, ,

The present article is a continuation of the investigation of resolvents of elliptic operators on conic manifolds from [6, 7] to the case of manifolds with boundary and realizations of operators under boundary conditions. Our principal focus of interest are resolvents of boundary value problems satisfying a parameter-dependent ellipticity condition that resembles the classical Shapiro-Lopatinsky condition.

While the study of operators on a conic manifold without boundary is mainly motivated by questions from spectral theory and geometric analysis, the study of boundary value problems has in addition a wide range of applications in partial differential equations. In particular, results about the structure and growth of resolvents of operators with respect to the spectral parameter have immediate consequences as regards the existence, uniqueness, and maximal regularity of solutions to parabolic linear and semilinear equations.

We begin this paper with a brief discussion on manifolds with boundary and conical singularities. We recall the definitions and some properties of totally characteristic and cone differential operators, and give a short description of their symbols. We consider boundary value problems for both of these operator classes and give the suitable definition of parameter-dependent ellipticity.

In case of boundary value problems for totally characteristic operators, there is just one realization of an elliptic operator, and the

b

-ellipticity with parameter in a sector

Λ \subset C

already implies that

Λ

is a sector of minimal growth for this realization.

The situation of boundary value problems for cone operators is completely different.

There is a variety of domains of realizations (cf. [14] , [8] , [3] ), each of which is characterized by the asymptotic behavior of its elements near the singularities, and

c

-ellipticity with parameter in a sector

Λ

is not sufficient to insure that

Λ

is a sector of minimal growth for a given domain. Analogously to the boundaryless case in [6, 7] , an additional spectral condition needs to be required for a model boundary value problem on the model cone with an associated domain. The model boundary value problem is obtained by “freezing the coefficients” at the singularities, and the additional spectral condition can be regarded as a kind of Shapiro-Lopatinsky condition, but associated with the “singular boundary”, coming from blowing up the conical points.

In the Sections 4 – 6 we discuss the domains of realizations of parameter-dependent elliptic boundary value problems for cone operators, the associated model boundary value problem, and the link between these two.

As in the boundaryless case, an essential component of this paper is the parametrix construction that we perform in Section 7 . Our approach makes use of Boutet de Monvel's calculus away from the singularities (cf. [9] , [23] ), several aspects of pseudodifferential boundary value problems on conic manifolds without parameters (cf. [21] ), and, near the singularities, we employ some techniques from Schulze's edge-calculus as studied in the monograph [11] .

Finally, in Section 8 , we use our parametrix to describe the pseudodifferential structure of the resolvent and prove in Theorem 8.1 the existence of sectors of minimal growth for realizations of boundary value problems for cone operators under natural ellipticity conditions, the main result of this note.

While some components of this work are parallel to the analysis on conic manifolds without boundary (cf. [6, 7] ), managing the boundary conditions requires special care and forces the use of a more elaborated machinery. Acknowledgement : This article emerged from a collaboration with Juan Gil (Penn State Altoona) and Gerardo Mendoza (Temple University, Philadelphia). The author wishes to express his gratitude for many invaluable discussions on the subject of this paper.

Throughout this article, let

Λ = {z = r e^{i θ}; r \geq 0, | θ - θ_{0} | \leq ɛ}

with

θ_{0} \in R

and

ɛ > 0

be a closed sector in

C

Definition 1.1. Let

H

be a Hilbert space and

A : D (A) \subset H \to H

be unbounded, densely defined, and closed, i.e.

D (A)

is complete in the graph norm

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥_{A} = ∥ u ∥_{H} + ∥ A u ∥_{H} . \end{matrix}

(1.2)

We call

Λ

a sector of minimal growth for the operator

A

(with domain

D (A)

) if

A - λ : D (A) \to H

is bijective for large

| λ | > 0

Λ

, and if the following equivalent norm estimates for the resolvent

(A - λ)^{- 1} : H \to D (A)

are satisfied:

i) $∥ (A - λ)^{- 1} ∥_{L (H)} = O (| λ |^{- 1})$ as $| λ | \to \infty$ .
ii) $∥ (A - λ)^{- 1} ∥_{L (H, D (A))} = O (1)$ as $| λ | \to \infty$ .

2 Manifolds with boundary and conical singularities

Definition 2.1. A compact conic manifold with boundary is a second countable compact Hausdorff topological space

M_{sing}

such that there exists a finite subset

S

with the following properties:

a) $M_{sing} \ S$ is a smooth manifold with boundary.
b) Every $s \in S$ has a neighborhood $U (s) \subseteq M_{sing}$ which is homeomorphic to a neighborhood $\tilde{U}$ of $\tilde{s} = ({0} \times \bar{Y}) / ({0} \times \bar{Y})$ in $({\bar{R}}_{+} \times \bar{Y}) / ({0} \times \bar{Y})$ , where $\bar{Y}$ is a compact smooth manifold with boundary, and the homeomorphism restricts to a diffeomorphism $U (s) \ {s} \sim = \tilde{U} \ {\tilde{s}}$ .

The set

S

is the singular set in

M_{sing}

, the elements of

S

are called conical points.

As in the boundaryless case, analysis on conic manifolds with boundary is performed away from the conical points. Consequently, by eventually passing to

M_{sing} / S

, we can and will assume henceforth that

M_{sing}

has only one conical point

s

. Note that the manifold

\bar{Y}

in Definition 2.1 is not assumed to be connected.

It is evident from the definition that

N_{sing}

, the boundary of

M_{sing}

, is a compact conic manifold without boundary and conical point

s

Definition 2.2. A cone structure on

M_{sing}

is a maximal atlas consisting of a differential structure for the smooth manifold with boundary

M_{sing} \ {s}

, as well as coordinate neighborhoods of the conical point

s

of the form

U (s)

from Definition 2.1 , where away from

s

the coordinate changes are

C^{\infty}

-diffeomorphisms, and the coordinate change

R_{+} \times \bar{Y} \supseteq \tilde{U} \ {\tilde{s}} \sim = \tilde{V} \ {\tilde{s}} \subseteq R_{+} \times \bar{Y}

of any two charts near the conical point

s

extends to a

C^{\infty}

-mapping

((- \infty, 0] \times \bar{Y}) \cup (\tilde{U} \ {\tilde{s}}) ⟶ ((- \infty, 0] \times \bar{Y}) \cup (\tilde{V} \ {\tilde{s}})

between these open subsets of

R \times \bar{Y}

. Note, in particular, that by continuity the cocycle property of coordinate changes near

s

is preserved up to the origin, i.e., up to

{0} \times \bar{Y}

Any cone structure on

M_{sing}

gives rise to a unique cone structure on the boundary

N_{sing}

. We will always assume that a cone structure on

M_{sing}

is fixed, and the boundary will be given the induced cone structure.

Let

\bar{M}

be the compact space obtained from

M_{sing}

by blowing up the conical point

s

\bar{Y}

. Note that

\bar{M}

and the canonical embedding

\bar{Y} ↪ \bar{M}

are invariants of the cone structure, and each local chart of

M_{sing}

near the conical point

s

gives rise to a collar neighborhood of

\bar{Y}

\bar{M}

. We have a canonical identification

\bar{M} / \bar{Y} \sim = M_{sing}

as compact conic manifolds with boundary. The double

2 \bar{M} = \bar{M} \cup_{\bar{Y}} \bar{M}

is a compact smooth manifold with boundary, where the

C^{\infty}

-structure is inherited from collar neighborhoods of

\bar{Y}

\bar{M}

. Evidently,

\bar{N} = \partial (2 \bar{M}) \cap \bar{M}

is the blow-up of

N_{sing}

, a compact manifold with boundary

\partial \bar{Y}

Let us fix a defining function

x \in C^{\infty} (2 \bar{M})

for

\bar{Y}

with

x > 0

2 \bar{M} \ \bar{Y}

Definition 2.3. By

{Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M})

we denote the restrictions to

\bar{M}

of the

m

-th order differential operators on

2 \bar{M}

which are totally characteristic with respect to

\bar{Y}

. Thus

{Diff}_{b}^{*} (\bar{M})

is the enveloping algebra generated by the restrictions to

\bar{M}

of the vector fields on

2 \bar{M}

which are tangent to

\bar{Y}

Observe that

\bar{N} \ \partial \bar{Y}

, the regular part of the boundary of

\bar{M}

, is not necessarily characteristic for the elements of

{Diff}_{b}^{*} (\bar{M})

Correspondingly, let

{Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E, F)

be the space of

m

-th order totally characteristic differential operators acting in sections of the bundles

E

and

F

. Note that we consider here complex vector bundles that are restrictions of smooth bundles on

2 \bar{M}

\bar{M}

The operators in

x^{- m} {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E, F)

are the cone operators of order

m

Totally characteristic operators

A \in {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E, F)

m \in N_{0}

, have an invariant

b

-principal symbol on the compressed cotangent bundle

^{b} T^{*} \bar{M}

, see [17, 18] . Recall that

^{b} T \bar{M}

is the bundle on

\bar{M}

whose smooth sections are the restrictions of the vector fields on

2 \bar{M}

\bar{M}

which are tangent to

\bar{Y}

. The compressed cotangent bundle

^{b} T^{*} \bar{M}

is the dual of

^{b} T \bar{M}

In [6] the

c

-cotangent bundle was introduced, and it was proved that cone operators have invariantly defined principal symbols there. Consequently, with an operator

A \in x^{- m} {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E, F)

m \in N_{0}

, we associate its

c

-principal symbol

^{c} σσ (A)

^{c} T^{*} \bar{M}

, a section of the bundle

Hom (^{c} π^{*} E,^{c} π^{*} F)

. Here

^{c} π :^{c} T^{*} \bar{M} \to \bar{M}

is the canonical projection map.

