvent (recall that the
744: embeddings $\hsgpb\hookrightarrow\calH^{r,\varrho}_p(\bz)$ are compact
745: provided $s>r$ and $\gamma>\varrho$), only finitely many points of the
746: spectrum of $A$ will lie in $\Lambda$. Thus, after possibly rotating $A$ a
747: little and shrinking the keyhole $\Lambda$, we can assume that
748: $A$ has no spectrum in $\Lambda$, except perhaps 0.
749:
750: Theorem \ref{parametrix} follows from the parametrix
751: construction in the parameter-dependent cone algebra
752: given in \cite{Gil}, Theorems 3.2, 3.4, cf.\ also \cite{EgSc},
753: Section 9.3.3, Theorem 6. An important observation we can draw from
754: this theorem is a norm estimate of the resolvent:
755: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
756: \begin{proposition}\label{estimate}
757: Under the assumptions of Theorem \text{\rm \ref{parametrix}} there exists
758: a constant $c_p\ge 0$ such that for all sufficiently large
759: $\lambda\in\Lambda$
760: $$\|(\lambda-A)^{-1}\|_{\calL(\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz))}\le
761: c_p\,|\lambda|^{-1}.$$
762: \end{proposition}
763: \begin{proof}
764: We first reduce the case of arbitrary $\gamma$ to the
765: special case $\gamma=\gamma_p=(n+1)(\mbox{$\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p}$})$. To
766: this end let $b\in\ci(\intb)$ be a positive function such that
767: $b(t,x)=t^\nu$, $\nu=\gamma_p-\gamma$, for all $(t,x)\in[0,1]\times X$.
768: Multiplication by $b$ induces isomorphisms
769: $\hsgpb\to\calH^{s,\gamma_p}_p(\bz)$ with inverse induced by $b^{-1}$.
770: Therefore,
771: $$\|(\lambda-A)^{-1}\|_{\calL(\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz))}\sim
772: \|b(\lambda-A)^{-1}b^{-1}\|_{\calL(\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_p(\bz))}.$$
773: But for large $|\lambda|$,
774: $$b(\lambda-A)^{-1}b^{-1}=\sigma\left\{
775: t^\mu\opm{\gamma_p-\frac{n}{2}}(T^{-\nu}g)(\lambda)+
776: t^\nu G(\lambda)t^{-\nu}\right\}\sigma_0+
777: (1-\sigma)bP(\lambda)b^{-1}(1-\sigma_1)+bG_\infty(\lambda)b^{-1},$$
778: where $T^{-\nu}g(t,z,\lambda)=g(t,z-\nu,\lambda)$. Since $T^{-\nu}g$ and
779: $bP(\lambda)b^{-1}$ are of the same quality as $g$ and $P(\lambda)$,
780: respectively, and $t^\nu G(\lambda)t^{-\nu}\in
781: R^{-\mu,\mu}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,\gamma_p)$ and
782: $bG_\infty(\lambda)b^{-1}\in C^{-\infty}_G(\bz;\Lambda,\gamma_p)$, we can
783: assume from the very beginning that $\gamma=\gamma_p$.
784:
785: The term $G_\infty(\lambda)$ certainly behaves in the right way, since it
786: is rapidly decreasing in $\lambda$. Also the term
787: $(1-\sigma)P(\lambda)(1-\sigma_1)$ is good by the standard
788: Calderon-Vaillancourt theorem. The two remaining terms
789: $t^\mu\opm{\gamma}(g)(\lambda)$ and $G(\lambda)$ we shall consider in the
790: spaces
791: $$\calK^{0,\gamma_p}_p(X^\wedge)=L_p(\rz_+\times X,t^ndtdx).$$
792: If $\kappa_\varrho$ is the group action from \eqref{kappa}, then
793: $\|\kappa_\varrho\|_{\calL(\calK^{0,\gamma_p}_p(X^\wedge))}=
794: \varrho^{\gamma_p}$
795: for all $\varrho>0$. Hence for an arbitrary operator
796: $T\in\calL(\calK^{0,\gamma_p}_p(X^\wedge))$ we have
797: $$\|T\|_{\calL(\calK^{0,\gamma_p}_p(X^\wedge))}=
798: \|\kappa_\varrho^{-1}T\kappa_\varrho\|_{
799: \calL(\calK^{0,\gamma_p}_p(X^\wedge))}.$$
800: Now let $G(\lambda)$ have a kernel $k(\lambda)$ as described in Definition
801: \ref{green2} (with $\mu$ replaced by $-\mu$ and $d=\mu$). Then the
802: operator-norm of $G(\lambda)$ is the same as that of
803: $\kappa_{[\lambda]^{1/\mu}}^{-1}G(\lambda)\kappa_{[\lambda]^{1/\mu}}$,
804: which has the kernel $\tilde{k}(\lambda,t,x,t',x')$. But this kernel is
805: $O(|\lambda|^{-1})$ in $\lambda$, cf.\ \eqref{decay}. To treat the last
806: term we can pass to local coordinates, i.e.\ we assume $X=\rz^n$ and
807: $$\tilde{g}_{\frac{1}{2}-\gamma_p}(t,x,\tau,\xi,\lambda)\;\in\;
808: S^{-\mu,\mu}(\rpbar\times\rz^n\times\rz^{1+n};\Lambda).$$
809: By a tensor product argument we can assume that $\tilde{g}$ is
810: independent of $(t,x)$. Conjugating with
811: $\kappa_{[\lambda]^{1/\mu}}$, we have to show that
812: $$\opm{\gamma_p-\frac{n}{2}}(g')(\lambda),\qquad
813: g'_{\frac{1}{2}-\gamma_p}(t,\tau,\xi,\lambda)=t^\mu
814: \tilde{g}_{\frac{1}{2}-\gamma_p}(\tau,\xi,t^{\mu}
815: \mbox{$\frac{\lambda}{[\lambda]}$}),$$
816: is uniformly bounded in $L_p(\rz_+\times\rz^n,t^ndtdx)$ for large
817: $|\lambda|$. Since then $\frac{\lambda}{[\lambda]}$ is bounded away from
818: zero and infinity, a simple calculation shows that
819: $$|(t\partial_t)^l\partial_\tau^k\partial_\xi^\alpha
820: g'_{\frac{1}{2}-\gamma_p}(t,\tau,\xi,\lambda)|\le
821: c_{kl\alpha}(1+|\tau|+|\xi|)^{-k-|\alpha|}$$
822: uniformly in $(t,\tau,\xi,\lambda)$, i.e., $g'(\lambda) \in
823: MS^{0}(\rz_+\times\rz^n\times
824: \Gamma_{\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma_{p}}\times\rz^n)$ uniformly in
825: $\lambda$. Then the result follows, see the end of Section
826: \ref{notation}.
827: \end{proof}
828: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
829: There are certain relations between $A$ and $g$ from i) respectively
830: $P(\lambda)$ from ii), which we are going to study now.
831:
832: Let $U\subset\rz^n$ be a coordinate neighborhood for $X$, whose closure is
833: contained in another coordinate neighborhood. Condition (E1) ensures that
834: the local symbol
835: \begin{equation}\label{qtilde}
836: \tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(t,x,\tau,\xi):=
837: t^\mu\sigma_\psi^\mu(A)(t,x,t^{-1}\tau,\xi),
838: \end{equation}
839: cf.\ \eqref{principal}, exists up to $t=0$ and does not have spectrum in
840: $\Lambda_\Delta$ for all $(t,x)\in[0,1]\times\overline{U}$ and all
841: $(\tau,\xi)\not=0$.
842: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
843: \begin{lemma}\label{excise}
844: There exists a zero excision function $\chi$ on $\rz$, such that for any
845: $\varphi\in\cicomp(U)$ and any $\sigma\in\cicomp([0,1[)$
846: $$\varphi(x)\sigma(t)\chi(|\tau,\xi|^2+|\lambda|^{\frac{2}{\mu}})
847: \big(\lambda-\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(t,x,\tau,\xi)\big)^{-1}\;\in\;
848: S^{-\mu,\mu}(\rpbar\times\rz^n\times\rz^{1+n};\Lambda).$$
849: \end{lemma}
850: \begin{proof}
851: Let $a$ denote the symbol in question. For shortness let us write
852: $y=(t,x)$ and $\eta=(\tau,\xi)$. Since the eigenvalues of
853: $\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(y,\eta)$ are proportional to $|\eta|^\mu$ (uniformly
854: for $y\in[0,1]\times\overline{U}$) and do not lie in $\Lambda_\Delta$,
855: there exists a constant $c>0$ such that
856: $(\lambda-\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(y,\eta))^{-1}$ is a smooth function in
857: $$\{(y,\eta,\lambda)\in[0,1]\times\overline{U}\times\rz^{1+n}\times\cz\st
858: \lambda\in\Lambda_\Delta\text{ or }|\lambda|\le c|\eta|^\mu\}.$$
859: Thus, if we choose $\chi$ in such a way that
860: $\chi(|\eta|^2+|\lambda|^{\frac{2}{\mu}})$ vanishes for
861: $|\eta|\le(\delta/c)^{\frac{1}{\mu}}$ and $|\lambda|\le\delta$, then $a$
862: is smooth on $\rpbar\times\rz^n\times\rz^{1+n}\times\Lambda$ for
863: $\Lambda=\Lambda(\delta,\theta)$. To verify that $a$ is a symbol, it
864: suffices to show that
865: \begin{equation}\label{formula1}
866: |a(y,\eta,\lambda)|\le c\,
867: (1+|\eta|^2+|\lambda|^{\frac{2}{\mu}})^{\frac{-\mu}{2}}
868: \end{equation}
869: uniformly in $y\in[0,1]\times\overline{U}$ and
870: $(\eta,\lambda)\in\rz^{1+n}\times\Lambda$. Since $a$ is anisotropic
871: homogeneous of order $(-\mu,\mu)$ for large
872: $(\eta,\lambda)\in\rz^{1+n}\times\Lambda_\Delta$, estimate
873: \eqref{formula1} holds on $\rz^{1+n}\times\Lambda_\Delta$. It also holds
874: for $|\lambda|\le\delta$ and $|\eta|$ sufficiently large, since then
875: $|(\lambda-\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(y,\eta))^{-1}|$ is
876: $O(|\eta|^{-\mu})$ due to the above described behavior of the eigenvalues.
877: For $|\lambda|$ and $|\eta|$ simultaneously small, estimate
878: \eqref{formula1} holds anyway.
879: \end{proof}
880: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
881: For every $\beta \in \rz$, we can associate with $\tilde{g}$ from Theorem
882: \ref{parametrix}.i) a local symbol
883: $$\tilde{g}_\beta=\tilde{g}_\beta(t,x,\tau,\xi,\lambda)\;\in\;
884: S^{-\mu,\mu}(\rpbar\times\rz^n\times\rz^{1+n};\Lambda).$$
885: It is a consequence of the above mentioned parametrix construction
886: in the cone calculus that the principal symbol of $\tilde{g}$ is
887: determined by the inverted principal symbol of $\lambda - A$.
888: With the notation from Lemma \ref{excise} we indeed have
889: \begin{equation}\label{param2}
890: \varphi(x)\sigma(t)\left\{\tilde{g}_\beta-
891: \chi(|\tau,\xi|^2+|\lambda|^{\frac{2}{\mu}})
892: \big(\lambda-\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}\big)^{-1}\right\}\;\in\;
893: S^{-\mu-1,\mu}(\rpbar\times\rz^n\times\rz^{1+n};\Lambda).
894: \end{equation}
895: Similarly, the local symbols of $P(\lambda)$ from Theorem
896: \ref{parametrix}.ii) can be approximated modulo $S^{-\mu-1,\mu}$ in terms
897: of the inverted local principal symbol of $\lambda - A$.
898: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
899:
900: \section{Complex powers of cone differential operators}\label{boimpo}
901: The aim of this section is to show that a cone differential operator $A$
902: satisfying (E1), (E2), also satisfies condition (A3). More precisely we
903: shall show:
904: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
905: \begin{theorem}\label{bip}
906: Let $A$ be elliptic with respect to $\gamma+\mu$ and $\Lambda_\Delta$,
907: having no spectrum in the keyhole $\Lambda=\Lambda(\delta,\theta)$,
908: except perhaps 0. Then one can define $A^z$ as in \eqref{atoz} and
909: there exists a constant $c_p\ge0$ such that for all $z\in\hz$ with $|\re
910: z|$ sufficiently small
911: \begin{equation}\label{bound}
912: \|A^z\|_{\calL(\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz))}\le c_p\,e^{\theta|\im z|}.
913: \end{equation}
914: \end{theorem}
915: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
916: Let us first give a short outline of the proof. In view of Theorem
917: \ref{parametrix} we can replace in \eqref{atoz} the resolvent
918: $(\lambda-A)^{-1}$ by the right-hand side of \eqref{inverse}. Then one
919: obtains four integrals (corresponding to the four terms on the right-hand
920: side of \eqref{inverse}), each of which has to be estimated as in \eqref{bound}.
921: For the one associated with $G_\infty(\lambda)$ this is certainly possible,
922: since $G_\infty(\lambda)$ is rapidly decreasing in $\lambda$ and therefore
923: $$\Big\|\int_\calC\lambda^zG_\infty(\lambda)\,d\lambda
924: \Big\|_{\calL(\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz))}\le
925: c'_p\,\delta^{\re z} e^{\theta|\im z|}.$$
926: Obviously $\delta^{\re z}$ is uniformly bounded for small $|\re z|$.
927:
928: For the integral connected with $(1-\sigma)P(\lambda)(1-\sigma_1)$ one can
929: proceed exactly as in the proof of Theorem 1 of \cite{Seel2},
930: since this term is localized away from the boundary, and there,
931: $\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)$ coincides with the usual $L_p$-spaces (note also
932: the remark after formula \eqref{param2}).
933:
934: Hence it remains to consider the expressions
935: \begin{equation}\label{twoterms}
936: \sigma\int_\calC\lambda^zG(\lambda)\,d\lambda\,\sigma_0,\qquad
937: \sigma\int_\calC\lambda^zt^\mu\opm{\gamma-\frac{n}{2}}(g)(\lambda)\,
938: d\lambda\,\sigma_0.