The definition of the

c

-cotangent bundle

^{c} T^{*} \bar{M}

is similar to the

b

-construction, and its space of smooth sections are the restrictions of

1

-forms from

2 \bar{M}

\bar{M}

which are, over

\bar{Y}

, sections of the conormal bundle of

\bar{Y}

T^{*} (2 \bar{M})

There is a second principal symbol associated with an operator

A

, the

b

c

-principal boundary symbol

^{b} {σσ}_{\partial} (A)

^{c} {σσ}_{\partial} (A)

, respectively.

Definition 2.4. Let

A \in x^{- m} {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E, F)

, and let

U (p) \subset 2 \bar{M}

be a small neighborhood of the point

p \in \partial (2 \bar{M}) \cap \bar{M}

on the boundary of

\bar{M}

, and consider local coordinates

(z^{'}, z_{n})

centered at

p

with

z_{n} \geq 0

and

z_{n} = 0

\partial (2 \bar{M})

. Let

^{c} σσ (A) (z^{'}, z_{n}; ζ^{'}, ζ_{n})

be the local representation of the

c

-principal symbol in these coordinates, a

(N_{-} \times N_{+})

-matrix function with

N_{-} = dim E

and

N_{+} = dim F

The operator family

\begin{matrix} ^{c} {σσ}_{\partial} (A) (z^{'}; ζ^{'}) =^{c} σσ (A) (z^{'}, 0; ζ^{'}, D_{z_{n}}) : S ({\bar{R}}_{+}) \otimes C^{N_{-}} \to S ({\bar{R}}_{+}) \otimes C^{N_{+}} \end{matrix}

(2.5)

is then a local representation of the

c

-principal boundary symbol

^{c} {σσ}_{\partial} (A)

A

It is more tedious than hard to see that the

c

-principal boundary symbol is invariantly defined on

^{c} T^{*} \bar{N}

, a section of the bundle

Hom (^{c} S_{+} \otimes^{c} π^{*} E,^{c} S_{+} \otimes^{c} π^{*} F)

. Here

^{c} S_{+}

is a bundle on

^{c} T^{*} \bar{N}

with fiber

S ({\bar{R}}_{+})

which comes up canonically when changing to a different local representation 2.5 near

p

Analogously, with a totally characteristic operator

A \in {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E, F)

we associate the

b

-principal boundary symbol

^{b} {σσ}_{\partial} (A)

, a section of the bundle

Hom (^{b} S_{+} \otimes^{b} π^{*} E,^{b} S_{+} \otimes^{b} π^{*} F)

over

^{b} T^{*} \bar{N}

Definition 2.6. Let

0 \in Ω \subset C

be a conical subset. The operator family

A - λ \in {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E)

λ \in Ω

, is called

b

-elliptic with parameter, if

spec (^{b} σσ (A) (z, ζ)) \cap Ω = \emptyset

for

(z, ζ) \in^{b} T^{*} \bar{M} \ 0

Analogously, for a cone operator

A \in x^{- m} {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E)

the family

A - λ

is called

c

-elliptic with parameter

λ \in Ω

iff

spec (^{c} σσ (A) (z, ζ)) \cap Ω = \emptyset

for

(z, ζ) \in^{c} T^{*} \bar{M} \ 0

Obviously,

A - λ \in x^{- m} {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E)

c

-elliptic with parameter if and only if

x^{m} A - λ \in {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E)

b

-elliptic with parameter, and, if

Ω = {0}

b

and

c

-ellipticity with parameter reduces to ordinary

b

and

c

-ellipticity.

3 Boundary problems for totally characteristic operators

In this section we consider boundary value problems for totally characteristic operators

A \in {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E)

m \in N

We assume henceforth that

A - λ

b

-elliptic with parameter in the sector

Λ \subset C

Proposition 3.1. The

b

-principal boundary symbol

^{b} {σσ}_{\partial} (A) (z^{'}, ζ^{'}) - λ :^{b} S_{+} \otimes^{b} π^{*} E \to^{b} S_{+} \otimes^{b} π^{*} E

is surjective and has finite dimensional kernel for all

(z^{'}, ζ^{'}, λ) \in (^{b} T^{*} \bar{N} \times Λ) \ 0

Consequently, the kernels form a vector bundle

K

(^{b} T^{*} \bar{N} \times Λ) \ 0

For a sufficiently smooth section

u

of a bundle

F

\bar{M} \ \bar{Y}

we denote by

γ u

its restriction to the regular part

\bar{N} \ \partial \bar{Y}

of the boundary, which gives rise to the restriction operator

γ

Now let

B_{j} \in {Diff}_{b}^{m_{j}} (\bar{M}; E, F_{j})

m_{j} < m

, be totally characteristic,

j = 1, \dots, K

We consider the family of boundary value problems

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} (A - λ) u & = f in \overset{˚}{\bar{M}} = \bar{M} \ \bar{Y}, \\ T u & = g on \overset{˚}{\bar{N}} = \bar{N} \ \partial \bar{Y} \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.2)

for the operator

A

, where

T = (γ B_{1}, \dots, γ B_{K})^{t}

Definition 3.3. The boundary value problem 3.2 is called

b

-elliptic with parameter

λ \in Λ

(\begin{matrix} (^{b} γ_{0} \otimes I_{^{b} π^{*} F_{1}})^{b} {σσ}_{\partial} (B_{1}) (z^{'}, ζ^{'}) \\ . . . \\ (^{b} γ_{0} \otimes I_{^{b} π^{*} F_{K}})^{b} {σσ}_{\partial} (B_{K}) (z^{'}, ζ^{'}) \end{matrix}) : K_{(z^{'}, ζ^{'}, λ)} \to {\oplus_{j = 1}^{K}}^{b} π^{*} F_{j}

is bijective for all

(z^{'}, ζ^{'}, λ) \in (^{b} T^{*} \bar{N} \times Λ) \ 0

. Here

^{b} γ_{0} :^{b} S_{+} \to C

is the canonical evaluation map at zero.

Note that this notion of

b

-ellipticity is the appropriate version of the Shapiro-Lopatinsky condition for families of totally characteristic boundary problems.

Let

m > 0

be a

b

-density on

2 \bar{M}

, i.e.

x m

is a smooth everywhere positive density.

Let

L_{b}^{2} (\bar{M}; E)

be the

L^{2}

-space of sections of the bundle

E

\bar{M}

with respect to

m

and a Hermitian inner product on

E

For

s \in N_{0}

let

H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E)

be the Sobolev space of all

L_{b}^{2}

-sections

u

such that

C u \in L_{b}^{2}

for all totally characteristic operators

C

of order

\leq s

, and let

H_{b, 0}^{s} (\bar{M}; E)

be the closure of all

C_{0}^{\infty}

-sections of

E

H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E)

. Note that the

C_{0}^{\infty}

-sections here are supported away from the boundary

\bar{N} \cup \bar{Y}

For

s \in - N

let

H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E)

be the dual of

H_{b, 0}^{- s} (\bar{M}; E)

, and analogously let

H_{b, 0}^{s} (\bar{M}; E)

be the dual of

H_{b}^{- s} (\bar{M}; E)

with respect to the sesquilinear pairing induced by the

L_{b}^{2}

-inner product. For arbitrary real

s

we define

H_{b, 0}^{s} (\bar{M}; E)

and

H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E)

by interpolation. Analogously to the boundaryless case, we also consider weighted spaces

x^{μ} H_{b}^{s}

for arbitrary weights

μ \in R

. For every

s > - 1 / 2

we consider the boundary value problem 3.2 as a family of continuous operators

\begin{matrix} (\begin{matrix} A - λ \\ T \end{matrix}) : x^{μ} H_{b}^{s + m} (\bar{M}; E) \to \begin{matrix} x^{μ} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E) \\ \oplus \\ \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} x^{μ} H_{b}^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2} (\bar{N}; F_{j}) \end{matrix} . \end{matrix}

(3.4)

Correspondingly, we consider the realization of

A

under the boundary condition

T u = 0

, i.e. the unbounded operator

A_{T} : D^{s} (A_{T}) \subset x^{μ} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E) \to x^{μ} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E)

with domain

D^{s} (A_{T}) = {u \in x^{μ} H_{b}^{s + m} (\bar{M}; E); T u = 0}

that acts like

A

. We sometimes also say that this is the

H^{s + m}

-realization (or just

H

-realization) of

A

in order to emphasize that we assume apriori smoothness of order

s + m

\overset{˚}{\bar{M}}

as it is custom in boundary value problems.