939: \end{equation}
940:
941: We shall start with the analysis of the first term. Letting
942: $$\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge)=
943: L_p(X^\wedge,t^{(\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma)p}\mbox{$\frac{dt}{t}$}dx)=
944: t^\gamma L_p(X^\wedge,t^{\frac{n+1}{2}p}\mbox{$\frac{dt}{t}$}dx),$$
945: it is obvious from Definition \ref{sobolev} that multiplication with
946: any cut-off function $\sigma\in\cicomp([0,1[)$ induces continuous operators
947: $\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)\to\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge)$ and
948: $\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge)\to\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)$.
949: Estimating the
950: first term in \ref{twoterms} thus reduces to the following proposition:
951: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
952: \begin{proposition}\label{greenpart}
953: Let $G(\lambda)\in R^{-\mu,\mu}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,\gamma)$ and
954: $G_z={\displaystyle\int_\calC}\lambda^zG(\lambda)\,d\lambda$ for
955: $z\in\hz$. Then $G_z\in\calL(\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge))$, and there
956: exists a constant $c_p\ge0$ such that for $|\re z|$ sufficiently small
957: $$\|G_z\|_{\calL(\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge))}\le
958: c_p\,e^{\theta|\im z|}.$$
959: \end{proposition}
960: \begin{proof}
961: By conjugation with $t^\gamma$ we can assume
962: that $\gamma=0$ (cf.\ the proof of Proposition \ref{estimate}).
963: If we split the integral into three terms according to the decomposition of
964: $\calC$ in \eqref{not3}, the integral over $\calC_2$ can be estimated in
965: the desired way, since $\|G(\lambda)\|$ is bounded on $\calC_2$. By
966: symmetry, $\calC_1$ and $\calC_3$ can be treated in the same way. So we
967: shall assume for the rest of the proof that
968: $$\calC(t)=\calC_1(t)=te^{i\theta},\qquad -\infty<t\le1,$$
969: (for notational convenience we replace $\delta$ by 1). Also for
970: convenience we suppress the $x$-variables from the
971: notation. We shall frequently make use of the fact that, substituting
972: $\lambda=\varrho^\mu e^{i\theta}$, we have
973: $$\int_\calC f(\lambda)\,d\lambda=\mu e^{i\theta}\int_1^\infty
974: f(\varrho^\mu e^{i\theta})\varrho^{\mu-1}\,d\varrho.$$
975: According to Definition \ref{green2}, $G(\lambda)$ for $|\lambda|\ge 1$ is
976: an integral operator (with respect to the scalar product in
977: $\calH^{0,0}_2(X^\wedge)$) with kernel
978: $$k(\lambda,t,s)=|\lambda|^{\frac{n+1}{\mu}}\tilde{k}(\lambda,
979: |\lambda|^{\frac{1}{\mu}}t,|\lambda|^{\frac{1}{\mu}}s),$$
980: where, for some $\varepsilon>0$,
981: $$\tilde{k}(\lambda,t,s)\in S^{-1}(\Lambda) \pit
982: \calS^\eps_0(X^\wedge)\pit \calS^\eps_0(X^\wedge)$$
983: (the fact that $\tilde{k}$ is classical will
984: not play a role for the following calculations). Then $G_z$ is an
985: integral operator with kernel
986: \begin{equation}\label{kernelgz}
987: k_z(t,s)=\int_\calC\lambda^zk(\lambda,t,s)\,d\lambda.
988: \end{equation}
989: Writing $\tilde{k}(\lambda,t,s)=
990: (\tilde{\chi}(t)+(1-\tilde{\chi})(t))\tilde{k}(\lambda,t,s)
991: (\tilde{\chi}(s)+(1-\tilde{\chi})(s))$ with the
992: characteristic function $\tilde{\chi}$ of $[0,1]$, the proposition will be
993: true, if we can show that in any of the four cases
994: \begin{align}
995: k_z(t,s)&=e^{-\theta|\im z|}\int_\calC\lambda^z
996: \tilde{\chi}(|\lambda|^{\frac{1}{\mu}}t)k(\lambda,t,s)
997: \tilde{\chi}(|\lambda|^{\frac{1}{\mu}}s)\,d\lambda
998: \label{kernel1}\\
999: k_z(t,s)&=e^{-\theta|\im z|}\int_\calC\lambda^z
1000: \tilde{\chi}(|\lambda|^{\frac{1}{\mu}}t)k(\lambda,t,s)
1001: (1-\tilde{\chi})(|\lambda|^{\frac{1}{\mu}}s)\,d\lambda
1002: \label{kernel2a}\\
1003: k_z(t,s)&=e^{-\theta|\im z|}\int_\calC\lambda^z
1004: (1-\tilde{\chi})(|\lambda|^{\frac{1}{\mu}}t)
1005: k(\lambda,t,s)
1006: \tilde{\chi}(|\lambda|^{\frac{1}{\mu}}s)\,d\lambda
1007: \label{kernel2b}\\
1008: k_z(t,s)&=e^{-\theta|\im z|}\int_\calC\lambda^z
1009: (1-\tilde{\chi})(|\lambda|^{\frac{1}{\mu}}t)
1010: k(\lambda,t,s)
1011: (1-\tilde{\chi})(|\lambda|^{\frac{1}{\mu}}s)\,d\lambda
1012: \label{kernel3}
1013: \end{align}
1014: the associated integral operators are bounded in
1015: $\calH^{0,0}_p(X^\wedge)$, uniformly in $-\alpha\le\re z<0$ for some
1016: $\alpha>0$. The cases \eqref{kernel2a} and \eqref{kernel2b} are equivalent
1017: by symmetry (i.e.\ passing to the adjoint). The proofs of all cases
1018: \eqref{kernel1}, \eqref{kernel2a}, and \eqref{kernel3} rely on the
1019: following Hardy inequalities:
1020: \begin{align}
1021: \int_0^\infty\Big(\int_0^t g(s)\,ds\Big)^pt^{-1-r}\,dt&\le
1022: \mbox{$\left(\frac{p}{r}\right)^p$}
1023: \int_0^\infty g(t)^pt^{p-1-r}\,dt\label{hardy1}\\
1024: \int_0^\infty\Big(\int_t^\infty g(s)\,ds\Big)^pt^{-1+r}\,dt&\le
1025: \mbox{$\left(\frac{p}{r}\right)^p$}
1026: \int_0^\infty g(t)^pt^{p-1+r}\,dt\label{hardy2}
1027: \end{align}
1028: for any non-negative function $g$ on $\rz_+$ and $r>0$ (cf.\ \cite{StWe},
1029: Lemma 3.14, page 196). To begin with case \eqref{kernel1} we use the fact
1030: that, for some fixed $\epsilon > 0$,
1031: $$|\tilde{k}(\lambda,t,s)|\le c|\lambda|^{-1}
1032: t^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}s^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}$$
1033: uniformly in $\lambda\in\calC$ and $t,s>0$, to obtain
1034: \begin{align*}
1035: |k_z(t,s)|&\le c\,t^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}s^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}
1036: \int_1^\infty\varrho^{\mu\re z-1+2\eps}
1037: \tilde{\chi}(\varrho t)\tilde{\chi}(\varrho s)\,d\varrho\\
1038: &=\mbox{$\frac{c}{\mu\re z+2\eps}$}\left(
1039: \min(\mbox{$\frac{1}{t},\frac{1}{s}$})^{\mu\re z+2\eps}-1\right)
1040: \tilde{\chi}(t)\tilde{\chi}(s)
1041: t^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}s^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}.
1042: \end{align*}
1043: Since $\mu\re z$ is negative, the factor
1044: $\min(\frac{1}{t},\frac{1}{s})^{\mu\re z}$ is uniformly bounded by 1 for
1045: $0<s,t\le 1$. If $-\frac{\eps}{\mu}=-\alpha\le\re z<0$ the factor
1046: $\frac{c}{\mu\re z+2\eps}$ can be estimated from above by a constant
1047: uniformly in $0<s,t\le1$. Since furthermore the kernel function
1048: $\tilde{\chi}(t)\tilde{\chi}(s)t^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}s^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}$
1049: belongs to $\calH^{0,0}_p(X^\wedge)\otimes\calH^{0,0}_{p'}(X^\wedge)$
1050: and thus induces a continuous operator in $\calH^{0,0}_p(X^\wedge)$,
1051: it remains to consider the kernel
1052: $t^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}s^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}
1053: \min(\frac{1}{t},\frac{1}{s})^{2\eps}$. Because this kernel is symmetric
1054: in $s$ and $t$, indeed it suffices to treat
1055: $$k(t,s)=\begin{cases}
1056: t^{-\frac{n+1}{2}-\eps}s^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}&:s\le t\\
1057: 0&:s>t
1058: \end{cases}.$$
1059: If $G$ denotes the associated integral operator, then
1060: \begin{align*}
1061: \|Gu\|^p_{\calH^{0,0}_p(X^\wedge)}&\le
1062: \int_0^\infty\Big(\int_0^\infty
1063: k(t,s)|u(s)|\,s^nds\Big)^pt^{\frac{n+1}{2}p-1}\,dt
1064: =\int_0^\infty\Big(\int_0^t s^{\frac{n-1}{2}+\eps}|u(s)|\,ds\Big)^p
1065: t^{-1-p\eps}\,dt\\
1066: &\le\mbox{$\left(\frac{p}{p\eps}\right)^p$}\int_0^\infty
1067: |u(t)|^p\,t^{\frac{n+1}{2}p-1}dt=
1068: \mbox{$\left(\frac{1}{\eps}\right)^p$}
1069: \|u\|^p_{\calH^{0,0}_p(X^\wedge)}
1070: \end{align*}
1071: by Hardy's inequality \eqref{hardy1}. This finishes case \eqref{kernel1}.
1072: For case \eqref{kernel2a} observe that
1073: $$|\tilde{k}(\lambda,t,s)(1-\tilde{\chi})(s)|\le c_N |\lambda|^{-1}
1074: t^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}s^{-N}$$
1075: for any $N\in\nz$ uniformly in $\lambda\in\calC$ and $s,t>0$. Then
1076: $$|k_z(t,s)|\le c_N t^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}s^{-N}
1077: \int_1^\infty\varrho^{\mu\re z+\frac{n-1}{2}+\eps-N}
1078: \tilde{\chi}(\varrho t)(1-\tilde{\chi})(\varrho s)\,d\varrho.$$
1079: This expression equals zero if $s\le t$ and for $s>t$ we can estimate
1080: \begin{align*}
1081: |k_z(t,s)|&\le c_N t^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}s^{-N}\tilde{\chi}(t)
1082: \int_{1/s}^{1/t}\varrho^{\mu\re z+\frac{n-1}{2}+\eps-N}\,d\varrho
1083: =\mbox{$\frac{c_N}{\mu\re z+\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps-N}$}
1084: (k^1_z(t,s)-k^2_z(t,s))
1085: \end{align*}
1086: with kernel functions $k^1_z$ and $k^2_z$ given by
1087: \begin{align*}
1088: k^1_z(t,s)&=\tilde{\chi}(t)
1089: \begin{cases}
1090: 0&:s\le t\\
1091: \left(\frac{t}{s}\right)^N t^{-n-1-\mu\re z}&:s>t
1092: \end{cases},\qquad
1093: k^2_z(t,s)&=\tilde{\chi}(t)
1094: \begin{cases}
1095: 0&:s\le t\\
1096: (ts)^{-\frac{n+1}{2}}\left(\frac{t}{s}\right)^\eps
1097: s^{-\mu\re z}&:s>t
1098: \end{cases}.
1099: \end{align*}
1100: %
1101: In order to check the uniform boundedness of the integral operator
1102: $K^{1}_{z}$ associated with $k^{1}_{z}$, $-\alpha \le \re z < 0$, on
1103: $\calH^{0,0}_p(X^\wedge)$ we observe that
1104: $$
1105: \calH^{0,0}_p(X^\wedge) = t^\beta L_{p}(X^\wedge,t^ndtdx)
1106: $$
1107: with $\beta = p(n+1)(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p})$. The boundedness of
1108: $K^{1}_{z}$ is equivalent to the boundedness of $t^\beta K^{1}_{z}
1109: t^{-\beta}$ on $L_{p}(X^\wedge,t^ndtdx)$. To show it, we employ
1110: Schur's lemma: if $N$ is sufficiently large, then
1111: $$\int_0^\infty t^\beta k^1_z(t,s)\,s^{-\beta}\,s^nds=
1112: \tilde{\chi}(t)\,t^{\beta+N-n-1-\mu\re z}\int_t^\infty
1113: s^{-N+n-\beta}\,ds=
1114: \mbox{$\frac{1}{N-n+\beta-1}$} t^{-\mu\re z} \tilde{\chi}(t) \le 1$$
1115: and
1116: \begin{align*}
1117: \int_0^\infty t^\beta k^1_z(t,s)s^{-\beta}\,t^ndt=
1118: s^{-N-\beta}\int_0^{\min(1,s)} t^{\beta+N-1-\mu\re z}\,dt
1119: =\mbox{$\frac{s^{-N-\beta}}{N-\mu\re z+\beta}$}
1120: \min(1,s)^{\beta+N-\mu\re z}\le 1.
1121: \end{align*}
1122: %
1123: To handle $k_z^2$ first observe that we can drop the factor $s^{-\mu\re
1124: z}$, since this is uniformly bounded by 1 in $s\le 1$ and $\re z<0$, and
1125: if $s\ge 1$ and $-\frac{\eps}{2\mu}\le\re z<0$ then
1126: $\left(\frac{t}{s}\right)^{\eps/2}s^{-\mu\re z}\le 1$ for $0\le t\le 1$
1127: (for $t\ge1$ anyway $k_z^2(t,s)=0$). Thus we can assume that
1128: $$k^2_z(t,s)=k^2(t,s)=
1129: \tilde{\chi}(t)
1130: \begin{cases}
1131: 0&:s\le t\\
1132: (ts)^{-\frac{n+1}{2}}\left(\frac{t}{s}\right)^\eps=
1133: t^{-\frac{n+1}{2}+\eps}s^{-\frac{n+1}{2}-\eps}&:s>t
1134: \end{cases}.$$
1135: But then Hardy's inequality \eqref{hardy2} shows that the integral
1136: operator associated with the kernel $k^2_{z}$ is continuous in
1137: $\calH^{0,0}_p(X^\wedge)$ with operator norm bounded by $\frac{1}{\eps}$.
1138: This finishes case \eqref{kernel2a}. For the final case \eqref{kernel3} we
1139: use that
1140: $$|(1-\tilde{\chi})(t)\tilde{k}(\lambda,t,s)(1-\tilde{\chi})(s)|\le
1141: c_N |\lambda|^{-1}t^{-N}s^{-N}$$
1142: for any $N\in\nz$ uniformly in $\lambda\in\calC$ and $s,t>0$. Then
1143: \begin{align*}
1144: |k_z(t,s)|&\le c_N t^{-N}s^{-N}
1145: \int_1^\infty\varrho^{\mu\re z+n-2N}
1146: (1-\tilde{\chi})(\varrho t)(1-\tilde{\chi})(\varrho s)\,d\varrho\\
1147: &=-\mbox{$\frac{c_N}{\mu\re z+n+1-2N}$}t^{-N}s^{-N}
1148: \max\mbox{$\left(1,\frac{1}{t},\frac{1}{s}\right)$}^{\mu\re z+n+1-2N}.
1149: \end{align*}
1150: The factor in front is obviously uniformly bounded in $\re z<0$
1151: for $N$ sufficiently large. Since $\mu\re z$ is negative,
1152: \begin{align*}
1153: |(1-\tilde{\chi})(t)k_z(t,s)(1-\tilde{\chi})(s)|&\le
1154: c\,(1-\tilde{\chi})(t)t^{-N}s^{-N}(1-\tilde{\chi})(s),\\
1155: |\tilde{\chi}(t)k_z(t,s)(1-\tilde{\chi})(s)|&\le
1156: c\,\tilde{\chi}(t)t^{N-n-1}s^{-N}(1-\tilde{\chi})(s),\\
1157: |(1-\tilde{\chi})(t)k_z(t,s)\tilde{\chi}(s)|&\le
1158: c\,(1-\tilde{\chi})(t)t^{-N}s^{N-n-1}\tilde{\chi}(s).
1159: \end{align*}
1160: All these kernel functions belong to
1161: $\calH^{0,0}_p(X^\wedge)\otimes\calH^{0,0}_{p'}(X^\wedge)$ for
1162: sufficiently large $N$ and thus induce continuous operators in
1163: $\calH^{0,0}_p(X^\wedge)$. Hence it remains to investigate
1164: $\tilde{\chi}(t)k_z(t,s)\tilde{\chi}(s)$ and by symmetry even
1165: $$k(t,s)=\begin{cases}
1166: 0&:s\le t\\
1167: s^{-N}t^{N-n-1}&:s>t
1168: \end{cases}.$$
1169: Again Hardy's inequality \eqref{hardy2} shows that the associated
1170: operator is $\calH^{0,0}(X^\wedge)$-continuous.
1171: \end{proof}
1172: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1173:
1174: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1175: We consider now the second term in (\ref{twoterms}).
1176: Using a partition of unity on $X$ with any two functions supported
1177: in a single coordinate neighborhood, we can assume $X = \rz^n$ and use local
1178: symbols compactly supported in $x$. To complete the proof of theorem
1179: (\ref{bip}) we make use of the
1180: decomposition (\ref{param2}) and of the fact (see Section \ref{notation})
1181: that operators defined by means of symbols
1182: $a \in MS^{0}(\rz_+\times\rz^n\times
1183: \Gamma_{\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma}\times\rz^n)$ are bounded on
1184: $\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\rz_+\times\rz^n)$, with norm estimated in
1185: terms of the seminorms associated to $a$. We treat the
1186: homogeneous principal symbol of $g$ and the lower order part separately.
1187:
1188: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1189: \begin{lemma}\label{lower}
1190: Let $\tilde{b}\in
1191: S^{-\mu-1,\mu}(\overline{\rz}_+\times\rz^n\times
1192: \Gamma_{\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma}\times\rz^{n};\Lambda)$
1193: be compactly supported in $t$ and
1194: $$b_z(t,x,\mbox{$\frac{n+1}{2}$}-\gamma+i\tau,\xi)=
1195: t^\mu\int_\calC\lambda^z
1196: \tilde{b}(t,x,\mbox{$\frac{n+1}{2}$}-\gamma+i\tau,\xi,t^\mu\lambda)\,
1197: d\lambda.$$
1198: For $\re z<0$ this defines a symbol $b_z\in
1199: MS^{0}(\rz_+\times\rz^n\times
1200: \Gamma_{\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma}\times\rz^n)$, and the symbol estimates of
1201: $e^{-\theta|\im z|}b_z$ are uniform in $-1\le\re z<0$. Consequently,
1202: $$\|\text{\rm op}_M^{\gamma-\frac{n}{2}}(b_z)\|_{\mathcal{L}
1203: (\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\rz_+\times\rz^n))}\le
1204: c_{p} \, e^{\theta|\im z|}$$
1205: uniformly in $-1\le\re z<0$.
1206: \end{lemma}
1207: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1208: \begin{proof}
1209: Without loss of generality, we can set $\gamma = \frac{n+1}{2}$. We
1210: have to show that
1211: %
1212: \begin{equation}
1213: \label{ms0estimate}
1214: | \partial^l_{\tau} (t\partial_{t})^k
1215: \partial^\alpha_{\xi} \partial^\beta_{x}
1216: b_z(t,x,i\tau,\xi) |
1217: e^{-\theta|\im z|}\langle\tau,\xi \rangle^{l+|\alpha|}
1218: \end{equation}
1219: is uniformly bounded for $t>0$, $x \in \rz^n$, $\tau\in\rz$ and
1220: $-1\le\re z<0$. The totally characteristic derivatives in $t$
1221: can be handled very simply, observing that $t\partial_t t^\mu=\mu t^\mu$,
1222: $$t\partial_t\left(\tilde{b}
1223: (t,x,i\tau,\xi,t^\mu\lambda)\right)=
1224: (t\partial_t\tilde{b})(t,x,i\tau,\xi,t^\mu\lambda)+
1225: \mu(\lambda\partial_\lambda\tilde{b})
1226: (t,x,i\tau,\xi,t^\mu\lambda)$$
1227: and both symbols $t\partial_t\tilde{b}$ and
1228: $\lambda\partial_\lambda\tilde{b}$ are of the same type as $\tilde{b}$.
1229: Since the derivatives with respect to $x$, $\tau$ and $\xi$ can be
1230: taken under the integral sign, it suffices to assume $\tilde{b}\in
1231: S^{-\mu-1-k,\mu}(\overline{\rz}_+\times\rz^n\times\Gamma_{0}\times\rz^{n};
1232: \Lambda)$ and to show that
1233: $$|b_z(t,x,i\tau,\xi)|\le c \, e^{\theta|\im
1234: z|}\langle\tau, \xi \rangle^{-k} $$
1235: uniformly in $t>0$, $x \in \rz^n$, $\tau\in\rz$ and $-1\le\re z<0$.
1236: By hypothesis, we have
1237: $$|b_z(t,x,i\tau,\xi)|\le
1238: c \, t^\mu\int_\calC|\lambda^z|
1239: (1+\tau^2+|\xi|^{2}+|t^\mu\lambda|^{2/\mu})^{(-\mu-1-k)/2}\,d\lambda,$$
1240: and on $\calC$ we can estimate $|\lambda^z|$ from above by
1241: $\delta^{\re z} e^{\theta|\im z|}$.
1242: The transformation $\varrho=t^\mu\lambda$ yields
1243: $$|b_z(t,x,i\tau,\xi)|\le
1244: c\,\delta^{\re z} e^{\theta|\im z|}\langle\tau,\xi\rangle^{-k}
1245: \int_{t^\mu\calC}(1+|\varrho|)^{-1-\frac{1}{\mu}}\,d\varrho,$$
1246: where $t^\mu\calC$ means the path $\calC(t^\mu\delta,\theta)$. Since
1247: the support of $\tilde{b}$ is compact, we may assume without loss of generality
1248: that $0<t\le 1$. Then we obtain the estimate
1249: $$\int_{t^\mu\calC}(1+|\varrho|)^{-1-\frac{1}{\mu}}\,d\varrho\le
1250: 2\pi\delta+\int_{\calC_\Delta}(1+|\varrho|)^{-1-\frac{1}{\mu}}\,d\varrho<
1251: +\infty,$$
1252: and the statement follows, since
1253: $\delta^{\re z}$ is uniformly bounded in $-1\le\re z<0$.
1254: \end{proof}
1255: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1256:
1257:
1258: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1259: \begin{proposition}
1260: Let $\tilde{g}=\tilde{g}(t,x,z,\xi,\lambda)$ be a local symbol
1261: associated to the Mellin symbol $\tilde{g}$ of $(\lambda-A)^{-1}$ of Theorem
1262: $\ref{parametrix}.i)$ and let
1263: $$g_z(t,x,\mbox{$\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma$}+i\tau,\xi)=
1264: \sigma(t)t^\mu\int_\calC\lambda^z
1265: \tilde{g}(t,x,\mbox{$\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma$}+i\tau,\xi,t^\mu\lambda)\,d\lambda$$
1266: with some cut-off function
1267: $\sigma\in\mathcal{C}^\infty_{\textrm{comp}}([0,1[)$. For
1268: $\re z<0$ this defines a symbol
1269: $g_z\in MS^{0}(\rz_+\times\rz^n\times
1270: \Gamma_{\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma}\times\rz^n)$, and the
1271: symbol estimates
1272: of $e^{-\theta|\im z|}g_z$ are uniform in $-1\le\re z<0$. In particular,
1273: $$\|\text{\rm op}_M^{\gamma-\frac{n}{2}}(g_z)\|_{\mathcal{L}
1274: (\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\rz_+\times\rz^n))}\le
1275: c_{p} \, e^{\theta|\im z|}$$
1276: uniformly in $-1<\re z<0$.
1277: \end{proposition}
1278: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1279: \begin{proof}
1280: Without loss of generality let $\gamma =
1281: \frac{n+1}{2}$. We shall also suppress $\sigma$ from the notation and instead
1282: assume that $0<t\le1$. We can also assume $x$ confined to a compact
1283: subset of $\rz^n$. By (\ref{param2}),
1284: $$\tilde{g}(t,x,i\tau,\xi,\lambda)=
1285: \chi(|\tau,\xi|^{2} + |\lambda|^\frac{2}{\mu})
1286: (\lambda-\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(t,x,i\tau,\xi))^{-1}
1287: \quad\text{mod}\quad
1288: S^{-\mu-1,\mu}(\overline{\rz}_+\times\rz^n\times\rz^{1+n};\Lambda),$$
1289: where $\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}$ denotes a local symbol of $A$ as defined in
1290: (\ref{qtilde}). In view of Lemma \ref{lower}, we therefore may assume that
1291: \begin{align*}
1292: g_z(t,x,i\tau,\xi)&=t^\mu\int_\calC\lambda^z
1293: \chi(|\tau,\xi|^{2}+t^2|\lambda|^\frac{2}{\mu})
1294: (t^\mu\lambda-\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(t,x,i\tau,\xi))^{-1}\,d\lambda\\
1295: &=t^{-\mu
1296: z}\int_{t^\mu\calC}\varrho^z\chi(|\tau,\xi|^{2}+|\varrho|^\frac{2}{\mu})
1297: (\varrho-\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(t,x,i\tau,\xi))^{-1}\,d\varrho,
1298: \end{align*}
1299: where we have used the substitution $\varrho=t^\mu\lambda$. We have
1300: to estimate this expression as in (\ref{ms0estimate}).
1301: The factor $t^{-\mu z}$ behaves correctly, since
1302: $(t\partial_t)^k t^{-\mu z}=(-\mu z)^k t^{-\mu z}$ is uniformly bounded
1303: in $0<t\le1$ and $-1\le\re z<0$. For $(\tau,\xi) \not=0$ we have
1304: $$\text{spec}(\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(t,x,i\tau,\xi))\subset
1305: \{\lambda\in\cz\st c_1|\tau,\xi|^\mu\le|\lambda|\le
1306: c_2|\tau,\xi|^\mu
1307: \text{ and }|\text{\rm arg}\,\lambda|<\theta\}$$
1308: with suitable constants $c_1$ and $c_2$. Thus for large enough
1309: $|\tau,\xi|$ we have $\chi(|\tau,\xi|^{2}+t^{-2\mu}|\varrho|^{2})=1$
1310: and the spectrum of $\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(t,x,i\tau,\xi)$ is located to the
1311: right of the path $\calC$.
1312: By Cauchy's theorem we can then replace the path $t^\mu\calC$ by $\calC$,
1313: and obtain for large $|\tau,\xi|$
1314: $$\int_\calC\varrho^z
1315: (\varrho-\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(t,x,i\tau,\xi))^{-1}\,d\varrho=
1316: 2\pi i \, \tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(t,x,i\tau,\xi)^z.$$
1317: Then we can estimate (as in \cite{Seel2}, (2.9))
1318: $$|\partial_\tau^l(t\partial_t)^k
1319: \partial^\alpha_{\xi} \partial^\beta_{x}
1320: g_z(t,x,i\tau,\xi)|\le
1321: p(|z|)e^{\theta|\im z|}\langle\tau,\xi\rangle^{\mu\re z-l-|\alpha|}\le
1322: p(|z|)e^{\theta|\im z|}\langle\tau,\xi\rangle^{-l-|\alpha|}$$
1323: with a polynomial $p$. However, since we can replace $\theta$ by
1324: $\theta-\varepsilon$ for some
1325: $\varepsilon>0$ (as noted in the
1326: comments on conditions (E1) and (E2)), this yields the uniform
1327: symbol estimates of $g_z$ for large $|\tau,\xi|$.
1328:
1329: For small $|\tau,\xi|$, we now shall show that
1330: %
1331: \begin{equation}\label{gz1}
1332: g_{z}(t,x,i\tau,\xi)=
1333: t^{-\mu z}\int_{\Upsilon(t)}\varrho^za(t,x,\tau,\xi;\varrho)\,d\varrho,
1334: \end{equation}
1335: %
1336: where we have set
1337: $$
1338: a(t,x,\tau,\xi;\varrho) = \chi(|\tau,\xi|^{2}+|\varrho|^\frac{2}{\mu})
1339: (\varrho-\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(t,x,i\tau,\xi))^{-1} \in
1340: S^{-\mu,\mu}(\rpbar\times\rz^{n}\times\rz^{1+n};\Lambda)
1341: $$
1342: and $\Upsilon(t)$ is the path given in the following picture (with
1343: $r_{0} > 0$ to be chosen appropriately):
1344:
1345: \begin{center}
1346: \includegraphics{figures.3}
1347: \end{center}
1348:
1349: In fact, the difference of both sides from \eqref{gz1} equals
1350: %
1351: \begin{equation}\label{gz2}
1352: \alpha(r) = \int_{\calC(r,\theta)}\varrho^z
1353: a(t,x,\tau,\xi;\varrho)
1354: \,d\varrho \quad \mbox{ for $r = r_{0}$.}
1355: \end{equation}
1356: %
1357: Since, for small $|\tau, \xi|$, the spectrum of
1358: $\tilde{q}^{(\mu)}(t,x,i\tau,\xi)$ is contained in some ball of
1359: finite radius, $a(t,x,\tau,\xi;\varrho)$ is holomorphic in $\varrho$
1360: for $|\varrho| \ge r_{0}$, if $r_{0}$ is chosen large enough. Thus
1361: $\alpha(r) = \alpha(r_{0})$ for all $r \ge r_{0}$, by Cauchy's theorem.