It is a part of Theorem 3.5 below that the boundary condition

T : x^{μ} H_{b}^{s + m} (\bar{M}; E) \to \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} x^{μ} H_{b}^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2} (\bar{N}; F_{j})

is surjective for

s > - 1 / 2

. In particular, the operator 3.4 is invertible for some

λ \in Λ

if and only if

λ / \in spec (A_{T})

Theorem 3.5. Let 3.2 be

b

-elliptic with parameter

λ \in Λ

, and let

μ \in R

There exists

R = R (μ) > 0

such that for

λ \in Λ

| λ | \geq R

, the operator 3.4 is invertible for all

s > - 1 / 2

Moreover, we have

∥ (A_{T} - λ)^{- 1} ∥ = O (| λ |^{- 1})

| λ | \to \infty

for the

L (x^{μ} L_{b}^{2})

-norm of the resolvent of

A

with domain

D (A_{T}) = D^{0} (A_{T}) \subset x^{μ} L_{b}^{2} (\bar{M}; E)

, and the norm of the resolvent in

L (x^{μ} H_{b}^{s})

of realizations in Sobolev spaces of higher regularity is polynomially bounded as

| λ | \to \infty

A

with domain

D (A_{T})

is closed, we thus obtain that

b

-ellipticity with parameter implies that

Λ

is a sector of minimal growth for

A

The proof of Theorem 3.5 follows by constructing a parametrix of 3.2 within a suitable Boutet de Monvel's calculus of parameter-dependent boundary value problems of totally characteristic pseudodifferential operators. As our interest in this article lies in resolvents and spectral properties of boundary value problems for cone operators we will not pursue this here.

Despite of the many similarities between cone operators and totally characteristic operators, the spectral theory for cone operators is much more complicated than the spectral theory of totally characteristic operators. This is underscored by a comparison of Theorem 3.5 and Theorem 8.1 .

Assuming parameter-dependent ellipticity, for every weight

μ \in R

there is only one

H

-realization of a totally characteristic operator

A

under the boundary condition

T u = 0

, and this realization is well-behaved for large parameter values as Theorem 3.5 shows. In contrast, for every weight

μ \in R

there are many

H

-realizations of cone operators, and the spectrum of every such realization could be

C

(see also [6, 7] for a discussion of the boundaryless case). For later purposes, we recall the notion of the conormal symbol associated with a totally characteristic boundary value problem on

\bar{M}

u

is a smooth section of

E

2 \bar{M}

that vanishes on

\bar{Y}

, then also

P u

vanishes on

\bar{Y}

for every

P \in {Diff}_{b}^{*} (\bar{M}; E, F)

. Consequently, if

v

is a section of

E

\bar{Y}

and

u

is any extension of

v

, then

(P u) |_{\bar{Y}}

does not depend on the choice of the extension.

Thus, associated with

P

there is a differential operator

\hat{P} (0) : C^{\infty} (\bar{Y}; E) \to C^{\infty} (\bar{Y}; F)

of the same order as

P

. Since

C ∋ σ \mapsto x^{- i σ} P x^{i σ}

is a family of totally characteristic operators, we so obtain the operator valued polynomial

C ∋ σ \mapsto \hat{P} (σ) \in {Diff}^{*} (\bar{Y}; E, F),

the conormal symbol associated with

P

. If

P

is part of a boundary condition

γ P

, we associate with this condition its conormal symbol

C ∋ σ \mapsto \hat{γ} \hat{P} (σ),

where

\hat{γ} v

denotes the restriction of the section

v

\bar{Y}

to the boundary

\partial \bar{Y}

. In this way we obtain for each

λ \in Λ

the conormal symbol of the boundary value problem 3.2 , a family of boundary value problems

\begin{matrix} h (σ, λ) : C^{\infty} (\bar{Y}; E) \to \begin{matrix} C^{\infty} (\bar{Y}; E) \\ \oplus \\ \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} C^{\infty} (\partial \bar{Y}; F_{j}) \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.6)

\bar{Y}

depending holomorphically on

σ \in C

and

λ \in Λ

Provided that 3.2 is

b

-elliptic with parameter

λ \in Λ

, the conormal symbol 3.6 is for every

σ \in C

and

λ \in Λ

an elliptic boundary value problem on

\bar{Y}

, which is even elliptic with parameter

(σ, λ) \in {ℑ (σ) = α} \times Λ

for every fixed

α \in R

4 Realizations of boundary problems for cone operators

Let

A \in x^{- m} {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E)

m \in N

, be a cone operator such that

A - λ

c

-elliptic with parameter in the sector

Λ \subset C

Analogously to the case of totally characteristic operators, we then know that the

c

-principal boundary symbol

^{c} {σσ}_{\partial} (A) (z^{'}, ζ^{'}) - λ :^{c} S_{+} \otimes^{c} π^{*} E \to^{c} S_{+} \otimes^{c} π^{*} E

is surjective and has finite dimensional kernel for all

(z^{'}, ζ^{'}, λ) \in (^{c} T^{*} \bar{N} \times Λ) \ 0

Let

K

be the bundle of kernels on

(^{c} T^{*} \bar{N} \times Λ) \ 0

Let

B_{j} \in x^{- m_{j}} {Diff}_{b}^{m_{j}} (\bar{M}; E, F_{j})

m_{j} < m

, be cone operators,

j = 1, \dots, K

, and consider the family of boundary value problems

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} (A - λ) u & = f in \overset{˚}{\bar{M}} = \bar{M} \ \bar{Y}, \\ T u & = g on \overset{˚}{\bar{N}} = \bar{N} \ \partial \bar{Y} \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.1)

for the operator

A

, where

T = (γ B_{1}, \dots, γ B_{K})^{t}

Definition 4.2. The boundary value problem 4.1 is called

c

-elliptic with parameter

λ \in Λ

(\begin{matrix} (^{c} γ_{0} \otimes I_{^{c} π^{*} F_{1}})^{c} {σσ}_{\partial} (B_{1}) (z^{'}, ζ^{'}) \\ . . . \\ (^{c} γ_{0} \otimes I_{^{c} π^{*} F_{K}})^{c} {σσ}_{\partial} (B_{K}) (z^{'}, ζ^{'}) \end{matrix}) : K_{(z^{'}, ζ^{'}, λ)} \to {\oplus_{j = 1}^{K}}^{c} π^{*} F_{j}

is bijective for all

(z^{'}, ζ^{'}, λ) \in (^{c} T^{*} \bar{N} \times Λ) \ 0

, where

^{c} γ_{0} :^{c} S_{+} \to C

is evaluation at zero.

Similar to the case of totally characteristic operators,

c

-ellipticity is the appropriate version of the Shapiro-Lopatinsky condition for cone operators.

Lemma 4.3. The boundary value problem 4.1 with cone operators

A

and

B_{j}

j = 1, \dots, K

, is

c

-elliptic with parameter

λ \in Λ

if and only if the boundary value problem

\begin{matrix} ((x^{m} A) - λ) u & = f & in \overset{˚}{\bar{M}}, \end{matrix}

(4.4)

\begin{matrix} γ (x^{m_{j}} B_{j}) u & = g_{j} & on \overset{˚}{\bar{N}}, j = 1, \dots, K \end{matrix}

(4.5)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

b

-elliptic with parameter

λ \in Λ

in the sense of Definition 3.3 .

Our primary concern is to investigate the spectral properties of

c

-elliptic boundary value problems under the assumption of parameter-dependent ellipticity, i.e. we investigate the operator family

\begin{matrix} (\begin{matrix} A - λ \\ T \end{matrix}) : D^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) \subset x^{μ} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E) \to \begin{matrix} x^{μ} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E) \\ \oplus \\ \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} x^{μ + m - m_{j}} H_{b}^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2} (\bar{N}; F_{j}) \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.6)

for

s > - 1 / 2

and some weight

μ \in R

, as well as the behavior of the associated family of unbounded operators

\begin{matrix} A - λ : D^{s} (A_{T}) \subset x^{μ} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E) \to x^{μ} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E) \end{matrix}

(4.7)

with domain

D^{s} (A_{T}) = D^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) \cap ker T

. Of particular interest is of course the case

s = 0

, i.e. the

x^{μ} L_{b}^{2}

-realization of the operator

A

under the boundary condition

T u = 0

The domain in 4.6 can be any intermediate space

D_{min}^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) \subset D^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) \subset D_{max}^{s} (\binom{A}{T})

of the canonical minimal and maximal

x^{μ} H_{b}^{s + m}

-domains

\begin{matrix} D_{max}^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) & = {u \in x^{μ} H_{b}^{s + m} (\bar{M}; E); \begin{matrix} A u & \in x^{μ} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E), \\ γ B_{j} u & \in x^{μ + m - m_{j}} H_{b}^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2} (\bar{N}; F_{j}) \\ for j = 1, \dots, K \end{matrix}}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} D_{min}^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) & = D_{max}^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) \cap ⋂_{ɛ > 0} x^{μ + m - ɛ} H_{b}^{s + m} (\bar{M}; E) . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

As conjugation of 4.6 with the weight function

x^{δ}

for any

δ \in R

gives rise to a unitary equivalent parameter-dependent

c

-elliptic boundary value problem of the form 4.1 in the corresponding shifted function spaces, we can without loss of generality base all our investigations on the weight

μ = - m / 2

. Moreover, we usually write

D^{s} = D^{s} (\binom{A}{T})

as well as

D = D^{0} (\binom{A}{T})

A discussion of domains and adjoints of

c

-elliptic boundary value problems and normal boundary conditions is given in [3] , generalizing previous results in [8] in the boundaryless case. In contrast to the mere

c

-elliptic case, our situation of parameter-dependent

c

-ellipticity makes it possible to avoid a technical discussion of the issue of normality.