1362: For any fixed $z$ and $(t,x,\tau,\xi)$ the integrand in \eqref{gz2}
1363: is $O(|\varrho|^{-1+ \re z})$ for $|\varrho|\to\infty$ and,
1364: on the radial part of $\calC(r)$, the integrand is
1365: $O(r^{\re z})$. Hence, $\alpha(r_{0}) = \lim\limits_{r\to +\infty}
1366: \alpha(r) = 0$, and \eqref{gz1} holds.
1367:
1368: To estimate the right-hand side of \eqref{gz1},
1369: we split the integral into four parts,
1370: which we briefly analyze separately.
1371: First of all, observe that
1372: $|\varrho^z|$ can be estimated from above by $e^{\theta|\im
1373: z|}(t^\mu\delta)^{\re z}$ on the whole path. This and the fact that
1374: $a(t,x,\tau,\xi;\varrho) \in
1375: S^{-\mu,\mu}(\rpbar\times\rz^{n}\times\rz^{1+n};\Lambda)$ are enough to get
1376: the desired estimates for the terms obtained integrating along the two arcs
1377: $\stackrel{\frown}{A_{1}A_{2}}$ and $\stackrel{\frown}{A_{3}A_{4}}$,
1378: since they can be treated with essentially the same technique we used
1379: to prove Lemma \ref{lower}. The term obtained integrating along
1380: $\overline{A_{2}A_{3}}$ is
1381: %
1382: $$
1383: b(t,x,\tau,\xi) =
1384: \int_{t^\mu \delta}^{r_{0}} (s e^{i\theta})^z
1385: a(t,x,\tau,\xi;s e^{i\theta})
1386: e^{i\theta}\,ds.
1387: $$
1388: %
1389:
1390: The derivatives with respect to $x$, $\xi$ and $\tau$ can be taken
1391: under the integral sign, so that we could again start with a symbol
1392: $a \in S^{-\mu-k,\mu}(\rpbar\times\rz^{n}\times\rz^{1+n};\Lambda)$ and prove
1393: that, for any $l$,
1394: $$
1395: | (t \partial_{t})^l b(t,x,\tau,\xi) | \le c_{l} e^{\theta |\im z|}
1396: \langle \tau,\xi \rangle^{-k}
1397: $$
1398: uniformly in $-1 < \re z < 0$. This is true for $l = 0$, as one can
1399: easily check. For $l=1$ we get
1400: $$
1401: t\partial_{t} b(t,x,\tau,\xi) =
1402: \int_{t^\mu \delta}^{r_{0}} (s e^{i\theta})^z
1403: (t\partial_{t}a)(t,x,\tau,\xi;s e^{i\theta})
1404: e^{i\theta}\,ds -
1405: \mu (t^\mu \delta e^{i\theta})^{z+1}
1406: a(t,x,\tau,\xi;t^\mu \delta e^{i\theta}),
1407: $$
1408: and this also satisfies the desired estimate. In fact, the first term is
1409: of the same kind as $b$, while for the second it suffices to use the
1410: definition of $S^{-\mu-k,\mu}(\rpbar\times\rz^{n}\times\rz^{1+n};\Lambda)$
1411: and the fact that $0<t\le1$.
1412: The result for arbitrary $l$ can be proved by induction and, obviously,
1413: the contribution obtained integrating along $\overline{A_{4}A_{1}}$ behaves
1414: in a completely similar way. This yields the desired symbol estimates for
1415: small $|\tau,\xi|$ and finishes the proof.
1416: \end{proof}
1417: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1418: \begin{remark}
1419: Let us point out that the proof of Theorem \text{\rm\ref{bip}} only makes
1420: use of
1421: assumption \text{\rm(E1)}, the structure of the resolvent
1422: \eqref{parametrix}, and the fact that $\text{\rm
1423: spec}\,A\cap\Lambda=\emptyset$. It does not use that the domain $\calD(A)$
1424: equals $\calH^{\mu,\gamma+\mu}_p(\bz)$. Therefore, Theorem
1425: \text{\rm\ref{bip}} holds
1426: true for $A$ considered on other domains, as long as \text{\rm(E1)},
1427: \eqref{parametrix}, and $\text{\rm spec}\,A\cap\Lambda=\emptyset$ are
1428: satisfied.
1429: \end{remark}
1430:
1431: Complex powers of Fuchs-type differential operators have been studied
1432: recently also by Loya \cite{Loya}. He applies Melrose's $b$-calculus
1433: and focuses on the analytic properties of the kernels in the spirit of
1434: Seeley \cite{Seel0}.
1435:
1436: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1437: In the next section we shall investigate the possible closed extensions of
1438: $A$, and use the previous remark to obtain an analogue of Theorem
1439: \ref{bip} for the maximal extension of $A$.
1440: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1441:
1442: \section{Closed extensions of cone differential operators}\label{closed}
1443: Let $A$ be a cone differential operator, which is elliptic with respect to
1444: $\gamma+\mu$ in the sense of Remark \ref{coneell}. If we consider $A$ as
1445: the unbounded operator in $\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)$ with domain
1446: $\cicomp(\intb)$, its closure $\amin=\amin^{\gamma,p}$ is given by
1447: $$\calD(\amin)=\calH^{\mu,\gamma+\mu}_p(\bz),$$
1448: and the maximal closed extension $\amax=\amax^{\gamma,p}$ by
1449: $$\calD(\amax)=\left\{u\in\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)\st
1450: Au\in\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)\right\}.$$
1451: Note that in \eqref{extension} we simply wrote $A$ instead of $\amin$.
1452: Taking into account the duality of $\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)$ and
1453: $\calH^{0,-\gamma}_{p'}(\bz)$, the following lemma is valid:
1454: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1455: \begin{lemma}\label{adjoint}
1456: If $A^t$ is the formal adjoint of $A$ with respect to the scalar product
1457: of $\calH^{0,0}_2(\bz)$, then
1458: $$(\amin^{\gamma,p})^*=(A^t)_{\max}^{-\gamma,p'},\qquad
1459: (\amax^{\gamma,p})^*=(A^t)_{\min}^{-\gamma,p'}.$$
1460: We shall write this more shortly as $\amin^*=\amax^t$ and
1461: $\amax^*=\amin^t$.
1462: \end{lemma}
1463: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1464: A proof of the above statements in case $p=2$ and $\gamma=0$ is given in
1465: \cite{Lesc}. The argument in the general case is analogous. As a simple
1466: consequence,
1467: $$(\lambda-\amax)^{-1}=[(\overline{\lambda}-\amin^t)^{-1}]^*$$
1468: whenever one of both sides exists. Since the structure of the resolvent of
1469: $A=\amin$ as given in Theorem \ref{parametrix} is invariant under passing
1470: to the adjoint, we obtain the following theorem:
1471: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1472: \begin{theorem}\label{parametrix2}
1473: If $\amin^t$ is elliptic with respect to $\Lambda_\Delta$ and
1474: $-\gamma+\mu$, then $\amax$ has no spectrum in
1475: $\Lambda_\Delta\cap\{|\lambda|>R\}$ for some $R>0$, and for large
1476: $\lambda\in\Lambda_\Delta$
1477: $$
1478: (\lambda-\amax)^{-1}=\sigma
1479: \left\{t^\mu\opm{\gamma-\frac{n}{2}}(g)(\lambda)+
1480: G(\lambda)\right\}\sigma_0+
1481: (1-\sigma)P(\lambda)(1-\sigma_1)+G_\infty(\lambda),
1482: $$
1483: where $\sigma,\sigma_0,\sigma_1\in\cicomp([0,1[)$ are cut-off functions
1484: satisfying $\sigma_1\sigma=\sigma_1$, $\sigma\sigma_0=\sigma$, and
1485: \begin{itemize}
1486: \item[i)]
1487: $g(t,z,\lambda)=\tilde{g}(t,z,t^\mu\lambda)$ with
1488: $\tilde{g}\in \ci(\rpbar,M^{-\mu,\mu}_{\calO}(X;\Lambda))$,
1489: \item[ii)] $P(\lambda)\in L^{-\mu,\mu}(\intb;\Lambda)$,
1490: \item[iii)] $G(\lambda)\in
1491: R^{-\mu,\mu}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,\gamma)$, and
1492: $G_\infty(\lambda)\in C^{-\infty}_G(\bz;\Lambda,\gamma)$.
1493: \end{itemize}
1494: \end{theorem}
1495: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1496: Proceeding exactly as in Proposition \ref{estimate} and Section
1497: \ref{boimpo}, we can prove a norm estimate for the complex powers of
1498: $\amax$:
1499: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1500: \begin{theorem}\label{bip2}
1501: Let $\amin^t$ be elliptic with respect to $-\gamma+\mu$ and
1502: $\Lambda_\Delta$, having no spectrum in the keyhole
1503: $\Lambda=\Lambda(\delta,\theta)$ except perhaps 0. Then one can define
1504: $\amax^z$ as in \eqref{atoz} and there exists a constant $c_p\ge0$ such
1505: that for all $z\in\hz$ with $|\re z|$ sufficiently small
1506: $$
1507: \|\amax^z\|_{\calL(\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz))}\le c_p\,e^{\theta|\im z|}.
1508: $$
1509: \end{theorem}
1510: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1511: Of course, it is desirable to express the ellipticity assumptions made on
1512: $\amin^t$ in the previous two theorems purely in terms of $\amax$. This
1513: can be done as follows.
1514: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1515: \begin{remark}\label{ellipticity2}
1516: If $\widehat{A}$ is the model cone operator on $X^\wedge$ associated
1517: with $A$ and $\widehat{A}_{\max}=\widehat{A}_{\max}^{\gamma,p}$ is the
1518: closed operator given by
1519: $$\calD(\widehat{A}_{\max})=\left\{u\in\calK^{0,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge)\st
1520: \widehat{A}u\in\calK^{0,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge)\right\},$$
1521: then $\amin^t$ is elliptic with respect to $-\gamma+\mu$ and
1522: $\Lambda_\Delta$ if and only if $A$ satisfies condition \text{\rm (E1)}
1523: and
1524: \begin{itemize}
1525: \item[(E$2'$)] $\widehat{A}_{\max}$ has no spectrum in
1526: $\Lambda_\Delta\setminus\{0\}$.
1527: \end{itemize}
1528: \end{remark}
1529: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1530: The previous remark holds true, since similar to Lemma \ref{adjoint},
1531: $\widehat{A}_{\min}^*=\widehat{A}_{\max}^t$ and
1532: $\widehat{A}_{\max}^*=\widehat{A}_{\min}^t$.
1533:
1534: It can be shown that $\calD(\amax)$ differs from $\calD(\amin)$ by a finite
1535: dimensional space (for the case $p=2$ see \cite{Lesc}),
1536: $$\calD(\amax)=\calD(\amin)\oplus V,\qquad\dim V<\infty.$$
1537: More precisely, the dimension of $V$ only depends on the conormal symbol of
1538: $A$,
1539: \begin{equation}\label{gohberg}
1540: \dim V=\mathop{\mbox{\Large$\sum$}}_{-2<\re z-\frac{n+1}{2}+\gamma<0}
1541: M(\sigma^\mu_M(A),z),
1542: \end{equation}
1543: where $M(h,z)$ denotes the multiplicity in $z$ in the sense of \cite{GoSi}
1544: of a function $h$, which is holomorphic in a punctured neighborhood of
1545: $z$. Moreover, $V$ consists of smooth functions of the form
1546: $$\omega(t)\mathop{\mbox{\Large$\sum$}}_{j=0}^N
1547: \mathop{\mbox{\Large$\sum$}}_{k=0}^{k_j}
1548: c_{jk}(x)t^{-p_j}(\log t)^k,
1549: \qquad c_{jk}\in\ci(X);$$
1550: the coefficients $c_{jk}$, the exponents $p_j\in\cz$
1551: ($\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma-\mu\le\re p_j<\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma$), and
1552: $k_j,N\in\nz_0$ are determined by $A$. In particular,
1553: the only closed extensions of $A$ are the operators $A_{W}$ given by
1554: $$\calD(A_W)=\calD(\amin)\oplus W,\qquad W\le V.$$
1555: In this notation, $\amin=A_{\{0\}}$ and $\amax=A_V$. Correspondingly,
1556: $$\calD(\widehat{A}_{\max})=\calD(\widehat{A}_{\min})\oplus\widehat{V},\qquad
1557: \dim\widehat{V}=\dim V,$$
1558: and all closed extensions $\widehat{A}_{\widehat{W}}$ are given by
1559: $$\calD(\widehat{A}_{\widehat{W}})=\calD(\widehat{A}_{\min})\oplus\widehat{W},\qquad
1560: \widehat{W}\le\widehat{V}.$$
1561: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1562: \begin{remark}\label{unique}
1563: If the conormal symbol $\sigma^\mu_M(A)(z)$ is invertible for all
1564: $\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma-\mu<\re z<\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma$, then $\dim
1565: V=\dim\widehat{V}=0$ by \eqref{gohberg}, and both $A$ and $\widehat{A}$
1566: have only one closed extension in $\calH^{0,\gamma}_p(\bz)$ and
1567: $\calK^{0,\gamma}_p(X^\wedge)$, respectively.
1568: \end{remark}
1569: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1570:
1571: \section{Example: The Cauchy problem for Laplacians}\label{laplace}
1572: Let $g(t)$ be a family of metrics on $X$, depending smoothly on a parameter
1573: $t\in\rpbar$, and $\Delta_X(t)$ the corresponding Laplacian on $X$. If we
1574: equip $\intb$ with a metric that coincides with $dt^2+t^2g(t)$ near $t=0$,
1575: the associated Laplacian $\Delta$ is near the boundary given by
1576: $$t^{-2}\left\{(t\partial_t)^2+(n-1+tG^{-1}(t)(\partial_tG)(t))t\partial_t
1577: +\Delta_X(t)\right\},$$
1578: where $G=(\det(g_{ij}))^{\frac{1}{2}}$ and $n=\dim X$. Hence $\Delta$ is
1579: a cone differential operator in the sense of \eqref{diffop1}. We shall
1580: prove the following theorem:
1581: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1582: \begin{theorem}\label{example}
1583: Let $\Delta$ be the Laplacian on $\intb$ in the above sense, $1<p<\infty$
1584: such that
1585: \begin{equation}\label{dimension}
1586: 2\max(p,p')-1<n=\dim\partial\bz.
1587: \end{equation}
1588: If $\gamma_p=(n+1)(\frac{1}{2}-\frac{1}{p})$, then $\Delta$ defined on
1589: $\cicomp(\intb)$ has for any $1<q<\infty$ a unique closed extension
1590: $\Delta_{p,q}$ in $\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz)$, which is given by
1591: $$\calD(\Delta_{p,q})=\calH^{2,\gamma_p+2}_q(\bz).$$
1592: Moreover, $-\Delta_{p,q}$ is elliptic with respect to $\gamma_p+2$ and
1593: any sector $\Lambda_\Delta\subset\cz\setminus\rz_+$.
1594: \end{theorem}
1595: \begin{proof}
1596: Let us set $A=-\Delta$. The rescaled symbol of $A$ is
1597: $$\tilde{\sigma}^{2}_{\psi}(A)(x,\tau,\xi)=\tau^2+|\xi|_x,$$
1598: where $|\xi|$ refers to the metric $g(0)$ on $X$. Hence $A$ satisfies the
1599: ellipticity condition (E1) for any $\Lambda_\Delta$ in question. The
1600: conormal symbol of $A$, cf.\ \eqref{conormal} and \eqref{conormal2}, is
1601: $$\sigma^2_M(A)(z)=-z^2+(n-1)z-\Delta_X(0):H^s(X)\longrightarrow
1602: H^{s-2}(X).$$
1603: If $0=\lambda_0 \ge \lambda_1 \ge \ldots$ are the eigenvalues of
1604: $\Delta_X(0)$, then $\sigma^2_M(A)(z)$ is not bijective if and only if
1605: $$z\in\left\{\mbox{$\frac{n-1}{2}\pm
1606: (\frac{(n-1)^2}{4}-\lambda_j)^{\frac{1}{2}}$}\st j\in\nz_0\right\}.$$
1607: Note that, in particular, $\sigma^2_M(A)(z)$ is invertible for all $z$
1608: with $0<\re z<n-1$, and thus by condition \eqref{dimension} for all $z$
1609: with $\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma_p-2\le\re z\le\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma_p$. This
1610: shows that $A$ is elliptic with respect to $\gamma_p+2$ in the sense of
1611: Remark \ref{coneell} and has only one closed extension
1612: $$A_{p,q}:\calH^{2,\gamma_p+2}_q(\bz)\subset\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz)
1613: \longrightarrow\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz)$$
1614: by Remark \ref{unique}. The model cone operator is
1615: $$\widehat{A}=-t^{-2}\left\{(t\partial_t)^2+(n-1)(t\partial_t)+
1616: \Delta_X(0)\right\},$$
1617: i.e.\ $-\widehat{A}$ is the Laplacian on $X^\wedge$ with respect to the
1618: metric $dt^2+t^2g(0)$. As before, $\widehat{A}$ has a unique closed
1619: extension
1620: $$\widehat{A}_{p,q}:\calK^{2,\gamma_p+2}_q(X^\wedge)\subset
1621: \calK^{0,\gamma_p}_q(X^\wedge)
1622: \longrightarrow\calK^{0,\gamma_p}_q(X^\wedge).$$
1623: Since $\widehat{A}$ is symmetric and non-negative, $\widehat{A}_{2,2}$ is
1624: self-adjoint and $\text{\rm spec}(\widehat{A}_{2,2})\subset\rpbar$. Let us
1625: show that
1626: $$\text{\rm spec}(\widehat{A}_{p,q})\subset\rpbar\qquad
1627: \forall\;1<q<\infty, \mbox{ $p$ satisfying \eqref{dimension}}.$$
1628: By Corollary 3.15 of \cite{ScSe1} (in the version for
1629: operators in the cone algebra $C^\mu(X^\wedge;(\gamma,\gamma-\mu,\Theta))$
1630: on $X^\wedge$, which is introduced in Section 8.2.5 of \cite{EgSc}), the
1631: spectrum of $\widehat{A}_{p,q}$ is independent of $1<q<\infty$. Thus we
1632: can set $q=2$ and write $\widehat{A}_p=\widehat{A}_{p,2}$. We can
1633: assume $p \ge 2$, by passing to the adjoint (i.e.,
1634: $\widehat{A}_p^*=\widehat{A}_{p'}$ and $-\gamma_p=\gamma_{p'}$).
1635: Then ${\rm ker}(\lambda-\widehat{A}_p)\subset
1636: {\rm ker}(\lambda-\widehat{A}_2) = \{ 0 \}$, since
1637: $\calK^{2,\gamma_p+2}_2(X^\wedge) \subset \calK^{2,2}_2(X^\wedge)$ in
1638: view of $\gamma_{p} \ge \gamma_{2} = 0$. The fact that
1639: $\sigma_{M}^{2}(A)(z)$ is invertible for $0 < \re z \le
1640: \frac{n+1}{2} - \gamma_{p'} - 2$ implies that
1641: \begin{equation}\label{kernel}
1642: {\rm ker}(\lambda-\widehat{A}_{p'}) \subset
1643: \calK^{2,2}_2(X^\wedge) = \calK^{2,\gamma_{2}+2}_2(X^\wedge),
1644: \hspace{0.3cm} \lambda \notin \rpbar;
1645: \end{equation}
1646: we shall give the argument below. As a consequence, we have for the
1647: adjoint
1648: $$
1649: {\rm ker}(\lambda-\widehat{A}_{p})^{*} =
1650: {\rm ker}(\bar{\lambda}-\widehat{A}_{p'})
1651: \subset
1652: {\rm ker}(\bar{\lambda}-\widehat{A}_{2}),
1653: \hspace{0.3cm} \lambda \notin \rpbar,
1654: $$
1655: hence $\lambda-\widehat{A}_{p}$ is bijective for $\lambda \notin \rpbar$.
1656:
1657: In order to see \eqref{kernel} set $\gamma^{1} =
1658: {\mathrm{min}}(\gamma_{p'}+2,0)$. The invertibility of the conormal
1659: symbol implies that $\lambda-\widehat{A}$ is elliptic with respect
1660: to $\gamma^{1}+2$. Moreover, the minimal and maximal extensions of
1661: $\lambda-\widehat{A}$, considered as unbounded operators in
1662: $\calK^{2,\gamma^{1}}_2(X^\wedge)$, coincide and
1663: their domain is $\calK^{2,\gamma^{1}+2}_2(X^\wedge)$.
1664: In particular, ${\mathcal N} =
1665: {\rm ker} \{ \lambda-\widehat{A} : \calK^{2,\gamma_{p'}+2}_2(X^\wedge)
1666: \rightarrow \calK^{2,\gamma_{p'}}_2(X^\wedge) \}$ is a subset
1667: of the maximal domain, thus it is included in
1668: $\calK^{2,\gamma^{1}+2}_2(X^\wedge)$. Iterating this process, we see
1669: that ${\mathcal N} \subset \calK^{2,\gamma^j+2}_2(X^\wedge)$ for all
1670: $\gamma^j := {\rm min}(\gamma^{j-1}+2,0) = {\rm min}(\gamma_{p'}+2j,0)$.
1671: Choosing $j$ large enough we get \eqref{kernel}.
1672: \end{proof}
1673: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1674: As a consequence of Theorem \ref{example} we get the following result on the
1675: maximal regularity for solutions of the Cauchy problem for the Laplacian:
1676: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1677: \begin{theorem}\label{cauchy}
1678: Let $\Delta$ be the Laplacian on $\intb$ as described above, $1<p<\infty$,
1679: and $2\max(p,p')<\dim\bz$. Then the Cauchy problem
1680: \begin{equation}\label{cauchy1}
1681: \dot u(\tau)-\Delta u(\tau)=f(\tau),\quad0<\tau <T;\qquad u(0)=0,
1682: \end{equation}
1683: has a unique solution
1684: $$u\in W^1_r\left([0,T],\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz)\right)\,\cap\,
1685: L_r\left([0,T],\calH^{2,\gamma_p+2}_q(\bz)\right)$$
1686: for every
1687: $$f\in L_r\left([0,T],\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz)\right),\qquad
1688: 1<q,r<\infty.$$
1689: Furthermore, $u$, $u'$, and $\Delta u$ depend continuously on $f$.
1690: \end{theorem}
1691: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1692: In fact, in Theorem \ref{example} above, we have shown that $-\Delta$ is
1693: elliptic with respect to $\gamma_p+2$ and any sector $\Lambda_\Delta$ not
1694: containing $\rpbar$. Moreover, the problem \eqref{cauchy1} is equivalent to
1695: $\dot v(\tau)-(\Delta-c)v(\tau)=e^{c\tau}f(\tau)$,
1696: $v(0)=0$, and, for sufficiently large
1697: $c$, the operator $-\Delta + c$ satisfies the assumptions of Theorem
1698: \ref{bip} for any fixed $0<\theta<\frac{\pi}{2}$ and $\delta > 0$. Then
1699: $$\|(-\Delta+c)^{iy}\|_{\calL(\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz))}\le
1700: c_{p,q}\,e^{\theta|y|}\qquad\forall\;y\in\rz,$$
1701: and Theorem \ref{cauchy}
1702: immediately follows from Theorem 3.2 of \cite{DoVe}.
1703: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1704: \begin{remark} %\begin{itemize}\item[a)]
1705:
1706: {\rm a)}\
1707: An interpolation result of Amann \cite{Amann}, Theorem {\rm III.4.10.2},
1708: shows that
1709: $$W^1_r([0,T],\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz))\cap
1710: L_r([0,T],\calH^{2,\gamma_p+2}_q(\bz))\hookrightarrow
1711: \calC([0,T], (\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz),
1712: \calH^{2,\gamma_p+2}_q(\bz))_{\frac{1}{r},r}).$$
1713: We will be interested in the special case, where $r=q$.
1714: Here, we know from \cite{CSS2}, Corollary {\rm 5.5}, that
1715: \begin{equation}\label{interpolation}
1716: (\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz),\calH^{2,\gamma_p+2}_q(\bz))_{\frac{1}{q},q}
1717: \hookrightarrow \calH^{s,\delta}_q(\bz)\qquad
1718: \text{for any }
1719: \mbox{$s<\frac{2}{q^\prime},\,\delta<\gamma_p+\frac{2}{q^\prime}$}.
1720: \end{equation}
1721: In particular, we deduce that the solution $u$ in Theorem {\rm \ref{cauchy}}
1722: is a continuous function
1723: on $[0,T]$ with values in $\calH^{s,\delta}_q(\bz)$.
1724: %\item[b)]
1725:
1726: {\rm b)}\ It follows from \cite{Amann}, Theorem {\rm III.4.10.7} and Remark
1727: {\rm III.4.10.9(c)}, that Theorem {\rm\ref{cauchy}}
1728: also holds for initial values
1729: $u(0) = u_0\in
1730: (\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz),
1731: \calH^{2,\gamma_p+2}_q(\bz))_{\frac{1}{r},r}$.
1732: %\end{itemize}
1733: \end{remark}
1734:
1735: Condition \eqref{dimension} implies that $\dim \bz>4$.
1736: Its strength lies in the fact that it ensures that $\Delta$ is essentially
1737: self-adjoint on $L_2(\bz)$ with domain $\calH^{2,2}_2(\bz)$.
1738: It was shown by Cheeger that essential selfadjointness also
1739: holds for $\dim\bz=4$. In that case,
1740: however, the domain is larger than $\calH^{2,2}_2(\bz)$. For $\dim\bz<4$, the
1741: Laplacian is {\em not} essentially self-adjoint. We then have $\Delta_{\rm min}
1742: \subset \Delta_F\subset\Delta_{\rm max}$, where $\Delta_F$ is Friedrich's
1743: extension. Hence the resolvent set on $L_2(\bz)$ of both $\Delta_{\rm min}$ and
1744: $\Delta_{\rm max}$ is empty, and Theorem \ref{cauchy} will certainly not
1745: be true for the minimal or the maximal extension.
1746:
1747:
1748:
1749:
1750: %are in that case continuous functions belonging to
1751: %$\calC([0,T],\calH^{s,\delta}_q(\bz))$.
1752:
1753: \section{Application: A quasilinear diffusion equation}\label{sec:quasi}
1754:
1755: As explained for example in the introduction of \cite{Amann}, diffusion
1756: processes are governed by a quasilinear equation of the form
1757: $$\dot u(\tau) -\dvz D(u)\grad u(\tau) =f(\tau, u), \quad 0<\tau<T.$$
1758: We now want to illustrate how the above analysis of the Laplacian allows us to solve problems of
1759: this kind for certain choices of the `diffusion matrix' $D$ and the nonlinearity
1760: $f$.
1761:
1762: To this end we shall make use of results
1763: obtained in Section 5 of \cite{CSS2} and a theorem of Cl\'ement and Li, which reads as follows.
1764:
1765: \begin{theorem}\label{ClementLi} {\em (Cl\'ement\&Li)}
1766: Let $E_0$ and $E_1$ be Banach spaces, $E_1$ densely and continuously embedded in $E_0$. For fixed $1<q<\infty$
1767: denote by $E=(E_1,E_0)_{{1}/{q},q}$ the real interpolation space.
1768:
1769: For the quasilinear equation
1770: $$\partial_\tau u(\tau) -\tilde{A}(u)u(\tau)=\tilde{f}(\tau,u)+g(\tau)
1771: \ \ on \ ]0,T],\qquad u(0)=u_0\in E,$$
1772: to have a unique solution
1773: $u\in W^1_q([0,T_1],E_0)\,\cap\,L_q([0,T_1],E_1)$
1774: for some $0<T_1\le T$, it is sufficient that there exists an open neighborhood
1775: $U\subset E$ of $u_0$ such that
1776: \begin{itemize}
1777: \item[(H1)] $\tilde{A}:U\to\calL(E_1,E_0)$ is Lipschitz continuous and $\tilde{A}(u_0)$
1778: is of maximal regularity with respect to $E_0$, $E_1$, and $q$,
1779: \item[(H2)] $\tilde{f}:{[0,T]}\times U\to E_0$ is Lipschitz continuous,
1780: \item[(H3)] $g\in L_q([0,T],E_0)$.