The next proposition follows analogous to the boundaryless case from a corresponding analysis in the Mellin image using the conormal symbols of 4.1 , see [14] , [8] . The proof of the Fredholmness in part iv) follows by employing a standard parametrix (without parameters) of elliptic boundary value problems on the cone, see, e.g., [21] , [3] .

Proposition 4.8. Assume that 4.1 is

c

-elliptic with parameter in some closed sector

Λ \subset C

D_{max}^{s}

is complete in the norm

\begin{matrix} ∥ u ∥_{A_{T}} = ∥ u ∥_{x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s + m}} + ∥ A u ∥_{x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s}} + \sum_{j = 1}^{K} ∥ γ B_{j} u ∥_{x^{m / 2 - m_{j}} H_{b}^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2}}, \end{matrix}

(4.9)

and

D_{min}^{s} \subset D_{max}^{s}

is a closed subspace of finite codimension.

ii) We have $x^{m / 2} H_{b}^{s + m} ↪ D_{min}^{s} ↪ D_{max}^{s} ↪ x^{- m / 2 + ɛ} H_{b}^{s + m}$ for some $ɛ > 0$ with continuous embeddings. In particular, the embedding $D_{max}^{s} ↪ x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s}$ is compact.
iii) $C_{0}^{\infty} (\overset{˚}{\bar{M}}; E) \subset D_{min}^{s}$ is a dense subspace.

iv) For every

λ \in C

the boundary value problem 4.6 is Fredholm with index independent of

λ

and

s > - 1 / 2

, and we have the following relative index formula

\begin{matrix} ind (\binom{A - λ}{T})_{D^{s}} = ind (\binom{A}{T})_{D_{min}^{s}} + dim D^{s} / D_{min}^{s} . \end{matrix}

(4.10)

Here the subscripts refer to the corresponding domains.

The quotient

D_{max}^{s} / D_{min}^{s}

is actually independent of

s > - 1 / 2

and can be identified with a space of singular functions analogously to the boundaryless case (see also [7] , Section 6). We will come back to this in Section 6 soon.

From Lemma 4.3 and Theorem 3.5 we obtain that the boundary condition

T : x^{m / 2} H_{b}^{s + m} (\bar{M}; E) \to \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} x^{m / 2 - m_{j}} H_{b}^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2} (\bar{N}; F_{j})

is surjective, and necessarily so is its extension to

D^{s}

by Proposition 4.8 . Consequently, for every

λ \in C

A_{T} - λ : D^{s} (A_{T}) \to x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E)

is Fredholm with index

ind (A - λ)_{D^{s} (A_{T})} = ind A_{D^{s} (A_{T})} = ind (\binom{A}{T})_{D^{s}},

and a necessary condition for

A

with domain

D (A_{T})

to admit nonempty resolvent set is that

ind (A_{T, min}) \leq 0

and

ind (A_{T, max}) \geq 0

(see also [6] for a discussion of these issues in the boundaryless case). Moreover, 4.6 is invertible for some

λ

if and only if 4.7 is bijective, i.e. if and only if

λ / \in spec (A_{T})

Let us formulate an immediate consequence of these observations (note, in particular, that this constitutes a substantial difference to the totally characteristic case):

Corollary 4.11. Let 4.1 be

c

-elliptic with parameter in the closed sector

Λ \subset C

. Then either the spectrum of the operator

A_{T} : D^{s} (A_{T}) \subset x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E) \to x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E)

is discrete or it is all of

C

, and a necessary condition for the spectrum to be discrete is that

ind A_{D^{s} (A_{T})} = 0

Lemma 4.12. The mapping

D^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) \to D^{s} (A_{T}) = D^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) \cap ker T

is a bijection of the lattice of intermediate spaces

\begin{matrix} D_{min}^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) & \subset D^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) & \subset D_{max}^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) \end{matrix}

(4.13)

\begin{matrix} onto the lattice of intermediate spaces D_{min}^{s} (A_{T}) & \subset D^{s} (A_{T}) & \subset D_{max}^{s} (A_{T}), \end{matrix}

(4.14)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

where

\begin{matrix} D_{min}^{s} (A_{T}) & = {u \in ⋂_{ɛ > 0} x^{m / 2 - ɛ} H_{b}^{s + m} (\bar{M}; E); A u \in x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E) and T u = 0}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} D_{max}^{s} (A_{T}) & = {u \in x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s + m} (\bar{M}; E); A u \in x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E) and T u = 0} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

We have

dim D_{max}^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) / D_{min}^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) = dim D_{max}^{s} (A_{T}) / D_{min}^{s} (A_{T})

. More precisely, given a basis

s_{j} + D_{min}^{s} (\binom{A}{T}), j = 1, \dots, M,

D_{max}^{s} (\binom{A}{T}) / D_{min}^{s} (\binom{A}{T})

, we pick

u_{j} \in x^{m / 2} H_{b}^{s + m} (\bar{M}; E)

with

T s_{j} = T u_{j}

and obtain in this way a basis

(s_{j} - u_{j}) + D_{min}^{s} (A_{T}), j = 1, \dots, M,

D_{max}^{s} (A_{T}) / D_{min}^{s} (A_{T})

As already mentioned, the

s_{j}

in Lemma 4.12 can be chosen to be singular functions (see also Section 6 ), and the domains

D^{s} (\binom{A}{T})

as well as the corresponding domains

D^{s} (A_{T})

are thus characterized in terms of a specified asymptotic behavior near

\bar{Y}

Proposition 4.15. If

A_{T} - λ : D^{s} (A_{T}) \to x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s} (\bar{M}; E)

is invertible for some

λ \in C

and some domain

D^{s} (A_{T})

, then

A

is closed in the functional analytic sense for every domain

D_{min}^{s} (A_{T}) \subset D^{s} \subset D_{max}^{s} (A_{T})

, i.e.

D_{max}^{s} (A_{T})

is complete in the graph norm

∥ u ∥_{A} = ∥ u ∥_{x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s}} + ∥ A u ∥_{x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s}} .

Proof. Let $(u_{k})_{k} \subset D_{max}^{s} (A_{T})$ be such that $u_{k} \to u$ in $x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s}$ and $A u_{k} \to v$ in $x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s}$ . Consequently, $(A - λ) u_{k} \to v - λ u$ in $x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s}$ , and by the closed graph theorem the inverse $(A - λ)^{- 1} : x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s} \to D^{s} (A_{T})$ is continuous, where $D^{s} (A_{T})$ is endowed with 4.9 . Thus there exists a convergent sequence $(v_{k})_{k} \subset D^{s} (A_{T}) \subset D_{max}^{s} (A_{T})$ with $(A - λ) v_{k} = (A - λ) u_{k} \to v - λ u$ as $k \to \infty$ . Let $ker (A - λ) \subset D_{max}^{s} (A_{T})$ be the eigenspace of $A$ with domain $D_{max}^{s} (A_{T})$ associated with the eigenvalue $λ$ . As $A - λ : D_{max}^{s} (A_{T}) \to x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s}$ is Fredholm, this eigenspace is finite dimensional, and so the norm 4.9 and the $x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s}$ -norm are equivalent on this space. Consequently, the sequence $(u_{k} - v_{k})_{k} \subset ker (A - λ)$ is convergent with respect to 4.9 , and thus $u_{k} = v_{k} + (u_{k} - v_{k})$ is also convergent in $D_{max}^{s} (A_{T})$ with respect to 4.9 , and the limit necessarily coincides with the $x^{- m / 2} H_{b}^{s}$ -limit $u$ . □

5 The associated boundary value problem on the model cone

For convenience, we fix from now on a collar neighborhood

U_{\bar{Y}} = \bar{Y} \times [0, 1)

\bar{Y}

\bar{M}

. Let

x

be such that in this neighborhood it coincides with the projection to

[0, 1)

, and the

b

-density

m

be such that its pull-back equals

d y \otimes \frac{d x}{x}

. In this neighborhood, the vector bundles

E

and

F_{j}

j = 1, \dots, K

, are isomorphic to the pull-backs of their restrictions to

\bar{Y}

, and we also fix such isomorphisms.