1781: \end{itemize}
1782: \end{theorem}
1783:
1784: In (H1), maximal regularity means that the Cauchy problem $\partial_\tau
1785: v-\tilde{A}(u_0)v=h$, $v(0)=v_0$,
1786: has a unique solution $v\in W^1_q([0,T],E_0)\,\cap\,L_q([0,T],E_1)$
1787: for every
1788: $h\in L_q([0,T],E_0)$, $v_0\in E$, with $v$, $\partial_t v$, and
1789: $\tilde{A}(u_0)v$ depending continuously on $h$ and $v_0$.
1790:
1791: In order to apply this theorem to our situation, we fix a boundary defining function $t$, which we also use as a coordinate in a neighborhood of the boundary, and choose a Riemannian metric $h_{cone}$ on $\bz$ with a conical degeneracy at the boundary.
1792: We let $\dvz$ and $\grad$ denote the divergence and gradient, respectively, with
1793: respect to $h_{cone}$. More explicitly, writing $h_{cone} = dt^2 +t^2g(t)$ in a neighborhood of $\partial \bz$ with a smooth family $g(\cdot)$ of metrics on the cross-section, we have
1794: $$\grad u = t^{-2}\Big(t^2\partial_tu\
1795: \partial_t + \sum_{i,j=1}^n g^{ij}\partial_{x_j}u\ \partial_{x_i}\Big).$$
1796: %and the inner product on $T\bz$ defined by $h_{cone}$ has the form
1797:
1798: Next, we let $a\in\ci(\rz^2)$ denote an arbitrary smooth, positive function.
1799: We shall consider the case where the diffusion matrix is a scalar multiple of the identity on $T\bz$
1800: of the form $D(u)= a(t^{c} u)I_{T\bz}$ with the above boundary defining function $t$ and an arbitrary positive constant $c$. Here, we identify the complex values of $u$ with elements of $\rz^2$. Instead of being constant, $c$ might be a smooth, real-valued function on $\bz$ which is positive and constant at the boundary.
1801:
1802: We let
1803: $E_0=\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz)$ and $E_1=\calH^{2,\gamma_p+2}_q(\bz)$ with $p$
1804: and $q$ to be determined later on.
1805: Moreover, we define the second order differential operator
1806: \begin{equation}\label{divgrad}
1807: A(u)=\text{div}(a(t^{c}u)\,\text{grad})
1808: \end{equation}
1809: %(acting on suitable spaces), where $t$ denotes a boundary defining function of $\bz$, $\eps>0$ %is arbitrary, and div, grad %refer to a conical metric on $\bz$, cf.\ Example \ref{bip2.1}.
1810:
1811: Note that the point evaluation is defined for $u\in
1812: E=(E_1,E_0)_{1/q,q}$ by the Sobolev embedding theorem provided $q>(n+3)/2$.
1813: We are going to show the following theorem:
1814: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1815: \begin{theorem}\label{quasi}
1816: Assume that $\dim \bz>4$ and let $T>0$.
1817: Then there exists a suitable choice of numbers $1<p,q<\infty$ and
1818: $0<T_1\le T$ such that the equation
1819: \begin{equation}\label{quasieq}
1820: \partial_\tau u(\tau) -A(u)u(\tau)= f(\tau,u)+g(\tau),\qquad u(0)=u_0\in E,
1821: \end{equation}
1822: has a unique solution
1823: $$u\in W^1_q([0,T_1],E_0)\,\cap\,L_q([0,T_1],E_1)$$
1824: for every initial value $u_0\in\cicomp(\intb)$,
1825: every $f\in {\rm Lip}([0,T]\times U,E_0)$,
1826: and every $g\in L_q([0,T],E_0)$.
1827: \end{theorem}
1828:
1829: As we showed in \cite{CSS2}, Corollary {\rm 5.11}, examples of functions $f$
1830: satisfying the above assumption $($for suitable $p$, $q)$ include $f(u) = |u|^\alpha$, $\alpha \in\rz$, or $f(u) = u^\alpha$, $\alpha\ge 1$ $($and hence their linear combinations$)$. A specific example
1831: here is the time-dependent Ginzburg-Landau equation
1832: $\partial_\tau u -\Delta u = u-u^3 $
1833: for initial data $u(0) =u_0\in \cicomp(\intb)$.
1834: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1835:
1836: We deduce Theorem \ref{quasi} from \ref{ClementLi}.
1837: As a preparation we rewrite equation \eqref{quasieq} as
1838: \begin{equation}\label{umf}
1839: \partial_\tau u -\tilde{A}(u)u=\tilde{f}(u)+g,\quad u(0)=u_0\in E
1840: \end{equation}
1841: with $\tilde{A}(u)=a(t^{c}u)\,\Delta$ and
1842: \begin{equation}
1843: \label{ftilde}
1844: %\nonumber\\%\qquad
1845: \tilde{f}(\tau,u)=f(\tau,u)-
1846: (\partial_1a)(t^cu)\skp{\grad(t^c\Re u)}{\grad u}-
1847: i (\partial_2a)(t^cu)\skp{\grad(t^c\Im u)}{\grad u}.
1848: \end{equation}
1849: %a^\prime(t^{2c}u)\{t^{2c}|\grad u|^2+\skp{u\grad t^{2c}}{\grad u}\},$$
1850: Here, $\skp{\cdot}{\cdot}$ is the complexified pointwise scalar product on
1851: $T\bz$ given by $h_{cone}$ and $\Delta$ is the associated Laplacian.
1852: For large $q$, solving \eqref{umf} in
1853: $W^1_q([0,T_1],E_0)\,\cap\,L_q([0,T_1],E_1)$
1854: is equivalent to solving \eqref{quasieq} in that space.
1855: In fact, for $q>n+3$ the Sobolev embeddng theorem implies that $E\subseteq
1856: C^1(\intb)$. Hence the solutions to both equations will be functions continuous
1857: in $\tau$ and continuously differentiable in $(t,x)$ so that $A(u)u+f(\tau,u)$
1858: and $\tilde A(u)u + \tilde f(\tau,u)$ coincide as distributions on $\intb$ for
1859: each $\tau$.
1860:
1861:
1862: In \cite{CSS2}, Theorem 5.7, we already have shown that $\tilde{A}$ satisfies
1863: condition (H1), provided $p<\frac{n+1}{2}$ is close to
1864: $\frac{n+1}{2}$, and $q$ is large.
1865: It is therefore sufficient to show the Lipschitz continuity of the map
1866: \begin{equation}\label{abcde}
1867: u\mapsto (\partial_1a)(t^cu)\skp{\grad(t^c\Re u)}{\grad u}:U\to E_0%,\quad
1868: %F(u)=|t^c\grad u|^2+\skp{u\grad t^{2c}}{\grad u}
1869: \end{equation}
1870: with $p$ and $q$ subject to the above condition; the other term in \eqref{ftilde} can be treated in the same way.
1871:
1872: \begin{lemma}Let $c>0$. For $p<\frac{n+1}{2}$ sufficiently close to $\frac{n+1}{2}$ and $q$ sufficiently large, the mapping
1873: $u\mapsto (\partial_1a)(t^cu):U\to L_\infty(\bz)$ is Lipschitz continuous on bounded subsets of $E$.
1874: \end{lemma}
1875:
1876: \begin{proof}In \cite{CSS2}, Lemma 5.6, it is shown that then $E\hookrightarrow
1877: t^c\calC(\bz)$,
1878: where the right-hand side denotes the space of bounded continuous functions on
1879: $\bz$, multiplied by $t^c$.
1880: Thus
1881: $$\|(\partial_1a)(t^cu_1)- (\partial_1a)(t^cu_2)\|_{L_\infty(\bz)}
1882: \le C\|t^cu_1-t^cu_2\|_{L_\infty(\bz)}\le C\|u_1-u_2\|_E,$$
1883: where the first constant $C$ is the maximum of the norm of the total derivative of $\partial_1a(s)$, as $s$ varies over the bounded set of all values of $t^cu$, $u\in U$. \end{proof}
1884:
1885: In order to finish the proof of Theorem
1886: \ref{quasi} it then is enough to establish the Lipschitz continuity of
1887: $$u\mapsto \skp{\grad(t^c\Re u)}{\grad u}= t^c\skp{\grad(\Re u)}{\grad u}+ \skp{\Re u\grad(t^c)}{\grad u}.$$
1888: We observe that the right-hand side is a linear combination of terms of the
1889: form $(D_1u)(D_2u)$, where
1890: $$D_j: \calH^{s,\delta}_q(\bz)\to\calH^{s-1,\delta-1+c/2}_q(\bz)$$
1891: is a bounded real-linear operator for all $s$, $\delta$, and $q$. In fact,
1892: close to the boundary we have the identities
1893: %%%%
1894: $$t^c \skp{\grad \Re u}{\grad u}= (t^{c/2-1} t\partial_t\Re u)(t^{c/2-1}
1895: t\partial_t u)+\sum_{i,j} g^{ij}
1896: (t^{c/2-1}\partial_{x_i}\Re u)(t^{c/2-1}\partial_{x_j} u)$$
1897: and
1898: $$ \Re u\skp{\grad t^c}{\grad u} = c\ \Re u \ t^{c-1}\partial_t
1899: u = c(t^{c/2-1}\Re
1900: u)(t^{c/2-1} t\partial_t u).
1901: $$
1902:
1903: The following rather technical proposition, in connection with Corollary \ref{lipschitz}, below, treats the Lipschitz continuity for these functions:
1904: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1905: \begin{proposition}
1906: Let $D_1$, $D_2$ be as above, $1<q<\infty$, and $s,\delta,\gamma\in\rz$ be
1907: such that $s-1>\frac{n+1}{q}$ and $\delta-1+c/2>(n+1+2\gamma)/4$.
1908: %$\gamma<\delta-1+c$; in case $\delta-1+c<\frac{n+1}{2}$ assume additionally that
1909: %$\frac{n+1-2\gamma}{n+1-2(\delta-1+\eps)}>2$.
1910: Then the map
1911: $$u\mapsto (D_1u)(D_2u):
1912: \calH^{s,\delta}_q(\bz)\longrightarrow \calH^{0,\gamma}_q(\bz)$$
1913: is Lipschitz continuous on bounded sets.
1914: \end{proposition}
1915: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1916: \begin{proof}
1917: The proof is similar to that of \cite{CSS2}, Theorem 5.15.
1918: For the convenience of the reader we provide the details. Choose a cut-off
1919: function $\omega\in \cicomp([0,1[)$ and $\psi\in \cicomp(\intb)$ with
1920: $\omega^2+\psi^2=1$. Then $(D_1u)(D_2u)=(\omega D_1u)(\omega D_2u)+(\psi
1921: D_1u)(\psi D_2u)$.
1922: We first focus on the analysis near the boundary, i.e.\ we show that
1923: $$u \mapsto (\omega D_1u)(\omega D_2u):
1924: \calH^{s,\delta}_q(\bz )\to\calH^{0,\gamma}_q(\bz)$$
1925: is Lipschitz continuous on bounded sets.
1926: %, where $\calH^{s,\delta}_q(X^\wedge)_0$ is the space of all elements in
1927: %$\calH^{s,\delta}_q(X^\wedge)$ with support in $[0,1]\times X$.
1928: %
1929: We abbreviate $u_j=D_ju$ and $v_j=D_jv$, $j=1,2$, for $u,v\in
1930: \calH^{s,\delta}_q(\bz)$. Since $u_j$ and $v_j$ have their support near
1931: $t=0$, we have according to \eqref{9.5}
1932: \begin{align*}
1933: \|u_1u_2&-v_1v_2\|_{\calH^{0,\gamma}_q(\bz)}=
1934: \|S_\gamma(u_1u_2)-S_\gamma(v_1v_2)\|_{L_q(\rz\times X)}
1935: =\|(S_{\tilde\gamma}u_1) (S_{\tilde\gamma}u_2) -( S_{\tilde\gamma}v_1)(S_{\tilde\gamma}v_2)\|_{L_{q}(\rz\times
1936: X)}\\
1937: &\le\| S_{\tilde\gamma}u_1\|_{L_{2q}(\rz\times X)}\|S_{\tilde\gamma}(u_2-v_2)\|_{L_{2q}(\rz\times X)} +
1938: \| S_{\tilde\gamma}v_2\|_{L_{2q}(\rz\times X)}\|S_{\tilde\gamma}(u_1-v_1)\|_{L_{2q}(\rz\times X)}.
1939: \end{align*}
1940: Here, we chose $\tilde \gamma = (n+1+2\gamma)/4$, and we employed H\"older's inequality. Next we use the embedding
1941: $H^{s-1}_q(\rz^{n+1})\hookrightarrow L_{2q}(\rz^{n+1})$, valid for
1942: $s-1-\frac{n+1}q \ge -\frac{n+1}{2q}$, cf.\ \cite{Triebel}, 2.8.1 Remark 2.
1943: Since we assumed that $s-1>\frac{n+1}q$
1944: we deduce that
1945: $$%\begin{e}
1946: {\| S_{\tilde\gamma}u_1\|_{L_{2q}(\rz\times X)}\le \|
1947: S_{\tilde\gamma}u_1\|_{H^{s-1}_{q}(\rz\times X)}
1948: \le C\ \|u_1\|_{\calH^{s-1,\tilde\gamma}_q(X^\wedge)}}\le C \
1949: \|u\|_{\calH^{s,\tilde\gamma+1-c/2}(\bz)}\le
1950: C \ \|u\|_{\calH^{s,\delta}_q(\bz).}
1951: $$%\end{eqnarray*}
1952: The second estimate results from the continuity of $D_1$; for the third we used that $\tilde \gamma \le
1953: \delta-1+c/2$.
1954: In the same way we estimate $ \| S_{\tilde\gamma}v_2\|_{L_{2q}(\rz\times X)}$ and finally
1955: $$\|S_{\tilde\gamma}(u_j-v_j)\|_{L_{2q}(\rz\times X)}\le C
1956: \|u-v\|_{\calH^{s,\delta}_q(\bz)},\ \ j=1,2.$$
1957: Next set $u_j=\psi D_ju$ and $v_j=\psi
1958: D_ju$ and note that the norm of
1959: $\calH^{0,\gamma}_q(\bz)$ coincides with that of $L_q(\bz)$ on their
1960: supports. Then the estimate
1961: $$\|u_1u_2-v_1v_2\|_{L_q(\bz)}\le
1962: \|u_1\|_{L_{2q}(\bz)}\|u_2-v_2\|_{L_{2q}(\bz)}
1963: +\|v_2\|_{L_{2q}(\bz)}\|u_1-v_1\|_{L_{2q}(\bz)}$$
1964: plus the fact that the norms of $u_1$, $v_2$ and $u_j-v_j$ can be estimated by
1965: the norms of $u$, $v$, and $u-v$ in $\calH^{\delta,\gamma}_q(\bz)$ completes
1966: the argument.
1967: \end{proof}
1968:
1969: %Using the embedding result \eqref{interpolation} one gets the following corollary:
1970:
1971: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1972: \begin{corollary}\label{lipschitz}
1973: Let $D_1$, $D_2$ as above. Then there exist $1<p,q<\infty$ such that the map
1974: $$u\mapsto (D_1u)(D_2u):E\longrightarrow E_0=\calH^{0,\gamma_p}_q(\bz)$$
1975: is Lipschitz continuous on bounded sets.
1976: \end{corollary}
1977: \begin{proof}
1978: We have $E\hookrightarrow\calH^{s,\delta}_q(\bz)$ for any
1979: $s<{2}/{q^\prime}$ and $\delta<\gamma_p+{2}/{q^\prime}$.
1980: Choosing $p<({n+1})/2$ close to $({n+1})/2$ and $q$ large, we have
1981: $$ \gamma_p+\frac2{q'}-1+\frac c2>
1982: \frac{n+1+2\gamma_p}4\ \ \ {\rm and } \ \ \ \frac2{q'}-1>\frac{n+1}q .$$
1983: We can then pick $s,\delta$ with $ \gamma_p+\frac2{q'}-1+\frac
1984: c2>\delta-1+\frac c2>
1985: \frac{n+1+2\gamma_p}4$ and $
1986: \frac2{q'}-1>s-1>\frac{n+1}q $
1987: and apply Lemma \ref{lipschitz}.
1988: \end{proof}
1989: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1990:
1991: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
1992: \section{Appendix: Smoothing Mellin symbols and Green symbols}
1993: \label{appendix}
1994: The structure of the resolvent (respectively parametrix) of a differential
1995: operator $A$ as given in Theorem \ref{parametrix} at the first glance does
1996: not coincide with those which you find for example in \cite{EgSc} or
1997: \cite{Gil}. This is mainly due to the fact that we consider $A$ as an
1998: unbounded operator in $\hsgpb$ whose resolvent acts continuously in
1999: $\hsgpb$, and do not consider $A$ as a bounded operator acting from
2000: $\calH^{s+\mu,\gamma+\mu}_p(\bz)$ to $\hsgpb$. We shall use this appendix
2001: to clarify this point.
2002:
2003: Let us begin with a discussion of so-called {\em Green symbols}. Let us set
2004: $$\calK^{s,\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu=
2005: \spk{t}^\nu\calK^{s,\gamma}_2(X^\wedge)$$
2006: for real $\nu$, cf.\ Definition \ref{ksgp}. These are Hilbert spaces,
2007: and $\calK^{-s,-\gamma}(X^\wedge)^{-\nu}$ can be identified with the
2008: dual space of $\calK^{s,\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu$ via the scalar-product
2009: in $\calK^{0,0}(X^\wedge)$. The operators $\kappa_\varrho$ defined in
2010: \eqref{kappa} extend by continuity to operators in
2011: $\calL(\calK^{s,\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu)$.
2012:
2013: For $\mu\in\rz$ and $d>0$ we let
2014: $$S^{\mu,d}(\Lambda;\calK^{s,\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu,
2015: \calK^{s',\gamma'}(X^\wedge)^{\nu'})$$
2016: denote the space of all smooth functions
2017: $a\in\ci(\Lambda,\calL(\calK^{s,\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu,
2018: \calK^{s',\gamma'}(X^\wedge)^{\nu'}))$ satisfying
2019: $$\|\kappa_{\spk{\lambda}^{-1/d}}\{\partial_\lambda^\alpha a(\lambda)\}
2020: \kappa_{\spk{\lambda}^{1/d}}\|\le
2021: c_\alpha\,\spk{\lambda}^{\frac{\mu}{d}-|\alpha|}$$
2022: uniformly for $\lambda\in\Lambda$ and all multiindices $\alpha$.
2023:
2024: We call a smooth function
2025: $b\in\ci(\Lambda_\Delta\setminus0,\calL(\calK^{s,\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu,
2026: \calK^{s',\gamma'}(X^\wedge)^{\nu'}))$
2027: {\em twisted homogeneous} of degree $(\mu,d)$ if it fulfills
2028: $$b(\varrho^d\lambda)=\varrho^\mu\,\kappa_\varrho\,b(\lambda)\,
2029: \kappa_\varrho^{-1}$$
2030: for all $\lambda$ and $\varrho>0$. Note that multiplying $b$ with a
2031: 0-excision function (supported sufficiently far away from zero) yields a
2032: symbol in $S^{\mu,d}(\Lambda;\calK^{s,\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu,
2033: \calK^{s',\gamma'}(X^\wedge)^{\nu'})$. The space
2034: $$S^{\mu,d}_{cl}(\Lambda;\calK^{s,\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu,
2035: \calK^{s',\gamma'}(X^\wedge)^{\nu'})$$
2036: then consists of all symbols from
2037: $S^{\mu,d}(\Lambda;\calK^{s,\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu,
2038: \calK^{s',\gamma'}(X^\wedge)^{\nu'})$, that have asymptotic expansions
2039: $a\sim\sum\limits_{k=0}^\infty a^{(\mu-j,d)}$ with functions
2040: $a^{(\mu-j,d)}$ that are twisted homogeneous of degree $(\mu-j,d)$.
2041: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2042: \begin{definition}\label{green3}
2043: Let $\gamma,\gamma'\in\rz$. If $g\in
2044: S^{\mu,d}(\Lambda;\calK^{0,\gamma}(X^\wedge),\calK^{0,\gamma'}(X^\wedge))$,
2045: we can form the adjoint symbol $g^*\in
2046: S^{\mu,d}(\Lambda;\calK^{0,-\gamma'}(X^\wedge),\calK^{0,-\gamma}(X^\wedge))$
2047: by taking pointwise the adjoint with respect to the
2048: $\calK^{0,0}(X^\wedge)$-scalar product. We then call $g$ a Green symbol if
2049: additionally there exists an $\eps=\eps(g)>0$, such that
2050: \begin{align*}
2051: g&\in\mathop{\mbox{\Large$\cap$}}_{s,s',\nu,\nu'}
2052: S^{\mu,d}_{cl}(\Lambda;\calK^{s,\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu,
2053: \calK^{s',\gamma'+\eps}(X^\wedge)^{\nu'}), \\
2054: g^*&\in\mathop{\mbox{\Large$\cap$}}_{s,s',\nu,\nu'}
2055: S^{\mu,d}_{cl}(\Lambda;\calK^{s,-\gamma'}(X^\wedge)^\nu,
2056: \calK^{s',-\gamma+\eps}(X^\wedge)^{\nu'}).
2057: \end{align*}
2058: The entity of all such Green symbols we shall denote by
2059: $$R^{\mu,d}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,(\gamma,\gamma')).$$
2060: \end{definition}
2061: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2062: It is a trivial fact that if $\gamma'\ge\gamma''$, then
2063: $$R^{\mu,d}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,(\gamma,\gamma'))\subset
2064: R^{\mu,d}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,(\gamma,\gamma'')).$$
2065: Moreover it can be shown, cf.\ \cite{Seil}, that in case
2066: $\gamma=\gamma'$ both Definitions \ref{green3} and \ref{green2} yield the
2067: same symbols respectively operator-families. In other words, Green symbols
2068: can either be characterized by their mapping properties in Sobolev spaces
2069: or by the structure of their kernels.
2070:
2071: Let us now return to the resolvent, cf.\ Theorem \ref{parametrix}. If you
2072: compare with \cite{Gil}, you will find that there `our' term $G(\lambda)$
2073: is replaced by a term of the form $G_0(\lambda)+M(\lambda)$, where
2074: $$G_0(\lambda)\in
2075: R^{-\mu,\mu}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,(\gamma,\gamma+\mu)),$$
2076: is a Green symbol and
2077: $$M(\lambda)=\omega(t[\lambda]^{\frac{1}{\mu}})\,t^\mu\,
2078: \opm{\gamma-\frac{n}{2}}(h)\,\omega_0(t[\lambda]^{\frac{1}{\mu}})$$
2079: for some cut-off functions $\omega,\omega_0\in\cicomp(\rpbar)$, and a
2080: meromorphic Mellin symbol
2081: $$h\in M^{-\infty}_P(X).$$
2082: The last notation roughly means that $h$ is a meromorphic function on the
2083: complex plane with values in $L^{-\infty}(X)$,
2084: the smoothing pseudodifferential operators on
2085: $X$, having only finitely many poles in any vertical
2086: strip $|\re z|\le\beta$, $\beta>0$, and the Laurent coefficients of the
2087: principal part of $h$ at any such pole are finite rank operators. For more
2088: details see \cite{EgSc}, Section 8.1.2. By the above observation,
2089: $$G_0(\lambda)\in
2090: R^{-\mu,\mu}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,\gamma).$$
2091: The same is also true for $M$, since it is easy to see that
2092: $$M\in
2093: S^{-\mu,\mu}_{cl}(\Lambda;\calK^{s,\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu,
2094: \calK^{s',\gamma+\mu}(X^\wedge)^{\nu'})$$
2095: for all $s,s',\nu,\nu'$ (note that $M$ is twisted homogeneous for large
2096: $|\lambda|$). Observe that $\mu \ge 1$ since we are dealing with
2097: differential operators of positive order. The adjoint symbol is given by
2098: $$M^*(\lambda)=\omega_0(t[\lambda]^{\frac{1}{\mu}})\,t^\mu\,
2099: \opm{-\gamma_+-\frac{n}{2}}(h^*)\,\omega(t[\lambda]^{\frac{1}{\mu}})\;+\;
2100: G_1(\lambda)$$
2101: where $h^*(z)=h(n+1-\mu-\overline{z})^*$ and
2102: $$G_1(\lambda)=t^\mu\,\omega_0(t[\lambda]^{\frac{1}{\mu}})\,
2103: \Big\{\opm{-\gamma-\mu-\frac{n}{2}}(h^*)-
2104: \opm{-\gamma_+-\frac{n}{2}}(h^*)\Big\}\,
2105: \omega(t[\lambda]^{\frac{1}{\mu}}).$$
2106: Here, $\gamma_+=\gamma$ if $h^*$ has no pole on the line
2107: $\re z=\frac{n+1}{2}+\gamma$, otherwise $\gamma_+>\gamma$ sufficiently
2108: close to $\gamma$. However, it is known, cf.\ \cite{EgSc}, Section
2109: 8.1.2, Theorem 6, that then
2110: $G_1\in R^{-\mu,\mu}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,(-\gamma, -\gamma))$ and
2111: $$M^*-G_1\in
2112: S^{-\mu,\mu}_{cl}(\Lambda;\calK^{s,-\gamma}(X^\wedge)^\nu,
2113: \calK^{s',-\gamma_++\mu}(X^\wedge)^{\nu'})$$
2114: for all $s,s',\nu,\nu'$. All together this shows that
2115: $M\in R^{-\mu,\mu}_G(X^\wedge;\Lambda,\gamma)$ and hence justifies the
2116: description of the resolvent we have given in Theorem \ref{parametrix}.
2117: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2118:
2119: \section{Notation}\label{notation}
2120: For $0\not=\lambda\in\cz$ we let $\arg\lambda$ be the unique number
2121: $-\pi\le\arg\lambda<\pi$ such that $\lambda=|\lambda|e^{i\arg\lambda}$. For
2122: $z\in\cz$ we then set
2123: $$
2124: \lambda^z=|\lambda|^ze^{iz\arg\lambda}.
2125: $$
2126: For fixed $z$ this is a holomorphic function in
2127: $\lambda\in\cz\setminus\{\lambda\in\rz\st\lambda\le0\}$.
2128:
2129: For $\delta>0$ and $0<\theta<\pi$ we let $\Lambda=\Lambda(\delta,\theta)$
2130: denote the closed {\em keyhole region}
2131: $$
2132: \Lambda(\delta,\theta)=\{\lambda\in\cz\st|\lambda|\le\delta
2133: \text{ or }|\arg\lambda|\ge\theta\}
2134: $$
2135: and $\calC=\calC(\delta,\theta)$ its parametrized boundary,
2136: $\calC=\calC_1\cup\calC_2\cup\calC_3$, with
2137: \begin{equation}\label{not3}
2138: \calC_1(t)=te^{i\theta},\;-\infty<t\le\delta;\quad
2139: \calC_2(t)=\delta e^{-i t},\;-\theta\le t\le\theta;\quad
2140: \calC_3(t)=te^{-i\theta},\;\delta\le t<\infty.
2141: \end{equation}
2142: We let $\Lambda_\Delta=\Lambda_\Delta(\theta)$ denote the closed sector
2143: contained in $\Lambda$,
2144: \begin{equation}\label{not4}
2145: \Lambda_\Delta(\theta)=\{\lambda\in\cz\st|\arg\lambda|\ge\theta\}\cup\{0\}
2146: \end{equation}
2147: and, similar to \eqref{not3}, $\calC_\Delta$ its parametrized boundary.
2148:
2149: \begin{center}
2150: \includegraphics{figures.1}
2151: \end{center}
2152:
2153: We now recall various spaces of pseudodifferential symbols and operators we
2154: shall use throughout this paper. In the following we let $\mu,d\in\rz$ and
2155: $d$ positive.