Every cone operator

B \in x^{- m} {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E, F)

can be written in the form

\begin{matrix} B = x^{- m} \sum_{k = 0}^{N - 1} P_{k} x^{k} + x^{N - m} {\tilde{P}}_{N}, \end{matrix}

(5.1)

where

N \in N

is arbitrary,

{\tilde{P}}_{N} \in {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E, F)

, and the

P_{k} \in {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E, F)

have coefficients independent of

x

near

\bar{Y}

Recall that an operator

P \in {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E, F)

is said to have coefficients independent of

x

near

\bar{Y}

, or simply constant coefficients, if

\nabla_{x \partial_{x}} P (u) = P (\nabla_{x \partial_{x}} u)

for any smooth section

u

E

supported in

U_{\bar{Y}}

. Here

\nabla

denotes a Hermitian connection on

E

F

, respectively.

Let

{\bar{Y}}^{\land} = {\bar{R}}_{+} \times \bar{Y}

be the model cone, and correspondingly let

(\partial \bar{Y})^{\land} = {\bar{R}}_{+} \times (\partial \bar{Y})

be the model cone associated with the boundary.

With

B \in x^{- m} {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E, F)

we associate on

{\bar{Y}}^{\land}

the model operator

B_{\land} = x^{- m} P_{0}

, where

P_{0}

is the constant term in the expansion 5.1 . Moreover, if

B

is part of a boundary condition, we let

γ_{\land} B_{\land}

be the model boundary condition associated with

γ B

, where for every sufficiently smooth section

u

{\bar{Y}}^{\land} \ \bar{Y}

we denote by

γ_{\land} u

its restriction to the regular part of the boundary

(\partial \bar{Y})^{\land} \ \partial \bar{Y}

Consequently, for the family of boundary value problems 4.1 for the operator

A

there is the following associated family of model boundary value problems

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} (A_{\land} - λ) u & = f in {\overset{˚}{\bar{Y}}}^{\land} = {\bar{Y}}^{\land} \ \bar{Y}, \\ T_{\land} u & = g on \partial {\overset{˚}{\bar{Y}}}^{\land} = (\partial \bar{Y})^{\land} \ \partial \bar{Y} \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(5.2)

for

A_{\land}

on the model cone

{\bar{Y}}^{\land}

, where

T_{\land} = (γ_{\land} B_{1, \land}, \dots, γ_{\land} B_{K, \land})^{t}

The problem 5.2 is naturally realized in the scale of

K^{s, α}

-spaces on the model cone. We briefly recall the definition of these spaces (see, e.g., [11] ):

Definition 5.3. Let

D \subset S^{n - 1}

be an embedded

(n - 1)

-dimensional ball (with boundary). Let

H_{cone}^{s} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E)

be the space of

H_{loc}^{s}

-distributions

u

such that given any coordinate patch

Ω

\bar{Y}

diffeomorphic to an open subset of

D \subset S^{n - 1}

, and given any function

φ \in C_{0}^{\infty} (Ω)

, we have

(1 - ω) φ u \in H^{s} (D^{\land}; E)

, where

D^{\land} = R_{+} \times D \subset R^{n}

is regarded as the cone in

R^{n} \ {0}

over

D

in polar coordinates, and the Sobolev space on

D^{\land}

is the space of

H^{s}

-distributions in

R^{n}

restricted to that cone.

Correspondingly, we have the space

H_{cone}^{s} ((\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}; F)

that is defined in the same way via regarding

(\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}

(locally) as a cone in

R^{n - 1}

Here and in the sequel,

ω \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R_{+})

denotes a cut-off function near zero, i.e.

ω

is supported near the origin with

ω \equiv 1

near zero, and we consider

ω

a function either on

U_{\bar{Y}}

or on

{\bar{Y}}^{\land}

(or on

(\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}

) which depends only on the variable

x

. For

s, α \in R

we define

K^{s, α} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E)

as the space of distributions

u

such that

\begin{matrix} ω u & \in x^{α} H_{b}^{s} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E) and (1 - ω) u \in x^{(n - m) / 2} H_{cone}^{s} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} and K^{s, α} ((\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}; F) as the space of all u with ω u & \in x^{α} H_{b}^{s} ((\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}; F) and (1 - ω) u \in x^{(n - 1 - m) / 2} H_{cone}^{s} ((\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}; F) . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Obviously, the

K^{s, α}

-spaces have natural Hilbert space structures. Note, in particular, that

K^{0, - m / 2} = x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}

, and the

x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}

-inner product serves as the reference inner product on the model cone.

For

s > - \frac{1}{2}

the model boundary value problem 5.2 is considered as

\begin{matrix} (\binom{A_{\land} - λ}{T_{\land}}) : D_{\land}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) \subset K^{s, - m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E) \to \begin{matrix} K^{s, - m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E) \\ \oplus \\ \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} K^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2, m / 2 - m_{j}} ((\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}; F_{j}) \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(5.4)

with

D_{\land, min}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) \subset D_{\land}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) \subset D_{\land, max}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

, where

\begin{matrix} D_{\land, max}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) & = {u \in K^{s + m, - m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E); A_{\land} u \in K^{s, - m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} γ_{\land} B_{j, \land} u \in K^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2, m / 2 - m_{j}} ((\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}; F_{j}) for j = 1, \dots, K}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} D_{\land, min}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) & = D_{\land, max}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) \cap ⋂_{ɛ > 0} K^{s + m, m / 2 - ɛ} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E) . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Analogously to Proposition 4.8 we have:

Proposition 5.5. Let 4.1 be

c

-elliptic with parameter in the closed sector

Λ

i) $D_{\land, max}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})$ is complete in the norm $∥ u ∥ = ∥ u ∥_{K^{s + m, - m / 2}} + ∥ A_{\land} u ∥_{K^{s, - m / 2}} + \sum_{j = 1}^{K} ∥ γ_{\land} B_{j, \land} u ∥_{K^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2, m / 2 - m_{j}}},$ and $D_{\land, min}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})$ is a closed subspace of finite codimension.
ii) We have $K^{s + m, m / 2} ↪ D_{\land, min}^{s} ↪ D_{\land, max}^{s} ↪ K^{s + m, - m / 2 + ɛ}$ for some $ɛ > 0$ with continuous embeddings.

The quotient

D_{\land, max}^{s} / D_{\land, min}^{s}

is actually independent of

s > - \frac{1}{2}

and can be described in terms of singular functions as in the boundaryless case, see Section 6 .

Notation 5.6. For functions

φ, ψ

we write

φ ≺ ψ

ψ \equiv 1

in a neighborhood of the support of

φ

Lemma 5.7. Let 4.1 be

c

-elliptic with parameter in

Λ

. Then the model boundary condition

T_{\land} : K^{s + m, m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E) \to \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} K^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2, m / 2 - m_{j}} ((\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}; F_{j})

is surjective for every

s > - \frac{1}{2}

, and necessarily so is its extension to

D_{\land}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

by Proposition 5.5 .

Proof. We consider the

b

-elliptic boundary value problem

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} ((x^{m} A) - λ) u & = f in \overset{˚}{\bar{M}}, \\ γ (x^{m_{j}} B_{j}) u & = g_{j} on \overset{˚}{\bar{N}}, j = 1, \dots, K . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(5.8)

Let

h (σ, λ)

be the conormal symbol of 5.8 . Thus

h (σ, λ)

is for every

σ \in C

and every

λ \in Λ

an elliptic boundary value problem on

\bar{Y}

, and the

b

-ellipticity with parameter

λ \in Λ

of 5.8 implies that

h (σ, λ)

is elliptic with parameter

(σ, λ) \in {ℑ (σ) = - m / 2} \times Λ

. Consequently,

h (σ, λ)

has a parameter-dependent parametrix in Boutet de Monvel's calculus on

\bar{Y}

which is an inverse of

h (σ, λ)

for all

ℑ (σ) = - m / 2

and

| λ | > R

sufficiently large.

Let

k (σ, λ)

be the row matrix of potential operators in this parametrix, and define

\begin{matrix} K_{1} (λ) & : C_{0}^{\infty} (R_{+} \times (\partial \bar{Y}), \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} F_{j}) \to C^{\infty} (R_{+} \times \bar{Y}; E), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} (K_{1} (λ) u) (x) & : = \frac{1}{2 π} \int_{ℑ (σ) = - m / 2} \int_{0}^{\infty} {(\frac{x}{x^{'}})}^{i σ} k (σ, λ) (\begin{matrix} {x^{'}}^{m_{1}} & \cdot \cdot \cdot & 0 \\ . . . & . . . & . . . \\ 0 & \cdot \cdot \cdot & {x^{'}}^{m_{K}} \end{matrix}) u (x^{'}) \frac{d x^{'}}{x^{'}} d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

for

u \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R_{+} \times (\partial \bar{Y}), \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} F_{j}) \sim = C_{0}^{\infty} (R_{+}, \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} C^{\infty} (\partial \bar{Y}; F_{j}))

We now have

T_{\land} K_{1} (λ) = I

for

| λ | > R

, and by continuity this identity holds on

\oplus_{j = 1}^{K} x^{m / 2 - m_{j}} H_{b}^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2} ((\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}; F_{j})

. For cut-off functions

ω ≺ \tilde{ω}

near zero we thus have

T_{\land} \tilde{ω} K_{1} (λ) ω = ω + R_{1} (λ)

\oplus_{j = 1}^{K} K^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2, m / 2 - m_{j}}

with a term

R_{1} (λ)

which decreases rapidly in the norm as

| λ | \to \infty

On the other hand, the

c

-ellipticity with parameter

λ \in Λ

of 4.1 implies that the boundary value problem 5.2 is away from

x = 0

elliptic with parameter

λ \in Λ

on the cone

{\bar{Y}}^{\land}

x \to \infty

in the sense that the triple of homogeneous principal symbols and boundary symbols associated with the covariables and parameter as well as the variables (as

x \to \infty

) is invertible – the noncompact end

x \to \infty

{\bar{Y}}^{\land}

is here a conical exit to infinity, not a cylindrical end, and parameter-dependent ellipticity and parametrices of (classical) boundary value problems on manifolds with conical exits to infinity are well investigated in the literature (see, e.g., [11] ).

Consequently, there exists a parameter-dependent parametrix of

(\binom{A_{\land} - λ}{T_{\land}})

in the SG-calculus of boundary value problems (near infinity), and for the row matrix

K_{2} (λ)

of potential operators of this parametrix and a suitable cut-off function

\hat{ω} ≺ ω

we have

T_{\land} (1 - \hat{ω}) K_{2} (λ) (1 - ω) = (1 - ω) + R_{2} (λ)

\oplus_{j = 1}^{K} K^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2, m / 2 - m_{j}}

with a term

R_{2} (λ)

which decreases rapidly in the norm as

| λ | \to \infty

. Thus for

K (λ) : = \tilde{ω} K_{1} (λ) ω + (1 - \hat{ω}) K_{2} (λ) (1 - ω)

we have

T_{\land} K (λ) = I + \tilde{R} (λ)

\oplus_{j = 1}^{K} K^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2, m / 2 - m_{j}}

, and for

| λ | > 0

sufficiently large

I + \tilde{R} (λ)

is invertible. □

According to Lemma 5.7 it makes again sense to associate with the boundary value problem 5.4 a corresponding family of unbounded operators

\begin{matrix} A_{\land} - λ : D_{\land}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) \subset K^{s, - m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E) \to K^{s, - m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E), \end{matrix}

(5.9)

where

D_{\land}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) = D_{\land}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) \cap ker T_{\land}

Then 5.4 is invertible for some

λ \in C

if and only if 5.9 is invertible, i.e. if and only if

λ / \in spec (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

. The analogue of Lemma 4.12 is true also for the associated problem on the model cone.

Proposition 5.10. Let 4.1 be

c

-elliptic with parameter

λ \in Λ

. Then, for

λ \neq 0

, the operator 5.4 is Fredholm for every intermediate domain

D_{\land, min}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) \subset D_{\land}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) \subset D_{\land, max}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

with index independent of

s > - \frac{1}{2}

More precisely, we have

\begin{matrix} ind (\binom{A_{\land} - λ}{T_{\land}})_{D_{\land}^{s}} & = ind (\binom{A_{\land} - λ}{T_{\land}})_{D_{\land, min}^{s}} + dim D_{\land}^{s} / D_{\land, min}^{s} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = ind (\binom{A}{T})_{D_{min}^{s}} + dim D_{\land}^{s} / D_{\land, min}^{s} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = ind (A_{T, min}) + dim D_{\land}^{s} / D_{\land, min}^{s}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

and correspondingly the operator

A_{\land, T_{\land}} - λ : D_{\land}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) \to K^{s, - m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E)

is Fredholm for

λ \neq 0

with the same index

\begin{matrix} ind (A_{\land, T_{\land}} - λ)_{D_{\land}^{s}} & = ind (A_{\land, T_{\land}} - λ)_{D_{\land, min}^{s}} + dim D_{\land}^{s} / D_{\land, min}^{s} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = ind (A_{T, min}) + dim D_{\land}^{s} / D_{\land, min}^{s} . \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Proof. The Fredholmness follows from the parametrix construction in Section 7 , the index formula is then elementary except for the assertion that $ind (\binom{A_{\land} - λ}{T_{\land}})_{D_{\land, min}^{s}} = ind (\binom{A}{T})_{D_{min}^{s}} .$ Under the assumption that $(\binom{A_{\land} - λ}{T_{\land}})$ is injective on $D_{\land, min}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})$ , this equality is a by-product of Theorem 7.21 . However, the general case also follows by the same methods that lead to Theorem 7.21 by possibly enlarging the matrices of extra conditions. □

Proposition 5.11. If

A_{\land} - λ : D_{\land}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) \to K^{s, - m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E)

is invertible for some

λ \in Λ

and some domain

D_{\land}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

, then

A_{\land}

is closed in the functional analytic sense for every domain

D_{\land, min}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) \subset D_{\land}^{s} \subset D_{\land, max}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

, i.e.

D_{\land, max}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

is complete in the graph norm

∥ u ∥_{A_{\land}} = ∥ u ∥_{K^{s, - m / 2}} + ∥ A_{\land} u ∥_{K^{s, - m / 2}} .

Proof. The proof follows along the same lines as the proof of Proposition 4.15 , noting that without loss of generality we may assume $λ \neq 0$ , and hence $A_{\land} - λ : D_{\land, max}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) \to K^{s, - m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E)$ is Fredholm according to Proposition 5.10 . □

Definition 5.12.

i) For $ϱ > 0$ we define the normalized dilation group action for sections on ${\bar{Y}}^{\land}$ and $(\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}$ via $(κ_{ϱ} u) (x, y) = ϱ^{m / 2} u (ϱ x, y) .$ $κ_{ϱ}$ is a strongly continuous group action on the $K^{s, α}$ -spaces, and the normalization factor $ϱ^{m / 2}$ makes it an isometry on $x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}$ .
ii) A family of operators $A (λ)$ defined on a $κ$ -invariant space of distributions on the model cone is called $κ$ -homogeneous of degree $ν$ if $A (ϱ^{m} λ) = ϱ^{ν} κ_{ϱ} A (λ) κ_{ϱ}^{- 1}$ for every $ϱ > 0$ .

It is known that the dilation group action and the notion of

κ

-homogeneity play an important role when dealing with parameter-dependent cone operators, and they are systematically employed in Schulze's edge pseudodifferential calculus.

Observe that

D_{\land, min}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

and

D_{\land, max}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

as well as the associated domains

D_{\land, min}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

and

D_{\land, max}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

of the unbounded operator

A_{\land}

under the boundary condition

T_{\land} u = 0

are

κ

-invariant. This follows immediately from the

κ

-homogeneity

\begin{matrix} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) = (\begin{matrix} ϱ^{m} & 0 & \cdot \cdot \cdot & 0 \\ 0 & ϱ^{m_{1}} & \cdot \cdot \cdot & 0 \\ . . . & . . . & . . . & . . . \\ 0 & 0 & \cdot \cdot \cdot & ϱ^{m_{K}} \end{matrix}) κ_{ϱ} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) κ_{ϱ}^{- 1}, ϱ > 0, \end{matrix}

(5.13)

(\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

. Moreover, this

κ

-homogeneity makes it possible to get a fairly complete picture of what it means to be a sector of minimal growth for realizations of the operator

A_{\land}

under the boundary condition

T_{\land} u = 0

as the following Proposition 5.14 shows. Note that the case of

κ

-invariant domains is particularly simple.

Proposition 5.14. Let 4.1 be

c

-elliptic with parameter

λ \in Λ

. Then the following are equivalent:

i) $Λ$ is a sector of minimal growth for the operator $A_{\land}$ with domain $D_{\land} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) \subset x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}$ .
ii) $A_{\land} - λ : D_{\land} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) \to x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}$ is invertible for large $λ \in Λ$ , and the inverse satisfies the estimate $∥ κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} (A_{\land} - λ)^{- 1} ∥_{L (x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}, D_{\land, max})} = O (| λ |^{- 1})$ as $| λ | \to \infty$ .

iii)

\begin{matrix} (\binom{A_{\land} - λ}{T_{\land}}) : D_{\land} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) \to \begin{matrix} x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2} \\ \oplus \\ \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} K^{m - m_{j} - 1 / 2, m / 2 - m_{j}} \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(5.15)

is invertible for large

λ \in Λ

, and

\begin{matrix} ∥ κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} (\binom{A_{\land} - λ}{T_{\land}})^{- 1} κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}} ∥ = O (\begin{matrix} | λ |^{- 1} & | λ |^{- m_{1} / m} & \cdot \cdot \cdot & | λ |^{- m_{K} / m} \end{matrix}) \end{matrix}

(5.16)

| λ | \to \infty

, where the bounds are to be understood componentwise (with values in

D_{\land, max} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

iv) 5.15 is bijective for large

λ \in Λ

, and

\begin{matrix} ∥ κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} q_{\land} (\binom{A_{\land} - λ}{T_{\land}})^{- 1} κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}} ∥ = O (\begin{matrix} | λ |^{- 1} & | λ |^{- m_{1} / m} & \cdot \cdot \cdot & | λ |^{- m_{K} / m} \end{matrix}) \end{matrix}

(5.17)

| λ | \to \infty

, where the bounds are to be understood componentwise with values in the quotient

D_{\land, max} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) / D_{\land, min} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

. Here

q_{\land} : D_{\land, max} \to D_{\land, max} / D_{\land, min}

denotes the canonical projection.

Note that the group action

κ_{ϱ}

descends to the quotient because both

D_{\land, max}

and

D_{\land, min}

are

κ

-invariant.

If the domain

D_{\land} (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

κ

-invariant, i)–iv) are equivalent to

v) $A_{\land} - λ : D_{\land} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) \to x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}$ is bijective for all $λ \in Λ$ with $| λ | = 1$ .

Proof. ii)

\Rightarrow

i) follows immediately because the group action

κ_{ϱ}

ϱ > 0

, is unitary on

x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}

\Rightarrow

ii): Note first that

D_{\land, max}^{s}

is by assumption complete in the graph norm, see Proposition 5.11 . Consequently, as

κ_{ϱ}

is an isometry on

x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}

, we only have to prove that

∥ A_{\land} κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} (A_{\land} - λ)^{- 1} ∥_{L (x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2})} = O (| λ |^{- 1})

| λ | \to \infty

. From the

κ

-homogeneity of

A_{\land}

we obtain

A_{\land} κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} = | λ |^{- 1} κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} A_{\land}

, and thus the desired estimate follows from the boundedness of the operator family

A_{\land} (A_{\land} - λ)^{- 1}

L (x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2})

(as

| λ | \to \infty

), which is part of our present assumption i).

ii)

\Rightarrow

iii): From the invertibility of

A_{\land} - λ : D_{\land} \to x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}

for large

| λ | > 0

and the surjectivity of the boundary condition

T_{\land}

(see Lemma 5.7 ) we obtain that 5.15 is invertible for large

λ

. Let ( P ∧ ( λ ) K ∧ ( λ ) ) = ( A ∧ − λ T ∧ ) − 1 :

\begin{matrix} x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \oplus \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} K^{m - m_{j} - 1 / 2, m / 2 - m_{j}} \end{matrix}

→ D ∧ ( A ∧ T ∧ ) be the inverse. The norm estimate in ii) implies the asserted norm estimate for

P_{\land} (λ) = (A_{\land, T_{\land}} - λ)^{- 1}

in iii) as

| λ | \to \infty

, noting that

κ_{ϱ}

is an isometry on

x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}

Let

\tilde{K} : \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} K^{m - m_{j} - 1 / 2, m / 2 - m_{j}} \to K^{m, m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E)

be any right inverse of

T_{\land}

according to Lemma 5.7 , and define

\tilde{K} (ϱ) : = κ_{ϱ} \tilde{K} κ_{ϱ}^{- 1} (\begin{matrix} ϱ^{- m_{1}} & \cdot \cdot \cdot & 0 \\ . . . & . . . & . . . \\ 0 & \cdot \cdot \cdot & ϱ^{- m_{K}} \end{matrix})

for

ϱ > 0

. In view of the

κ

-homogeneity of

T_{\land}

, see 5.13 , we conclude that

\tilde{K} (ϱ)

is a right inverse of

T_{\land}

for every

ϱ > 0

From

P_{\land} (λ) (A_{\land} - λ) + K_{\land} (λ) T_{\land} = 1

we get for large

| λ | > 0

K_{\land} (λ) = K_{\land} (λ) T_{\land} \tilde{K} (| λ |^{1 / m}) = \tilde{K} (| λ |^{1 / m}) - P_{\land} (λ) (A_{\land} - λ) \tilde{K} (| λ |^{1 / m}) .

Using the

κ

-homogeneity of

A_{\land} - λ

we obtain by conjugation with the group action that

κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} K_{\land} (λ) κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}

equals

(1 - (κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} P_{\land} (λ) κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}) | λ | (A_{\land} - \frac{λ}{| λ |})) \tilde{K} (\begin{matrix} | λ |^{- m_{1} / m} & \cdot \cdot \cdot & 0 \\ . . . & . . . & . . . \\ 0 & \cdot \cdot \cdot & | λ |^{- m_{K} / m} \end{matrix}),

and thus the asserted norm estimate in iii) holds for

K_{\land} (λ)

iii)

\Rightarrow

ii) and iii)

\Rightarrow

iv) are immediate.

iv)

\Rightarrow

ii): We just have to worry about the norm estimate. Let

ℬ_{T, \land} (λ) : x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2} \to D_{\land, min}

be the principal component of the interior part of the parametrix

ℬ (λ)

from Theorem 7.21 . Then

1 - ℬ_{T, \land} (λ) (A_{\land} - λ) \equiv 0 on D_{\land, min} (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

for

λ \in Λ \ {0}

, and consequently the operator descends to

1 - ℬ_{T, \land} (λ) (A_{\land} - λ) : D_{\land, max} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) / D_{\land, min} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) \to D_{\land, max} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) .

We may write

{(A_{\land, D_{\land}} - λ)}^{- 1} = ℬ_{T, \land} (λ) + (1 - ℬ_{T, \land} (λ) (A_{\land} - λ)) q_{\land} {(A_{\land, D_{\land}} - λ)}^{- 1}

as operators

x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2} \to D_{\land, max} (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

. By

κ

-homogeneity,

\begin{matrix} κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} {(A_{\land, D_{\land}} - λ)}^{- 1} & = | λ |^{- 1} ℬ_{T, \land} (\frac{λ}{| λ |}) κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + (1 - ℬ_{T, \land} (\frac{λ}{| λ |}) (A_{\land} - \frac{λ}{| λ |})) (κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} q_{\land} {(A_{\land, D_{\land}} - λ)}^{- 1}), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

and so the norm estimate in ii) follows. Recall that the group action

κ_{ϱ}

is unitary on

x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}

If the domain

D_{\land} (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

κ

-invariant, then the invertibility of

\begin{matrix} A_{\land} - λ : D_{\land} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) \to x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2} \end{matrix}

(5.18)

for large

λ \in Λ

is by means of the

κ

-homogeneity

A_{\land} - ϱ^{m} λ = ϱ^{m} κ_{ϱ} (A_{\land} - λ) κ_{ϱ}^{- 1}

equivalent to the invertiblity of 5.18 for all

λ \in Λ \ {0}

or, equivalently, only for

λ \in Λ

with

| λ | = 1

. Moreover, from the identity

κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}}^{- 1} (A_{\land} - λ)^{- 1} κ_{| λ |^{1 / m}} = | λ |^{- 1} {(A_{\land} - \frac{λ}{| λ |})}^{- 1} : x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2} \to D_{\land} (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

for

λ \neq 0

we automatically obtain the norm estimate in ii), and consequently the equivalence of i)–iv) and v) is proved. □

6 Domains, associated domains, and singular functions

In this section we give a description of domains of the realizations of

A

and

A_{\land}

under the boundary condition

T u = 0

and

T_{\land} u = 0

, respectively, in terms of singular functions, i.e. the domains are characterized by the asymptotic behavior of their elements near the “singular boundary”

\bar{Y}

Moreover, we explicitly construct an isomorphism

θ : D_{max} / D_{min} \to D_{\land, max} / D_{\land, min}

that will be used to associate with a domain

D

A

under the boundary condition

T u = 0

a corresponding domain

D_{\land}

A_{\land}

under the boundary condition

T_{\land} u = 0

via

\begin{matrix} θ (D / D_{min}) = D_{\land} / D_{\land, min} . \end{matrix}

(6.1)

The ellipticity condition for the resolvent constructions for the operator

A_{T}

with domain

D (A_{T})

in Section 8 then involves a spectral condition on the model operator

A_{\land, T_{\land}}

with the associated domain

D (A_{\land, T_{\land}})

D (A_{T})

according to 6.1 . As the boundaryless case shows, a condition of such type is to be expected also in this more advanced situation.

Our approach to consider domains with inhomogeneous boundary conditions

D (\binom{A}{T})

as well as

D (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

makes it possible to transfer the methods from [6] and [7] .

According to 5.1 we write (near

\bar{Y}

)

\begin{matrix} A & \equiv x^{- m} \sum_{k = 0}^{m - 1} A_{k} x^{k} & m o d {Diff}_{b}^{m} (\bar{M}; E), \end{matrix}

(6.2)

\begin{matrix} B_{j} & \equiv x^{- m_{j}} \sum_{k = 0}^{m - 1} B_{j, k} x^{k} & m o d x^{m - m_{j}} {Diff}_{b}^{m_{j}} (\bar{M}; E, F_{j}), j = 1, \dots, K, \end{matrix}

(6.3)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

with totally characteristic operators

A_{k}, B_{j, k}

with coefficients independent of

x

near

\bar{Y}

, and therefore they can be regarded also as operators acting in sections on the model cone

{\bar{Y}}^{\land}

. Thus

\begin{matrix} (\begin{matrix} A \\ γ B_{1} \\ . . . \\ γ B_{K} \end{matrix}) = (\begin{matrix} x^{- m} & 0 & \cdot \cdot \cdot & 0 \\ 0 & x^{- m_{1}} & \cdot \cdot \cdot & 0 \\ . . . & . . . & . . . & . . . \\ 0 & 0 & \cdot \cdot \cdot & x^{- m_{K}} \end{matrix}) \sum_{k = 0}^{m - 1} (\begin{matrix} A_{k} \\ γ B_{1, k} \\ . . . \\ γ B_{K, k} \end{matrix}) x^{k} + \tilde{R}, \end{matrix}

(6.4)

and set

A_{k} = {(\begin{matrix} A_{k} & γ B_{1, k} & \cdot \cdot \cdot & γ B_{K, k} \end{matrix})}^{t}

k = 0, \dots, m - 1

. Let

\begin{matrix} {\hat{A}}_{k} (σ) : H^{s + m} (\bar{Y}; E) \to \begin{matrix} H^{s} (\bar{Y}; E) \\ \oplus \\ \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} H^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2} (\partial \bar{Y}; F_{j}) \end{matrix}, s > - \frac{1}{2}, \end{matrix}

(6.5)

σ \in C

, be the conormal symbol of

A_{k}

, see Section 3 . From our standing assumption that 4.1 is

c

-elliptic (with parameter

λ \in Λ

), we obtain that the leading term

{\hat{A}}_{0} (σ)

is a holomorphic Fredholm family in 6.5 which has a finitely meromorphic inverse

{\hat{A}}_{0}^{- 1} (σ)

In the sequel, we make use of the following notion of Mellin transform for sections

u

\bar{M}

{\bar{Y}}^{\land}

, respectively, which employs apriori a cut-off near

\bar{Y}

: Fix a cut-off function

ω \in C_{0}^{\infty} ([0, 1))

near zero, i.e.

ω

is real valued and supported near the origin with

ω \equiv 1

near zero. As usual, we regard

ω

as a function on

\bar{M}

supported in the collar neighborhood

U_{\bar{Y}} \subset \bar{M}

, or on

{\bar{Y}}^{\land}

. Then the Mellin transform of a section

u \in C_{0}^{\infty} (\overset{˚}{\bar{M}}; E)

is defined to be the entire function

\hat{u} : C \to C^{\infty} (\bar{Y}; E |_{\bar{Y}})

such that for any

v \in C^{\infty} (\bar{Y}; E |_{\bar{Y}})

\begin{matrix} {(x^{- i σ} ω u, π_{\bar{Y}}^{*} v)}_{L_{b}^{2} (\bar{M}; E)} = {(\hat{u} (σ), v)}_{L^{2} (\bar{Y}; E |_{\bar{Y}})}, \end{matrix}

(6.6)

where

π_{\bar{Y}}^{*} v

is the section of

E

over

U_{\bar{Y}}

obtained by parallel transport of

v

along the fibers of the projection

π_{\bar{Y}}

. The Mellin transform of sections

u \in C_{0}^{\infty} ({\overset{˚}{\bar{Y}}}^{\land}; E)

is defined in the same way, but the pairing in 6.6 is the inner product in

L_{b}^{2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E)

(where, as before, we identify the bundle

E \to {\bar{Y}}^{\land}

with the pull-back

π_{\bar{Y}}^{*} E |_{\bar{Y}}

The Mellin transform extends to the spaces

x^{α} H_{b}^{s}

and

K^{s, α}

in such a way that

\hat{u} (σ)

is a holomorphic

H^{s} (\bar{Y}; E)

-valued function in

{ℑ (σ) > - α}

with well known canonical integrability conditions along lines parallel to the real axis.

In the same way we also define the Mellin transform for sections on the boundary

\bar{N}

, and on the model cone

(\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}

associated with the boundary, respectively.

Let

{spec}_{b} (\binom{A}{T}) = {σ \in C; {\hat{A}}_{0} (σ) is not invertible} \subset C

be the boundary spectrum of

(\binom{A}{T})

. Then

{spec}_{b} (\binom{A}{T}) \cap {σ \in C; α < ℑ (σ) < β}

is finite for all

α, β \in R

α < β

, and let

\begin{matrix} Σ : = {spec}_{b} (\binom{A}{T}) \cap {σ \in C; - m / 2 < ℑ (σ) < m / 2} \end{matrix}

(6.7)

be the part of the boundary spectrum in the critical strip that is associated with realizations of

A

and

A_{\land}

x^{- m / 2} L_{b}^{2}

under the boundary condition

T u = 0

and

T_{\land} u = 0

, respectively.

For

σ_{0} \in Σ

let

{\tilde{ℰ}}_{\land, σ_{0}}

be the space of all singular functions of the form

q = (\sum_{k = 0}^{m_{σ_{0}}} c_{σ_{0}, k} (y) {log}^{k} x) x^{i σ_{0}} \in C^{\infty} ({\overset{˚}{\bar{Y}}}^{\land}; E),

where

c_{σ_{0}, k} \in C^{\infty} (\bar{Y}; E)

and

m_{σ_{0}} \in N_{0}

, such that

A_{0} q = 0

. Using the Mellin transform, this is equivalent to the holomorphicity of

{\hat{A}}_{0} (σ) \hat{q} (σ)

on the whole complex plane, and as the inverse

{\hat{A}}_{0}^{- 1} (σ)

is finitely meromorphic (with regularizing principal parts of Laurent expansions) we see that the space

{\tilde{ℰ}}_{\land, σ_{0}}

is finite dimensional.

We set

{\tilde{ℰ}}_{\land, max} = \oplus_{σ_{0} \in Σ} {\tilde{ℰ}}_{\land, σ_{0}} \subset C^{\infty} ({\overset{˚}{\bar{Y}}}^{\land}; E) .

Let

u \in D_{\land, max}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

. By Mellin transform and the definition of the maximal domain, we thus obtain that

{\hat{A}}_{0} (σ) \hat{u} (σ)

is the Mellin transform of a vector of functions v ∈

\begin{matrix} K^{s, m / 2} ({\bar{Y}}^{\land}; E) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \oplus \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \oplus_{j = 1}^{K} K^{s + m - m_{j} - 1 / 2, m / 2} ((\partial \bar{Y})^{\land}; F_{j}) \end{matrix}

. In particular,

{\hat{A}}_{0} (σ) \hat{u} (σ)

is holomorphic in

{ℑ (σ) > - m / 2}

, and by the meromorphic structure of

{\hat{A}}_{0}^{- 1} (σ)

we see that there is a singular function

q \in {\tilde{ℰ}}_{\land, max}

such that

\hat{u} (σ) - \hat{q} (σ)

is holomorphic in the critical strip

{σ \in C; - m / 2 < ℑ (σ) < m / 2}

Consequently,

u - ω q \in D_{\land, max}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

with holomorphic Mellin transform, and thus

u - ω q \in D_{\land, min}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

. Note that the minimal domain as a subspace of the maximal domain is characterized by the property that the Mellin transforms of its elements are holomorphic in the critical strip.

Let us summarize this in the following proposition:

Proposition 6.8. Every class

u + D_{\land, min}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) \in D_{\land, max}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) / D_{\land, min}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}})

contains a representative of the form

ω q

with

q \in {\tilde{ℰ}}_{\land, max}

, and the singular function

q

is uniquely determined by its class modulo

D_{\land, min}^{s}

In this way we obtain an isomorphism

D_{\land, max}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) / D_{\land, min}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) \sim = {\tilde{ℰ}}_{\land, max},

and the quotient

D_{\land, max}^{s} / D_{\land, min}^{s}

is independent of

s > - \frac{1}{2}

Consequently, specifiying a domain

D_{\land, min}^{s} \subset D_{\land}^{s} \subset D_{\land, max}^{s}

is equivalent to specifying a subspace of

{\tilde{ℰ}}_{\land, max}

of admissible conormal asymptotics for the elements

u \in D_{\land}^{s}

near

\bar{Y}

In view of

D_{\land, max}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) / D_{\land, min}^{s} (\binom{A_{\land}}{T_{\land}}) \sim = D_{\land, max}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}) / D_{\land, min}^{s} (A_{\land, T_{\land}}),

Thomas Krainer