2156:
2157: We call a function smooth on $\Lambda$, if it is the restriction to
2158: $\Lambda$ of a function which is smooth in an open neighborhood of
2159: $\Lambda$. If $E$ is a Fr\'echet space, then
2160: \begin{equation}\label{not5}
2161: \calS(\Lambda,E)
2162: \end{equation}
2163: consists of all $u\in\ci(\Lambda,E)$ satisfying
2164: $$\sup_{\lambda\in\Lambda}\trinorm{\partial^\gamma_\lambda u(\lambda)}\,
2165: |\lambda|^N<\infty$$
2166: for any multi-index $\gamma\in\nz_0^2$, any $N\in\nz$, and any continuous
2167: semi-norm $\trinorm{\cdot}$ of $E$. The space of symbols of order $\mu$ and
2168: anisotropy $d$,
2169: $$
2170: S^{\mu,d}(\rz^m_y\times\rz^n_\eta;\Lambda),
2171: $$
2172: consists of all functions (possibly matrix-valued)
2173: $a\in\ci(\rz^m\times\rz^n\times\Lambda)$, which
2174: fulfill the estimates
2175: $$|\partial_y^\beta\partial_\eta^\alpha\partial_\lambda^\gamma
2176: a(y,\eta,\lambda)|\le c_{\alpha\beta\gamma}\,
2177: \spk{\eta,\lambda}^{\mu-|\alpha|-d|\gamma|}_d,\qquad
2178: \spk{\eta,\lambda}_d=(1+|\eta|^2+|\lambda|^{\frac{2}{d}})^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
2179: for any multi-indices $\alpha$, $\beta$, and $\gamma$. Further we set
2180: $$
2181: S^{\mu,d}(\rpbar\times\rz^{m-1}\times\rz^n;\Lambda)=
2182: S^{\mu,d}(\rz^m\times\rz^n;\Lambda)|_{\rpbar\times\rz^{m-1}\times
2183: \rz^n\times\Lambda}.
2184: $$
2185: For a compact manifold $X$, $\text{\rm dim}\,X=n$, the space
2186: \begin{equation}\label{not6}
2187: L^{\mu,d}(X;\Lambda)
2188: \end{equation}
2189: of parameter-dependent pseudodifferential operators of order $\mu$ and
2190: anisotropy $d$ (acting on sections of a vector bundle) consists
2191: of all operator-families, which are obtained as a
2192: sum (according to a covering of $X$ by coordinate neighborhoods) of local
2193: operators with symbols from $S^{\mu,d}(\rz^n\times\rz^n;\Lambda)$
2194: and a smoothing remainder from
2195: $L^{-\infty}(X;\Lambda):=\calS(\Lambda,L^{-\infty}(X))$. In the last
2196: definition, $L^{-\infty}(X)$ is the usual space of smoothing operators on
2197: $X$, i.e.\ the space of all integral operators having a smooth kernel.
2198:
2199: If $\gamma \in \rz$ and $\Gamma_{\gamma}$ denotes the vertical line in
2200: the complex plane
2201: $$
2202: \Gamma_{\gamma} = \{ z \in \cz \; | \; \re z = \gamma \},
2203: $$
2204: the space of symbols
2205: $$
2206: MS^{\mu}(\rz_+\times\rz^n\times
2207: \Gamma_{\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma}\times\rz^n)
2208: $$
2209: consists of all functions $a\in\ci(\rz_+\times\rz^n\times
2210: \Gamma_{\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma}\times\rz^n)$ which satisfy the estimates
2211: $$|\partial^l_{\tau} (t\partial_{t})^k
2212: \partial^\alpha_{\xi} \partial^\beta_{x}
2213: a(t,x,\mbox{$\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma$}+i\tau,\xi) |
2214: \le c_{kl\alpha\beta} \langle\tau,\xi \rangle^{\mu-l-|\alpha|},
2215: \qquad\langle\tau,\xi \rangle = (1 + \tau^{2} + |\xi|^{2})^{1/2}.$$
2216: The associated (Fourier-Mellin) pseudodifferential operator is
2217: $$[\opm{\gamma-\frac{n}{2}}(a)u](t,x)=
2218: \int_{\re z=\frac{n+1}{2}-\gamma}t^{-z}\op(a)(t,z)(\calM u)(z,x)\,
2219: \dbar z,
2220: \qquad u \in \cicomp(\rz_{+}\times \rz^n),$$
2221: where $\op$ is the standard Fourier pseudodifferential operator on $\rz^n$,
2222: and $\calM$ the Mellin transform
2223: $$(\calM v)(z)=\int_0^\infty t^z v(t)\,\mbox{$\frac{dt}{t}$}.$$
2224: The operator $\opm{\gamma-\frac{n}{2}}(a)$ induces continuous mappings on the associated Mellin Sobolev spaces
2225: $$\opm{\gamma-\frac{n}{2}}(a):
2226: \calH^{s,\gamma}_q(\rz_+\times\rz^n)\to\calH^{s-\mu,\gamma}_q(\rz_+\times\rz^n),$$
2227: $s\in\rz$, $1<q<\infty$, where
2228: \begin{equation}\label{9.5}
2229: \calH^{s,\gamma}_q(\rz_+\times\rz^n):=\big\{u\st
2230: (Su)(t,x) :=
2231: e^{(\frac{n}{2}-\gamma)t}u(e^{-t},x)\in H^s_q(\rz^{1+n}_{(r,x)})\big\}.
2232: \end{equation}
2233: The continuity is due to the fact that a Mellin pseudodifferential
2234: operator on $\rz_{+} \times \rz^n$ transforms, under conjugation by
2235: $S$, to a usual pseudodifferential operator on $\rz^{1+n}$, and then
2236: the Calder\'on-Vaillancourt theorem applies.
2237:
2238: Using local coordiantes, we obtain the spaces $ \calH^{s,\gamma}_q(X^\wedge)$
2239: for an arbitrary closed manifold $X$ with the corresponding map $S_\gamma :
2240: \calH^{s,\gamma}_q(X^\wedge)\to H^s_q(\rz\times X).$
2241:
2242: The space $ \calH^{s,\gamma}_q(\bz)$ consists of all $u\in H^{s}_{q,{\rm loc}
2243: }({\rm int}\,\bz)$ such that
2244: $\omega u\in \calH^{s,\gamma}_q(X^\wedge)$ for a cut-off function $\omega$.
2245: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2246: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2247: %\addcontentsline{toc}{section}{References}
2248:
2249: %%%%%%% Sandro and Elmar 24.04.01
2250: \setlength{\parskip}{0pt}
2251: %%%%%%%
2252:
2253: \begin{small}
2254: \bibliographystyle{amsalpha}
2255: \begin{thebibliography}{99}
2256:
2257: \bibitem{Agmo}
2258: S.\ Agmon.
2259: On the eigenfunctions and on the eigenvalues of general elliptic boundary
2260: value problems.
2261: {\em Comm.\ Pure Appl.\ Math.} {\bf 15}: 119-147, 1962.
2262:
2263:
2264: \bibitem{Amann} H.\ Amann. {\em Linear and Quasilinear Parabolic Problems},
2265: volume I, Monographs in Mathematics {\bf 89}, Birkh"auser 1995
2266:
2267: \bibitem{AHS}
2268: H.~Amann, M.~Hieber, G.~Simonett.
2269: Bounded {$H_\infty$}-calculus for elliptic operators.
2270: {\em Differential Integral Equations} {\bf 7}: 613-653, 1994.
2271:
2272:
2273: \bibitem{ClLi}
2274: P.~Cl\'ement, S.~Li.
2275: Abstract parabolic quasilinear equations and applications to a
2276: groundwater flow problem.
2277: {\em Adv. Math. Sc. Appl.} {\bf 3}: 17-32, 1993/94.
2278:
2279:
2280: \bibitem{CSS2}
2281: S.\ Coriasco, E.\ Schrohe, J.\ Seiler.
2282: Differential operators on conic manifolds: Maximal regularity and parabolic equations.
2283: Preprint math.AP/0201184. %To appear in {\em Bull.\ Soc.\ Roy.\ Sci.\ Li\`ege}.
2284:
2285: \bibitem{DoVe}
2286: G.\ Dore, A.\ Venni.
2287: On the closedness of the sum of two closed operators.
2288: {\em Math.\ Z.} {\bf 196}: 189-201, 1987.
2289:
2290: \bibitem{Duon}
2291: X.T.\ Duong.
2292: $H_\infty$ functional calculus of elliptic operators with $C^\infty$
2293: coefficients on $L^p$ spaces of smooth domains.
2294: {\em J.\ Austral.\ Math.\ Soc.} {\bf48}: 113-123, 1990.
2295:
2296: \bibitem{EgSc}
2297: J.\ Egorov, B.-W.\ Schulze.
2298: {\em Pseudo-differential Operators, Singularities, Applications}.
2299: Birkh\"auser Verlag, 1997.
2300:
2301: \bibitem{Gil}
2302: J.B.\ Gil.
2303: Heat trace asymptotics for cone differential operators.
2304: PhD-thesis, Department of Mathematics, University of Potsdam, 1998.
2305:
2306: \bibitem{GoSi}
2307: I.\ C.\ Gohberg, E.\ I.\ Sigal.
2308: An operator generalization of the logarithmic residue theorem and the
2309: theorem of Rouch\'{e}.
2310: {\em Math.\ USSR Sbornik} {\bf 13}: 603-625, 1971.
2311:
2312: \bibitem{GSS}
2313: J.B.\ Gil, B.-W.\ Schulze, J.\ Seiler.
2314: Cone pseudodifferential operators in the edge symbolic calculus.
2315: {\em Osaka J.\ Math.} {\bf 37}: 221-260, 2000.
2316:
2317: \bibitem{Lesc}
2318: M.\ Lesch.
2319: {\em Operators of Fuchs Type, Conical Singularities, and Asymptotic
2320: Methods}.
2321: Teubner-Texte Math.\ {\bf 136}, Teubner-Verlag, 1997.
2322:
2323: \bibitem{Loya}
2324: P.\ Loya.
2325: Complex powers of differential operators on manifolds with conical
2326: singularities.
2327: Preprint, 2001.
2328:
2329: \bibitem{Mci}
2330: A.\ McIntosh. Operators which have an $H_\infty$-calculus.
2331: In B.\ Jeffries et al.\ (eds.),
2332: {\em Miniconference on Operator Theory and Partial Differential Equations},
2333: Proc.\ Center Math.\ Anal.\ A.N.U.\ {\bf 14}, 1986.
2334:
2335: \bibitem{PrSo2}
2336: J.\ Pr\"uss, H.\ Sohr.
2337: On operators with bounded imaginary powers in Banach spaces.
2338: {\em Math.\ Z.} {\bf 203}, no. 3: 429-452, 1990.
2339:
2340: \bibitem{PrSo}
2341: J.\ Pr\"uss, H.\ Sohr.
2342: Imaginary powers of elliptic second order differential operators in
2343: $L^p$-spaces.
2344: {\em Hiroshima Math.\ J.} {\bf 23}: 161-192, 1993.
2345:
2346: \bibitem{ScSc}
2347: E.\ Schrohe, B.-W.\ Schulze.
2348: Boundary value problems in Boutet de Monvel's calculus for manifolds
2349: with conical singularities II.
2350: In M. Demuth, E. Schrohe, B.-W. Schulze (eds.),
2351: {\em Boundary Value Problems, Schr\"odinger Operators, Deformation
2352: Quantization}, Math. Topics, Vol. 8: Advances in Part. Diff. Equ.,
2353: Akademie-Verlag, 1995.
2354:
2355: \bibitem{ScSe1}
2356: E.\ Schrohe, J.\ Seiler.
2357: Ellipticity and invertibility in the cone algebra on $L_p$-Sobolev spaces.
2358: {\em Integr.\ Equ.\ Oper.\ Theory} {\bf 41}: 93-114, 2001.
2359:
2360: \bibitem{Schu1}
2361: B.-W.\ Schulze.
2362: The Mellin pseudo-differential calculus on manifolds with corners.
2363: In H.\ Triebel et al.\ (eds.),
2364: {\em Symposium `Analysis on Manifolds with Singularities', Breitenbrunn
2365: 1990},
2366: Teubner-Texte Math.\ {\bf 131}, Teubner-Verlag, 1992.
2367:
2368: \bibitem{Schu2}
2369: B.-W.\ Schulze.
2370: {\em Pseudo-differential Operators on Manifolds with Singularities}.
2371: North-Holland, 1991.
2372:
2373: \bibitem{Seel0}
2374: R.\ Seeley.
2375: Complex powers of an elliptic operator.
2376: In {\em Amer.\ Math.\ Soc.\ Proc.\ Symp.\ Pure Math.}, volume~{\bf 10}:
2377: 288-307, 1967.
2378:
2379: \bibitem{Seel1}
2380: R.\ Seeley.
2381: The resolvent of an elliptic boundary problem.
2382: {\em Amer.\ J.\ Math.} {\bf 91}: 889-920, 1969.
2383:
2384: \bibitem{Seel2}
2385: R.\ Seeley.
2386: Norms and domains of the complex powers $A_B^z$.
2387: {\em Amer.\ J.\ Math.} {\bf 93}: 299-309, 1971.
2388:
2389: \bibitem{Seil}
2390: J.\ Seiler.
2391: The cone algebra and a kernel characterization of Green operators.
2392: In J.B.\ Gil et al.\ (eds.),
2393: {\em Approaches to Singular Analysis},
2394: Birkh\"auser Verlag, 1-29, 2001.
2395:
2396: \bibitem{Sohr}
2397: S.\ Sohr.
2398: {\em Beschr\"ankter $H^\infty$-Funktionalkalk\"ul f\"ur elliptische
2399: Randwertprobleme}.
2400: PhD-thesis, Universit\"at Kassel, 1999.
2401:
2402: \bibitem{SoTh}
2403: H.\ Sohr, G.\ Th\"ater.
2404: Imaginary powers of second order differential operators and
2405: $L^q$-{H}elmholtz decomposition in the infinite cylinder.
2406: {\em Math.\ Ann.} {\bf 311}: 577-602, 1998.
2407:
2408: \bibitem{StWe}
2409: E.M.\ Stein, G.\ Weiss.
2410: {\em Introduction to Fourier Analysis on Euclidean Spaces}.
2411: Princeton University Press, 1971.
2412:
2413: \bibitem{Triebel}
2414: H.\ Triebel.
2415: {\em Interpolation Theory, Function Spaces, Differential Operators}. 2nd
2416: Edition. Johann Ambrosius Barth Verlag, Heidelberg 1995.
2417:
2418:
2419:
2420: \end{thebibliography}
2421: \end{small}
2422:
2423: \end{document}
2424:
2425: