Variable coefficient Schrödinger flows for ultrahyperbolic operators, , , , ,

In this paper we shall consider nonlinear Schrödinger equations of the form

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \partial_{t} u & = & i ℒ (x) u + {\vec{b}}_{1} (x) \cdot \nabla_{x} u + {\vec{b}}_{2} (x) \cdot \nabla_{x} \bar{u} \\ + & c_{1} (x) u + c_{2} (x) \bar{u} + P (u, \bar{u}, \nabla_{x} u, \nabla_{x} \bar{u}), \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1.1)

where

x \in R^{n}

t > 0

ℒ (x) = - \sum_{j, k = 1}^{n} \partial_{x_{j}} (a_{j k} (x) \partial_{x_{k}})

A (x) = {(a_{j k} (x))}_{j, k = 1, . ., n}

is a real, symmetric and nondegenerate variable coefficient matrix, and

P

is a polynomial with no linear or constant terms.

Equations of the form described in ( 1.1 ) with

A (x)

merely invertible as opposed to positive definite arise in connection with water wave problems, and in higher dimensions as completely integrable models, see [5] , [14] , and [32] .

In this work we shall study the existence, uniqueness and regularity of the local solutions to the initial value problem (IVP) associated to the equation ( 1.1 ). The class of equations is rather general and appropriate assumptions have to be imposed on the smoothness and decay of the coefficients

a_{j k}, {\vec{b}}_{1}, {\vec{b}}_{2}, c_{1}

and

c_{2}

and on the initial data

u (x, 0) = u_{0} (x)

as well as on the asymptotic behavior of

a_{j k} (x)

| x | \to \infty

. Also it will be necessary to measure the regularity of solutions in weighted Sobolev spaces of high indexes. The main result we obtain in this direction is Theorem 6.2.1 -also see Remark 6.2.2 , in Section 6 .

One of the main difficulties in ( 1.1 ) is that the nonlinear terms incur in the so called “loss of derivatives”. This can be avoided if

P

is assumed to have a special symmetric form and

{\vec{b}}_{1}

is real valued. In this case, the standard energy method gives local well-posedness of the corresponding IVP in

H^{s} (R^{n})

for

s > n / 2 + 1

independently of the dispersive nature of ( 1.1 ), see [15] , [23] . Another approach used to overcome this loss of derivatives is to restrict oneself to working with

ℒ = Δ

{\vec{b}}_{1} = {\vec{b}}_{2} = 0

in suitable analytic function spaces, see [10] and references therein.

In [18] , C. E. Kenig, G. Ponce and L. Vega used linear dispersive smoothing effects of the associated linear equation to show that the IVP for the equation ( 1.1 ) with

ℒ = Δ

{\vec{b}}_{1} = {\vec{b}}_{2} = 0

c_{1} = c_{2} = 0

and general

P

is locally well posed in (possibly weighted) Sobolev spaces with high index for small initial data. For the case

n = 1

, N. Hayashi and T. Ozawa [11] removed the smallness condition by using an integrating factor which reduces the problem to a system where the energy method applies. H. Chihara [2] removed the smallness assumptions in weighted Sobolev spaces [18] in any dimension

n

by considering systems of two equations which he diagonalized to essentially eliminate the conjugate first order terms. The remaining first order terms are treated by a method similar to the one used by S. Mizohata [26] and S. Doi [7] to solve linear Schrödinger equations with lower order terms. It consists in applying a pseudo-differential operator

K

to the equation. The commutator

i [K Δ - Δ K]

basically absorbs the first orderterm to overcome the loss of derivatives in a way related to the method of integrating factors. In Chihara's approach the ellipticity of

ℒ = Δ

is key in the diagonalization argument. C. E. Kenig, G. Ponce and L. Vega [22] obtained local well-posedness for the IVP for ( 1.1 ) in the non-elliptic constant coefficient case

ℒ = \sum_{j = 1}^{k} \partial_{x_{j}}^{2} - \sum_{j = k + 1}^{n} \partial_{x_{j}}^{2}, k = 1, . ., n - 1,

using the pseudo-differential operators of [1] in the linear problem to avoid the diagonalization process. Furthermore, their results are valid in Sobolev spaces with no weights if

P

has no quadratic terms.

It may be gathered from this short summary of background literature that a thorough understanding of linear Schrödinger equations is important in the attempt to solve the nonlinear problem for ( 1.1 ).

Our approach in this work will be illustrated with the special case of ( 1.1 )

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} u = i ℒ (x) u + {\vec{b}}_{1} (x) \cdot \nabla_{x} u + u \partial_{x_{1}} u, \\ u (x, 0) = u_{0} (x), \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1.2)

or equivalently

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} u = i ℒ (x) u + [{\vec{b}}_{1} (x) \cdot \nabla_{x} u + u_{0} (x) \partial_{x_{1}} u] + (u - u_{0}) \partial_{x_{1}} u, \\ u (x, 0) = u_{0} (x) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1.3)

The nonlinear part

(u - u_{0}) \partial_{x_{1}} u

of ( 1.3 ) should be small for small

t

because of the factor

(u - u_{0})

, but the factor

\partial_{x_{1}} u

still incurs loss of one derivative. The linear part of ( 1.3 ) has a modified first order coefficient.

It is therefore useful to study linear Schrödinger equations of the form

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} u = i ℒ (x) u + {\vec{b}}_{1} (x) \cdot \nabla_{x} u + {\vec{b}}_{2} (x) \cdot \nabla_{x} \bar{u} + c_{1} (x) u + c_{2} (x) \bar{u} + f (x, t), \\ u (x, 0) = u_{0} (x) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1.4)

Solutions

u

of ( 1.4 ) gain one derivative compared to

f

and

1 / 2

derivative compared to

u_{0}

, on the average in time and modulo spatial weights, under suitable assumptions. More precisely, for

s \in Z^{+}

and

N \in Z^{+}

N > 1

, the solution of ( 1.4 ) satisfies

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} | J^{s + 1 / 2} u (x, t) | 〈 x 〉^{- N} d x d t \\ \leq c ((1 + T) ∥ u_{0} ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} | J^{s - 1 / 2} f (x, t) | 〈 x 〉^{N} d x d t) \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1.5)

For the proof of these results for the constant coefficient case

ℒ (x) = Δ

{\vec{b}}_{1} = {\vec{b}}_{2} = 0

see [16] , [24] , [3] , [29] , [31] , [17] , [18] ). The estimate ( 1.5 ) allows to overcome the loss of one derivative introduced by the nonlinear part of ( 1.3 ) and, more generally, to solve ( 1.1 ).

Consider ( 1.4 ) with

ℒ (x) = Δ

{\vec{b}}_{1} = (i, 0, . ., 0)

b_{2} = c_{1} = c_{2} = f = 0

. The solution of this constant coefficient equation is given via Fourier transform by

\hat{u} (ξ, t) = exp (- t (i | ξ |^{2} + ξ_{1})) {\hat{u}}_{0} (ξ)

The multiplier

exp (- t (i | ξ |^{2} + ξ_{1}))

is unbounded for

t \neq 0

, so ( 1.4 ) is not wellposed in

L^{2}

in this case. In fact, the following condition, deduced by S. Mizohata [26] , has been proven to be necessary for the well-posedness in

L^{2}

of ( 1.4 ) with

ℒ (x) = Δ

{\vec{b}}_{2} = 0

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{x \in R^{n}, ω \in S^{n - 1}} | \int_{0}^{\infty} Im {\vec{b}}_{1} (x + r ω) \cdot ω d r | < \infty . \end{matrix}

(1.6)

So the decay assumptions on

Im {\vec{b}}_{1}

are natural. An application of

J^{s} = (I - Δ)^{s / 2}

to ( 1.4 ) gives a new equation with

\nabla_{x} a_{j k} (x)

appearing in the first order coefficient. Well posedness of ( 1.4 ) is of interest for any

s

, so decay assumptions on

\nabla_{x} a_{j k} (x)

seem also natural.

To justify the decay assumptions on

{\vec{b}}_{2} (x)

, we use the result in [20] . Consider the IVP

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} u = i \partial_{x_{1} x_{2}}^{2} u + {\vec{b}}_{2} (x) \cdot \nabla_{x} \bar{u}, x \in R^{2}, t > 0, \\ u (x, 0) = u_{0} (x) \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1.7)

with

{\vec{b}}_{2} = (i, 0)

. It was shown in [20] that the IVP ( 1.7 ) is wellposed, however its solutions gain only

1 / 4

of derivative compared with

u_{0}

instead of the expected

1 / 2

, i.e. ( 1.5 ) holds with

f = 0

and

1 / 4

instead of

1 / 2

. Moreover, if we replace

\partial_{x_{1} x_{2}}^{2}

\partial_{x_{1}}^{2} + \partial_{x_{2}}^{2}

the expected gain of

1 / 2

derivatives is obtained. So one has that in the non-elliptic case, decay assumptions on

{\vec{b}}_{2}

are also necessary to obtain ( 1.5 ). The main result we obtain concerning ( 1.4 ) is Theorem 5.1.1 in Subsection 5.1 .

When considering the variable coefficient equation in ( 1.1 ) one should study of the bicharacteristic flow, i.e. solutions

(X (s; x, ξ), Ξ (s; x, ξ))

of the system

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} X_{j} (s; x, ξ) = 2 \sum_{k = 1}^{n} a_{j k} (X (s; x, ξ)) Ξ_{k} (s; x, ξ), \\ \frac{d}{d s} Ξ_{j} (s; x, ξ) = - \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \partial_{x_{j}} a_{k l} (X (s; x, ξ)) Ξ_{k} (s; x, ξ) Ξ_{l} (s; x, ξ), \\ (X (0; x, ξ), Ξ (0; x, ξ)) = (x, ξ) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1.8)

In the constant coefficient case,

ℒ = - a_{j k}^{0} \partial_{x_{j}} \partial_{x_{k}}

, one has that the bicharacteristic flow is

(X (s; x, ξ), Ξ (s; x, ξ)) = (x + 2 s A^{0} ξ, ξ), A^{0} = (a_{j k}^{0})_{j, k = 1, . ., n} .

For

ℒ = - Δ

one gets

(X (s; x, ξ), Ξ (s; x, ξ)) = (x + 2 s ξ, ξ)

and the condition in ( 1.6 ) can be seen as an integrability one along the bicharacteristics. As we will see in this work (Sections 4-5), roughly speaking the operator

K

whose symbol is

\begin{matrix} k (x, ξ) = exp (\int_{- \infty}^{0} b (X (s; x, ξ), Ξ (s; x, ξ)) d s), with b (x, ξ) = - Im {\vec{b}}_{1} (x) \cdot ξ, \end{matrix}

(1.9)

will play the role of the “integrating factor” introduced in [11] . Such constructions were also previously used in the works [4] and [8] . The commutator term

i [K ℒ - ℒ K]

, used to cancel the term

{\vec{b}}_{1} (x) \cdot \nabla

, corresponds to differentiation of

K

along the bicharacteristic flow. Unfortunately the symbol in ( 1.9 ) is not in a standard class. It satisfies

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} k (x, ξ) | \leq c_{α β} 〈 x 〉^{| β |} 〈 ξ 〉^{- | β |} . \end{matrix}

(1.10)

We observe that in the particular constant coefficient elliptic case,

ℒ = Δ

we have

\begin{matrix} k (x, ξ) & = & exp (\int_{- \infty}^{0} - Im {\vec{b}}_{1} (x + s ξ) \cdot ξ d s) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & exp (\int_{- \infty}^{0} - Im {\vec{b}}_{1} (x + s \hat{ξ}) \cdot \hat{ξ} d s), \hat{ξ} = ξ / | ξ |, \end{matrix}

which is related to Mizohata's condition in ( 1.6 ).

In the case where

ℒ (x)

is elliptic, the class described in ( 1.10 ) was introduced and studied by W. Craig, T. Kappeler and W. Strauss in [4] . However, it should be pointed out that in the non-elliptic case, i.e.

ℒ (x)

is just nondegenerate, the geometric assumption (4.2) in [4] is not satisfied by symbols of interest -see subsection 3.1 in Section 3 . Moreover, we observe that the Hamiltonian

h_{2} (x, ξ) = \sum_{j, k} a_{j k} (x) ξ_{k} ξ_{j}

is preserved under the flow. Then one of the main differences of the flows considered here with those associated to elliptic operators is that ellipticity gives the a priori estimate

ν^{- 2} | ξ_{0} |^{2} \leq {| Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) |}^{2} \leq ν^{2} | ξ_{0} |^{2},

which guarantees that the solutions of the system ( 1.8 ) are globally defined.

We will assume that the bicharacteristic flow is non-trapping, i.e. for each

(x_{0}, ξ_{0}) \in R^{n} \times (R^{n} - {0})

and for each

μ > 0

there exists

s_{0} > 0

such that

\begin{matrix} | X (s_{0}; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) | \geq μ . \end{matrix}

(1.11)

The non-trapping condition appears naturally, since Ichinose [13] showed that a necessary condition for the well-posedness in

L^{2}

of ( 1.1 ) with

ℒ

elliptic,

{\vec{b}}_{2} \equiv 0

c_{1} \equiv 0,

c_{2} \equiv 0,

and

P \equiv 0,

is that the analog of ( 1.6 ) must hold in this case, with the integration taking place along the bicharacterisitics.

The non-trapping condition also is essential in the works of [4] and [8] . In fact even when also

{\vec{b}}_{1} \equiv 0

and

f \equiv 0

, Doi showed in [9] that it is necessary for ( 1.5 ) to hold.

In the ultra-hyperbolic case (i.e. with a merely non-degenerate matrix

A

), under appropriate decay assumptions and asymptotic behavior as

| x | \to \infty

on the coefficients

a_{j k} (x)

, we shall prove that the bicharacteristic flow is globally defined and “uniformly non-trapping”. Moreover in order to keep the structure of the conjugate first order terms, so that after applying the operator

K

we can obtain energy estimates, we need the symbol of

K

to be even -see Definition 5.2.1 (iv) in Section 5 . Therefore we have to study carefully the bicharacteristic for backward and forward time. In particular when looking at the forward bicharacteristic the more delicate part is when it is not outgoing -see Theorem 4.1.1 of Section 4 . In that region we prove that outside a bounded ball, in the

x

variable, it behaves in dyadic annuli as the free flow -see Theorem 4.1.1 in Section 4 for a precise statement.

As in [18] , [22] , the proof of the nonlinear results relies on two kinds of linear estimates. The first one is concerned with the smoothing effect described in ( 1.5 ) for solutions of the IVP ( 1.4 )

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s + 1 / 2} u (x, t) |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{- N} d x d t \\ \leq c (1 + T) {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u (t) ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + c \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| f (x, t) |}^{2} d x d t, \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(1.12)

and

\begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s + 1 / 2} u (x, t) |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{- N} d x d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c (1 + T) {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u (t) ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s - 1 / 2} f (x, t) |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{N} d x d t \end{matrix}

for

N > 1

The second kind is related with the local well-posedness in

L^{2}

(and in

H^{s}

) of the IVP ( 1.4 ). To establish this result we follow an indirect approach. First we truncate at infinity the operator

ℒ (x)

using

θ \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n})

with

θ (x) = 1, | x | \leq 1

, and

θ (x) = 0, | x | \geq 2

. For

R > 0

we define

ℒ^{R} (x) = θ (x / R) ℒ (x) + (1 - θ (x / R)) ℒ^{0},

where

ℒ^{0} = - a_{j k}^{0} \partial_{x_{j}} \partial_{x_{k}}

A^{0} = (a_{j k}^{0})_{j, k = 1, . ., n}

is a (constant) matrix, with the decay assumption

a_{j k} (x) - a_{j k}^{0} \in S (R^{n})

j, k = 1, . ., n

, (although we will work in the

S (R^{n})

class, it will be clear from our proofs that the same results hold if we just assume that the corresponding estimate holds for a finite number of seminorms in ( 2.2 ) Section 2). Thus,

ℒ (x) = ℒ^{R} (x) + ℰ^{R} (x) .

For

R

large enough we consider the bicharacteristic flow

(X^{R} (s; x, ξ), Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ))

associated to the operator

ℒ^{R} (x)

and the corresponding integrating factor

K^{R}

, i.e. the operator with symbol as in ( 1.9 ) but evaluated in the bicharacteristic flow

(X^{R} (s; x, ξ), Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ))

. To obtain the

L^{2}

local well-posedness of the IVP ( 1.4 ) we show that there exists

N_{0}

depending only on the dimension such that for any

M \in Z^{+}

there exists

R_{0} = R_{0} (M)

such that for

R \geq R_{0}

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} {‖ K^{R} u (t) ‖}_{L^{2}}^{2} \leq c R^{N_{0}} ∥ u (0) ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + R^{- M} \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{1 / 2} u |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{- N} d x d t + c T R^{N_{0}} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u (t) ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Next, we deduce several estimates concerning the operator

K^{R}

. In particular, for

E^{R} = I - {\tilde{K}}^{R} (K^{R})^{*}

, where the symbol of

{\tilde{K}}^{R}

differs from that of

K^{R}

only in the sign of the exponent, and

(K^{R})^{*}

is the adjoint of

K^{R}

, which allows us to treat

E^{R} u (t)

as an error term -see Lemma 5.2.6 in Section 5 . Collecting these results we get that

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} {∥ u (t ∥}_{L^{2}}^{2} \leq R^{N_{0}} ∥ u (0) ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + R^{- M} \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{1 / 2} u |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{- N} d x d t + c T {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u (t) ∥_{L^{2}}^{2}, \end{matrix}

which combined with ( 1.12 ) yields the desired estimate, i.e. the local well-posedness in

L^{2}

of the IVP ( 1.4 ) for

T

sufficiently small

{sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u (t) ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} \leq c (T) (∥ u_{0} ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ f (t) ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} d t) .

The smoothing effect and local well-posedness in

H^{s}

of ( 1.4 ) in the case where

ℒ

has elliptic variable coefficients will be proven in Section 2 -see Lemma 2.2.2 and Theorem 2.3.1 of that section. This builds on S. Doi's pseudo-differential method in [7] , [8] and on H. Chihara's diagonalization method for systems [2] and uses only classical pseudo-differential operators.

The diagonalization method cannot be used when

ℒ

is ultrahyperbolic. When

ℒ

has constant coefficients it is possible to cancel the loss of derivatives using a pseudo-differential transformation which falls under the scope of Calderón-Vaillancourt's theorem -see [22] , but this does not seem to extend to the variable coefficient case. Instead one is led to study a new class of symbols and this is done in Section 3 . As we already mentioned the corresponding operators in the elliptic case were studied in [4] .

A typical example of the symbols that need to be considered (take

n = 2

for simplicity) is

a (x \cdot (ξ_{2}, - ξ_{1}) / | ξ |) χ (ξ),

where

χ \in C^{\infty}

χ \equiv 1

for

| ξ | \geq 2

χ \equiv 0

for

| ξ | < 1

, and

a \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R)

, in the elliptic case; and

a (x \cdot (ξ_{2}, ξ_{1}) / | ξ |) χ (ξ),

in the ultrahyperbolic one with

χ

and

a

as before.

As is explained in [21] , the operators of the elliptic case are easily reduced to classical pseudo-differential operators by expressing

a

in terms of its Fourier transform and, given

τ \in R,

using the invertiblechange of variable

ξ \to ξ + τ (ξ_{2}, - ξ_{1}) / | ξ |

. In the ultrahyperbolic setting this approach fails since the corresponding mappings are not invertible, and hence the theory, in particular the

L^{2}

boundedness, is more delicate -see Theorem 3.2.1 in Section 3 . The proofs of the rest of the results concerning the calculus of the operators arising from these symbols-Theorem 3.3.1 , Theorem 3.3.2 and Theorem 3.3.3 of the same section, are reduced after some manipulations to the

L^{2}

boundedness.

In Section 4 we study the bicharacteristic flow in the ultrahyperbolic case for

ℒ (x)

and its truncated version

ℒ^{R} (x)

. There we shall deduce several estimates to be used in establishing the smoothing effect and the local well-posedness of ( 1.4 ) with

ℒ (x)

non-elliptic which will be given in Section 5 .

This also relies on the calculus of Section 3 .

Finally, the smoothing effect in ( 1.4 ) is used to solve ( 1.1 ) in Section 6 . Solutions of ( 1.1 ) are fixed points of an integral mapping which is a contraction on a suitable function space in a small time interval, so Banach's contraction mapping principle applies.

The results in the elliptic case, i.e. those in Section 2 , are due to C. Rolvung, and appear in his PhD dissertation [27] . The results in the ultrahyperbolic case, for

ℒ

C_{0}^{\infty}

perturbation of a constant coefficient operator

ℒ_{0}

also appear in [27] .

2 THE LINEAR ELLIPTIC EQUATION

The local well posedness and smoothing effect for linear elliptic equations are considered in this section. This builds on S. Doi`s method involving classical pseudo-differential operators and the sharp Gårding inequality [8] as well as on a diagonalization as in [2] .

2.1 Pseudo-differential Operators

First we will recall some results from the theory of pseudo-differential operators.

The class

S^{m} = S_{1, 0}^{m}

of classical symbols of order

m \in R

is defined by

\begin{matrix} S^{m} = {p (x, ξ) \in C^{\infty} (R^{n} \times R^{n}) : | p |_{S^{m}}^{(j)} < \infty, j \in N} \end{matrix}

(2.1)

where

\begin{matrix} | p |_{S^{m}}^{(j)} = sup {{‖ 〈 ξ 〉^{- m + | α |} \partial_{ξ}^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} p (\cdot, \cdot) ‖}_{L^{\infty} (R^{n} \times R^{n})} : | α + β | \leq j} \end{matrix}

(2.2)

and

〈 ξ 〉 = (1 + | ξ |^{2})^{1 / 2}

The pseudo-differential operators

Ψ_{p}

associated to the symbol

p \in S^{m}

is defined by

\begin{matrix} Ψ_{p} f (x) = \int_{R^{n}} e^{i x \cdot ξ} p (x, ξ) \hat{f} (ξ) \frac{d ξ}{(2 π)^{n / 2}}, f \in S (R^{n}) . \end{matrix}

(2.3)

For example, a partial differential operator

P = \sum_{| α | \leq N} a_{α} (x) \partial_{x}^{α},

with

a_{α} \in C_{b}^{\infty} (R^{n})

is a pseudo-differential operator

P = Ψ_{p}

with symbol

p (x, ξ) = \sum_{| α | \leq N} a_{α} (x) (i ξ)^{α} .

The fractional differentiation operator

J^{s} = Ψ_{〈 ξ 〉^{s}}

is also a pseudo-differential operator. The collection of symbol classes

S^{m}, m \in R

, is in some cases closed under the division and square root operations. This is not the case for polynomials in

ξ

and sometimes allows one to construct approximate inverses and square roots of pseudo-differential operators.

The following facts will be used throughout this work and the proofs can be found for example in [25] .

Theorem 2.1.1 (Sobolev boundedness) Let

m \in R

p \in S^{m}

and

s \in R

. Then

Ψ_{p}

extends to a bounded linear operator from

H^{m + s} (R^{n})

H^{s} (R^{n})

. Moreover, there exist

j = j (n; m; s) \in N

and

c = c (n; m; s)

such that

\begin{matrix} ∥ Ψ_{p} f ∥_{H^{s}} \leq c | p |_{S^{m}}^{(j)} ∥ f ∥_{H^{m + s}} . \end{matrix}

(2.4)

Finally for

p \in S^{0}

and

λ (| x |) = (1 + | x |^{2})^{- N / 2} = 〈 x 〉^{- N}

N > 1

there exists

j = j (n, N)

such that

\begin{matrix} \int_{R^{n}} | Ψ_{p} f (x) |^{2} λ (| x |) d x \leq c | p |_{S^{0}}^{(j)} \int_{R^{n}} | f (x) |^{2} λ (| x |) d x . \end{matrix}

(2.5)

The proof of ( 2.5 ) can be seen for example in [22] .

Theorem 2.1.2 (Symbolic calculus) Let

m_{1}, m_{2} \in R

p_{1} \in S^{m_{1}}

p_{2} \in S^{m_{2}}

. Then there exist

p_{3} \in S^{m_{1} + m_{2} - 1}

p_{4} \in S^{m_{1} + m_{2} - 2}

, and

p_{5} \in S^{m_{1} - 1}

such that

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} Ψ_{p_{1}} Ψ_{p_{2}} & = & Ψ_{p_{1} p_{2}} + Ψ_{p_{3}}, \\ Ψ_{p_{1}} Ψ_{p_{2}} - Ψ_{p_{2}} Ψ_{p_{1}} & = & Ψ_{- i {p_{1}, p_{2}}} + Ψ_{p_{4}}, \\ (Ψ_{p_{1}})^{*} & = & Ψ_{{\bar{p}}_{1}} + Ψ_{p_{5}} \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.6)

where

{p_{1}, p_{2}}

denotes the Poisson bracket, i.e.

{p_{1}, p_{2}} = \sum_{j = 1}^{n} (\partial_{ξ_{j}} p_{1} \partial_{x_{j}} p_{2} - \partial_{x_{j}} p_{1} \partial_{ξ_{j}} p_{2}),

and such that for any

j \in N

there exist

j^{'} \in N

and

c_{1} = c_{1} (n; m_{1}; m_{2}; j)

c_{2} = c_{2} (n; m_{1}; j)

such that

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {| p_{3} |}_{S^{m_{1} + m_{2} - 1}}^{(j)} + {| p_{4} |}_{S^{m_{1} + m_{2} - 2}}^{(j)} & \leq & c_{1} {| p_{1} |}_{S^{m_{1}}}^{(j^{'})} {| p_{2} |}_{S^{m_{2}}}^{(j^{'})} \\ {| p_{5} |}_{S^{m_{1} - 1}}^{(j^{'})} & \leq & c_{2} {| p_{1} |}_{S^{m_{1}}}^{(j^{'})} . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.7)

Theorem 2.1.3 (Sharp Gårding inequality) Let

p \in S^{1}

and suppose that there exists

R \geq 0

such that

Re p (x, ξ) \geq 0

for

∥ ξ ∥ \geq R

. Then there exist

j = j (n)

and

c = c (n; R)

such that

\begin{matrix} Re {〈 Ψ_{p} f; f 〉}_{L^{2}} \geq - c | p |_{S^{1}}^{(j)} ∥ f ∥_{L^{2}}^{2}, f \in S (R^{n}) . \end{matrix}

(2.8)

This result is due to L. Hörmander [12] .

2.2 The Bicharacteristic Flow

The basic idea is to apply a pseudo-differential operator

K

to the equation ( 1.4 ) of Section 1 in such a way that the commutator

i [K ℒ - ℒ K]

cancels

{\vec{b}}_{1} (x) \cdot \nabla_{x}

. It turns out that

i [K ℒ - ℒ K]

corresponds to differentiation along the bicharacteristic flow which will now be introduced.

Let

A (x) = (a_{j k} (x))

be a real, and symmetric

n \times n

matrix of functions

a_{j k} \in C_{b}^{\infty}

. We will assume that

\begin{matrix} | \nabla a_{j k} (x) | = o (| x |^{- 1}) as | x | \to \infty, j, k = 1, . ., n, \end{matrix}

(2.9)

and that

A (x)

is positive definite, i.e.

\begin{matrix} \exists ν > 0 \forall x, ξ \in R^{n} ν^{- 1} | ξ |^{2} \leq | \sum_{j, k = 1}^{n} a_{j k} (x) ξ_{j} ξ_{k} | \leq ν | ξ |^{2} . \end{matrix}

(2.10)

Let

h_{2}

be the principal symbol of

ℒ = - \partial_{x_{j}} a_{j k} (x) \partial_{x_{k}}

, i.e.

\begin{matrix} h_{2} (x, ξ) = \sum_{j, k = 1}^{n} a_{j k} (x) ξ_{j} ξ_{k} . \end{matrix}

(2.11)

The bicharacteristic flow is the flow of the Hamiltonian vector field

\begin{matrix} H_{h_{2}} = \sum_{j = 1}^{n} [\partial_{ξ_{j}} h_{2} \cdot \partial_{x_{j}} - \partial_{x_{j}} h_{2} \cdot \partial_{ξ_{j}}] \end{matrix}

(2.12)

and is denoted by

(X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}), Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}))

, i.e.

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} X_{j} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) = 2 \sum_{k = 1}^{n} a_{j k} (X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) Ξ_{k} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}), \\ \frac{d}{d s} Ξ_{j} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) = - \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \partial_{x_{j}} a_{l k} (X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) Ξ_{k} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) Ξ_{l} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.13)

for

j = 1, . ., n

, with

\begin{matrix} (X (0; x_{0}, ξ_{0}), Ξ (0; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) = (x_{0}, ξ_{0}) . \end{matrix}

(2.14)

The bicharacteristic flow exists in the time interval

s \in (- δ, δ)

with

δ = δ (x_{0}, ξ_{0})

, and

δ (\cdot)

depending continuously on

(x_{0}, ξ_{0})

The bicharacteristic flow preserves

h_{2}

, so ellipticity gives

\begin{matrix} ν^{- 2} {| ξ_{0} |^{2} \leq | Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0} |}^{2} \leq ν^{2} | ξ_{0} |^{2}, \end{matrix}

(2.15)

and hence

δ = \infty

It will be assumed that the bicharacteristic flow is non-trapped which means that the set

{X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) : s \in R}

is unbounded in

R^{n}

for each

(x_{0}, ξ_{0}) \in R^{n} \times R^{n} - {0}

Note that

h_{2}

is homogeneous of degree

2

ξ

so that

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} X (s; x, t ξ) = X (t s; x, ξ), \\ Ξ (s; x, t ξ) = t Ξ (t s; x, ξ) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.16)

The next result shows that the Hamiltonian vector field is differentiation along the bicharacteristics.

Lemma 2.2.1 Let

φ \in C^{\infty} (R^{n} \times R^{n})

. Then

\begin{matrix} (H_{h_{2}} φ) (x, ξ) = \partial_{s} [φ (X (s; x, ξ), Ξ (s; x, ξ))] |_{s = 0} . \end{matrix}

(2.17)

The following key lemma is due to S. Doi [8] (Lemmas 2.3-2.5).

Lemma 2.2.2 Let

A (x)

and its bicharacteristic flow satisfy the assumptions above. Suppose

λ \in L^{1} ([0, \infty)) \cap C ([0, \infty))

is strictly positive and nonincreasing. Then there exist

c > 0

and a real symbol

p \in S^{0}

, both depending on

h_{2}

and

λ

, such that

\begin{matrix} H_{h_{2}} p = {h_{2}, p} (x, ξ) \geq λ (| x |) | ξ | - c, \forall (x, ξ) \in R^{n} \times R^{n} . \end{matrix}

(2.18)

An extension of this result to the case of invertible

A (x)

will be given in Section 5 , Lemma 5.1.1 .

2.3 Linear Elliptic Smoothing Effects

In this subsection we consider the IVP associated to the linear Schrödinger equation

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} u = - i \sum_{j, k = 1}^{n} \partial_{x_{j}} (a_{j k} (x) \partial_{x_{k}} u) + {\vec{b}}_{1} (x) \cdot \nabla_{x} u + {\vec{b}}_{2} (x) \cdot \nabla_{x} \bar{u} + c_{1} (x) u + c_{2} (x) \bar{u} + f (x, t), \\ u (x, 0) = u_{0} (x), \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.19)

where

A (x) = (a_{j k})_{j, k = 1, . ., n}

satisfies ( 2.9 )-( 2.10 ) and its bicharacteristic flow satisfies the assumptions in the previous subsection,

{\vec{b}}_{l} = (b_{l}^{1}, . ., b_{l}^{n}) \in {(C_{b}^{\infty})}^{n}

l = 1, 2

and

c_{1}, c_{2} \in C_{b}^{\infty}

Combining the equation in ( 2.9 ) and its complex conjugate we obtain a system in

\vec{w} = (u, \bar{u})^{T}

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} \vec{w} = (i H + B + C) \vec{w} + \vec{f}, \\ \vec{w} (x, 0) = {\vec{w}}_{0} (x), \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.20)

where H =

\begin{matrix} (\begin{matrix} ℒ & 0 \\ 0 & - ℒ \end{matrix}), C = (\begin{matrix} c_{11} & c_{12} \\ c_{21} & c_{22} \end{matrix}), \end{matrix}

B = (\begin{matrix} B_{11} & B_{12} \\ B_{21} & B_{22} \end{matrix}),

with

ℒ = - \sum_{j, k = 1}^{n} \partial_{x_{j}} (a_{j k} (x) \partial_{x_{k}}),

B_{l m} u (x, t) = \sum_{j = 1}^{n} b_{l m j} (x) \partial_{x_{j}} u (x, t), b_{l m j} \in C_{b}^{\infty} l, m = 1, 2, j = 1, . ., n,

and

c_{l m} = c_{l m} (x) \in C_{b}^{\infty}, l, m = 1, 2, \vec{f} (x, t) = (f (x, t), \bar{f} (x, t))^{T} .

The following well-posedness and smoothing results contain three parts depending on the regularity and the decay of the external force

f (x, t)

Theorem 2.3.1 Let

{\vec{w}}_{0} = (u_{0}, {\bar{u}}_{0})^{T} \in (H^{s} (R^{n}))^{2}

s \in R

. Assume that there exist

N > 1

and a constant

c_{0}

such that if

λ (| x |) = 〈 x 〉^{- N}

then

| Im b_{l l j} (x) | \leq c_{0} λ (| x |), l, m = 1, 2, j = 1, . ., n, x \in R^{n} .

Then (a) If

\vec{f} \in (L^{1} ([0, T] : (H^{s} (R^{n})))^{2}

then the IVP ( 2.20 ) has a unique solution

\vec{w} \in C ([0, T] : (H^{s} (R^{n}))^{2})

satisfying

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ \vec{w} (t) ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}} \leq c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} (∥ {\vec{w}}_{0} ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}} + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \vec{f} (t) ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}} d t) . \end{matrix}

(2.21)

(b) If

\vec{f} \in (L^{2} ([0, T] : (H^{s} (R^{n})))^{2}

then the IVP ( 2.20 ) has a unique solution

\vec{w} \in C ([0, T] : (H^{s} (R^{n}))^{2})

satisfying

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ \vec{w} (t) ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} | J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w} (x, t) |^{2} λ (| x |) d x d t \\ \leq c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} (∥ {\vec{w}}_{0} ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \vec{f} (t) ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}}^{2} d t) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.22)

J^{s - 1 / 2} \vec{f} \in (L^{2} (R^{n} \times [0, T] : (λ (| x |)^{- 1} d x d t))^{2}

then the IVP ( 2.20 ) has a unique solution

\vec{w} \in C ([0, T] : (H^{s} (R^{n}))^{2})

satisfying

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ \vec{w} (t) ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} | J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w} (x, t) |^{2} λ (| x |) d x d t \\ \leq c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} (∥ {\vec{w}}_{0} ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} | J^{s - 1 / 2} \vec{f} (x, t) |^{2} (λ (| x |))^{- 1} d x d t) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.23)

Here

c_{1}

depends on

n, s, ν, (a_{j k})_{j, k = 1, . ., n}, c_{0}, (b_{l m j})_{l, m = 1, 2; j = 1, . ., n}

, and

c_{2}

depends in addition on

(c_{l m})_{l, m = 1, 2}

Corollary 2.3.1 Let

s \in R

and

u_{0} \in H^{s} (R^{n}

) and suppose

λ

satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 2.3.1 . Then (a) If

f \in L^{1} ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n}))

, then there exists a unique solution

u \in C ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n}))

of ( 2.19 ) satisfying

{sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u (\cdot, t) ∥_{H^{s}} \leq c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} (∥ u_{0} ∥_{H^{s}} + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ f (\cdot, t) ∥_{H^{s}} d t)

(b) If

f \in L^{2} ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n}))

, then there exists a unique solution

u \in C ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n}))

of ( 2.19 ) satisfying

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u (\cdot, t) ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} | J^{s + 1 / 2} u (x, t) |^{2} λ (| x |) d x d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} (∥ u_{0} ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ f (\cdot, t) ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} d t); \end{matrix}

J^{s - 1 / 2} f \in L^{2} (R^{n} \times [0, T] : (λ (| x |))^{- 1} d x d t)

, then there exists a unique solution

u \in C ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n}))

of ( 2.19 ) satisfying

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u (\cdot, t) ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} | J^{s + 1 / 2} u (x, t) |^{2} λ (| x |) d x d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} (∥ u_{0} ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} | J^{s - 1 / 2} f (x, t) |^{2} (λ (| x |))^{- 1} d x d t) . \end{matrix}

Here

c_{1}

depends on

n, s, ν, (a_{j k})_{j, k = 1, . ., n}, c_{0}, (b_{lmj})_{l, m = 1, 2; j = 1, . ., n}

, and

c_{2}

depends in addition on

(c_{l m})_{l, m = 1, 2}

The following a priori estimate is needed for the proof of Theorem 2.3.1 .

Lemma 2.3.1 Let

s \in R

and suppose

λ

satisfies the assumptions of Theorem 2.3.1 . Then there exist

c_{1}

depending on

n, s

ν, (a_{j k})_{j, k = 1, . ., n}

c_{0},

and finitely many derivatives of

(b_{l m j})_{l, m = 1, 2; j = 1, . ., n}

, and

c_{2}

depending in addition on finitely many derivatives of

(c_{l m})_{l, m = 1, 2}

such that for all

\vec{w} \in (C ([0, T] : H^{s + 2} (R^{n})) \cap C^{1} ([0, T] : H^{s + 2} (R^{n})))^{2}

the following four estimates hold :

\begin{matrix} (i) {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ \vec{w} (t) ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}} \leq c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} (∥ {\vec{w}}_{0} ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ (\partial_{t} - (i H + B + C)) \vec{w} (\cdot, t) ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}} d t), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} (i i) {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ \vec{w} (t) ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}} \leq c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} (∥ \vec{w} (\cdot, T) ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + \int_{0}^{T} {∥ (\partial_{t} + (i H + B + C)^{*}) \vec{w} (\cdot, t) ∥}_{(H^{s})^{2}} d t), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} (i i i) {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ \vec{w} (t) ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w} (x, t) |}^{2} λ (| x |) d x d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} (∥ {\vec{w}}_{0} ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} {∥ (\partial_{t} - (i H + B + C)) \vec{w} (\cdot, t) ∥}_{(H^{s})^{2}}^{2} d t), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} (i v) {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ \vec{w} (t) ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w} (x, t) |}^{2} λ (| x |) d x d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} ∥ {\vec{w}}_{0} ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s - 1 / 2} (\partial_{t} - (i H + B + C)) \vec{w} (\cdot, t) |}^{2} (λ (| x |))^{- 1} d x d t . \end{matrix}

We observe that (ii) follows from (i) by applying (i), with

i H + B + C

replaced by

(i H + B + C)^{*}

, to

\vec{w} (\cdot, T - t)

, so it suffices to prove (i), (iii), and (iv) of Lemma 2.3.1 . The idea of the proof is to apply transformations

Λ

and

K

to the system.

Λ

will diagonalize

B

and essentially transforms the system into two single equations where the pseudo-differential calculus applies. The idea of this diagonalization came from the work of H. Chihara [2] .

K

will eliminate the loss of derivatives of the first order terms. This idea is due to S. Doi [7] , [8] and S. Mizohata [26] .

Proof of Lemma 2.3.1 Let

\vec{w} \in (C ([0, T] : H^{s + 2} (R^{n})) \cap C^{1} ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n})))^{2}

. Set

h_{2} (x, ξ) = \sum_{j, k = 1}^{n} a_{j k} (x) ξ_{j} ξ_{k}, h_{1} (x, ξ) = i \sum_{j, k = 1}^{n} \partial_{x_{j}} a_{j k} (x) ξ_{k},

so that

ℒ = Ψ_{h_{1} + h_{2}}

. Since

(a_{j k} (x))

is positive definite there exist

c = c (a_{j k}; \partial_{x_{j}} a_{j k})

and

R = R (a_{j k}; \partial_{x_{j}} a_{j k})

such that

| h_{1} (x, ξ) + h_{2} (x, ξ) | \geq c | ξ |^{2}, \forall | ξ | \geq R .

Choosing

φ \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n})

with

φ (y) = 1

| y | \leq R

and

φ (y) = 0

| y | \geq 2 R

we define

\tilde{h} (x, ξ) = (h_{1} (x, ξ) + h_{2} (x, ξ))^{- 1} (1 - φ (ξ)) and \tilde{ℒ} = Ψ_{\tilde{h}} .

\tilde{h} \in S^{- 2}

and

\tilde{ℒ} ℒ = I + Ψ_{r_{1}},

where

r_{1} = r_{1} ((a_{j k})_{j, k = 1, . ., n}) \in S^{- 1}

by the symbolic calculus in Theorem 2.1.2 in the sense that for any

l \in N

| r_{1} |_{S^{- 1}}^{l}

depends on the ellipticity constant

μ

and on finitely many derivatives of the

a_{j k}

's.

We define

B_{d i a g}

B_{a n t i}

with symbols in

(S^{1})^{2 \times 2}, S_{12}, S_{21}

with symbols in

S^{- 1}

and

S

with symbol in

(S^{- 1})^{2 \times 2}

\begin{matrix} B_{d i a g} = (\begin{matrix} B_{11} & 0 \\ 0 & B_{22} \end{matrix}), B_{a n t i} = (\begin{matrix} 0 & B_{12} \\ B_{21} & 0 \end{matrix}), \end{matrix}

S_{12} = \frac{1}{2} i B_{12} \tilde{ℒ}, S_{21} = - \frac{1}{2} i B_{21} \tilde{ℒ},

S = (\begin{matrix} 0 & S_{12} \\ S_{21} & 0 \end{matrix}),

and the diagonalizing transform

Λ

with symbol in

(S^{0})^{2 \times 2}

Λ = I - S .

Then

S = S (n; ν; (a_{j k}); (b_{l m j}))

in the sense above. Letting

\vec{f} = (\partial_{t} - (i H + B + C)) \vec{w},

and applying

Λ

, one obtains

\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} Λ \vec{w} = i Λ H \vec{w} + Λ B \vec{w} + Λ C \vec{w} + Λ \vec{f} . \end{matrix}

(2.24)

We shall show that the system ( 2.24 ) is diagonalized modulo operators with symbols in

S^{0}

. So wewrite

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} i Λ H + Λ B & = & i H Λ + (i Λ H - i H Λ) + B - S B \\ = & i H Λ + (i Λ H - i H Λ) + B_{d i a g} + B_{a n t i} - S B \\ = & (i H Λ + B_{d i a g} Λ) + (B_{a n t i} + i Λ H - i H Λ) + (B_{d i a g} S - S B) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.25)

Since the operator in the first parenthesis is diagonalized and the operator in the last parenthesis has order

0

, it suffices to consider only the operator in the second parenthesis in ( 2.25 ). Thus,

\begin{matrix} B_{a n t i} + i Λ H - i H Λ = B_{a n t i} + i H S - i S H = \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = (\begin{matrix} 0 & B_{12} \\ B_{21} & 0 \end{matrix}) + (\begin{matrix} ℒ & 0 \\ 0 & - ℒ \end{matrix}) (\begin{matrix} 0 & - \frac{1}{2} B_{12} \tilde{ℒ} \\ \frac{1}{2} B_{21} \tilde{ℒ} & 0 \end{matrix}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - (\begin{matrix} 0 & - \frac{1}{2} B_{12} \tilde{ℒ} \\ \frac{1}{2} B_{21} \tilde{ℒ} & 0 \end{matrix}) (\begin{matrix} ℒ & 0 \\ 0 & - ℒ \end{matrix}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = (\begin{matrix} 0 & B_{12} - \frac{1}{2} ℒ B_{12} \tilde{ℒ} - \frac{1}{2} B_{12} \tilde{ℒ} ℒ \\ B_{21} - \frac{1}{2} ℒ B_{21} \tilde{ℒ} - \frac{1}{2} B_{21} \tilde{ℒ} ℒ & 0 \end{matrix}) . \end{matrix}

We observe that

ℒ B_{12} \tilde{ℒ} = B_{12} \tilde{ℒ} ℒ + Ψ_{r_{2}}

, where

r_{2} \in S^{0}

and

B_{12} - \frac{1}{2} ℒ B_{12} \tilde{ℒ} - \frac{1}{2} B_{12} \tilde{ℒ} ℒ = B_{12} - B_{12} \tilde{ℒ} ℒ - \frac{1}{2} Ψ_{r_{2}} = - B_{12} Ψ_{r_{1}} - \frac{1}{2} Ψ_{r_{2}} .

A similar calculus argument handles the term involving

B_{21}

. Therefore, we have that

B_{a n t i} + i Λ H - i H Λ

has order zero, which allows to conclude that

\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} Λ \vec{w} = i H Λ \vec{w} + B_{d i a g} Λ \vec{w} + Ψ_{r_{3}} \vec{w} + Λ \vec{f}, \end{matrix}

(2.26)

where

r_{3} \in (S^{0})^{2 \times 2}

and

r_{3} = r_{3} (n; ν; (a_{j k}); (b_{l m j}); (c_{l m})),

in the sense that for any

j_{0} \in Z^{+}

| r_{3} |_{(S^{0})^{2 \times 2}}^{(j_{0})}

depends on

n, ν

and finitely many of the derivatives of

a_{j k}

b_{l m j}

and

c_{l m}

By Lemma 2.2.2 there exists a real-valued

p \in S^{0}

and

C > 0

, both depending on

(a_{j k})

and

c_{0}

, such that

\begin{matrix} {h_{2} (x, ξ); p (x, ξ)} \geq C^{'} c_{0} λ (| x |) | ξ | - C, \forall x, ξ \in R^{n}, \end{matrix}

(2.27)

with

C^{'} = C^{'} (n)

to be determined. Let

k (x, ξ) = (\begin{matrix} e^{p (x, ξ)} (1 + (h_{2} (x, ξ))^{2})^{s / 4} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{- p (x, ξ)} (1 + (h_{2} (x, ξ))^{2})^{s / 4} \end{matrix})

and

K = Ψ_{k}

. Note that

e^{\pm p (x, ξ)} (1 + (h_{2} (x, ξ))^{2})^{s / 4} \in S^{s}

and is elliptic, since

p \in S^{0}

is real and

{(1 + ν^{- 2} | ξ |^{4})}^{1 / 4} \leq {(1 + (h_{2} (x, ξ))^{2})}^{1 / 4} \leq {(1 + ν^{2} | ξ |^{4})}^{1 / 4}

where

ν

is the ellipticity constant of

(a_{j k})

The norm

N

(H^{s})^{2}

is defined by

\begin{matrix} (N (v))^{2} = ∥ K Λ v ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} + ∥ v ∥_{H^{s - 1}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

(2.28)

It will be shown that

N

is equivalent to the standard

H^{s}

-norm.

Let

\tilde{k} (x, ξ) = (\begin{matrix} e^{- p (x, ξ)} (1 + (h_{2} (x, ξ))^{2})^{- s / 4} & 0 \\ 0 & e^{p (x, ξ)} (1 + (h_{2} (x, ξ))^{2})^{- s / 4} \end{matrix})

and

\tilde{K} = Ψ_{\tilde{k}}

. Then

\tilde{k} \in (S^{- s})^{2 \times 2}

and by the symbolic calculus in Theorem 2.1.2

\tilde{K} K = I + Ψ_{r_{4}},

for some

r_{4} \in (S^{- 1})^{2 \times 2}

, where

| r_{4} |_{(S^{- 1})^{2 \times 2}}^{(j_{0})}

depends on

ν, (a_{j k})

and

c_{0}

for each

j_{0} \in N

. Therefore

\tilde{K} K Λ = (I + Ψ_{r_{4}}) (I - S) = I - (S - Ψ_{r_{4}} + Ψ_{r_{4}} S),

where

S - Ψ_{r_{4}} + Ψ_{r_{4}} S

has order

- 1

. By the Sobolev boundedness (Theorem 2.1.1 )

\begin{matrix} ∥ v ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} & \leq & 2 ∥ \tilde{K} K Λ v ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + 2 {∥ (S - Ψ_{r_{4}} + Ψ_{r_{4}} S) v ∥}_{H^{s}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c ({∥ K Λ v ∥}_{L^{2}}^{2} + ∥ v ∥_{H^{s - 1}}^{2}) \leq c ∥ v ∥_{H^{s}}^{2}, \end{matrix}

for a sufficient large constant

c = c (n, s, ν, (a_{j k}), c_{0}, (b_{l m j}))

independent of

v

. This shows the equivalence of the norms.

Next, we shall estimate the norm

N

to establish the inequalities (i), (iii) and (iv) in Lemma 2.3.1 In the following

c_{j}

will denote a constant depending on

n, s, ν, (a_{j k})

c_{0}

and finitely many derivatives of

(b_{l m j})

and

(c_{l m})

To estimate the second term of

(N (v))^{2}

in ( 2.28 ) we write

\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} ∥ \vec{w} ∥_{H^{s - 1}}^{2} & = & \partial_{t} 〈 J^{s - 1} \vec{w}, J^{s - 1} \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} = 2 Re 〈 J^{s - 1} \partial_{t} \vec{w}, J^{s - 1} \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 2 Re 〈 J^{s - 1} (i H \vec{w} + B \vec{w} + C \vec{w} + \vec{f}), J^{s - 1} \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 2 Re 〈 i H J^{s - 1} \vec{w}, J^{s - 1} \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & 2 Re 〈 (i [J^{s - 1} H - H J^{s - 1}] + J^{s - 1} B + J^{s - 1} C) \vec{w}, J^{s - 1} \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & 2 Re 〈 J^{s - 1} f, J^{s - 1} \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c_{1} {(N (\vec{w}))}^{2} + c_{2} min {N (\vec{f}) N (\vec{w}); 〈 (λ (| x |))^{- 1} J^{s - 1 / 2} \vec{f}, J^{s - 1 / 2} \vec{f} 〉_{L^{2}}} . \end{matrix}

Above we have used that

H

is self-adjoint and diagonal, that

N

and

H^{s}

-norm are equivalent, and that

λ

is bounded above.

For the first term of

(N (\vec{w}))^{2}

in ( 2.28 ) we write

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \partial_{t} ∥ K Λ \vec{w} ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} & = & \partial_{t} 〈 K Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} = 2 Re 〈 \partial_{t} K Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \\ = & 2 Re 〈 K \partial_{t} Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \\ = & 2 Re 〈 K (i H + B_{d i a g}) Λ \vec{w} + Ψ_{r_{3}} \vec{w} + Λ \vec{f}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \\ = & 2 Re 〈 K (i H + B_{d i a g}) Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} + 2 Re 〈 K Ψ_{r_{3}} \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \\ + & 2 Re 〈 K Λ \vec{f}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \\ \leq & 2 Re 〈 K (i H + B_{d i a g}) Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} + c (N (\vec{w}))^{2} + 2 Re 〈 K Λ \vec{f}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \\ = & I + c (N (\vec{w}))^{2} + I I I, \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.29)

since

{∥ K Ψ_{r_{3}} \vec{w} ∥}_{L^{2}} \leq c ∥ \vec{w} ∥_{H^{s}} \leq c (N (\vec{w}))

by Sobolev boundedness and norm equivalence.

We should consider the terms

I

and

I I I

separately. First we have

\begin{matrix} I & = & 2 Re 〈 K (i H + B_{d i a g}) Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 2 Re 〈 (i H + B_{d i a g}) K Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} + 2 Re 〈 i [K H - H K] Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & 2 Re 〈 [K B_{d i a g} - B_{d i a g} K] Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & 2 Re 〈 (B_{d i a g} K + i [K H - H K]) Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} + c (N (\vec{w}))^{2}, \end{matrix}

since

H

is self-adjoint and

[K B_{d i a g} - B_{d i a g} K]

is a commutator of diagonal matrices and therefore has order

s

. Using the commutator formula of the symbolic calculus on the diagonal matrices

K

and

H

it follows that

i [K H - H K] = Ψ_{q} + Ψ_{r_{5}},

where

r_{5} \in S^{s}

and

q \in S^{s + 1}

is given by

q = (\begin{matrix} {e^{p} (1 + h_{2}^{2})^{s / 4}; h_{2} + h_{1}} & 0 \\ 0 & {e^{- p} (1 + h_{2}^{2})^{s / 4}; - h_{2} - h_{1}} \end{matrix}) .

Since

{e^{p} (1 + h_{2}^{2})^{s / 4}; h_{2} + h_{1}} = - {h_{2}; p} e^{p} (1 + h_{2}^{2})^{s / 4} + {e^{p} (1 + h_{2}^{2})^{s / 4}; h_{1}},

where the last term is in

S^{s}

, it follows that

q = (\begin{matrix} - {h_{2}; p} & 0 \\ 0 & - {h_{2}; p} \end{matrix}) k + r_{6},

for some

r_{6} \in S^{s}

, and thus

i [K H - H K] = - Ψ_{{h_{2}; p}} K + Ψ_{r_{7}},

with

r_{7} \in S^{s}

. Hence,

\begin{matrix} I & = & 2 Re 〈 K (i H + B_{d i a g}) Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & 2 Re 〈 (B_{d i a g} - Ψ_{{h_{2}; p}}) K Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} + c (N (\vec{w}))^{2} . \end{matrix}

Next we apply the sharp Gårding inequality (Theorem 2.1.3 ) to the diagonal matrix

B_{d i a g} - Ψ_{{h_{2}; p}}

For

l = 1, 2

\begin{matrix} Re (i \sum_{j = 1}^{n} b_{l l j} (x) ξ_{j} - {h_{2}; p}) = - \sum_{j = 1}^{n} Im b_{l l j} (x) ξ_{j} - {h_{2}; p} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c_{0} λ (| x |) \sum_{j = 1}^{n} | ξ_{j} | - C^{'} c_{0} λ (| x |) | ξ | + c \leq (\sqrt{n} - C^{'}) c_{0} λ (| x |) | ξ | + C . \end{matrix}

Choosing

C^{'} = 1 + \sqrt{n}

and using that

(1 + | ξ |^{2})^{1 / 2} \leq 1 + | ξ |

, we obtain

Re (i \sum_{j = 1}^{n} b_{l l j} (x) ξ_{j} - {h_{2}; p}) \leq - c_{0} λ (| x |) {(1 + | ξ |^{2})}^{1 / 2} + c_{0} + C,

and the sharp Gårding inequality yields

\begin{matrix} 2 Re {〈 (B_{d i a g} - Ψ_{{h_{2}; p}}) K Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉}_{L^{2}} + c (N (\vec{w}))^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq - 2 Re 〈 c_{0} λ (| x |) J^{1} K Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} + c (N (\vec{w}))^{2} . \end{matrix}

Since

(λ (| x |))^{1 / 2} \in C_{b}^{\infty}

, one has

λ J^{1} = Ψ_{λ 〈 ξ 〉} = Ψ_{(λ)^{1 / 2} (〈 ξ 〉)^{1 / 2}} Ψ_{(λ)^{1 / 2} (〈 ξ 〉)^{1 / 2}} + Ψ_{r_{8}},

with

r_{8} \in S^{0}

and

〈 ξ 〉 = (1 + | ξ |^{2})^{1 / 2}

. But

Ψ_{(λ)^{1 / 2} (〈 ξ 〉)^{1 / 2}} = (Ψ_{(λ)^{1 / 2} (〈 ξ 〉)^{1 / 2}})^{*} + Ψ_{r_{9}},

for some

r_{9} \in S^{- 1 / 2}

, so

- 2 Re 〈 λ J^{1} K Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \leq - 2 ∥ (λ)^{1 / 2} J^{1 / 2} K Λ \vec{w} ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} + c (N (\vec{w}))^{2} .

Recalling that

I = \tilde{K} K Λ + Ψ_{r_{- 1}}

r_{- 1} \in S^{- 1}

and using the symbolic calculus on diagonal matrices we obtain that

\begin{matrix} {‖ λ^{1 / 2} J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w} ‖}_{L^{2}} \leq {‖ (λ^{1 / 2} J^{1 / 2}) (J^{s} \tilde{K}) (K Λ) \vec{w} ‖}_{L^{2}} + c N (\vec{w}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq {‖ (J^{s} \tilde{K}) (λ^{1 / 2} J^{1 / 2}) (K Λ) \vec{w} ‖}_{L^{2}} + c N (\vec{w}) \leq c ({‖ (λ^{1 / 2} J^{1 / 2}) (K Λ) \vec{w} ‖}_{L^{2}} + N (\vec{w})) . \end{matrix}

So the following estimate for the term

I

in ( 2.29 ) is therefore obtained

\begin{matrix} I & = & 2 Re 〈 K (i H + B_{d i a g}) Λ \vec{w}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & - c {〈 λ (| x |) J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w}, J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w} 〉}_{L^{2}} + c (N (\vec{w}))^{2} . \end{matrix}

The estimate for the term

I I I

in ( 2.29 ) will depend on which inequality (i), (ii), (iv) in Lemma 2.3.1 is considered.

To obtain (i) we write,

I I I = 2 Re 〈 K Λ \vec{f}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \leq c N (\vec{f}) N (\vec{w}) .

Adding the estimates for the two terms of

\partial_{t} (N (\vec{w}))^{2}

we get

\partial_{t} (N (\vec{w}))^{2} \leq c (N (\vec{w}))^{2} + c N (\vec{f}) N (\vec{w}),

\partial_{t} N (\vec{w}) \leq c N (\vec{w}) + c N (\vec{f}) .

Hence,

N (\vec{w} (t)) \leq e^{c t} (N (\vec{w} (0)) + c \int_{0}^{t} N (\vec{f} (τ)) d τ),

which proves part (i) in Lemma 2.3.1 .

To obtain (iii), we use again that

I I I \leq c N (\vec{f}) N (\vec{w}) .

Therefore, adding estimates one finds that

\partial_{t} (N (\vec{w}))^{2} + c {〈 λ J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w}, J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w} 〉}_{L^{2}} \leq c (N (\vec{w}))^{2} + c N (\vec{f}) N (\vec{w}) .

Integration from

0

t

yields (iii).

Finally to obtain (iv) we estimate the term

I I I

as follows

\begin{matrix} I I I & = & 2 Re 〈 K Λ \vec{f}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} = 2 Re 〈 J^{1 / 2} J^{- 1 / 2} K Λ \vec{f}, K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 2 Re 〈 J^{- 1 / 2} K Λ \vec{f}, J^{1 / 2} K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} = 2 Re 〈 λ^{- 1 / 2} J^{- 1 / 2} K Λ \vec{f}, λ^{1 / 2} J^{1 / 2} K Λ \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & 2 ∥ λ^{- 1 / 2} J^{- 1 / 2} K Λ \vec{f} ∥_{L^{2}} ∥ λ^{1 / 2} J^{1 / 2} K Λ \vec{w} ∥_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & 2 {‖ λ^{- 1 / 2} (J^{- 1 / 2} K Λ J^{- s + 1 / 2}) (J^{s - 1 / 2} \vec{f}) ‖}_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & {‖ λ^{1 / 2} (J^{1 / 2} K Λ J^{- s - 1 / 2}) (J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w}) ‖}_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \frac{1}{ε} \int_{R^{n}} {| (J^{- 1 / 2} K Λ J^{- s + 1 / 2}) (J^{s - 1 / 2} \vec{f}) |}^{2} λ^{- 1} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & ε \int_{R^{n}} {| (J^{1 / 2} K Λ J^{- s - 1 / 2}) (J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w}) |}^{2} λ d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \frac{c}{ε} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s - 1 / 2} \vec{f} |}^{2} λ^{- 1} d x + c ε \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w}) |}^{2} λ d x, \end{matrix}

where the last estimate follows from Theorem 2.1.1 since

J^{- 1 / 2} K Λ J^{- s + 1 / 2}

and

J^{1 / 2} K Λ J^{- s - 1 / 2}

have order zero.

ε

is a small constant to be chosen. Adding estimates we obtain

\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} (N (\vec{w}))^{2} + (c_{1} - c_{2} ε) 〈 λ J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w}, J^{s + 1 / 2} \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c (N (\vec{w}))^{2} + (\frac{c_{3}}{ε} + c_{4}) {〈 λ^{- 1} J^{s - 1 / 2} \vec{f}, J^{s - 1 / 2} \vec{f} 〉}_{L^{2}} . \end{matrix}

Then, choosing

ε

sufficiently small, integrating from

0

t

we obtain part (iv) of Lemma 2.3.1 .

Proof of Theorem 2.3.1 Uniqueness :

Assume

\vec{w} \in (C ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n})))^{2}

is a solution of the system in ( 2.20 ) with

\vec{f} = 0

and

{\vec{w}}_{0} = 0

. Then

\vec{w} \in (C ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n})) \cap C^{1} ([0, T] : H^{s - 2} (R^{n})))^{2}

. From part (i) in Lemma 2.3.1 one concludes that

\vec{w} = 0

Existence :Case 1 :

\vec{f} \in (S (R^{n + 1}))^{2}

and

{\vec{w}}_{0} \in (S (R^{n}))^{2}

The conjugate linear functional

l^{*}

is defined in the linear subspace

(\partial_{t} + (i H + B + C)^{*}) {(C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n} \times [0, T)))}^{2} \subset {(L^{1} [0, T] : H^{- s} (R^{n})))}^{2},

l^{*} (\vec{η}) = \int_{0}^{T} 〈 \vec{f}, \vec{φ} 〉_{L^{2} \times L^{2}} d t + 〈 {\vec{w}}_{0}, \vec{φ} (0) 〉_{L^{2} \times L^{2}}

for

\vec{φ} \in {(C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n} \times [0, T)))}^{2}

and

\vec{η} = - (\partial_{t} + (i H + B + C)^{*}) \vec{φ}

. This is well defined by the uniqueness part above.

By part (ii) of Lemma 2.3.1 with

s

replaced by

- s

it follows that

\begin{matrix} | l^{*} (\vec{η}) | & \leq & \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \vec{f} ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}} ∥ \vec{φ} ∥_{(H^{- s})^{2}} d t + ∥ {\vec{w}}_{0} ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}} ∥ \vec{φ} (0) ∥_{(H^{- s})^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c_{1} e^{c_{2} T} (∥ \vec{f} ∥_{(L^{1} ([0, T] : H^{s}))^{2}} + ∥ {\vec{w}}_{0} ∥_{(H^{s})^{2}}) ∥ \vec{η} ∥_{(L^{1} ([0, T] : H^{- s}))^{2}} . \end{matrix}

Using the Hahn-Banach theorem to extend

l^{*}

, there exists

\vec{w} \in (L^{\infty} ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n})))^{2}

such that

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} - & \int_{0}^{T} 〈 \vec{w}, (\partial_{t} + (i H + B + C)^{*}) \vec{φ} 〉_{(H^{s})^{2} \times (H^{s})^{2}} \\ = & \int_{0}^{T} 〈 \vec{f}, \vec{φ} 〉_{L^{2} \times L^{2}} d t + 〈 {\vec{w}}_{0}, \vec{φ} (0) 〉_{L^{2} \times L^{2}}, \forall \vec{φ} \in {(C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n} \times [0, T)))}^{2} . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(2.30)

Thus,

(\partial_{t} - (i H + B + C)) \vec{w} = \vec{f}

as distributions for

0 < t < T

. From this equation one has that

\partial_{t} \vec{w} \in (L^{\infty} ([0, T] : H^{s - 2} (R^{n})))^{2}

since

\vec{f} \in (S (R^{n + 1}))^{2}

, so

\vec{w} \in (C ([0, T] : H^{s - 2} (R^{n})))^{2}

. Using the equation once more,

\vec{w} \in (C^{1} ([0, T] : H^{s - 4} (R^{n})))^{2}

, and

\vec{w} (0) = {\vec{w}}_{0}

by ( 2.30 ).

Since

{\vec{w}}_{0} \in (S (R^{n}))^{2}

s

can be replaced by

s + 4

in the previous argument and there is a solution

\vec{w}

of ( 2.20 ) to which Lemma 2.3.1 parts (i)-(iv) hold.

Case 2 :

{\vec{w}}_{0} \in (H^{s} (R^{n}))^{2}

Choose a sequence

({\vec{v}}_{j})

S (R^{n}))^{2}

such that

{\vec{v}}_{j} \to {\vec{w}}_{0}

(H^{s} (R^{n}))^{2}

(A) If

\vec{f} \in (L^{1} ([0, T] : H^{s}))^{2}

, choose a sequence

({\vec{f}}_{j})

(S (R^{n + 1}))^{2}

such that

{\vec{f}}_{j} \to \vec{f}

(L^{1} ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n})))^{2}

By case 1 there is a solution

{\vec{w}}_{j} \in (C ([0, T] : H^{s + 2} (R^{n})))^{2}

of ( 2.20 ) with

\vec{f}

and

{\vec{w}}_{0}

replaced by

{\vec{f}}_{j}

and

{\vec{v}}_{j}

respectively. Using Lemma 2.3.1 , part (i), it follows that

({\vec{w}}_{j})

is a Cauchy sequence in

(C ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n}))^{2}

and that the limit

\vec{w}

is a solution of ( 2.20 ) satisfying part (i) in Lemma 2.3.1 .

(B) If

\vec{f} \in (L^{2} ([0, T] : H^{s}))^{2}

, choose a sequence

({\vec{f}}_{j})

(S (R^{n + 1}))^{2}

such that

{\vec{f}}_{j} \to \vec{f}

(L^{2} ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n})))^{2}

. Procceding as in (A), there is a solution

\vec{w} \in (C ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n})))^{2}

of ( 2.20 ) satisfying (iii) of Lemma 2.3.1 .

J^{s - 1 / 2} \vec{f} \in {(L^{2} (R^{n} \times [0, T] : \frac{d x d t}{λ (| x |)}))}^{2} .

By Theorem 2.1.1 there exists a sequence

({\vec{g}}_{j})

(S (R^{n + 1}))^{2}

, such that

{\vec{g}}_{j} \to J^{s - 1 / 2} \vec{f}

{(L^{2} (R^{n} \times [0, T] : \frac{d x d t}{λ (| x |)}))}^{2}

Procceding as in (A) with

{\vec{f}}_{j}

replaced by

J^{s - 1 / 2} {\vec{g}}_{j} \in {(S (R^{n + 1}))}^{2}

, there is a solution

\vec{w} \in (C ([0, T] : H^{s} (R^{n})))^{2}

of ( 2.20 ) satisfying (iv) of Lemma 2.3.1 .

This completes the proof of Theorem 2.3.1 .

Remark 2.3.1 Suppose that the differential operators

B_{11}

and

B_{22}

in the entries of

B

in ( 2.20 ) are replaced by pseudo-differential operators

Ψ_{b_{11}}

and

Ψ_{b_{22}}

of order

1

and suppose that

C

in ( 2.20 ) is replaced by a

2 \times 2

matrix of pseudo-differential operators of order

0

. Then the conclusion of Theorem 2.3.1 still holds if

| R e b_{l l} (x, ξ) | \leq c_{0} λ (| x |) 〈 ξ 〉, l = 1, 2, \forall x, ξ \in R^{n} .

The reason is that the application of the sharp Gårding inequality in the proof of Lemma 2.3.1 goes through in exactly the same way.

Consequently, if

{\vec{b}}_{1} (x) \cdot \nabla_{x}

in ( 2.20 ) is replaced by

Ψ_{b}

with

b \in S^{1}

and

c_{1}, c_{2}

in ( 2.20 ) are replaced by pseudo-differential operators of order

0

, then the conclusion of Corollary 2.3.1 holds if

| R e b (x, ξ) | \leq c_{0} λ (| x |) 〈 ξ 〉, \forall x, ξ \in R^{n} .

This will be useful later.

3 A NEW CLASS OF SYMBOLS

As it has been shown in [18, 22] to obtain local well posedness for nonlinear Schrödinger equations one relies on certain smoothing effects for the associated linear equation with lower order terms (order zero and one). In the previous section we have established these smoothing effects in equations with variable second order elliptic coefficients by using known properties of classical pseudo-differential operators. In an attempt to prove these smoothing effects for the non-elliptic case, one is led (see [4] ) to the study of certain operators with non-standard symbols. Our goal in this section is to study results concerning the

L^{2}

-boundedness and composition of operators in this class by using geometric arguments. The elliptic case of our results were proved by Craig, Kappeler and Strauss in [4] whose statements we follow. The differences between the elliptic and non-elliptic settings are highlighted in Proposition 3.1.2 below, -see also [21] .

3.1 Symbol Properties

To begin with, the symbols of interest will be compared to the classical ones defined in ( 2.2 ) Section 2 .

We recall the following spaces

\begin{matrix} S (R^{n}) = {u \in C^{\infty} (R^{n}) : {sup}_{x \in R^{n}} 〈 x 〉^{k} | \partial_{x}^{α} u (x) | < \infty, k \in N, α \in N^{n}}, \end{matrix}

(3.1)

with seminorms

\begin{matrix} | u |_{S, m} = {max}_{k + | α | \leq m} {‖ 〈 x 〉^{k} \partial_{x}^{α} u (x) ‖}_{L^{\infty} (R^{n})}, \end{matrix}

(3.2)

and

\begin{matrix} C_{b}^{\infty} (R^{n}) = {u \in C^{\infty} (R^{n}) : {sup}_{x \in R^{n}} | \partial_{x}^{α} u (x) | < \infty, α \in N^{n}}, \end{matrix}

(3.3)

with seminorms

\begin{matrix} | u |_{C_{b}^{\infty}, m} = {max}_{| α | \leq m} {∥ \partial_{x}^{α} u (x) ∥}_{L^{\infty} (R^{n})} . \end{matrix}

(3.4)

The symbol

a = a (x, ξ) \in C^{\infty} (R^{n} \times R^{n})

will satisfy certain estimates and the operator

Ψ_{a}

associated with the symbol

a

will be defined as

Ψ_{a} u (x) = \int_{R^{n}} e^{i x \cdot ξ} a (x, ξ) \hat{u} (ξ) \frac{d ξ}{(2 π)^{n / 2}}, u \in S (R^{n}) .

Proposition 3.1.1 (i) Suppose

a

is a classical symbol of order

m \in R

a \in S_{1, 0}^{m}

, i.e. for

α, β \in N^{n}

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} a (x, ξ) | \leq c_{α, β} 〈 ξ 〉^{m - | β |}, \forall x, ξ \in R^{n} . \end{matrix}

(3.5)

Then

Ψ_{a}

is a continuous map from

S (R^{n})

into

S (R^{n})

(ii) Suppose

m \in R

and

a

satisfies that for

α \in N^{n}

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{x}^{α} a (x, ξ) | \leq c_{α} 〈 ξ 〉^{m}, \forall x, ξ \in R^{n} . \end{matrix}

(3.6)

Then

Ψ_{a}

is a continuous map from

S (R^{n})

into

C_{b}^{\infty} (R^{n})

Proof of Proposition 3.1.1 See [25] .

The symbols of interest in this section satisfy estimates of the type

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} a (x, ξ) | \leq c_{α β} 〈 x 〉^{| β |} 〈 ξ 〉^{m - | β |} . \end{matrix}

(3.7)

This is better than ( 3.6 ) in part (ii) of Proposition 3.1.1 , but not as good as (i). In particular, we will see (Proposition 3.1.2 , part (iv)) that there exist

a

satisfying ( 3.7 ) with

m = 0

and

v \in S (R^{n})

such that

Ψ_{a} v / \in S (R^{n})

Let

A (x)

be a real, symmetric and invertible

n \times n

matrix. Using a coordinate change (a rotation and dilations) in the

x

-variable, there are essentially only the elliptic and ultrahyperbolic cases

A_{e} = I_{n} and A_{h} = (\begin{matrix} I_{k} & 0 \\ 0 & - I_{n - k} \end{matrix}), k \in {1, . ., n - 1} .

where

I_{j}

is the

j \times j

unit matrix.

Take

χ \in C^{\infty} (R^{n})

with

χ (t) = 0

for

| t | \leq 1

and

χ (t) = 1

for

| t | \geq 2

Definition 3.1.1 (i) It will be said that

a \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m})

a \in C^{\infty} (R^{n} \times R^{n} \times R^{n})

and

a

satisfies

\begin{matrix} | 〈 s 〉^{μ} \partial_{s}^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} \partial_{ξ}^{γ} a (s; x, ξ) | \leq c_{μ α β γ} 〈 ξ 〉^{m - | γ |}, \forall s, x, ξ \in R^{n}, \forall μ, α, β, γ \in N^{n} . \end{matrix}

(3.8)

(ii) For

a \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m})

, let

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} (1) b_{e} (x, ξ) = χ (| ξ |) a (P (x, A_{e} ξ); x, ξ), \\ (2) b_{h} (x, ξ) = χ (| ξ |) a (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ), \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.9)

where

P (y, z) = y - (y \cdot z) z / | z |^{2}

for

y, z \in R^{n}, z \neq 0

, is the projection of

y

onto the hyperplane perpendicular to

z

, (notice that

P (y, z)

is homogeneous of degree

0

z

Remark 3.1.1 (a) Although we shall work in the class

S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m})

, it will be clear that all the results deduced for this class still hold when just a finite number of semi-norms in

S

and

S_{1, 0}^{m}

are assumed to be finite, i.e. ( 3.8 ) with

| μ | + | α | + | β | + | γ | \leq N

for

N

large enough.

(b) We observe that if

a \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m})

, then

\partial_{ξ}^{α} (ξ^{β} a (\cdot)) \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{k}), k = m + | β | - | α |,

and for

M \in N

large enough

〈 x 〉^{- M} χ (| ξ |) a (P (x, A_{l} ξ); x, ξ) = 〈 x 〉^{- M} b_{l} (x, ξ), with l = e, or l = h,

is “roughly speaking” a symbol in the class

S_{1, 0}^{m}

(when only finitely many

ξ

derivatives are taken into account, which is always the case in the sequel).

a \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m})

and

b_{l}

is defined as in ( 3.9 ) then

b^{β}

given by

b_{l}^{β} = 〈 x 〉^{- | β |} \partial_{ξ}^{β} b_{l} (x, ξ), with l = e, or l = h,

is a symbol of the same type and the corresponding bounds in ( 3.8 ) are controlled by those of

a

(d) The symbols described here will be our basic building blocks in the study of variable coefficients Schrödinger operators, see Section 5 .

The symbols defined in ( 3.9 ) satisfy an estimate of the type given in Proposition 3.1.1 . More precisely, if

u \in S (R^{n})

then

Ψ_{b_{e}} u \in S (R^{n})

and

Ψ_{b_{h}} u \in C_{b}^{\infty} (R^{n})

and is rapidly decreasing away from the characteristic directions, i.e.

A x \cdot x = 0

. In the characteristics directions,

Ψ_{b_{h}} u (x)

decays as

| x |^{1 - n}

| x | \to \infty

Proposition 3.1.2 Let

u \in S (R^{n})

, and

a

b_{e}

and

b_{h}

as in definition 3.1.1 (i) If

| α + β | \leq k

, then for all

x

R^{n}

| x^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} Ψ_{b_{e}} u (x) | \leq c_{k} ({sup}_{| α | \leq k; | β | \leq k; | γ | \leq k} 〈 s 〉^{k} | \partial_{s}^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} \partial_{ξ}^{γ} a (s; x, ξ) |) | \hat{u} |_{S, 2 k + m + n + 1} .

(ii) If

c \in [0, 1]

and

| α + β | \leq k

, then if

\frac{| A_{h} x \cdot x |}{| A_{h} x | | x |} \geq c

c^{k} | x^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} Ψ_{b_{h}} u (x) | \leq c_{k} ({sup}_{| α | \leq k; | β | \leq k; | γ | \leq k} 〈 s 〉^{k} | \partial_{s}^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} \partial_{ξ}^{γ} a (s; x, ξ) |) | \hat{u} |_{S, 2 k + m + n + 1} .

(iii) If

a \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m})

with

a (s; x, ξ) = 0

| s | > 1

and

| β | \leq k

, then

| \partial_{x}^{β} Ψ_{b_{h}} u (x) | \leq c_{k} ({sup}_{| α | \leq k; | β | \leq k; | γ | \leq k} | \partial_{s}^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} \partial_{ξ}^{γ} a (s; x, ξ) |) | \hat{u} |_{S, 2 k + m + n + 1} 〈 x 〉^{1 - n}, \forall x \in R^{n} .

(iv) There exist

a \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m})

, in fact,

a \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m})

v \in S (R^{n})

, and

c > 0

such that

| Ψ_{b_{h}} v (x) | \geq c | x |^{1 - n}, with A_{h} x \cdot x = 0, | x | \geq 10

In the proof of Proposition 3.1.2 we will use the following results.

Proposition 3.1.3 (i) Let

α \in N^{n}

. Then

(ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ}) \partial_{ξ}^{α} = \partial_{ξ}^{α} (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ}) - | α | \partial_{ξ}^{α} .

(ii) Let

T^{t}

denote the transpose of the operator

T

, i.e.

\int T u v = \int u T^{t} v

. Then

{[\frac{1}{i x \cdot ξ} (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})]}^{t} = \frac{1}{i x \cdot ξ} (- (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ}) - (n - 1) I),

and

(ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ}) [\frac{1}{i x \cdot ξ}] = - \frac{1}{i x \cdot ξ} .

(iii) Let

φ

be a differentiable and homogeneous function of degree

0

R^{n} - {0}

. Then

(ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ}) φ (ξ) = 0, ξ \neq 0 .

(iv) Let

α, β \in N^{n}

k \in N

b = b_{e}

b = b_{h}

. Then

| {(ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})}^{k} \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} b (x, ξ) | \leq c_{k} ({sup}_{| γ | \leq k} | \partial_{s}^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} \partial_{ξ}^{γ} a (s; x, ξ) |) 〈 x 〉^{| β |} 〈 ξ 〉^{m - | β |} .

Proof of Proposition 3.1.3 (i) and (ii) are easily verified. As for (iii) we have

\begin{matrix} (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ}) [φ (\frac{ξ}{| ξ |})] = \sum_{j = 1}^{n} ξ_{j} \partial_{ξ_{j}} [φ (\frac{ξ}{| ξ |})] \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \sum_{j = 1}^{n} ξ_{j} \sum_{k = 1}^{n} (\partial_{ξ_{k}} φ) (\frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) \partial_{ξ_{j}} (\frac{ξ_{k}}{| ξ |}) = \sum_{j, k} (\partial_{ξ_{k}} φ) (\frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) ξ_{j} (\frac{δ_{j k}}{| ξ |} - \frac{ξ_{j} ξ_{k}}{| ξ |^{3}}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \sum_{k} (\partial_{ξ_{k}} φ) (\frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) \frac{ξ_{k}}{| ξ |} - \sum_{k} (\partial_{ξ_{k}} φ) (\frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) ξ_{k} \sum_{j} \frac{ξ_{j}^{2}}{| ξ |^{3}} = 0 . \end{matrix}

(iv) follows from (i), (iii) and Definition 3.1.1 , since

P (x, A ξ)

is homogeneous of degree

0

ξ

Proof of Proposition 3.1.2 For simplicity of the exposition we shall assume that the constants

c_{μ α β γ}

which appear in ( 3.8 ) are all smaller than unity for

| μ | \leq k

| α | \leq k

| β | \leq k

and

| γ | \leq k

. Also we shall drop the powers of

2 π

which appear in the definition of

Ψ_{b}

(i) Let

| α + β | \leq k

. We consider three cases:Case 1 :

| x | \leq 2

. Here

| x^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} Ψ_{b_{e}} u (x) | \leq c_{k} | \hat{u} |_{S, m + k + n + 1} .

Case 2 :

| x | \geq 2

and

| P (x, ξ) | \leq | x | / 2

. From ( 3.7 ), it suffices to estimate terms of the type

\begin{matrix} I = \int e^{i x \cdot ξ} \partial_{ξ}^{α_{1}} [ξ^{β_{1}}] \partial_{x}^{β_{2}} \partial_{ξ}^{α_{2}} [b_{e} (x, ξ)] \partial_{ξ}^{α_{3}} \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ, \end{matrix}

(3.10)

where

α_{1} + α_{2} + α_{3} = α

, and

β_{1} + β_{2} = β

Pythagoras' theorem gives

| x |^{2} = \frac{| x \cdot ξ |^{2}}{| ξ |^{2}} + | P (x, ξ) |^{2},

so by hypothesis

\begin{matrix} | x \cdot ξ | = | x | | ξ | \sqrt{1 - \frac{| P (x, ξ) |^{2}}{| x |^{2}}} \geq | x | | ξ | (1 - \frac{| P (x, ξ) |^{2}}{| x |^{2}}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq | x | | ξ | (1 - \frac{1}{4}) \geq \frac{3}{4} | x | | ξ | . \end{matrix}

Above we have used that

\sqrt{1 - t} \geq 1 - t

for

t \in [0, 1]

. Now we use the identity

e^{i x \cdot ξ} = {(\frac{1}{i x \cdot ξ} (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ}))}^{k} e^{i x \cdot ξ} .

By Proposition 3.1.3 (ii), if

k_{1} + k_{2} + k_{3} \leq k

it suffices to estimate terms of the type

\begin{matrix} I I = \int \frac{e^{i x \cdot ξ}}{(i x \cdot ξ)^{k}} {(ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})}^{k_{1}} [\partial_{ξ}^{α_{1}} [ξ^{β_{1}}]] {(ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})}^{k_{2}} \partial_{x}^{β_{2}} \partial_{ξ}^{α_{2}} b_{e} (x, ξ) {(ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})}^{k_{3}} \partial_{ξ}^{α_{3}} \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ . \end{matrix}

Using Proposition 3.1.3 (iv) it follows that

\begin{matrix} | I I | \leq c_{k} \int_{| ξ | \geq 1} \frac{1}{| x |^{k} | ξ |^{k}} 〈 ξ 〉^{| β_{1} - α_{1} | + m - | α_{2} |} 〈 x 〉^{| α_{2} |} | \hat{u} |_{S, 2 k + m + n + 1} \leq c_{k} | \hat{u} |_{S, 2 k + m + n + 1} . \end{matrix}

Case 3 :

| x | \geq 2

and

| x | < 2 | P (x, ξ) |

. From ( 3.8 ) and ( 3.10 ) it follows that

| I | \leq c_{k} | \hat{u} |_{S, m + k + n + 1},

which proves (i).

(ii) Let

c \in [0, 1]

| α + β | \leq k

. Suppose that

| x |^{- 2} | A_{h} x \cdot x | \geq c

with

c > 0

, (otherwise the statement is trivial). We consider three cases:

Case 1 :

| x | \leq 4 / c

. Hence

c^{k} | x^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} Ψ_{b_{h}} u (x) | \leq 4^{k} c_{k} | \hat{u} |_{S, k + m + n + 1} .

Case 2 :

| x | \geq 4 / c

and

| P (x, A_{h} ξ) | \leq c | x | / 2

Since

x = \frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |^{2}} A_{h} ξ + P (x, A_{h} ξ),

by Pythagoras' theorem,

| x |^{2} | ξ |^{2} = | x \cdot A_{h} ξ |^{2} + | ξ |^{2} | P (x, A_{h} ξ) |^{2} .

The matrix

A_{h}

is symmetric, so

\begin{matrix} | ξ \cdot A_{h} x | = | x \cdot A_{h} ξ | = | x | | ξ | \sqrt{1 - \frac{| P (x, A_{h} ξ) |^{2}}{| x |^{2}}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq | x | | ξ | \sqrt{(1 - \frac{c^{2}}{4})} \geq \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} | x | | ξ | . \end{matrix}

Next we write

ξ = \frac{ξ \cdot A_{h} x}{| x |^{2}} A_{h} x + P (ξ, A_{h} x) .

By Pythagoras' theorem

| P (ξ, A_{h} x) | = | ξ | \sqrt{1 - \frac{| ξ \cdot A_{h} x |^{2}}{| ξ |^{2} | x |^{2}}} \leq | ξ | \sqrt{1 - (1 - \frac{c^{2}}{4})} = \frac{c}{2} | ξ | .

Using that

x \cdot ξ = | x |^{- 2} (ξ \cdot A_{h} x) (A_{h} x \cdot x) + x \cdot P (ξ, A_{h} x),

from the above estimates and our hypothesis we conclude that

\begin{matrix} | x \cdot ξ | \geq c \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} | x | \cdot | ξ | - | x | \cdot | P (x, A_{h} ξ) | \geq c \frac{\sqrt{3}}{2} | x | \cdot | ξ | - \frac{c}{2} | x \cdot | ξ | \geq \frac{c}{4} | x | \cdot | ξ | \end{matrix}

(3.11)

Integrating by parts as in case 2 of part (i), (ii) follows.

Case 3 :

| x | \geq 4 / c

and

| P (x, A_{h} ξ) | \geq c | x | / 2

From ( 3.9 ) and ( 3.10 ) as in case 3 of the elliptic case it follows that

| \partial_{x}^{β} Ψ_{b_{h}} u (x) | \leq c^{- k} c_{0} | \hat{u} |_{S, m + k + n + 1} .

(iii) It suffices to show the statement for

| x | \geq 10

. Let

| β_{1} + β_{2} | \leq k

and consider terms of the type

I = \int e^{i x \cdot ξ} (i ξ)^{β_{1}} \partial_{x}^{β_{2}} b_{h} (x, ξ) \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ .

Since

| P (x, A_{h} ξ) | \leq 1

proceeding as before

x = \frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |^{2}} A_{h} ξ + P (x, A_{h} ξ),

and by Pythagoras' theorem

| x |^{2} | ξ |^{2} = | x \cdot A_{h} ξ |^{2} + | ξ |^{2} | P (x, A_{h} ξ) |^{2} .

The matrix

A_{h}

is symmetric, so

| ξ \cdot A_{h} x | = | x \cdot A_{h} ξ | = | x | | ξ | \sqrt{1 - \frac{| P (x, A_{h} ξ) |^{2}}{| x |^{2}}} \geq | x | | ξ | (1 - | x |^{- 2}) .

Next we write

ξ = \frac{ξ \cdot A_{h} x}{| x |^{2}} A_{h} x + P (ξ, A_{h} x) .

By Pythagoras' theorem

| P (ξ, A_{h} x) | = | ξ | \sqrt{1 - \frac{| ξ \cdot A_{h} x |^{2}}{| ξ |^{2} | x |^{2}}} \leq | ξ | \sqrt{1 - (1 - | x |^{- 2})} \leq \sqrt{2} | ξ | | x |^{- 1},

i.e.

\begin{matrix} \frac{| P (ξ, A_{h} x) |}{| ξ |} \leq \sqrt{2} | x |^{- 1} . \end{matrix}

(3.12)

Hence

ξ

is in a cone

Γ_{x}

with vertex at the origin, axis given by

A_{h} x

and opening angle

θ

where

s i n (θ) = \sqrt{2} | x |^{- 1}

. In particular,

θ \leq 2 | x |^{- 1}

, because

| x | \geq 10

Therefore

I = \int_{Γ_{x}} e^{i x ξ} (i ξ)^{β_{1}} \partial_{x}^{β_{2}} b_{h} (x, ξ) \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ

and

\begin{matrix} | I | & \leq & c | \hat{u} |_{S, k + m + n + 1} \int_{Γ_{x}} 〈 ξ 〉^{- n - 1} d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c | \hat{u} |_{S, k + m + n + 1} (| x |^{- 1})^{n - 1} \int_{R^{n}} 〈 ξ 〉^{- n - 1} d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & c | \hat{u} |_{S, k + m + n + 1} | x |^{- n + 1} . \end{matrix}

(iv) Choose

φ \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n})

with

φ \geq 0

φ (s) = 1

| s | \leq 1 / 4

and

φ (s) = 0

| s | \geq 1 / 2

. Let

a (s; x, ξ) = φ (s) 〈 ξ 〉^{m}

. Choose

v \in S (R^{n})

such that

\hat{v} (ξ) = χ (| ξ |) (1 - χ (| ξ |))^{2}

with

χ (\cdot)

given in Definition 3.1.1 . Then

\begin{matrix} Ψ_{b_{h}} v (x) = \int e^{i x \cdot ξ} φ (P (x, A_{h} ξ)) 〈 ξ 〉^{m} {(χ (| ξ |))}^{2} {(1 - χ (| ξ |))}^{2} d ξ . \end{matrix}

(3.13)

Assume that

| x | \geq 10

. An argument similar to that used to deduce ( 3.12 ) shows that

| P (ξ, A_{h} x) | \leq {(\sqrt{2})}^{- 1} | ξ | | x |^{- 1} .

Also one has that

x \cdot ξ = x \cdot P (ξ, A_{h} x)

when

A_{h} x \cdot x = 0

. Hence

| x \cdot ξ | \leq (\sqrt{2})^{- 1} | ξ | \leq \sqrt{2}

on the

ξ

support of the integrand in ( 3.13 ). Thus

R e Ψ_{b_{h}} v (x) \geq cos \sqrt{2} \int φ (P (x, A_{h} ξ)) 〈 ξ 〉^{m} χ (| ξ |)^{2} {(1 - χ (| ξ |))}^{2} d ξ .

Let

Γ_{x}

be the cone defined by

Γ_{x} = {ξ \in R^{n} : | ξ |^{- 1} | P (ξ, A_{h} x) | \leq (4 \sqrt{2} | x |)^{- 1}} .

Suppose

ξ \in Γ_{x}

. Since

ξ = \frac{ξ \cdot A_{h} x}{| x |^{2}} A_{h} x + P (ξ, A_{h} x),

it follows from Pythagoras' theorem that

| x \cdot A_{h} ξ | = | ξ \cdot A_{h} x | = | ξ | | x | \sqrt{1 - \frac{| P (ξ, A_{h} x) |^{2}}{| x |^{2}}} \geq | ξ | | x | (1 - \frac{1}{32} | x |^{- 2}) .

Now write

x = \frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |^{2}} A_{h} ξ + P (x, A_{h} ξ),

and use Pythagoras' theorem to get

{| P (x, A_{h} ξ) |}^{2} = | x |^{2} - \frac{| x \cdot A_{h} ξ |^{2}}{| ξ |^{2}} \leq | x |^{2} - | x |^{2} {(1 - \frac{1}{32} | x |^{- 2})}^{2} \leq \frac{1}{16} .

Therefore

\begin{matrix} R e Ψ_{b_{h}} v (x & \geq & cos (\sqrt{2}) \int_{Γ_{x}} 〈 ξ 〉^{m} (χ (| ξ |))^{2} (1 - χ (| ξ |))^{2} d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & cos (\sqrt{2}) c_{n} | x |^{1 - n} \int_{R^{n}} 〈 ξ 〉^{m} (χ (| ξ |))^{2} (1 - χ (| ξ |))^{2} d ξ = c c_{n} cos (\sqrt{2}) | x |^{1 - n}, \end{matrix}

where

c = \int_{R^{n}} 〈 ξ 〉^{m} (χ (| ξ |))^{2} (1 - χ (| ξ |))^{2} d ξ > 0 .

This completes the proof of Proposition 3.1.2 .

3.2 $L^{2}$ -boundedness

Now we are ready to establish the

L^{2}

-boundedness of our ultrahyperbolic operators.

Theorem 3.2.1 Suppose

a \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m})

(see Definition 3.1.1 , ( 3.8 )-( 3.9 )). Then there exists

c = c (m)

and

N = N (n)

such that

{∥ Ψ_{b_{h}} u ∥}_{L^{2}} \leq c {max}_{μ + | α + β + γ | \leq N} {‖ 〈 s 〉^{μ} 〈 ξ 〉^{- m + | γ |} \partial_{s}^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} \partial_{ξ}^{γ} a ‖}_{L^{\infty}} ∥ u ∥_{H^{m}}, u \in S (R^{n}) .

The proof of this theorem in the 2-dimensional case (

n = 2

) is more involved than in the higher dimensional case. As it was pointed out in Proposition 3.1.2 (iv) one can not expect enough decay in cones around the characteristic directions (i.e.

A_{h} x \cdot x = 0

). In fact, for

n = 2

the estimate

| x |^{- 1}

is critical and after some decomposition in frequency and space we need to use Cotlar-Stein lemma to glue the pieces together.

Proof of Theorem 3.2.1 If

a \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m})

, then

〈 ξ 〉^{- m} a \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{0})

with

\begin{matrix} {max}_{μ + | α + β + γ | \leq N} {‖ 〈 s 〉^{μ} 〈 ξ 〉^{| γ |} \partial_{s}^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} \partial_{ξ}^{γ} [〈 ξ 〉^{- m} a] ‖}_{L^{\infty}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c_{m} {max}_{μ + | α + β + γ | \leq N} {‖ 〈 s 〉^{μ} 〈 ξ 〉^{- m} \partial_{s}^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} \partial_{ξ}^{γ} a ‖}_{L^{\infty}} . \end{matrix}

Furthermore,

J^{m}

is an isometry of

H^{m}

onto

L^{2}

, so it can be assumed that

m = 0

Next, we use an argument similar to that in [21] Section 3 (which in the case of the elliptic operators gives a straightforward proof of the

L^{2}

-continuity). This is based on a simple change of variables -see ( 3.14 ) below. In order to do it we make the following decomposition. Let

{φ_{j}}_{j \in N}

be a smooth partition of unity on

R

subordinate to the covering

R = (- 1, 1) ⋃ \cup_{j = 1}^{\infty} {t \in R : 2^{j - 2} < | t | < 2^{j}}

i.e. satisfying

0 \leq φ_{j} (x) \leq 1, 1 = \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} φ_{j}

supp φ_{0} \subset (- 1, 1)

and

supp φ_{j} \subset {t \in R : 2^{j - 2} < | t | < 2^{j}}

Since the intervals in the covering have length at least

1

, it can be assumed that

| \frac{d^{k}}{d t^{k}} φ_{j} (t) | \leq c_{k}, t \in R, k \in N .

Let

φ \in C^{\infty} (R)

with

φ (t) = 1

for

t \leq 1

φ (t) = 0

for

t \geq 2

and

0 \leq φ \leq 1

Denote by

\hat{a}

the Fourier transform of

a

in the

s

-variable. Thus,

{‖ 〈 σ 〉^{N_{1}} \partial_{σ}^{β_{1}} \hat{a} (σ; x, ξ) ‖}_{L^{\infty}} \leq c {max}_{N_{2} + | β_{2} | \leq 2 N_{1} + n + 1} {‖ 〈 s 〉^{N_{2}} \partial_{s}^{β_{2}} a ‖}_{L^{\infty}} .

Now using that

σ \cdot P (x, A_{h} ξ) = x \cdot P (σ, A_{h} ξ)

we have

\begin{matrix} Ψ_{b_{h}} u (x) & = & \int e^{i x \cdot ξ} a (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) χ (| ξ |) \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int (\int e^{i x \cdot (ξ + P (σ, A_{h} ξ))} \hat{a} (σ; x, ξ) χ (| ξ |) \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ) d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} \int (\int e^{i x \cdot (ξ + P (σ, A_{h} ξ)}) φ_{j} (| σ |) \hat{a} (σ; x, ξ) χ (| ξ |) (1 - φ (\frac{δ | ξ |}{2^{j + 1}})) \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ) d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} \int (\int e^{i x \cdot (ξ + P (σ, A_{h} ξ)}) φ_{j} (| σ |) \hat{a} (σ; x, ξ) χ (| ξ |) φ (\frac{δ | ξ |}{2^{j + 1}}) \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ) d σ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & I + I I, \end{matrix}

where

δ > 0

is a small constant to be chosen. In

I

we make the change of variables

\begin{matrix} η = ξ + P (σ, A_{h} ξ) = ξ + (σ - \frac{σ \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |^{2}} A_{h} ξ) . \end{matrix}

(3.14)

Then

(\frac{\partial η}{\partial ξ}) = I - \sum_{k = 1}^{n} \frac{σ_{k}}{| ξ |} M_{k} (ξ),

where

M_{k}

is a matrix whose entries are homogeneous of degree

0

ξ

. The determinant function is continuous on

R^{n^{2}}

, so

\frac{1}{2} \leq | det (\frac{\partial η}{\partial ξ}) | \leq 2,

by fixing

δ > 0

sufficiently small, we recall that

| σ | \sim 2^{j}, δ | ξ | \geq 2^{j + 1}

. This gives

\begin{matrix} I & = & \int \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} φ_{j} (| σ |) \int e^{i x \cdot η} \hat{a} (σ; x, ξ (η)) χ (| ξ (η) |) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & (1 - φ (δ 2^{- j - 1} | ξ (η) |)) \hat{u} (ξ (η)) {| det (\frac{\partial η}{\partial ξ}) |}^{- 1} d η d σ . \end{matrix}

Combining Minkowski's integral inequality and the

L^{2}

-boundedness of

S_{1, 0}^{0}

pseudo-differential operators we get

∥ I ∥_{L_{x}^{2}} \leq c {max}_{μ + | α + β + γ | \leq N} {‖ 〈 s 〉^{μ} 〈 ξ 〉^{| γ |} \partial_{s}^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} \partial_{ξ}^{γ} a ‖}_{L^{\infty}} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} \int \frac{φ_{j} (| σ |)}{〈 σ 〉^{n + 1}} d σ,

where

\sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} \int \frac{φ_{j} (| σ |)}{〈 σ 〉^{n + 1}} d σ < \infty .

As for

I I

, let

a_{j k} (s; x, ξ) = φ_{k} (| s |) \int e^{i σ \cdot s} φ_{j} (| σ |) \hat{a} (σ; x, ξ) d σ, j, k \in N .

Then

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} I I & = & \sum_{j, k = 0}^{\infty} \int e^{i x \cdot ξ} a_{j k} (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) χ (| ξ |) φ (δ 2^{- j - 1} | ξ |) \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ \\ = & \sum_{j, k = 0}^{\infty} Ψ_{j k} u (x), \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.15)

where

Ψ_{j k}

is a pseudo-differential operator with symbol

a_{j k} (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) χ (| ξ |) φ (δ 2^{- j - 1} | ξ |) .

First, by Cauchy-Schwarz,

| Ψ_{j k} u (x) | \leq c 2^{j n / 2} {∥ a_{j k} ∥}_{L^{\infty}} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}},

\begin{matrix} {‖ χ_{B_{2^{k + 10}} (0)} Ψ_{j k} u ‖}_{L^{2}} \leq c 2^{(j + k) n / 2} {∥ a_{j k} ∥}_{L^{\infty}} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} . \end{matrix}

(3.16)

Next, we shall estimate

{‖ (1 - χ_{B_{2^{k + 10}} (0)}) Ψ_{j k} u ‖}_{L^{2}}

by using Cotlar-Stein lemma which can be stated as follows.

Cotlar-Stein lemma.

Let

{Ψ_{l}}_{l = 0}^{\infty}

be a sequence of bounded operators on

L^{2}

and let

{γ (l)}_{l = 0}^{\infty}

be a sequence of positive numbers with

\sum_{l = 0}^{\infty} γ (l) < \infty

. Suppose

‖ Ψ_{l_{1}}^{*} Ψ_{l_{2}} ‖, ‖ Ψ_{l_{1}} Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*} ‖ \leq {(γ (l_{2} - l_{1}))}^{2}, l_{1}, l_{2} \in N, l_{1} \leq l_{2} .

Then

\sum_{l = 0}^{\infty} Ψ_{l} u

converges in

L^{2}

for any

u \in L^{2}

and

{‖ \sum_{l = 0}^{\infty} Ψ_{l} u ‖}_{L^{2}} \leq \sum_{l = 0}^{\infty} γ (l) ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} .

For a proof of this lemma we refer to [30] .

For fixed

j, k \geq 0

, let

A_{l} = {x \in R^{n} : 2^{k + l + 10} < | x | \leq 2^{k + l + 11}}, l \in N,

and define

Ψ_{l} = Ψ_{l j k}

Ψ_{l} u (x) = χ_{A_{l}} (x) Ψ_{j k} u (x), u \in S (R^{n}), l \in N .

Then

\sum_{l = 0}^{\infty} Ψ_{l} u

converges to

(1 - χ_{B_{2^{k + 10}} (0)}) Ψ_{j k} u

uniformly on compact subsets of

R^{n}

. In particular in the distribution sense. By Cauchy-Schwarz

{∥ Ψ_{l} u ∥}_{L^{2}} \leq c 2^{(j + k + l) n / 2} {∥ a_{j k} ∥}_{L^{\infty}} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}}, u \in S (R^{n}),

Ψ_{l}

is bounded on

L^{2}

for

l \in N

In order to apply Cotlar-Stein lemma, it suffices to consider

Ψ_{l_{1}} Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*}

for

l_{1} \leq l_{2}

, because

(Ψ_{l_{2}} Ψ_{l_{1}}^{*})^{*} = Ψ_{l_{1}} Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*}

and

Ψ_{l_{1}}^{*} Ψ_{l_{2}} = 0

for

l_{1} \neq l_{2}

Let

u \in S (R^{n})

. Since

\begin{matrix} Ψ_{l}^{*} u (x) & = & \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} {\bar{a}}_{j k} (P (y, A_{h} ξ); y, ξ) χ (| ξ |) φ (δ 2^{- j - 1} | ξ |) χ_{A_{l}} (y) u (y) d y d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & \int e^{i x \cdot ξ} (\int e^{- i y \cdot ξ} {\bar{a}}_{j k} (P (y, A_{h} ξ); y, ξ) χ (| ξ |) φ (δ 2^{- j - 1} | ξ |) χ_{A_{l}} (y) u (y) d y) d ξ \end{matrix}

it follows that

\begin{matrix} 〈 Ψ_{l_{1}}^{*} v, Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*} u 〉 & = & \int \int \int e^{- i y \cdot ξ} {\bar{a}}_{j k} (P (y, A_{h} ξ); y, ξ) χ (| ξ |) φ (δ 2^{- j - 1} | ξ |) χ_{A_{l_{1}}} (y) v (y) \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & e^{i z \cdot ξ} a_{j k} (P (z, A_{h} ξ); z, ξ) χ (| ξ |) φ (δ 2^{- j - 1} | ξ |) χ_{A_{l_{2}}} (z) \bar{u} (z) d ξ d z d y, \end{matrix}

for all

v, u \in S (R^{n})

. So

Ψ_{l_{1}} Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*} u (y) = \int K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (y, z) u (z) d z,

where

\begin{matrix} K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (y, z) & = & χ_{A_{l_{1}}} (y) χ_{A_{l_{2}}} (z) \int e^{i (y - z) \cdot ξ} a_{j k} (P (y, A_{h} ξ; y, ξ) \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot {\bar{a}}_{j k} (P (z, A_{h} ξ); z, ξ) χ^{2} (| ξ |) φ^{2} (δ 2^{- j - 1} | ξ |) d ξ . \end{matrix}

It is convenient to fix the following terminology.

Definition 3.2.1

Γ

is the cone of angle

θ \in (0, 1 / 2)

if there exists

e_{0} \in R^{n} - {0}

such that

Γ = {x \in R^{n} : | x |^{- 1} | P (x, e_{0}) | \leq θ} .

Notice that

| Γ \cap A_{l} | \leq c θ^{n - 1} 2^{n (k + l)}

Choose a collection

{Γ_{m_{1}}}

of cones of angle at most

2^{- l_{1}} / 16

such that

R^{n} = ⋃_{m_{1}} Γ_{m_{1}} .

Let

Γ_{m_{1}}^{*} = {z \in R^{n} : | z |^{- 1} | P (z, x) | \leq \frac{2^{- l_{1}}}{16} for some x \in Γ_{m_{1}}} .

Then

Γ_{m_{1}}^{*}

is a cone of angle at most

2^{- l_{1}} / 4

, and it can be assumed that the collection

{Γ_{m_{1}}^{*}}

is locally finite on

R^{n} - {0}

by choosing

{Γ_{m_{1}}}

appropriately. Let

S_{m_{1}} = Γ_{m_{1}} \cap A_{l_{1}}, S_{m_{1}}^{*} = Γ_{m_{1}}^{*} \cap A_{l_{2}} .

Claim 3.2.1 :If

x \in S_{m_{1}}

z \in A_{l_{2}}

and

a_{j k} (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) a_{j k} (P (z, A_{h} ξ); z, ξ) \neq 0

, then

z \in S_{m_{1}}^{*}

Proof of claim 3.2.1 : The goal is to show that

z \in S_{m_{1}}^{*}

. By assumption,

| P (x, A_{h} ξ) |, | P (z, A_{h} ξ) | \leq 2^{k} .

Since

x = \frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |^{2}} A_{h} ξ + P (x, A_{h} ξ),

by Pythagoras' theorem

| x \cdot A_{h} ξ | \geq | x | | ξ | \sqrt{1 - \frac{{| P (x, A_{h} ξ) |}^{2}}{| x |^{2}}} \geq | x | | ξ | (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{1} - 20}) .

Similarly,

| z \cdot A_{h} ξ | \geq | z | | ξ | (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 20}) .

Now we use the identity

x \cdot z = | ξ |^{- 2} (x \cdot A_{h} ξ) (z \cdot A_{h} ξ) + P (x, A_{h} ξ) \cdot P (z, A_{h} ξ),

to obtain

| x \cdot z | \geq | x | | z | (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{1} - 20}) (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 20}) - 2^{2 k} .

But

z = \frac{z \cdot x}{| x |^{2}} x + P (z, x),

\begin{matrix} | P (z, x) |^{2} & = & | z |^{2} - (z \cdot x)^{2} | x |^{- 2} \leq | z |^{2} - | z |^{2} (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{1} - 19}) + | x |^{- 2} 2^{2 k + 1} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & 2^{- 2 l_{1} - 19} | z |^{2} + 2^{- 2 l_{1} - 19} \leq 2^{- 2 l_{1} - 16} | z |^{2}, \end{matrix}

and therefore

z \in Γ_{m_{1}}^{*}

. This proves claim 3.2.1 .

Claim 3.2.2 :

{sup}_{x, z \in R^{n}} | K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) | \leq c {∥ a_{j k} ∥}_{L^{\infty}}^{2} 2^{n j} 2^{- l_{2} (n - 1)} .

Proof of claim 3.2.2 We recall that

\begin{matrix} K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) & = & χ_{A_{l_{1}}} (x) χ_{A_{l_{2}}} (z) \int e^{i (x - z) \cdot ξ} a_{j k} (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & {\bar{a}}_{j k} (P (z, A_{h} ξ); z, ξ) χ^{2} (| ξ |) φ^{2} (δ 2^{- j - 1} | ξ |) d ξ . \end{matrix}

Suppose

z \in A_{l_{2}}

(otherwise

K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) = 0

) and

{\bar{a}}_{j k} (P (z, A_{h} ξ); z, ξ) \neq 0

so that

| P (z, A_{h} ξ) | \leq 2^{k}

Then

| ξ \cdot A_{h} z | = | z \cdot A_{h} ξ | \geq | z | | ξ | (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 20}),

as in the proof of claim 3.2.1 . Since

ξ = \frac{ξ \cdot A_{h} z}{| z |^{2}} A_{h} z + P (ξ, A_{h} z),

one has

{| P (ξ, A_{h} z) |}^{2} = | ξ |^{2} - \frac{| ξ \cdot A_{h} z |^{2}}{| z |^{2}} \leq | ξ |^{2} - | ξ |^{2} {(1 - 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 20})}^{2} \leq | ξ |^{2} 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 19},

which shows that

ξ

belongs to a cone

Γ_{z}

of angle

2^{- l_{2} - 9}

. Hence

| K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) | \leq {∥ a_{j k} ∥}_{L^{\infty}}^{2} | Γ_{z} \cap {δ | ξ | \leq 2^{j + 2}} | \leq c {∥ a_{j k} ∥}_{L^{\infty}}^{2} 2^{n j} 2^{- l_{2} (n - 1)} .

This yields claim 3.2.2 .

Now to estimate

{‖ Ψ_{l_{1}} Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*} u ‖}_{L^{2}}

we consider two separate cases. Case 1:

l_{1} \leq l_{2} \leq l_{1} + 10

Then

\begin{matrix} ∥ Ψ_{l_{1}} Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*} u ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} & = & \int {| \int K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) u (z) d z |}^{2} d x \leq \sum_{m_{1}} \int_{S_{m_{1}}} {| \int_{S_{m_{1}}^{*}} K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) u (z) d z |}^{2} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \sum_{m_{1}} | S_{m_{1}} | | S_{m_{1}}^{*} | {sup}_{x, z} {| K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) |}^{2} {‖ χ_{S_{m_{1}}^{*}} u ‖}_{L^{2}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c 2^{- l_{1} (n - 1)} 2^{n (k + l_{1})} 2^{- l_{1} (n - 1)} 2^{n (k + l_{2})} {∥ a_{j k} ∥}_{L^{\infty}}^{4} 2^{2 n j - 2 l_{2} (n - 1)} \sum_{m_{1}} {‖ χ_{S_{m_{1}}^{*}} u ‖}_{L^{2}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c 2^{2 n (k + j)} 2^{(2 - n) (l_{1} + l_{2})} {∥ a_{j k} ∥}_{L^{\infty}}^{4} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

The first inequality above follows from claim 3.2.1 , the second inequality from Cauchy-Schwarz, the third inequality from claim 3.2.2 , and the fourth inequality from the local finiteness of

{S_{m_{1}}^{*}}

Therefore,

\begin{matrix} ‖ Ψ_{l_{1}} Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*} ‖ \leq c 2^{n (k + j)} 2^{(2 - n) (l_{1} + l_{2}) / 2} {∥ a_{j k} ∥}_{L^{\infty}}^{2}, for l_{1} \leq l_{2} \leq l_{1} + 10 . \end{matrix}

(3.17)

Before turning to the remaining case

l_{2} \geq l_{1} + 11

, it is useful to split

A_{l_{2}}

in sectors

S_{m_{2}}

where

m_{2}

roughly speaking measures how noncharacteristic the directions in

S_{m_{2}}

are. More precisely, let

\begin{matrix} S_{m_{2}} = {z \in A_{l_{2}} : (m_{2} - 1) 2^{- l_{2}} \leq \frac{| A_{h} z \cdot z |}{| z |^{2}} \leq m_{2} 2^{- l_{2}}}, m_{2} = 1, 2, . ., 2^{l_{2} - 1}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} S_{l_{2}}^{*} = {z \in A_{l_{2}} : \frac{1}{2} \leq \frac{| A_{h} z \cdot z |}{| z |^{2}} \leq 1} . \end{matrix}

Then

A_{l_{2}} = S_{l_{2}}^{*} ⋃^{2^{l_{2} - 1}} ⋃_{m_{2} = 1} S_{m_{2}}

. The next result will be used to estimate the volume of

S_{m_{2}}

. Recall that

A_{h} = (\begin{matrix} I_{k} & 0 \\ 0 & - I_{n - k} \end{matrix}), k \in {1, . ., n - 1},

where

I_{j}

is the

j \times j

unit matrix.

Proposition 3.2.1 Suppose that

0 < ε \leq a \leq 1 / 2

ε \leq 1 / 16

. Let

S_{a, ε} = {z \in R^{n} : | z | \leq 1 and a - ε \leq \frac{| A_{h} z \cdot z |}{| z |^{2}} \leq a} .

Then

| S_{a, ε} | \leq c_{n, k} ε,

where

c_{n, k}

is independent of

a

Proof of Proposition 3.2.1 Let

m_{j}

denote the Lebesgue measure in

R^{j}

. Write

S_{a, ε} = S_{a, ε}^{+} \cup S_{a, ε}^{-},

where

S_{a, ε}^{\pm} = {z \in R^{n} : | z | \leq 1 and a - ε \leq \pm \frac{| A_{h} z \cdot z |}{| z |^{2}} \leq a} .

Let

z^{+} = (z_{1}, . ., z_{k})

z^{-} = (z_{k + 1}, . ., z_{n})

. By Fubini's theorem

m_{n} (S_{a, ε}^{+}) = \int_{| z^{-} | \leq 1} m_{k} (S_{a, ε}^{+} (z^{-})) d m_{n - k} (z^{-}),

where

\begin{matrix} S_{a, ε}^{+} (z^{-}) & = & {z^{+} \in R^{k} : (z^{+}, z^{-}) \in S_{a, ε}^{+}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & {z^{+} \in R^{k} : | z^{+} |^{2} + | z^{-} |^{2} \leq 1, a - ε \leq \frac{| z^{+} |^{2} - | z^{-} |^{2}}{| z^{+} |^{2} + | z^{-} |^{2}} \leq a} . \end{matrix}

By straightforward calculation,

\frac{| z^{+} |^{2} - | z^{-} |^{2}}{| z^{+} |^{2} + | z^{-} |^{2}} \in [a - ε, a] ⟺ | z^{+} |^{2} \in [\frac{1 + (a - ε)}{1 - (a - ε)} | z^{-} |^{2}, \frac{1 + a}{1 - a} | z^{-} |^{2}] .

Let

f (t) = \frac{1 + t}{1 - t}, t \in (- \infty, 1) .

Then

f^{'} (t) = \frac{2}{(1 - t)^{2}},

{sup}_{[0, 1 / 2]} | f^{'} (t) | = 8

. By the fundamental theorem of calculus,

| \frac{1 + (a - ε)}{1 - (a - ε)} - \frac{1 + a}{1 - a} | \leq 8 ε,

\frac{1 + (a - ε)}{1 - (a - ε)} \geq \frac{1 + a}{1 - a} - 8 ε .

Also,

\begin{matrix} \sqrt{\frac{1 + a}{1 - a} - 8 ε} & = & \sqrt{\frac{1 + a}{1 - a}} \cdot \sqrt{1 - 8 ε \frac{1 - a}{1 + a}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & \sqrt{\frac{1 + a}{1 - a}} \cdot (1 - 8 ε \frac{1 - a}{1 + a}) \geq \sqrt{\frac{1 + a}{1 - a}} \cdot (1 - 8 ε) . \end{matrix}

It follows that

S_{a, ε}^{+} (z^{-}) \subset {z^{+} \in R^{k} : \sqrt{\frac{1 + a}{1 - a}} \cdot (1 - 8 ε) \leq \frac{| z^{+} |}{| z^{-} |} \leq \sqrt{\frac{1 + a}{1 - a}}},

and hence

m_{k} (S_{a, ε}^{+} (z^{-})) \leq c_{k} {(\frac{1 + a}{1 - a})}^{k / 2} | z^{-} |^{k} ε \leq c_{k} 3^{k / 2} | z^{-} |^{k} ε .

Therefore,

\begin{matrix} m_{n} (S_{a, ε}^{+}) & = & \int_{| z^{-} | \leq 1} m_{k} (S_{a, ε}^{+} (z^{-})) d m_{n - k} (z^{-}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c_{k} ε \int_{| z^{-} | \leq 1} | z^{-} |^{k} d m_{n - k} (z^{-}) \leq c_{n, k} ε . \end{matrix}

Replacing

k

n - k

in the above argument for

S_{a, ε}^{+}

, one gets

m_{n} (S_{a, ε}^{-}) \leq c_{n, k} ε .

This proves Proposition 3.2.1 .

Claim 3.2.3 :Let

m_{2} \in {1, 2, . ., 2^{l_{2} - 1}}

. Then

| S_{m_{2}} | \leq c 2^{(n - 1) l_{2} + n k} .

Proof of claim 3.2.3 This follows by Proposition 3.2.1 and homogeneity.

Claim 3.2.4 :Suppose

l_{2} \geq l_{1} + 11

x \in A_{l_{1}}

z \in A_{l_{2}}

10 \leq m_{2} \leq 2^{l_{2}}

\frac{| A_{h} z \cdot z |}{| z |^{2}} \geq (m_{2} - 1) 2^{- l_{2}},

and

a_{j k} (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) a_{j k} (P (z, A_{h} ξ); z, ξ) \neq 0 .

Then

| (z - x) \cdot ξ | \geq c m_{2} 2^{k} | ξ |

Proof of claim 3.2.4 The identity

z = \frac{z \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} A_{h} ξ + P (z, A_{h} ξ)

and Pythagoras' theorem give

| ξ \cdot A_{h} z | = | z \cdot A_{h} ξ | = | z | | ξ | \sqrt{1 - \frac{P (z, A_{h} ξ)}{| z |^{2}}} \geq | z | | ξ | (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 20}) .

Also

\begin{matrix} ξ = \frac{ξ \cdot A_{h} z}{| z |^{2}} A_{h} z + P (ξ, A_{h} z), \end{matrix}

(3.18)

{| P (ξ, A_{h} z) |}^{2} = | ξ |^{2} - \frac{| ξ \cdot A_{h} z |^{2}}{| z |^{2}} \leq | ξ |^{2} - | ξ |^{2} {(1 - 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 20})}^{2} \leq | ξ |^{2} 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 19} .

Using again ( 3.18 )

z \cdot ξ = | z |^{- 2} (ξ \cdot A_{h} z) (A_{h} z \cdot z) + z \cdot P (ξ, A_{h} z),

and therefore

\begin{matrix} | z \cdot ξ | & \geq & | z | | ξ | (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 20}) (m_{2} - 1) 2^{- l_{2}} - | z | | ξ | 2^{- l_{2} - 9} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & 2^{k + 10} | ξ | (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 20}) (m_{2} - 1) - 2^{k + 2} | ξ | \geq 2^{k + 9} | ξ | m_{2} . \end{matrix}

Another application of ( 3.18 ) gives

A_{h} ξ \cdot ξ = | z |^{- 2} (ξ \cdot A_{h} z) (A_{h} ξ \cdot A_{h} z) + A_{h} ξ \cdot P (ξ, A_{h} z) .

Here

A_{h} ξ \cdot A_{h} z = ξ \cdot z

, so

\begin{matrix} | A_{h} ξ \cdot ξ | & \geq & | z |^{- 2} | z | | ξ | (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 20}) 2^{k + 9} | ξ | m_{2} - | ξ |^{2} 2^{- l_{2} - 9} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \geq & | ξ |^{2} (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 20}) 2^{- l_{2} - 2} m_{2} - | ξ |^{2} 2^{- l_{2} - 9} \geq 2^{- l_{2} - 3} m_{2} | ξ |^{2} . \end{matrix}

Finally,

(z - x) \cdot ξ = \frac{(z - x) \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |^{2}} (A_{h} ξ \cdot ξ) + ξ \cdot P (z, A_{h} ξ) - ξ \cdot P (x, A_{h} ξ) .

Here

| (z - x) \cdot A_{h} ξ | \geq | z \cdot A_{h} ξ | - | x | | ξ | \geq | z | | ξ | (1 - 2^{- 2 l_{2} - 20}) - | x | | ξ | \geq \frac{1}{2} | z | | ξ |,

| (z - x) \cdot ξ | \geq \frac{1}{2} | z | | ξ | m_{2} 2^{- l_{2} - 3} - 2^{k + 1} | ξ | \geq m_{2} 2^{k + 6} | ξ | - 2^{k + 1} | ξ | \geq m_{2} 2^{k + 5} | ξ | .

This proves claim 3.2.4 .

Claim 3.2.5 : Suppose

l_{2} \geq l_{1} + 11

10 \leq m_{2} \leq 2^{l_{2}}

and

\frac{| A_{h} z \cdot z |}{| z |^{2}} \geq (m_{2} - 1) 2^{- l_{2}} .

Then

| K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) | \leq c m_{2}^{- 2} 2^{(n - 2) j - 2 k - (n - 1) l_{2}} {max}_{N \leq 2} {‖ (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})^{N} a_{j k} ‖}_{L^{\infty}}^{2}, \forall x \in R^{n} .

Proof of claim 3.2.5 For

x \in A_{l_{1}}

and

z \in A_{l_{2}}

(otherwise

K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) = 0

), it follows from claim 3.2.4 and parts (ii) and (iii) of Proposition 3.1.3 that

\begin{matrix} | K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) | & = & | \int e^{i (x - z) \cdot ξ} {({(\frac{1}{i (x - z) \cdot ξ} ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})}^{2})}^{t} | \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & [a_{j k} (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) {\bar{a}}_{j k} (P (z, A_{h} ξ); z, ξ) χ^{2} (| ξ |) φ^{2} (δ 2^{- j - 1} | ξ |)] d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c m_{2}^{- 2} 2^{(n - 2) j - 2 k - (n - 1) l_{2}} {max}_{N \leq 2} {‖ (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})^{N} a_{j k} ‖}_{L^{\infty}}^{2}, \end{matrix}

since the integrand is

0

for

ξ

not in the cone with angle

2^{- l_{2} - 9}

(see the proof of claim 3.2.1 ). This proves claim 3.2.5 .

With these results

{‖ Ψ_{l_{1}} Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*} u ‖}_{L^{2}}

can be estimated in the remaining case. Case 2:

l_{2} \geq l_{1} + 11

{‖ Ψ_{l_{1}} Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*} u ‖}_{L^{2}}^{2} \leq \sum_{m_{1}} \int_{S_{m_{1}}} {| \int_{A_{l_{2}}} K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) u (z) d z |}^{2} d x .

Writing

\int_{A_{l_{2}}} = \int_{S_{l_{2}}^{*}} + \sum_{m_{2} = 1}^{9} \int_{S_{m_{2}}} + \sum_{m_{2} = 10}^{2^{l_{2} - 1}} \int_{S_{m_{2}}},

and then

{‖ Ψ_{l_{1}} Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*} u ‖}_{L^{2}} \leq 11 (I_{1} + I_{2} + I_{3}),

where

\begin{matrix} I_{1} = \sum_{m_{1}} \int_{S_{m_{1}}} {(\int_{S_{l_{2}}^{*}} | K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) u (z) | d z)}^{2} d x, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} I_{2} = \sum_{m_{1}} \int_{S_{m_{1}}} \sum_{m_{2} = 1}^{9} {(\int_{S_{m_{2}}} | K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) u (z) | d z)}^{2} d x, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} I_{3} = \sum_{m_{1}} \int_{S_{m_{1}}} {| \sum_{m_{2} = 10}^{2^{l_{2} - 1}} \int_{S_{m_{2}}} | K_{l_{1} l_{2}} (x, z) u (z) | d z |}^{2} d x . \end{matrix}

Using claims 3.2.1 and 3.2.5 with

m_{2} = 2^{l_{2} - 1}

(integration by parts),

\begin{matrix} | I_{1} | & \leq & c 2^{n k + l_{1}} 2^{n k + n l_{2} - (n - 1) l_{1}} 2^{2 (n - 2) j - 4 k - 2 l_{2} (n - 1) - 4 l_{2}} \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & {max}_{N \leq 2} {‖ {(ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})}^{N} a_{j k} ‖}_{L^{\infty}}^{4} \sum_{m_{1}} {‖ χ_{S_{m_{1}}^{*}} u ‖}_{L^{2}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c 2^{2 (n - 2) j} 2^{k (2 n - 4)} 2^{(2 - n) l_{1}} 2^{(- 2 - n) l_{2}} {max}_{N \leq 2} {‖ (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})^{N} a_{j k} ‖}_{L^{\infty}}^{4} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Using claims 3.2.2 and 3.2.3 (size)

\begin{matrix} | I_{2} | & \leq & c 2^{n k + l_{1}} 2^{n k + (n - 1) l_{2}} 2^{2 n j - 2 l_{2} (n - 1)} {∥ a_{j k} ∥}_{L^{\infty}}^{4} \sum_{m_{1}} {‖ χ_{S_{m_{1}}^{*}} u ‖}_{L^{2}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c 2^{2 n (k + j)} 2^{l_{1} - l_{2} (n - 1)} {∥ a_{j k} ∥}_{L^{\infty}}^{4} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Using claim 3.2.3 (size) and 3.2.5 with

m_{2} \in {10, 11, . . . 2^{l_{2} - 1}}

(integration by parts), and the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality on the sum in

m_{2}

\begin{matrix} | I_{3} | & \leq & c 2^{n k + l_{1}} (\sum_{m_{2} = 10}^{2^{l_{2} - 1}} \frac{1}{m_{2}^{2}}) (\sum_{m_{2} = 10}^{2^{l_{2} - 1}} m_{2}^{2} 2^{n k + l_{2} (n - 1)} m_{2}^{- 4}) \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & 2^{2 (n - 2) j - 4 k - 2 l_{2} (n - 1)} {max}_{N \leq 2} {‖ (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})^{N} a_{j k} ‖}_{L^{\infty}}^{4} \sum_{m_{1}} {‖ χ_{S_{m_{1}}^{*}} u ‖}_{L^{2}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & c 2^{2 (n - 2) j} 2^{k (2 n - 4)} 2^{l_{1} - l_{2} (n - 1)} {max}_{N \leq 2} {‖ (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})^{N} a_{j k} ‖}_{L^{\infty}}^{4} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Combining the above estimates for

I_{1}, I_{2}

and

I_{3}

, one obtains for

l_{1} + 11 \leq l_{2}

\begin{matrix} {‖ Ψ_{l_{1}} Ψ_{l_{2}}^{*} ‖}_{L^{2}} \leq c 2^{n (k + j)} {max}_{N \leq 2} {‖ (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})^{N} a_{j k} ‖}_{L^{\infty}}^{2} 2^{(l_{1} - l_{2}) / 2} 2^{- l_{2} \frac{n - 2}{2}} . \end{matrix}

(3.19)

By ( 3.17 ), ( 3.19 ) is valid for all

l_{1} \leq l_{2}

. Notice that from ( 3.17 ) and ( 3.19 ) we conclude that the estimates are much better for

n > 2

than for

n = 2

. In fact it is just in dimension

n = 2

where Cotlar-Stein lemma is necessary.

Taking

γ (l) = 2^{- l / 4}

it follows from Cotlar-Stein lemma that

\sum_{l = 0}^{\infty} Ψ_{l} u

converges in

L^{2}

for any

u \in S (R^{n})

. As it was previously noted,

\sum_{l = 0}^{\infty} Ψ_{l} u

converges to

(1 - χ_{B_{2^{k + 10}}}) Ψ_{j k} u

in the distribution sense, so

{‖ (1 - χ_{B_{2^{k + 10}}}) Ψ_{j k} u ‖}_{L^{2}} \leq c 2^{n (k + j) / 2} {max}_{N \leq 2} {‖ {(ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})}^{N} a_{j k} ‖}_{L^{\infty}}^{2} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}}, \forall u \in S (R^{n}) .

Combining with ( 3.16 )

∥ Ψ_{j k} u ∥ \leq c 2^{n (k + j) / 2} {max}_{N \leq 2} {‖ {(ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})}^{N} a_{j k} ‖}_{L^{\infty}}^{2} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} .

Finally, one can use the following fact which is easily verified using standard Fourier transform arguments.

Lemma 3.2.1 For any

N_{1}, N_{2} \in N

there exists

N_{3} \in N

such that

2^{N_{1} (j + k)} {‖ (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})^{N_{2}} a_{j k} ‖}_{L^{\infty}} \leq c_{N_{1}} {max}_{k + | α | \leq N_{3}} {‖ 〈 s 〉^{k} (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})^{N_{2}} \partial_{s}^{α} a ‖}_{L^{\infty}} .

Using Lemma 3.2.1 with

N_{1} \geq n / 2 + 1

one obtains

∥ I I ∥_{L_{x}^{2}} \leq {max}_{k + | α | \leq N_{1}; N \leq 2} {‖ 〈 s 〉^{k} (ξ \cdot \nabla_{ξ})_{1}^{N} \partial_{s}^{α} a ‖}_{L^{\infty}} ∥ u ∥_{L_{x}^{2}},

where

I I

was defined in ( 3.15 ), and the proof of Theorem 3.2.1 is completed.

3.3 Composition results

First a few facts concerning oscillatory integrals will be listed. For details and further results, see [25] , section 1.6.

Definition 3.3.1 Let

m \in R

τ \geq 0

. Then

A_{τ}^{m}

is the class of functions

φ \in C^{\infty} (R_{y}^{n} \times R_{ξ}^{n})

satisfying

| \partial_{y}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} φ (y, ξ) | \leq c_{α, β} 〈 ξ 〉^{m} 〈 y 〉^{τ} .

The class

A

of amplitude functions is defined by

A = ⋃_{m \in R} ⋃_{τ \geq 0} A_{τ}^{m} .

Definition 3.3.2 Let

a \in A

. Then

O_{s} \int \int e^{- i y \cdot ξ} a (y, ξ) d y d ξ = {lim}_{ε \to 0} \int \int e^{- i y \cdot ξ} a (y, ξ) \tilde{χ} (ε y, ε ξ) d y d ξ,

\tilde{χ} \in S (R_{y}^{n} \times R_{ξ}^{n})

and

\tilde{χ} (0, 0) = 1

The oscillatory integral in Definition 3.3.2 is well-defined because of the following lemma which allows one to integrate by parts and use Lebesgue's dominated convergence theorem.

Lemma 3.3.1 Let

\tilde{χ} \in S (R_{y}^{n})

with

\tilde{χ} (0) = 1

. Then

\begin{matrix} (i) & \tilde{χ} (ε y) \to 1 in R^{n} uniformly on compact sets, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} (i i) & \partial_{y}^{α} [\tilde{χ} (ε y)] \to 0 in R^{n} uniformly for α \in N^{n} - {0}, \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} (i i i) & \forall α \in N^{n} \exists c_{α} > 0 s.t. \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{y}^{α} [\tilde{χ} (ε y)] | \leq c_{α} ε^{σ} 〈 y 〉^{σ - | α |}, \forall y \in R^{n}, 0 \leq σ \leq | α |, 0 < ε < 1 . \end{matrix}

Theorem 3.3.1 Let

a (s; x, ξ) \in S (R^{n}; S_{1, 0}^{m})

α \in N^{n}

and

φ \in S (R^{n})

. Suppose

N \geq m + | α |

N \in N

Let

\begin{matrix} c_{1} (x, ξ) = \sum_{| β | < N} \frac{i^{- | β |}}{β!} φ (x) \partial_{ξ}^{β} [(i ξ)^{α}] \partial_{x}^{β} b_{h} (x, ξ), \end{matrix}

(3.20)

and

\begin{matrix} c_{2} (x, ξ) = \sum_{| β | < N} \frac{i^{- | β |}}{β!} \partial_{ξ}^{β} b_{h} (x, ξ) \partial_{x}^{β} φ (x) (i ξ)^{α} . \end{matrix}

(3.21)

Let

\begin{matrix} E_{1} = φ \partial_{x}^{α} Ψ_{b_{h}} - Ψ_{c_{1}}, \end{matrix}

(3.22)

and

\begin{matrix} E_{2} = Ψ_{b_{h}} φ \partial_{x}^{α} - Ψ_{c_{2}} . \end{matrix}

(3.23)

Then there exist

N_{1} \in N

and

c > 0

such that for any

u \in S (R^{n})

and for

j = 1, 2

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} ∥ E_{j} u ∥_{L^{2}} & \leq & c {max}_{| α | + | β | \leq N_{1}} {‖ x^{α} \partial_{x}^{β} φ ‖}_{L^{\infty}} \cdot \\ \cdot & {max}_{| γ_{1} + γ_{2} + γ_{3} + γ_{4} | \leq N_{1}} {‖ s^{γ_{4}} 〈 ξ 〉^{- m + | γ_{3} |} \partial_{s}^{γ_{1}} \partial_{x}^{γ_{2}} \partial_{ξ}^{γ_{3}} a ‖}_{L^{\infty}} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.24)

Proof of Theorem 3.3.1 For simplicity of the exposition we shall drop all the powers of

2 π

which appear in the definition of the operators

Ψ_{b}

Let

u \in S (R^{n})

. Then

\begin{matrix} E_{1} u (x) & = & φ (x) \partial_{x}^{α} \int e^{i x \cdot ξ} b_{h} (x, ξ) \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - & φ (x) \int e^{i x \cdot ξ} \sum_{| β | < N} \frac{i^{- | β |}}{β!} \partial_{ξ}^{β} [(i ξ)^{α}] \partial_{x}^{β} b_{h} (x, ξ) \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ . \end{matrix}

Notice that

\partial_{x}^{α} [e^{i x \cdot ξ} b_{h} (x, ξ)] = \sum_{β \leq α} (\begin{matrix} α \\ β \end{matrix}) i^{| α - β |} ξ^{α - β} e^{i x \cdot ξ} \partial_{x}^{β} b_{h} (x, ξ),

and that if

β \leq α

\frac{i^{- | α |}}{β!} \partial_{ξ}^{β} [(i ξ)^{α}] = \frac{i^{| α - β |}}{β!} \frac{α!}{(α - β)!} ξ^{α - β} = i^{| α - β |} (\begin{matrix} α \\ β \end{matrix}) ξ^{α - β},

then

E_{1} u (x) = φ (x) \int e^{i x \cdot ξ} \sum_{N \leq | β |, β \leq α} (\begin{matrix} α \\ β \end{matrix}) i^{| α - β |} ξ^{α - β} \partial_{x}^{β} b_{h} (x, ξ) \hat{u} (ξ) d ξ .

m > 0

, then

E_{1} = 0

m \leq 0

N \leq | β |

, and

β \leq α

, then

φ (x) ξ^{α - β} \partial_{x}^{β} b_{h} (x, ξ) \in S_{1, 0}^{0} .

Hence, there exists

c > 0

and

N_{1} \in N

such that ( 3.24 ) holds for

j = 1

.Let us go back to

E_{2}

. We shall assume that

φ \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n})

and vanish outside

B_{R} (0)

. Then we shall obtain bounds of the form of powers of

R

. Thus by introducing a partition of unity with respect to dyadic

x

-annuli and summing the corresponding operators one obtains the case

φ \in S (R^{n})

Write

E_{2} u (x) = (1 - χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |)) E_{2} u (x) + χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |) E_{2} u (x) = I + I I .

To estimate

I

it suffices to consider classical symbols. Indeed, integrating by parts with respect to

y

in the second term

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} I & = & (1 - χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |)) \cdot O_{s} \int \int (e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} b_{h} (x, ξ) φ (y) \partial_{y}^{α} u (y) \\ - & e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} \sum_{| β | < N} \frac{i^{- | β |}}{β!} \partial_{ξ}^{β} b_{h} (x, ξ) \partial_{x}^{β} φ (x) \partial_{y}^{α} u (y)) d y d ξ . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.25)

By Taylor's formula

\begin{matrix} φ (y) & = & \sum_{| β | < N} \frac{1}{β!} \partial_{x}^{β} φ (x) (y - x)^{β} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & N \sum_{| β | = N} \frac{1}{β!} (y - x)^{β} \int_{0}^{1} \partial_{x}^{β} φ (θ y + (1 - θ) x) (1 - θ)^{N - 1} d θ . \end{matrix}

Using

(y - x)^{β} e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} = i^{| β |} \partial_{ξ}^{β} [e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ}],

and integrating by parts with respect to

ξ

in the first term of

I

in 3.25

\begin{matrix} I & = & N (1 - χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |)) \int_{0}^{1} O_{s} \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} \sum_{| β | = N} \frac{i^{- | β |}}{β!} \partial_{ξ}^{β} b_{h} (x, ξ) \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & \partial_{x}^{β} φ (θ y + (1 - θ) x) (1 - θ)^{N - 1} \partial_{y}^{α} u (y) d y d ξ d θ . \end{matrix}

For each

θ \in [0, 1]

, the multiple symbol

N (1 - χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |)) \sum_{| β | = N} \frac{i^{- | β |}}{β!} \partial_{ξ}^{β} b_{h} (x, ξ) \partial_{x}^{β} φ (θ y + (1 - θ) x) (1 - θ)^{N - 1},

is in

S_{1, 0}^{m - N}

uniformly in

θ

. Since

m - N + | α | \leq 0

, there exist

c > 0

and

N_{1} \in N

such that ( 3.24 ) holds with

E_{j} u

replaced by I. In II, note that

χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |) \partial_{x}^{β} φ (x) = 0

, so that

\begin{matrix} I I & = & (- 1)^{| α |} χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |) \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & O_{s} \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} \sum_{β \leq α} (\begin{matrix} α \\ β \end{matrix}) (- i ξ)^{β} b_{h} (x, ξ) \partial_{y}^{α - β} φ (y) u (y) d y d ξ, \end{matrix}

by integration by parts with respect to

y

. Therefore, it suffices to consider the pseudo-differential operator

Ψ_{I I}

given by

\begin{matrix} Ψ_{I I} u (x) & = & χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |) \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & O_{s} \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} ξ^{β} a (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) χ (| ξ |) φ (y) u (y) d y d ξ, \end{matrix}

for

β \leq α

. Choose

M \in N

such that

2 M - m - | α | \geq n + 1

. Integrating by parts with respect to

ξ

and using

| x - y | \geq | x | / 2 \geq R > 0

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} Ψ_{I I} u (x) & = & χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |) \\ \cdot & \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} \frac{(- 1)^{M}}{| x - y |^{2 M}} Δ_{ξ}^{M} [ξ^{β} a (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) χ (| ξ |)] φ (y) u (y) d y d ξ, \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.26)

where the integral converges absolutely. Indeed,

\begin{matrix} | Δ_{ξ}^{M} [ξ^{β} a (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) χ (| ξ |)] | \leq c 〈 x 〉^{2 M} 〈 ξ 〉^{- n - 1} {max}_{| γ_{1} + γ_{2} | \leq 2 M} {‖ 〈 ξ 〉^{- m + | γ_{2} |} \partial_{s}^{γ_{1}} \partial_{ξ}^{γ_{2}} a ‖}_{L^{\infty}} . \end{matrix}

Therefore, letting

| a |_{(2 M)} = {max}_{| γ_{1} + γ_{2} | \leq 2 M} {‖ 〈 ξ 〉^{- m + | γ_{2} |} \partial_{s}^{γ_{1}} \partial_{ξ}^{γ_{2}} a ‖}_{L^{\infty}},

one has

| Ψ_{I I} u (x) | \leq c R^{n / 2} ∥ φ ∥_{L^{\infty}} | a |_{(2 M)} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} .

Define

χ_{R} (| x |) = χ (| x | / R)

. Then by Cauchy-Schwarz

{∥ (1 - χ_{c_{0} R}) Ψ_{I I} u ∥}_{L^{2}} \leq c R^{n} ∥ φ ∥_{L^{\infty}} | a |_{(2 M)} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}},

where the constant

c_{0}

will be fixed below (see ( 3.29 )). Now we turn to the estimate of

\begin{matrix} ∥ χ_{c_{0} R} Ψ_{I I} u ∥_{L^{2}} . \end{matrix}

(3.27)

We shall use that

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \frac{1}{| x - y |^{2 M}} & = & \frac{1}{{| | x |^{2} - 2 (x \cdot y) + | y |^{2} |}^{M}} \\ = & \frac{1}{| x |^{2 M}} \frac{1}{{| 1 - 2 (\frac{x}{| x |} \cdot \frac{y}{| x |}) + \frac{| y |^{2}}{| x |^{2}} |}^{M}} \\ = & \frac{1}{| x |^{2 M}} {(1 - \sum_{j = 1}^{(2 n + 2)^{M} - 1} P_{j} (\frac{x}{| x |}) Q_{j} (\frac{y}{| x |}))}^{- 1}, \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.28)

where

P_{j}, Q_{j}

are monomials of degree no bigger than

2 M

with

deg Q_{j} \neq 0

for

j = 1, 2, . . ., (2 n + 2)^{M} - 1

. Since

| x | > c_{0} R

and

| y | < R

it follows that

| P_{j} (\frac{x}{| x |}) | \leq a_{j}, | Q_{j} (\frac{y}{| x |}) | \leq b_{j} {(\frac{| y |}{| x |})}^{d e g Q_{j}} \leq \frac{b_{j}}{{c_{0}}^{d e g Q_{j}}},

| P_{j} (\frac{x}{| x |}) Q_{j} (\frac{y}{| x |}) | \leq \frac{a_{j} b_{j}}{{c_{0}}^{d e g Q_{j}}} .

We take

\begin{matrix} c_{0} \geq 2 (2 n + 2)^{M} max {| a_{j} b_{j} | : j = 1, . ., (2 n + 2)^{M} - 1} \end{matrix}

(3.29)

and rewrite ( 3.28 ) as

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \frac{1}{| x |^{2 M}} \frac{1}{1 - \sum_{j} P_{j} (\frac{x}{| x |}) Q_{j} (\frac{y}{| x |})} \\ = \frac{1}{| x |^{2 M}} (\sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} {(\sum_{j = 1}^{(2 n + 2)^{M} - 1} P_{j} (\frac{x}{| x |}) Q_{j} (\frac{y}{| x |}))}^{k}) \\ = \frac{1}{| x |^{2 M}} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} \sum_{j_{1} . . j_{k} = 1}^{(2 n + 2)^{M} - 1} \frac{^{k} \prod_{i = 1} P_{j_{i}} (\frac{x}{| x |}) Q_{j_{i}} (\frac{y}{| x |}) | x |^{deg Q_{j_{i}}}}{| x |^{deg Q_{j_{i}}}} . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.30)

We observe that

| x |^{deg Q_{j_{i}}} Q_{j_{i}} (\frac{y}{| x |})

depends just on

y

and if

| y | < R

then

| | x |^{deg Q_{j_{i}}} Q_{j_{i}} (\frac{y}{| x |}) | \leq b_{j_{i}} R^{deg Q_{j_{i}}} .

So returning to the estimate ( 3.27 ) and using the argument in ( 3.26 ) it follows

\begin{matrix} {∥ χ_{c_{0} R} Ψ_{I I} u ∥}_{L^{2}} = ‖ χ_{c_{0} R} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} {\sum_{j_{1} . . j_{k} = 1}^{(2 n + 2)^{M} - 1}}^{k} \prod_{i = 1} (- 1)^{M} \frac{P_{j_{i}} (\frac{x}{| x |})}{| x |^{deg Q_{j_{i}}}} \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot {\int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} \frac{1}{| x |^{2 M}} Δ_{ξ}^{M} (ξ^{β} a (\cdot; \cdot, \cdot) χ (| ξ |)) Q_{j_{i}} (\frac{y}{| x |}) | x |^{deg Q_{j_{i}}} φ (y) u (y) d y d ξ ‖}_{L^{2}} . \end{matrix}

Using that

\tilde{b} (x, ξ) = χ_{c_{0} R} (| x |) \frac{1}{| x |^{2 M}} Δ_{ξ}^{M} (ξ^{β} a (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) χ (| ξ |))

is a symbol which falls under the scope of Theorem 3.2.1 -see Remark 3.1.1 (c), it follows that

\begin{matrix} {‖ \int e^{i x \cdot ξ} \tilde{b} (x, ξ) (\int e^{- i y \cdot ξ} Q_{j_{i}} (y) φ (y) u (y) d y) d ξ ‖}_{L_{x}^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c {‖ \int e^{- i y \cdot ξ} Q_{j_{i}} (y) φ (y) u (y) d y ‖}_{L_{ξ}^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c b_{j_{i}} R^{deg Q_{j_{i}}} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} . \end{matrix}

Also

\begin{matrix} {‖ χ_{c_{0} R} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} {\sum_{j_{1} . . j_{k} = 1}^{(2 n + 2)^{M} - 1}}^{k} \prod_{i = 1} (- 1)^{M} \frac{P_{j_{i}} (\frac{x}{| x |})}{| x |^{deg Q_{j_{i}}}} ‖}_{L^{\infty}} \leq \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} {\sum_{j_{1} . . j_{k} = 1}^{(2 n + 2)^{M} - 1}}^{k} \prod_{i = 1} \frac{a_{j_{i}}}{(c_{0} R)^{deg Q_{j_{i}}}} . \end{matrix}

Combining the last two estimates we conclude that

\begin{matrix} {∥ χ_{c_{0} R} Ψ_{I I} u ∥}_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} {\sum_{j_{1} . . j_{k} = 1}^{(2 n + 2)^{M} - 1}}^{k} \prod_{i = 1} \frac{a_{j_{i}} b_{j_{i}} R^{deg Q_{j_{i}}}}{(c_{0} R)^{deg Q_{j_{i}}}} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} \leq c \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} {\sum_{j_{1} . . j_{k} = 1}^{(2 n + 2)^{M} - 1}}^{k} \prod_{i = 1} \frac{a_{j_{i}} b_{j_{i}}}{{c_{0}}^{deg Q_{j_{i}}}} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} {(\sum_{j = 1}^{(2 n + 2)^{M} - 1} \frac{a_{j_{i}} b_{j_{i}}}{c_{0}})}^{k} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} \leq \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} \frac{1}{2^{k}} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} \leq c ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

and the proof of Theorem 3.3.1 is completed.

Theorem 3.3.2 Let

a \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m})

and let

b_{h}

be defined as ( 3.9 ),

N \in N

N \geq m

. Let

c (x, ξ) = \sum_{| α | < N} \frac{i^{- | α |}}{α!} \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{α} {\bar{b}}_{h} (x, ξ)

and

E = Ψ_{b_{h}}^{*} - Ψ_{c}

. Let

φ \in S (R^{n})

. Then there exists

N_{1} = N_{1} (n) \in N

such that for

u \in S (R^{n})

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {∥ φ E u ∥}_{L^{2}} & \leq & c {max}_{| β | \leq N_{1}} {‖ 〈 x 〉^{N_{1}} \partial_{x}^{α} φ ‖}_{L^{\infty}} \cdot \\ \cdot & {max}_{β_{4} + | β_{1} + β_{2} + β_{3} | \leq N_{1}} {‖ 〈 s 〉^{β_{4}} 〈 ξ 〉^{- m + | β_{3} |} \partial_{s}^{β_{1}} \partial_{x}^{β_{2}} \partial_{ξ}^{β_{3}} a ‖}_{L^{\infty}} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.31)

Proof of Theorem 3.3.2 We shall prove the Theorem for

φ \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n})

with support in

B_{R} (0)

. Introducing a partition of unity and summing the corresponding terms we get the desired result.

Thus,

\begin{matrix} φ (x) E u (x) & = & O_{s} \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) {{\bar{b}}_{h} (y, ξ) - \sum_{| α | < N} \frac{i^{- | α |}}{α!} \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{α} {\bar{b}}_{h} (x, ξ)} u (y) d y d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & O_{s} \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) (1 - χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |)) \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & {{\bar{b}}_{h} (y, ξ) - \sum_{| α | < N} \frac{i^{- | α |}}{α!} \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{α} {\bar{b}}_{h} (x, ξ)} u (y) d y d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & O_{s} \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |) \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & {{\bar{b}}_{h} (y, ξ) - \sum_{| α | < N} \frac{i^{- | α |}}{α!} \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{α} {\bar{b}}_{h} (x, ξ)} u (y) d y d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & I + I I . \end{matrix}

First consider

I

. By a Taylor expansion of order

N

\begin{matrix} b_{h} (y, ξ) & = & \sum_{| α | < N} \frac{1}{α!} (y - x)^{α} \partial_{x}^{α} b_{h} (x, ξ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & \sum_{| α | = N} \frac{N}{α!} (y - x)^{α} \int_{0}^{1} (1 - θ)^{N - 1} \partial_{x}^{α} b_{h} (θ y + (1 - θ) x, ξ) d θ . \end{matrix}

Since

(y - x)^{α} e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} = i^{| α |} \partial_{ξ}^{α} e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ}

, integration by parts with respect to

ξ

gives

\begin{matrix} I = O_{s} \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) (1 - χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |)) N i^{- N} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \sum_{| α | = N} \frac{1}{α!} \int_{0}^{1} (1 - θ)^{N - 1} \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{α} {\bar{b}}_{h} (θ y + (1 - θ) x, ξ) d θ u (y) d y d ξ . \end{matrix}

Because of the compact support in

x

and

y

, the multiple symbol

φ (x) (1 - χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |)) N i^{- N} \sum_{| α | = N} \frac{1}{α!} (1 - θ)^{N - 1} \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{α} {\bar{b}}_{h} (θ y + (1 - θ) x, ξ)

is in

S_{1, 0}^{m - N} \subset S_{1, 0}^{0}

uniformly in

θ

, so an estimate of the type ( 3.31 ) holds with

φ E u

replaced by

I

. A factor

〈 R 〉^{N}

appears due to the differentiation with respect to

ξ

of the quantity

P (θ y + (1 - θ) x, A_{h} ξ)

Next we consider

I I

. Choose

M \in N

such that

m - 2 M \leq - n - 1

. If

φ (x) χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |) \neq 0,

then

| x - y | \geq R

so by integration by parts with respect to

ξ

\begin{matrix} I I & = & \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |) \frac{(- 1)^{M}}{| x - y |^{2 M}} Δ_{ξ}^{M} {\bar{b}}_{h} (y, ξ) u (y) d y d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - & \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |) \frac{(- 1)^{M}}{| x - y |^{2 M}} \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \sum_{| α | < N} \frac{i^{- | α |}}{α!} \partial_{x}^{α} Δ_{ξ}^{M} \partial_{ξ}^{α} {\bar{b}}_{h} (x, ξ) u (y) d y d ξ, \end{matrix}

where the integrals converge absolutely by the choice on

M

. The multiple symbol in the second term above is in

S_{1, 0}^{m - 2 M} \subset S_{1, 0}^{0}

because of the factor

φ (x)

, so the corresponding pseudo-differential operator is

L^{2}

-bounded as in ( 3.31 ).

Therefore, it remains to show the

L^{2}

-boundedness of the operator

\begin{matrix} {\bar{Ψ}}_{I I} u (x) = \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot \frac{(- 1)^{M}}{| x - y |^{2 M}} Δ_{ξ}^{M} [\bar{a} (P (y, A_{h} ξ); y, ξ) χ (| ξ |)] u (y) d y d ξ . \end{matrix}

But

{\bar{Ψ}}_{I I}

is the adjoint of the operator

Ψ_{I I}

defined in ( 3.26 ) in the proof of Theorem 3.3.1 (with

β = 0

and

φ

replaced by

\bar{φ}

). Since

Ψ_{I I}

was there proved to be bounded in

L^{2}

, so is

{\bar{Ψ}}_{I I}

, and the operator norms are equal.

This proves Theorem 3.3.2 .

Theorem 3.3.3 Let

a_{1} \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m_{1}})

a_{2} \in S (R^{n} : S_{1, 0}^{m_{2}})

, and let

b_{1}, b_{2}

be the corresponding symbols given in ( 3.9 ), Definition 3.1.1 , with

A = A_{h}

. Suppose

N \in N

N \geq m_{1} + m_{2}

and let

c (x, ξ) = \sum_{| α | < N} \frac{i^{- | α |}}{α!} \partial_{ξ}^{α} [b_{1} (x, ξ) \partial_{x}^{α} {\bar{b}}_{2} (x, ξ)] .

Let

φ \in S (R^{n})

. Then there exist

c = c (N)

and

N_{1} \in N

such that for any

u \in S (R^{n})

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} {‖ φ (Ψ_{b_{1}} Ψ_{b_{2}}^{*} - Ψ_{c}) u ‖}_{L^{2}} & \leq & {max}_{| β | \leq N_{1}} {‖ 〈 x 〉^{N_{1}} \partial_{x}^{β} φ ‖}_{L^{\infty}} \cdot \\ \cdot & {max}_{β_{4} + | β_{1} + β_{2} + β_{3} | \leq N_{1}} {‖ 〈 s 〉^{β_{4}} 〈 ξ 〉^{- m_{1} + | β_{3} |} \partial_{s}^{β_{1}} \partial_{x}^{β_{2}} \partial_{ξ}^{β_{3}} a_{1} ‖}_{L^{\infty}} \cdot \\ \cdot & {max}_{β_{4} + | β_{1} + β_{2} + β_{3} | \leq N_{1}} {‖ 〈 s 〉^{β_{4}} 〈 ξ 〉^{- m_{2} + | β_{3} |} \partial_{s}^{β_{1}} \partial_{x}^{β_{2}} \partial_{ξ}^{β_{3}} a_{2} ‖}_{L^{\infty}} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.32)

Proof of Theorem 3.3.3 As in the proof of Theorem 3.3.2 we shall assume that

φ \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n})

with support in

B_{R} (0)

Introducing a partition of unity and summing the corresponding terms we get the desired result.

We have,

\begin{matrix} φ (Ψ_{b_{1}} Ψ_{b_{2}}^{*} - Ψ_{c}) u (x) = O_{s} \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) [b_{1} (x, ξ) {\bar{b}}_{2} (y, ξ) - c (x, ξ)] u (y) d y d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = O_{s} \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) (1 - χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |)) [b_{1} (x, ξ) {\bar{b}}_{2} (y, ξ) - c (x, ξ)] u (y) d y d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + O_{s} \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |) [b_{1} (x, ξ) {\bar{b}}_{2} (y, ξ) - c (x, ξ)] u (y) d y d ξ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = I + I I . \end{matrix}

First we consider

I

. By a Taylor expansion of order

N

\begin{matrix} b_{2} (y, ξ) & = & \sum_{| α | < N} \frac{1}{α!} (y - x)^{α} \partial_{x}^{α} b_{2} (x, ξ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & \sum_{| α | = N} \frac{N}{α!} (y - x)^{α} \int_{0}^{1} (1 - θ)^{N - 1} \partial_{x}^{β} b_{2} (θ y + (1 - θ) x, ξ) d θ . \end{matrix}

Since

(y - x)^{α} e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} = i^{- | α |} \partial_{ξ}^{α} e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ}

, integration by parts with respect to

ξ

gives

\begin{matrix} I = \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) (1 - χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |)) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \sum_{| α | = N} \frac{N}{α!} i^{- | α |} \int_{0}^{1} (1 - θ)^{N - 1} \partial_{ξ}^{α} [b_{1} (x, ξ) \partial_{x}^{α} {\bar{b}}_{2} (θ y + (1 - θ) x, ξ)] d θ u (y) d y d ξ . \end{matrix}

Because of the compact support in

x

and

y

, the multiple symbol

φ (x) (1 - χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |)) \sum_{| α | = N} \frac{N}{α!} i^{- | α |} \partial_{ξ}^{α} [b_{1} (x, ξ) \partial_{x}^{α} {\bar{b}}_{2} (θ y + (1 - θ) x, ξ)]

is in

S_{1, 0}^{m_{1} + m_{2} - N} \subset S_{1, 0}^{0}

with seminorms uniformly bounded in

θ \in [0, 1]

, so the estimate ( 3.32 ) holds with the left hand side replaced by

∥ I ∥_{L_{x}^{2}}

. A factor

〈 R 〉^{N_{1}}

appears from differentiation with respect to

ξ

of the quantity

P (θ y + (1 - θ) x, A_{h} ξ)

θ \in [0, 1]

Next consider

I I

. Note that if

φ (x) χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |) \neq 0

, then

| x - y | \geq R

. Therefore, choosing

M \in N

such that

m_{1} + m_{2} - 2 M \leq - n - 1

and integrating by parts with respect to

ξ

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} I I & = & \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |) \frac{(- 1)^{M}}{| x - y |^{2 M}} Δ_{ξ}^{M} [b_{1} (x, ξ) {\bar{b}}_{2} (y, ξ)] u (y) d y d ξ \\ - & \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (x) χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | y |) \frac{(- 1)^{M}}{| x - y |^{2 M}} Δ_{ξ}^{M} c (x, ξ) u (y) d y d ξ, \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.33)

where the integrals converge absolutely.

The multiple symbol in the second term in ( 3.33 ) is in

S_{1, 0}^{- n - 1} \subset S_{1, 0}^{0}

, so an estimate of the type( 3.32 ) holds.

The adjoint of the operator corresponding to the first term in ( 3.33 ) has multiple symbol

\bar{φ} (y) χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |) \frac{(- 1)^{M}}{| x - y |^{2 M}} Δ_{ξ}^{M} [{\bar{b}}_{1} (y, ξ) b_{2} (x, ξ)] .

Replacing

\bar{φ}

φ

and

{\bar{b}}_{1} (y, ξ)

ξ^{β}

one obtains a symbol similar to that of the operator

Ψ_{I I}

in ( 3.26 ) in the proof of Theorem 3.3.1 , so we just need to sketch the proof.

Thus, we define

\begin{matrix} Ψ u (x) & = & \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} \bar{φ} (y) χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |) \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \cdot & \frac{(- 1)^{M}}{| x - y |^{2 M}} (\sum_{| γ_{1} | + | γ_{2} | = 2 M} c_{γ_{1} γ_{2}} \partial_{ξ}^{γ_{1}} {\bar{b}}_{1} (y, ξ) \partial_{ξ}^{γ_{2}} b_{2} (x, ξ)) u (y) d y d ξ . \end{matrix}

Next consider

\tilde{φ} \in C_{0}^{\infty}

which vanishes outside the ball of radius

3 R / 2

and such that

\tilde{φ} φ = φ

. Then define

{\tilde{b}}_{γ_{1}} (y, ξ) = \tilde{φ} (y) 〈 ξ 〉^{| γ_{1} | - m_{1}} \partial_{ξ}^{γ_{1}} {\bar{b}}_{1} (y, ξ),

and

{\tilde{b}}_{γ_{2}} (x, ξ) = χ ((2 R)^{- 1} | x |) | x |^{- 2 M} 〈 ξ 〉^{m_{1} - | γ_{1} |} \partial_{ξ}^{γ_{2}} b_{2} (x, ξ) .

Using the notation introduced in the proof of Theorem 3.3.1 , see ( 3.28 )-( 3.30 ), we have

\frac{1}{| x - y |^{2 M}} = \frac{1}{| x |^{2 M}} \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} {\sum_{j_{1} . . j_{k} = 1}^{(2 n + 2)^{M} - 1}}^{k} \prod_{i = 1} P_{j_{i}} (\frac{x}{| x |}) Q_{j_{i}} (\frac{y}{| x |}) .

Hence as in ( 3.28 )-( 3.30 ) we can reduce ourselves to study

∥ χ ((c_{0} R)^{- 1} | x |) Ψ u ∥_{L^{2}}

for

c_{0}

large enough.

Then we have

\begin{matrix} {‖ χ ((c_{0} R)^{- 1} | x |) Ψ u ‖}_{L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c \sum_{k = 0}^{\infty} \sum_{j_{1} . . j_{k} = 1}^{(2 n + 2)^{M} - 1} \sum_{| γ_{1} | + | γ_{2} | = 2 M} ‖ χ {((c_{0} R)^{- 1} | x |)}^{k} \prod_{i = 1} P_{j_{i}} (\frac{x}{| x |}) \frac{1}{| x |^{deg Q_{j_{i}}}} \cdot \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} {\cdot \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (y) Q_{j_{i}} (y) {\tilde{b}}_{γ_{1}} (y, ξ) {\tilde{b}}_{γ_{2}} (x, ξ) u (y) d y d ξ ‖}_{L_{x}^{2}} . \end{matrix}

Then from Remark 3.1.1 (b)

\begin{matrix} {‖ \int \int e^{i (x - y) \cdot ξ} φ (y) Q_{j_{i}} (y) {\tilde{b}}_{γ_{1}} (y, ξ) {\tilde{b}}_{γ_{2}} (x, ξ) u (y) d y d ξ ‖}_{L_{x}^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = {‖ \int e^{i x \cdot ξ} {\tilde{b}}_{γ_{2}} (x, ξ) (\int F (y, ξ) d y) d ξ ‖}_{L_{x}^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq {‖ \int F (y, ξ) d y ‖}_{L_{ξ}^{2}}, \end{matrix}

with

F (y, ξ) = e^{- i y \cdot ξ} φ (y) Q_{j_{i}} (y) {\tilde{b}}_{γ_{1}} (y, ξ) u (y) .

Now observe that if

a (z, η) = {\tilde{b}}_{γ_{1}} (η, z),

then

| \partial_{z}^{α} \partial_{η}^{β} a (z, η) | \leq \frac{c_{α β}}{〈 η 〉^{| β |}} R^{| α | + | β |} .

Hence

a \in S_{1, 0}^{0}

and therefore

{‖ \int F (y, ξ) d y ‖}_{L_{ξ}^{2}} \leq c R^{deg Q_{j_{i}} + N} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}}

for some large

N

which just depends on the dimension.Gathering the above information with the argument used in the proof of Theorem 3.3.1 one completes the proof.

4 THE BICHARACTERISTIC FLOW

In this section we study the bicharacteristic flows associated to the second order ultrahyperbolic variable coefficient operator

ℒ (x)

and its truncated version

ℒ^{R} (x)

, see ( 4.12 )-( 4.13 ) below. Assuming a non-trapping condition (basic assumption) for the flow generated by

ℒ (x)

we prove in subsection 4.1 that the bicharacteristic flow is “uniformly non-trapping” with respect to the parameter

R

. The analysis of the flow is moredelicate when the trajectory is not outgoing^$1$ , -see Theorem 4.1.1 below. In that case we prove that outside a bounded ball (the same for all

R

large enough) it behaves in the

x

variable as the free flow, but just in dyadic annuli see Theorem 4.1.1 ( v) for a precise statement. On the other hand in the outgoing case, the trajectories are in fact perturbations of the free ones, as is proved by Craig, Kappeler, and Strauss in [4] whose arguments we follow. The end of subsection 4.1 is devoted to prove that the non-trapping condition is stable under small perturbation in the coefficients.

In subsection 4.2 we deduce several estimates for the continuous dependence upon the initial data of the flows associated to the operators

ℒ^{R} (x)

(with respect the parameter

R

). The arguments in [4] are again very helpful. The estimates in subsections 4.1 and 4.2 will be used in the next section to deduce several properties of the integrating factor

K^{R}

One of the main differences of the flow in the non-elliptic setting with respect to the elliptic one studied in Section 2 is that the Hamiltonian in the elliptic case

h_{2} (x, ξ) = \sum_{j, k} a_{j k} (x) ξ_{k} ξ_{j}

is preserved under the flow. So ellipticity gives the a priori estimate -see ( 2.15 ) in Section 2 ,

ν^{- 2} {| ξ_{0} |}^{2} \leq {| Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) |}^{2} \leq ν^{2} {| ξ_{0} |}^{2} .

In particular, one has that the bicharacteristic flow is globally defined. This is also true in the ultra-hyperbolic case under the ”asymptotic flatness” assumption, but does not follow immediately.

^$1$ Using the homogeneity property ( 2.16 ) in Section 2 , it is enough to consider the flow for $s \geq 0$ and $| ξ | = 1$ .

4.1 Uniformly non-trapping flows

Let

ℒ (x) = - \partial_{x_{j}} a_{j k} (x) \partial_{x_{k}},

where

A (x) = (a_{j k} (x))

is a real, symmetric, and non-degenerated matrix, i.e.

\begin{matrix} \exists ν > 0 \forall ξ \in R^{n} ν^{- 1} | ξ | \leq | A (x) ξ | \leq ν | ξ | . \end{matrix}

(4.1)

We will assume that there exists a constant coefficient operator

\begin{matrix} ℒ^{0} = a_{j k}^{0} \partial_{x_{j} x_{k}}^{2}, \end{matrix}

(4.2)

with

\begin{matrix} a_{j k} (x) - a_{j k}^{0} \in S (R^{n}), j, k = 1, . ., n . \end{matrix}

(4.3)

After a change of variable we can assume, without loss of generality, that

\begin{matrix} A_{h} = (a_{j k}^{0}) = (\begin{matrix} I_{k \times k} & 0 \\ 0 & - I_{(n - k) \times (n - k)} \end{matrix}) . \end{matrix}

(4.4)

We shall use the notation

\tilde{ξ} = A_{h} ξ .

The bicharacteristic flow is defined by

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} X_{j} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) = 2 \sum_{k = 1}^{n} a_{j k} (X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) Ξ_{k} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}), \\ \frac{d}{d s} Ξ_{j} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) = - \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \partial_{x_{j}} a_{k l} (X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) Ξ_{k} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) Ξ_{l} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) \\ (X (0; x_{0}, ξ_{0}), Ξ (0; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) = (x_{0}, ξ_{0}) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.5)

From the classical result of ode's we know that the bicharacteristic flow exists in the time interval

s \in (- δ, δ)

with

δ = δ (x_{0}, ξ_{0})

, and

δ (\cdot)

depending continuously on

(x_{0}, ξ_{0})

By homogeneity of the symbol of

ℒ (x)

(see ( 2.16 ) in Section 2 ) for any

t \in R

one has that

X (s;, x, t ξ) = X (t s; x, ξ), Ξ (s; x, t ξ) = t Ξ (t s : x, ξ) .

BASIC ASSUMPTION We shall assume that

ℒ (x)

is non-trapping, i.e. for each

(x_{0}, ξ_{0}) \in R^{n} \times (R^{n} - {0})

and for each

μ > 0

there exists

s_{0}

with

0 < s_{0} < δ

such that^$2$

| X (s_{0}; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) | \geq μ .

Our first result is the following.

Proposition 4.1.1

\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} {| X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) |}^{2} = 4 〈 X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}); A (X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) 〉 \end{matrix}

(4.6)

and

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} \frac{d^{2}}{d s^{2}} {| X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) |}^{2} = 8 {| A (X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) |}^{2} \\ + 8 〈 X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}); \nabla A (X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) A (X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) 〉 \\ - 4 〈 X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}); A (X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) \nabla A (X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) 〉 . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.7)

The proof of Proposition 4.1.1 follows directly from ( 4.5 ).

Lemma 4.1.1 There exists

M > 0

which depends only on a finite number of

S (R^{n})

-seminorms of

A (x) - A_{h}

and on

ν

in ( 4.1 ) such that if

| X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) | > M

, then

\begin{matrix} \frac{d^{2}}{d s^{2}} {| X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) |}^{2} \geq 4 {| A (X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0})) Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) |}^{2} \geq 0 . \end{matrix}

(4.8)

The proof of Lemma 4.1.1 follows by combining ( 4.7 ) with ( 4.1 ) and ( 4.3 ).

Lemma 4.1.2 For any

\tilde{M} \geq M

M

as in Lemma 4.1.1 , there exist

s_{\tilde{M}}

b

\tilde{b}

, and

c_{1}

depending only on

\tilde{M}

and

A

, such that for

| x_{0} | \leq \tilde{M}

, and

1 / 2 \leq | ξ_{0} | \leq 7 / 4

, (i)

s_{\tilde{M}} \in (0, δ (x_{0}, ξ_{0}))

; (ii)

\frac{d}{d s} {| X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) |}^{2} |_{s = s_{\tilde{M}}} \geq b > 0;

(iii)

\frac{d^{2}}{d s^{2}} {| X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) |}^{2} |_{s = s_{\tilde{M}}} \geq \tilde{b} > 0;

(iv) for all

s

with

| s | \leq s_{\tilde{M}}

0 < c_{1}^{- 1} \leq | Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) | \leq c_{1} < + \infty;

(v) for

s \in (s_{\tilde{M}}, δ)

, (ii) holds.

Proof of Lemma 4.1.2 For convenience we introduce the notation

\begin{matrix} N (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) = {| X (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) |}^{2} . \end{matrix}

(4.9)

Because of the homogeneity property of the flow we can assume

s > 0

and

s_{0} > 0

. We fix

(x_{0}, ξ_{0}) \in R^{n} \times (R^{n} - {0})

, and let

M_{1} = max {M; | x_{0} |},

where

M

is as in Lemma 4.1.1 . By the non-trapping assumption

\exists \bar{s} = \bar{s} (x_{0}, ξ_{0}) s . t . N (\bar{s}; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) \geq (M_{1} + 1)^{2} .

Also

N (0; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) = | x_{0} |^{2} \leq M_{1}^{2}

. Define

s_{1} = sup {s \in [0, \bar{s}] : N (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) \leq M_{1}^{2}} .

Thus,

s_{1} \in [0, \bar{s}), N (s_{1}; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) = M_{1}^{2}

, and for

s \in (s_{1}, \bar{s}]

one has

N (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) > M_{1}^{2}

. By the mean value theorem there exists

s_{2} \in (s_{1}, \bar{s})

such that

N^{'} (s_{2}; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) > 0

. Moreover,

N (s_{2}; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) > M_{1}^{2} \geq M^{2}

. By continuity there exists a neighborhood

U

(x_{0}, ξ_{0})

such that

\begin{matrix} N^{'} (s_{2}; \bar{x}, \bar{ξ}) \geq N^{'} (s_{2}; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) / 2 > 0, N (s_{2}; {\bar{x}}_{0}, {\bar{ξ}}_{0}) > M^{2}, \forall (\bar{x}, \bar{ξ}) \in U . \end{matrix}

(4.10)

Claim 4.1.1 :

\begin{matrix} N^{'} (s; \bar{x}, \bar{ξ}) \geq N^{'} (s_{2}; \bar{x}, \bar{ξ}), \forall s \geq s_{2} \forall (\bar{x}, \bar{ξ}) \in U . \end{matrix}

(4.11)

Suppose not, so there exists

s_{3} > s_{2}, (x^{'}, ξ^{'}) \in U

, and

β > 0

such that

N^{'} (s_{3}; x^{'}, ξ^{'}) < β < N^{'} (s_{2}; x^{'}, ξ^{'}) .

Let

s_{4} = inf {s \in [s_{2}, s_{3}] : N^{'} (s; x^{'}, ξ^{'}) < β},

then

s_{4} \in (s_{2}, s_{3}]

, and

N^{'} (s_{4}; x^{'}, ξ^{'}) = β

. By the mean value theorem, there exists

s_{5} \in (s_{2}, s_{4})

such that

N^{''} (s_{5}; x^{'}, ξ^{'}) < 0 .

But for

s \in [s_{2}, s_{4}), N^{'} (s; x^{'}, ξ^{'}) \geq β

, and so

N (s_{5}; x^{'}, ξ^{'}) > N (s_{2}; x^{'}, ξ^{'}) \geq M^{2}

, which contradicts Lemma 4.1.1 , so we have established Claim 4.1.1 .

Next we cover

K

by finitely many neighborhoods

U_{r}, r = 1, . ., N

, and let

a = {max}_{r = 1, . ., N} s_{2} (U_{r}), (see (eq4.1.10 4.10)-(eq4.1.11 4.11)),

and

b = {min}_{r = 1, . ., N} {N^{'} (s_{2} (U_{r}); \bar{x}, \bar{ξ}) : (\bar{x}, \bar{ξ}) \in U_{r}} .

From ( 4.10 ) it follows that

b > 0

and from Claim 4.1.1 one has for

s \geq a

that

N^{'} (s; x, ξ) \geq b, \forall (x, ξ) \in K .

Hence only (iv) remains to be proved. The upper bound follows by compactness. For the lower bound it suffices to see that

Ξ (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) \neq 0

for

0 < s < s_{0} .

But this is a consequence of the uniqueness of the flow ( 4.5 ).

The proof of Lemma 4.1.2 is completed.

Let

θ \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n}), 0 \leq θ (x) \leq 1

s u p p θ \subset {x : | x | \leq 2}

and

θ (x) = 1

{x : | x | \leq 1}

. For each

1 < R \leq \infty

define

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} A^{R} (x) & = & θ (x / R) A (x) + (1 - θ (x / R)) A_{h} \\ = & A_{h} + θ (x / R) (A (x) - A_{h}) = a_{j k}^{R} (x), if R > 1, A^{\infty} = A; \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.12)

\begin{matrix} ℒ^{R} (x) = - \partial_{x_{j}} a_{j k}^{R} (x) \partial_{x_{k}} if R > 1, ℒ^{\infty} = ℒ . \end{matrix}

(4.13)

Notice that there exists

R^{'} > 1

such that for

R > R^{'}

one has

\begin{matrix} ν^{- 1} | ξ | / 2 \leq | A^{R} (x) ξ | \leq 2 ν | ξ | and A^{R} (x) - A_{h} \in S (R^{n}) \end{matrix}

(4.14)

uniformly in R, so that Lemma 4.1.1 will apply uniformly in

R > R^{'}

Also

\begin{matrix} \partial_{x_{l}} a_{j k}^{R} (x) = θ (x / R) \partial_{x_{l}} a_{j k} (x) + \frac{\partial_{x_{l}} θ (x / R)}{R} (a_{j k} (x) - a_{j k}^{0}), j, k = 1, . ., n, \end{matrix}

(4.15)

so for any

τ > 0

there exists

c_{τ}

such that

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{x_{l}} a_{j k}^{R} (x) | \leq \frac{c_{τ}}{(1 + | x |)^{τ}}, j, k = 1, . ., n . \end{matrix}

(4.16)

We will always consider

R \geq R_{*} = max {R^{'}; 4 M; 4}

with

M

as in Lemma 4.1.1 .

Denote by

(X^{R} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}), Ξ^{R} (s; x_{0}, ξ_{0}))

the bicharacteristic flow associated to the operators

ℒ^{R}

Theorem 4.1.1 There exist

c_{1}, c_{2}, c_{3} > 0

and

M_{1} > 0

(sufficiently large) such that for any

(x, ξ) \in R^{n} \times S^{n - 1}

and

R > 2 M_{1}

one has (i) the bicharacteristic flow

\begin{matrix} (X^{R} (s; x, ξ), Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ)) exists for any s \in R, \end{matrix}

(4.17)

(ii)

\begin{matrix} 0 < c_{1}^{- 1} \leq | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq c_{1}, \forall s \in R, \end{matrix}

(4.18)

(iii) there exists

{\tilde{s}}_{0} \in R

such that^$3$

\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d t} {| X^{R} (s; x, ξ) |}^{2} |_{s = {\tilde{s}}_{0}} \geq 0 and | X^{R} ({\tilde{s}}_{0}; x, ξ) | \geq M_{1}, \end{matrix}

(4.19)

(iv) define 4.19

s_{0} = inf {{\tilde{s}}_{0} \geq 0 : () holds},

then

\begin{matrix} {| X^{R} (s; x, ξ) |}^{2} \geq c_{2} (s - s_{0})^{2} + M_{1}^{2}, s \geq s_{0}, \end{matrix}

(4.20)

(v) for

0 < s \leq s_{0}

and

k \in {1, 2, . .}

the set

\begin{matrix} I_{k}^{R} = {s \in [0, s_{0}] : 2^{k} \leq | X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq 2^{k + 1}}, \end{matrix}

(4.21)

verifies

\begin{matrix} | I_{k}^{R} | \leq c_{3} 2^{k} . \end{matrix}

(4.22)

Proof of Theorem 4.1.1 Recall ( 4.5 ), ( 4.14 ), and ( 4.16 ). Then given any

τ > 1

we can always assume, possibly by considering another

\tilde{τ}

with

1 < \tilde{τ} < τ

, that there is

M_{1} = 2^{J}

J \in N

2^{J (1 - τ)} < 1 / 4

such that if

| X^{R} ({\tilde{s}}_{0}; x, ξ) | > M_{1} = 2^{J}

then

\begin{matrix} \frac{d^{2}}{d s^{2}} {| X^{R} ({\tilde{s}}_{0}; x, ξ) |}^{2} \geq 4 ν^{- 2} {| Ξ^{R} ({\tilde{s}}_{0}; x, ξ) |}^{2}, \end{matrix}

(4.23)

and

\begin{matrix} | \frac{d}{d s} | Ξ^{R} ({\tilde{s}}_{0}; x, ξ) | | \leq \frac{ν^{- 1}}{100 {| X^{R} ({\tilde{s}}_{0}; x, ξ) |}^{τ}} {| Ξ^{R} ({\tilde{s}}_{0}; x, ξ) |}^{2} . \end{matrix}

(4.24)

Assume as a first step that

| x | \leq M_{1}

and

1 / 2 \leq | ξ | \leq 7 / 4

. Since

R \geq M_{1}

then

X^{R} (s; x, ξ) = X (s; x, ξ)

Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) = Ξ (s; x, ξ)

as far as

| X (s; x, ξ) | \leq R

. Then from Lemma 4.1.2 there exist

c_{0} > 0

and

s_{M_{1}}

such that

\begin{matrix} | X^{R} (s_{M_{1}}; x, ξ) | \geq M_{1}, \end{matrix}

(4.25)

\begin{matrix} c_{0}^{- 1} \leq | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq c_{0}, if 0 \leq s \leq s_{M_{1}}, \end{matrix}

(4.26)

and

\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} {| X^{R} (s; x, ξ) |}^{2} > b > 0, if s > s_{M_{1}}, \end{matrix}

(4.27)

as far as

| X (s; x, ξ | \leq R .

We will also use the inequalities -see ( 4.6 ),

\begin{matrix} | \frac{d}{d s} {| X^{R} (s; x, ξ) |}^{2} | \leq 4 ν | X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) |, \end{matrix}

(4.28)

and

\begin{matrix} 1 - w < \frac{1}{1 + w} < \frac{1}{1 - w} < 1 + 3 w / 2, if w \in (0, 1 / 4) . \end{matrix}

(4.29)

Assume now for

j \in Z

that

2^{j + J} \leq | x | \leq 2^{j + 1 + J}

and

\frac{d}{d s} {| X^{R} (s; x, ξ) |}^{2} |_{s = 0} < 0 .

j < 0

we have already proved parts (ii), (iii) and (v) of the theorem. Thus, consider

j = 0, 1, 2, . .

From ( 4.24 ) and as long as

| X^{R} (t; x, ξ) | > 2^{j + J}

for

t \in [0, s]

one has

\begin{matrix} \frac{| ξ |}{1 + 2^{- (j + J) τ} | ξ | (s - 0) / 100 ν} \leq | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq \frac{| ξ |}{1 - 2^{- (j + J) τ} | ξ | (s - 0) / 100 ν} . \end{matrix}

(4.30)

Thus, combining ( 4.29 ) and ( 4.30 ) and if

s < 2^{(j + J) τ} 25 ν

\begin{matrix} | ξ | (1 - 2^{- (j + J) τ} | ξ | \frac{s}{100 ν}) \leq | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq | ξ | (1 + \frac{3}{2} 2^{- (j + J) τ} | ξ | \frac{s}{100 ν}) . \end{matrix}

(4.31)

So, in particular,

\begin{matrix} \frac{1}{2} | ξ | \leq | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq \frac{7}{4} | ξ |, \end{matrix}

(4.32)

as long as

| X^{R} (t; x, ξ) | > 2^{j + J}

for

t \in [0, s]

From ( 4.23 ), ( 4.28 ), and ( 4.32 ) we get (recall

ξ \in S^{n - 1}

) that

\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} {| X^{R} (s; x, ξ) |}^{2} \geq - 7 ν 2^{j + J + 1} + 2 ν^{- 1} s, \end{matrix}

(4.33)

as long as

| X^{R} (t; x, ξ) | > 2^{j + J}

for

t \in [0, s]

. Then either there is

{\tilde{s}}_{j + 1}

0 \leq {\tilde{s}}_{j + 1} \leq 7 ν^{2} 2^{j + J + 1}

such that

| X^{R} ({\tilde{s}}_{j + 1}; x, ξ | \leq 2^{j + J}

or for

0 \leq s \leq 7 ν^{2} 2^{j + J + 1}

| X^{R} (s; x, ξ | \geq 2^{j + J}

. In the second case and from ( 4.33 ) there exists

{\tilde{s}}_{0}

such that ( 4.19 ) holds with

0 \leq {\tilde{s}}_{0} \leq 7 ν^{2} 2^{j + J + 1}

. Therefore

s_{0}

exists and from ( 4.28 ) and ( 4.32 ) we have that

| X (s_{0}; x, ξ) | \leq (7 ν^{3} + 1) 2^{j + J}

. Therefore (v) holds.

Assume now the first case. Define

s_{j + 1} = inf {s : 0 \leq s \leq 7 ν^{2} 2^{j + J + 1} such that | X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq 2^{j + J}} .

Hence

2^{j + J} \leq | X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq (7 ν^{3} + 1) 2^{j + J + 1}

for

0 \leq s \leq s_{j + 1}

. Then from ( 4.31 ) we get

| ξ | (1 - 2^{(j + J) (1 - τ)}) \leq | Ξ^{R} (s_{j + 1}; x, ξ) | \leq | ξ | (1 + 2^{(j + J) (1 - τ)}) .

We repeat the process changing

j

j - 1

and

ξ

Ξ^{R} (s_{j + 1}; x, ξ) = : ξ_{j}

, and taking

s > s_{j + 1}

. Then as before either the trajectory becomes outgoing at some

{\tilde{s}}_{0} > s_{j + 1} + 7 ν 2^{j + J}

and we obtain (v), or there is

s_{j}

such that

| X^{R} (s_{j}; x, ξ) | \leq 2^{j - 1 + J} and s_{j} - s_{j + 1} \leq 7 ν^{2} 2^{j + J},

and

| ξ_{j} | (1 - 2^{(j - 1 + J) (1 - τ)}) \leq | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq | ξ_{j} | (1 + 2^{(j - 1 + J) (1 - τ)}),

for

s_{j + 1} < s < s_{j}

. We keep doing this until either the trajectory becomes outgoing or there are

l = j, j - 1, . . . ., 1,

with

| X^{R} (s_{l}; x, ξ) | \leq 2^{l - 1 + J} and s_{l} - s_{l + 1} \leq 7 ν^{2} 2^{l + J},

and

| ξ_{l} | (1 - 2^{(l - 1 + J) (1 - τ)}) \leq | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq | ξ_{l} | (1 + 2^{(l - 1 + J) (1 - τ)}) .

Here

ξ_{l} = Ξ^{R} (s_{l + 1}; x, ξ)

and

s_{l + 1} < s < s_{l}

.Assume this second possibility holds. From the condition

2^{J (1 - τ)} < 1 / 4

it follows that

\begin{matrix} ^{j} \prod_{l = 1} (1 \pm 2^{(l + J) (1 - τ)}) = exp (\sum_{l = 1}^{j} ln (1 \pm 2^{(l + J) (1 - τ)})) \end{matrix}

Hence, we get

1 / 2 \leq | Ξ^{R} (s_{j}; x, ξ) | \leq 7 / 4 .

Then we can apply the first step and obtain ( 4.25 )-( 4.27 ). In particular from ( 4.25 ) we know that

s_{0} \leq s_{1} + s_{M_{1}}

, and from ( 4.26 )

c_{0}^{- 1} \leq | Ξ^{R} (s_{0}; x, ξ) | \leq c_{0} .

At this point we have proved (iii). By considering the cases

k + 1 \leq J

and

k + 1 > J

(v) also holds assuming either

\frac{d}{d s} {| X^{R} (s, x, ξ) |^{2} |}_{s = 0} < 0

| x | \leq M_{1}

. Otherwise

s_{0} = 0

and (v) is void.

It remains to prove (i), (ii), and (iv) for

s \geq s_{0}

. From ( 4.23 ) we know that

| X^{R} (s, x, ξ) |

is nondecreasing for

s > s_{0}

. Assume that

| X^{R} (s_{0}, x, ξ) | \geq 2^{L + J},

for some

L = 0, 1, . . .

. Define

ξ_{0} = Ξ^{R} (s_{0}; x, ξ) .

We know that

min {c_{0}^{- 1}, 1 / 2} \leq | ξ_{0} | \leq max {c_{0}, 7 / 4} .

Following the same argument as in ( 4.31 ) we know that

(X^{R} (s; x, ξ); Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ))

is defined for

s \leq s_{0} + \frac{25 ν}{| ξ_{0} |} 2^{J + L} = s_{1}

and from ( 4.23 )

| X^{R} (s_{0}; x, ξ) | \geq 2^{L + J + 1};

| ξ_{0} | (1 - 2^{- (L + J) τ} | ξ_{0} | \frac{s - s_{0}}{100 ν}) \leq | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq | ξ_{0} | (1 + 2^{- (L + J) τ} | ξ_{0} | \frac{s - s_{0}}{100 ν}),

and therefore for

s_{0} \leq s \leq s_{1}

\frac{| ξ_{0} |}{2} \leq | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq \frac{7}{4} | ξ_{0} | .

Then we repeat the process and construct

{s_{k}}

k = 1, 2, . . .

such that

s_{k} = s_{k - 1} + \frac{25 ν}{| ξ_{0} |} 2^{J + L + k - 1} .

Hence

(X^{R} (s; x, ξ); Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ))

is defined for

0 < s < s_{k}

and

| X^{R} (s_{k}; x, ξ) | \geq 2^{L + J + k};

| ξ_{k} | (1 - 2^{(k + L + J) (1 - τ)}) \leq | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq | ξ_{k} | (1 + 2^{(k + L + J) (1 - τ)}) .

Then reasoning as in the case

s < s_{0}

we get that

1 / 2 | ξ_{0} | \leq | Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq 7 / 4 | ξ_{0} |,

for

s_{0} < s < s_{k} .

This proves (i) and (ii). Finally (iv) follows from (i) and ( 4.23 ). The proof of Theorem 4.1.1 is complete.

Lemma 4.1.3 For any

ψ

such that

| ψ (x) | \leq \frac{c_{τ}}{〈 x 〉^{τ}}, τ > 1

there exists

\tilde{c}

such that

{sup}_{s, x, | ξ | = 1} \int_{0}^{s} ψ (X^{R} (r; x, ξ)) d r < \tilde{c},

where the constant

\tilde{c}

depends just on

τ

and

c_{τ}

Proof of Lemma 4.1.3 It follows from Theorem 4.1.1 .

Corollary 4.1.1 Let

A_{0} (x)

be as in ( 4.1 )-( 4.4 ). Let

B_{1} (x)

be an

n \times n

real matrix with entries in

S (R^{n})

, and define

A_{1} (x) = A_{0} (x) + ε B_{1} (x)

, where

ε

is chosen so that for all

ξ \in R^{n}

(2 ν)^{- 1} \leq | A_{1} (x) ξ | \leq 2 ν | ξ |

Then, there exists

ε_{0} > 0,

such that

A_{1}

verifies the basic assumption (i.e.

A_{1}

is non-trapping).

Here

ε_{0}

depends on

M_{1}

s_{M_{1}}

ν

B_{1}

and on a finite number of seminorms of the difference ( 4.3 ).

In order to establish Corollary 4.1.1 , we need the following elementary o.d.e. lemma.

Lemma 4.1.4 Let

{\vec{y}}_{0} (s)

verify

{\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} {\vec{y}}_{0} (s) & = & {\vec{f}}_{0} ({\vec{y}}_{0} (s)) for 0 < s < T \\ {\vec{y}}_{0} (0) & = & {\vec{z}}_{0} (s) . \end{matrix}

Let

\tilde{M} = {sup}_{0 < s < T} | {\vec{y}}_{0} (s) |

, and suppose that

{\vec{f}}_{1}

is given, with

K = {sup}_{| \vec{y} | \leq \tilde{M}} | \partial \vec{y} {\vec{f}}_{1} (\vec{y}) |,

and let

ε_{0} > 0

be given. Then there exists

\tilde{ε} = \tilde{ε} (ε_{0}, T, K),

such that, if

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} | {\vec{f}}_{0} ({\vec{y}}_{0} (t)) - {\vec{f}}_{1} ({\vec{y}}_{0} (t)) | \leq \tilde{ε}, \end{matrix}

(4.34)

then there exists a unique solution

{\vec{y}}_{1}

{\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} {\vec{y}}_{1} (s) & = & {\vec{f}}_{1} ({\vec{y}}_{1} (s)) for 0 < s < T \\ {\vec{y}}_{1} (0) & = & {\vec{z}}_{0} (s) . \end{matrix}

Moreover

{sup}_{0 \leq s \leq T} | {\vec{y}}_{0} (s) - {\vec{y}}_{1} (s) | \leq ε_{0},

The proof is elementary and will be ommitted.

Proof of Corollary 4.1.1 Assume that

ξ \in S^{n - 1},

| x | \leq 2 M_{1}

. By Theorem 4.1.1 , there exist

s_{2 M_{1}}

and

c_{0},

such that

| X^{0} (s_{2 M_{1}}; x, ξ | \geq 4 M_{1},

and such that

c_{0}^{- 1} \leq | Ξ^{0} (s; x, ξ) | \leq c_{0}

for all

s

. Let now

\tilde{M} = sup | (X^{0}, Ξ^{0}) |,

where the supremum is taken over all

0 \leq s \leq s_{2 M_{1}},

| ξ | = 1,

and

| x | \leq 2 M_{1} .

Let

K

now be defined as in Lemma 4.1.4 for the system ( 4.5 ) associated to

A_{1} .

For

ε_{0}

to be chosen,

T = s_{2 M_{1}},

let

\tilde{ε}

be as in Lemma 4.1.4 . Choose now

ε

so small that, in the terminology of Lemma 4.1.4 , for

{\vec{f}}_{0},

{\vec{f}}_{1},

the system ( 4.5 ) associated to

A_{0},

_{1},

( 4.34 ) holds. Then, if

ε_{0}

in Lemma 4.1.4 is chosen small enough, we can conclude that there exists

0 < \bar{s} < T

such that

{| X^{1} (s_{2 M_{1}}; x, ξ) |}^{2} \geq 9 M_{1}^{2};

(2 c_{0})^{- 1} \leq | Ξ^{1} (\bar{s}; x, ξ) | \leq 2 c_{0};

\frac{d}{d s} {| X^{1} (s; x, ξ) |}^{2} |_{s = \bar{s}} > 0;

and

\frac{d^{2}}{d s^{2}} {| X^{1} (s; x, ξ) |}^{2} |_{s = \bar{s}} \geq 2 ν^{- 1} | A_{1} (X^{1}) \cdot Ξ^{1} |,

as long as

| X^{1} | \geq M_{1} .

Inserting this information in the proof of Theorem 4.1.1 we obtain the conclusions of Thoerem 4.1.1 for

A_{1} .

^$2$ Using the homogeneity property of the hamiltonian flow together with the methods given below in Theorem 4.1.1 and simple compactness and connectivity arguments, one can show that the seemingly weaker assumption that there exists $s_{0} \in (- δ, δ)$ such that $| X (s_{0}; x_{0}, ξ_{0}) | \geq μ$ implies our basic assumption.

4.2 The Continuous Dependence

In this subsection we shall deduce estimates concerning the continuous dependence of the flow associated to the truncated operator

ℒ^{R} (x)

with respect to the initial value. These estimates will be given in Theorem 4.2.1 as a function of the parameter

R

To simplify the notation we shall omit the sub-indexes denoting component or coordinates. So instead of

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} X_{j}^{R} (s; x, ξ) = 2 \sum_{k = 1}^{n} a_{j k}^{R} (X^{R} (s; x, ξ)) Ξ_{k}^{R} (s; x, ξ), \\ \frac{d}{d s} Ξ_{j}^{R} (s; x, ξ) = - \sum_{k, l = 1}^{n} \partial_{x_{j}} a_{k l}^{R} (X^{R} (s; x, ξ)) Ξ_{k}^{R} (s; x, ξ) Ξ_{l}^{R} (s; x, ξ), \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.35)

with

a_{j k}^{R} (\cdot)

defined in ( 4.12 )-( 4.13 ), we shall write

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} X^{R} (s; x, ξ) = 2 a^{R} (X^{R} (s; x, ξ)) Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ), \\ \frac{d}{d s} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) = - \partial a^{R} (X^{R} (s; x, ξ)) Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.36)

Also, we shall omit the variables.

Hence

\partial_{ξ} X^{R} (\cdot) = \partial_{ξ} X^{R} (s; x, ξ)

\partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (\cdot) = \partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ)

satisfy the system

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} (\partial_{ξ} X^{R} (\cdot)) & = & 2 \partial a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) (\partial_{ξ} X^{R} (\cdot)) Ξ^{R} (\cdot) + 2 a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) (\partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (\cdot)), \\ \frac{d}{d s} (\partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (\cdot)) & = & - \partial^{2} a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) (\partial_{ξ} X^{R} (\cdot)) Ξ^{R} (\cdot) Ξ^{R} (\cdot) \\ - & 2 \partial a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) Ξ^{R} (\cdot) (\partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (\cdot)) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.37)

We observe that

\partial_{x} X^{R} (\cdot) = \partial_{x} X^{R} (s; x, ξ)

\partial_{x} Ξ^{R} (\cdot) = \partial_{x} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ)

satisfy the system obtained from ( 4.37 ) by substituting

\partial_{ξ}

\partial_{x}

everywhere.

As a final simplification

c

will denote in what follows a generic constant independent of

R

which can change from line to line.

By homogeneity of the symbol of

ℒ^{R} (x)

(see ( 2.16 ) in Section 2 ) for any

R > 0

\begin{matrix} X^{R} (s;, x, t ξ) = X^{R} (t s; x, ξ), Ξ^{R} (s; x, t ξ) = t Ξ^{R} (t s : x, ξ), \end{matrix}

(4.38)

and consequently

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} (\partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} X^{R}) (s; x, t ξ) = t^{- | β |} (\partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} X^{R}) (t s; x, ξ), \\ (\partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} Ξ^{R}) (s; x, t ξ) = t^{1 - | β |} (\partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} Ξ^{R}) (t s; x, ξ) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.39)

So we can take

| ξ | = 1

and consider

s \geq 0

. Therefore combining ( 4.18 ) of Theorem 4.1.1 and ( 4.37 ) it can be deduced that

{\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} | \partial_{ξ} X^{R} (\cdot) | & \leq & c | \partial a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) | | \partial_{ξ} X^{R} (\cdot) | + 2 | a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) | | \partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (\cdot) |, \\ \frac{d}{d s} | \partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (\cdot) | & \leq & c | \partial^{2} a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) | | \partial_{ξ} X^{R} (\cdot) | + c | \partial a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) | | \partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (\cdot) | . \end{matrix}

From our hypothesis on the decay of

\partial a (\cdot)

and Lemma 4.1.3 we can define

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} f (s) & = & | \partial_{ξ} X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | exp (c \int_{0}^{s} | \partial a^{R} (X^{R} (s; x, ξ)) | d s) \sim | \partial_{ξ} X^{R} (s; x, ξ) |, \\ g (s) & = & | \partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | exp (c \int_{0}^{s} | \partial a^{R} (X^{R} (s; x, ξ)) | d s) \sim | \partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.40)

From ( 4.39 ) it follows that

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} f^{'} (s) \leq c | a^{R} (X^{R} (s; x, ξ)) | g (s) \leq c g (s), \\ g^{'} (s) \leq c | \partial^{2} a^{R} (X^{R} (s; x, ξ)) | f (s) \leq c | \partial^{2} a^{R} (X^{R} (s; \cdot)) | f (s) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.41)

We observe that if

| x | > R

then

(X^{R} (s; x, ξ), Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ)) = (x + 2 s \tilde{ξ}, ξ)

as long as

| x + 2 s \tilde{ξ} | > R

, where

A_{h} ξ = \tilde{ξ}

Case 1Assume

| x | > R

with

| ξ | = 1

We shall assume that there exists a first

s_{1} > 0

such that

| X^{R} (s_{1}; x, ξ) | = R

, otherwise

(X^{R} (s; x, ξ), Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ)) = (x + 2 s \tilde{ξ}, ξ)

, for all

s > 0

. One has that

s_{1} \leq | x | + R

Since for

s \in (0, s_{1}),

(X^{R} (s; x, ξ), Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ)) = (x + 2 s \tilde{ξ}, ξ),

then

| \partial_{ξ} X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq 2 s

and

| \partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq 1 .

The case

s \geq s_{1}

reduces to our next step.

Case 2 (

s < s_{0}

)If

| x | \leq M_{1}

M_{1}

as in Theorem 4.1.1 , the analysis is given in case 3. Assume

M_{1} \leq | x | \leq R,

1 / 2 < | ξ | \leq 3 / 2

and

\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} | X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | |_{s = 0} \leq 0 . \end{matrix}

(4.42)

We also assume that ( 4.42 ) holds for

s \in (0, s_{0})

with

s_{0}

defined in Theorem 4.1.1 and therefore comparable in size to

R

because of (v) of that theorem. Otherwise we would have reached the outgoing situation (case 4) in an intermediate step.

Consider the majorized system ( 4.41 ) with data

(f (0), g (0)) = (a, b), a, b > 0

Integrating we have

g (s) \leq b + c \int_{0}^{s} | \partial^{2} a (X (θ; x, ξ)) | f (θ) d θ,

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} f (s) & \leq & a + b s + c \int_{0}^{s} (\int_{0}^{l} | \partial^{2} a (X (θ; x, ξ)) | f (θ) d θ) d l \\ \leq & a + b s + c \int_{0}^{s} (s - θ) | \partial^{2} a (X (θ; x, ξ)) | f (θ) d θ . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(4.43)

Let

s_{2} = min {s \in (0, c_{0} R) : f (s) = 2 (a + b s)}

Claim

| X^{R} (s_{2}; x, ξ) | \leq R / 2

. Otherwise, by ( 4.43 ) one should have

a + b s_{2} \leq c \int_{0}^{s_{2}} (s_{2} - θ) | \partial^{2} a (X (θ; x, ξ)) | (a + b θ) d θ,

c s_{2}^{2} \frac{2^{τ + 2}}{R^{τ + 2}} \geq \frac{1}{2},

which is a contradiction for

R \geq R_{0}

with

R_{0}

sufficiently large.

We repeat the argument assuming that ( 4.42 ) holds in the interval

(0, s_{j})

defining

s_{j + 1} = min {s \in (s_{j}, c_{0} R) : f (s) = 2^{j} (a + b s)} .

Claim

| X^{R} (s_{j}; x, ξ) | \leq R / 2^{j}

. Otherwise, we would have

2 c {(s_{j + 1} - s_{j})}^{2} \frac{2^{(τ + 2) j}}{R^{(τ + 2)}} \geq 1,

and consequently, from ( 4.22 ) in Theorem 4.1.1 ,

c \frac{R}{2^{j}} \geq s_{j + 1} - s_{j} \geq \sqrt{\frac{R^{τ + 2}}{2 c 2^{(τ + 2) j}}},

which is a contradiction if

R \geq 10 c_{τ} 2^{j}

.So we can repeat the argument

k

-times until

R \sim 2^{k}

, with

f (s_{k}) = 2^{k} (a + b s_{k}) \sim R (a + b R)

since by Theorem 4.1.1 (v) we have that

s_{k} \sim R .

Similarly, one gets that

g (s_{k}) \leq R (a + b R)

and

| X^{R} (s_{k}; x, ξ) | \leq \tilde{M}

, with

\tilde{M}

independent of

R

Restarting the variable

s

we are led to the following case.

Case 3Assume

| X^{R} (0; x, ξ) | = | X (0; x, ξ) | \leq \tilde{M}

We consider the majorized system ( 4.41 ) with data

(a_{1}, b_{1})

. From Theorem 4.1.1 there exists

s^{*} > 0

(independently of

R

) such that

| X^{R} (s^{*}; x, ξ) | = \tilde{M} + 1, with \frac{d}{d s} | X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | |_{s = s^{*}} > 0 .

Integrating the system ( 4.41 ) we find that

f (s) \leq a_{1} e^{c s}, g (s) \leq b_{1} e^{c s} for any s \in [0, s^{*}) .

After restarting

s

we are reduced to the following case.

Case 4(outgoing, i.e. ( 4.20 ) holds and

\frac{d}{d s} | X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | > 0

Assume

| X^{R} (0; x, ξ) | = | x | \geq \tilde{M} + 1, with \frac{d}{d s} | X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | |_{s = 0} > 0 .

We consider the majorized system ( 4.41 ) with data

(a_{2}, b_{2})

Define

h (s) = \frac{f (s)}{(1 + s^{2})^{2}} + \frac{g (s)}{1 + s^{2}} .

Thus,

\begin{matrix} h^{'} (s) & \leq & \frac{d_{0}}{1 + s^{2}} \frac{g (s)}{1 + s^{2}} + \frac{d_{1}}{1 + s^{2}} (1 + s^{2})^{2} | \partial^{2} a (X^{R} (s; x, ξ)) | \frac{f (s)}{(1 + s^{2})^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & \frac{c}{1 + s^{2}} h (s) . \end{matrix}

Hence, from Theorem 4.1.1 one has

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{ξ} X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq f (s) \leq c {(1 + s^{2})}^{2} (a_{2} + b_{2}) \leq c {(1 + R^{2})}^{2} (a_{2} + b_{2}), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq g (s) \leq c {(1 + s^{2})}^{2} (a_{2} + b_{2}) \leq c {(1 + R^{2})}^{2} (a_{2} + b_{2}), \end{matrix}

as far as

| X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq R

Case 5Assume

| X^{R} (0; x, ξ) | = | x | \geq R

with

\frac{d}{d s} | X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | |_{s = 0} > 0

Also we have the initial values

(| \partial_{ξ} X^{R} (0; x, ξ) |, | \partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (0; x, ξ) |) = (a_{3}, b_{3})

So we have the solution

| \partial_{ξ} X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq a_{3} + c s, | \partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq b_{3} .

Collecting the information above we get

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{ξ} X^{R} (s; x, ξ) |, | \partial_{ξ} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq c (1 + | s |) R^{6}, \end{matrix}

(4.44)

for

R \geq R_{0}

To estimate

(\partial_{x} X^{R} (s; x, ξ), \partial_{x} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ))

as above we observe that it satisfies the system obtained from ( 4.37 ) by substituting

\partial_{x}

\partial_{ξ}

everywhere. As in the previous case, we majorize

(| \partial_{x} X^{R} (s; x, ξ) |, | \partial_{x} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) |)

by the system in ( 4.41 ). So the same argument shows that

| \partial_{x} X^{R} (s; x, ξ) |, | \partial_{x} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq c (1 + | s |) R^{6},

for

R \geq R_{0}

To estimate the higher order derivatives we first observe that if

(h_{1}^{R α β} (s), h_{2}^{R α β} (s)) = (\partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} X^{R} (s; x, ξ), \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ)),

then

h_{1}^{R α β} (s), h_{2}^{R α β} (s))

satisfies the system

{\begin{matrix} \frac{d}{d s} h_{1}^{R α β} (s) & = & 2 \partial a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) (h_{1}^{R α β} (s)) Ξ^{R} (\cdot) \\ + & 2 a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) (h_{2}^{R α β} (s)) + Q_{1}^{R α β}, \\ \frac{d}{d s} (h_{2}^{R α β} (s)) & = & - \partial^{2} a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) (h_{1}^{R α β} (s)) Ξ^{R} (\cdot) Ξ^{R} (\cdot) \\ - & 2 \partial a^{R} (X^{R} (\cdot)) Ξ^{R} (\cdot) (h_{2}^{R α β} (s)) + Q_{2}^{R α β}, \end{matrix}

where

\begin{matrix} Q_{j}^{R α β} = Q_{j}^{R α β} ((\partial^{γ} a)_{1 \leq | γ | \leq | α | + | β | + 1}; {(\partial_{x}^{ν} \partial_{ξ}^{μ} X^{R})}_{| ν | + | μ | < | α | + | β |}; {(\partial_{x}^{ν} \partial_{ξ}^{μ} Ξ^{R})}_{| ν | + | μ | < | α | + | β |}), \end{matrix}

j = 1, 2

is a polynomial in its variables. In others words,

(h_{1}^{R α β} (s), h_{2}^{R α β} (s))

satisfies a system similar to that in ( 4.37 ) with external forces depending on the previous steps. We observe that each term in

Q_{j}^{R α β}

j = 1, 2

has a factor of the form

\partial^{γ} a (X^{R} (s; x, ξ))

with

| γ | \geq 1

. This guarantees that

\partial^{γ} a (X^{R} (s; x, ξ)) = 0

| X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \geq 2 R

and if

| X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq 2 R

then

| s | \leq c (| x | + R)

, (see Theorem 4.1.1 ). So when integrating the

Q_{j}^{R α β}

's one can substitute in ( 4.44 ) the factor

(1 + | s |)

c (| x | + R)

to get a bound independent of

s

until the trajecory gets the free regime (i.e.

| X^{R} (s; x, ξ | > R

) which provides a linear in

s

global bound. Using a recursive argument we can obtain the following estimates which, although no sharp, suffices for our purpose here.

Theorem 4.2.1 For any

(x, ξ) \in R^{n} \times S^{n - 1}

and for any

R \geq R_{0}

with

R_{0}

sufficiently large, the derivatives of the bicharacteristic flow satisfy : given

α, β \in Z^{n}

with

| α | + | β | \geq 1

there exists

μ_{α, β} \in Z^{+}

with

μ_{α, β} \geq | α | + | β |

such that

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} X^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq c (| s | + (| x | + R)^{μ_{α, β}}), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} | \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ) | \leq c (| s | + (| x | + R)^{μ_{α, β}}), \end{matrix}

for any

s \in R

Combining the results in Theorem 4.2.1 with the identities in ( 4.38 )-( 4.39 ) we get the result for

(x, ξ) \in R^{n} \times R^{n} - {0}

5 LINEAR ULTRAHYPERBOLIC EQUATIONS

In this section we shall deduce the linear estimates to be used in Section 6 in the proof of our nonlinear results. The first result in subsection 5.1 is the ultrahyperbolic version of Doi`s lemma [8] , (see Lemma 2.2.2 in Section 2 ). This will allow us to establish the smoothing effects for linear ultrahyperbolic equations with variable second order coefficients.

Subsection 5.2 is concerned with the

L^{2}

(and

H^{s}

) well posedness of the associated linear problem ( 1.4 ) in the Introduction. To establish this result we follow an indirect approach. As we did in Section 4 -see ( 4.12 ) and ( 4.13 )-, we consider the truncation at infinity

ℒ^{R} (x)

of the operator

ℒ (x)

ℒ^{R} (x) = θ (x / R) ℒ (x) + (1 - θ (x / R)) ℒ^{0} .

For

R

large enough we consider the bicharacteristic flow

(X^{R} (s; x, ξ), Ξ^{R} (s; x, ξ))

(studied in Section 4 ) associated to the operator

ℒ^{R} (x)

and the corresponding integrating factor

K^{R}

. To obtain the

L^{2}

local well posedness of the linear problem we combine several estimates for the operator

ℒ^{R} (x)

and its associated “errors”, as function of

R

, with the local smoothing effect obtained in subsection 5.1 .

5.1 Linear Ultrahyperbolic Smoothing

We shall begin this subsection by proving the ultrahyperbolic version of Doi's lemma [8] , (see Lemma 2.2.2 in Section 2 ).

Lemma 5.1.1 Assume that the bicharacteristic flow is non-trapped -see basic assumption in subsection 4.1 of Section 4, and that

\nabla a_{j k} (x) = o (| x |^{- 1})

| x | \to \infty

for all

j, k = 1, . ., n

. Suppose that

λ \in L^{1} ([0, \infty)) \cap C ([0, \infty) is positive and nonincreasing .

Then there exist

p \in S_{1, 0}^{0}

and

c > 0

such that

(H_{h_{2}} p) (x, ξ) \geq λ (| x |) | ξ | - c \forall x, ξ \in R^{n} .

Proof of Lemma 5.1.1 Let

M > 0

be a constant to be chosen. Let

ψ \in C^{\infty} (R)

with

ψ (t) = 0

for

t \leq M^{2}

ψ (t) = 1

for

t \geq (M + 1)^{2}

and

ψ^{'} (t) \geq 0

for

t \in R

. Let

p_{1} (x, ξ) = 〈 ξ 〉^{- 1} ψ (| x |^{2}) H_{h_{2}} (| x |^{2}) = - 4 〈 ξ 〉^{- 1} ψ (| x |^{2}) (x \cdot A_{h} (x) ξ) .

By straightforward calculation -see Proposition 4.1.1 of Section 4

\begin{matrix} (H_{h_{2}} p_{1}) (x, ξ) & = & 〈 ξ 〉^{- 1} ψ^{'} (| x |^{2}) {(H_{h_{2}} (| x |^{2}))}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & ψ (| x |^{2}) 〈 ξ 〉^{- 1} [8 {| A (x) ξ |}^{2} + 8 \sum_{j, k, l, m} x_{l} \partial_{x_{j}} a_{l m} (x) a_{j k} (x) ξ_{k} ξ_{m} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - & 4 \sum_{j, k, l, m, p} x_{j} a_{j k} (x) \partial_{x_{k}} a_{l m} (x) ξ_{l} ξ_{m}] . \end{matrix}

With the assumptions on

A (x)

and

c_{1} = 4 ν^{- 2}

one can fix

M

sufficiently large such that

(H p_{1}) (x, ξ) \geq c_{1} ψ (| x |^{2}) 〈 ξ 〉^{- 1} | ξ |^{2}, \forall x, ξ \in R^{n} .

Now choose

φ_{1} \in C_{0}^{\infty} (R^{n})

with

φ_{1} (x) = 1

for

| x | \leq M + 1

. For

ξ \neq 0

, let

p_{2} (x, ξ) = - \int_{0}^{\infty} φ_{1} (X (s; x, ξ)) 〈 Ξ (s; x, ξ) 〉 d s .

By theorem 4.1.1 in Section 4 , for each

(x_{0}, ξ_{0}) \in R^{n} \times R^{n} - {0}

there is a neighborhood

U

(x_{0}, ξ_{0})

such that the integral defining

p_{2} (x, ξ)

is over a fixed compact interval for all

(x, ξ) \in U

p_{2} (\cdot, \cdot)

is smooth. Furthermore, by homogeneity of the bicharacteristic flow (see ( 2.16 ) in Section 2 ) and a change of variable

p_{2} (x, ξ) = - | ξ |^{- 1} \int_{0}^{\infty} φ_{1} (X (s; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})) 〈 | ξ | Ξ (s; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) 〉 d s .

Choose

φ_{2} \in C^{\infty} (R^{n})

with

φ_{2} (ξ) = 0

for

| ξ | \leq 1

and

φ_{2} (ξ) = 1

for

| ξ | \geq 2

. Let

p_{3} (x, ξ) = φ_{1} (x) φ_{2} (ξ) p_{2} (x, ξ), x, ξ \in R^{n} .

Then

p_{3} \in S_{1, 0}^{0}

by the support properties of

φ_{1}

and

φ_{2}

, and

\begin{matrix} (H_{h_{2}} p_{3}) (x, ξ) & = & [2 \sum_{j k} a_{j k} (x) ξ_{k} \partial_{x_{j}} φ_{1} (x)] φ_{2} (ξ) p_{2} (x, ξ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & φ_{1} (x) H_{h_{2}} φ_{2} (ξ) p_{2} (x, ξ) + {(φ_{1} (x))}^{2} φ_{2} (ξ) 〈 ξ 〉 . \end{matrix}

Now let

p_{4} (x, ξ) = c_{2} p_{1} (x, ξ) + p_{3} (x, ξ),

with

c_{2} > 0

sufficiently large,

p_{4}

then satisfies

| \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} p_{4} (x, ξ) | \leq c_{α β} 〈 x 〉 〈 ξ 〉^{- | β |}, α, β \in N^{n},

and

(H_{h_{2}} p_{4}) (x, ξ) \geq c_{3} | ξ | - c_{4}, \forall x, ξ \in R^{n},

where

c_{α β}, c_{3}, c_{4} > 0

are constants.

To complete the construction of

p (x, ξ)

we observe that the proof of Lemma 2.3 in [8] applies verbatim with

q (x, ξ) = p_{4} (x, ξ)

, since the proof does not depend on the ellipticity of

A (x)

assumed in [8] .

With this, the proof of Lemma 5.1.1 is completed.

Consider now systems of the form

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} \vec{w} = i H \vec{w} + B \vec{w} + C \vec{w} + \vec{f}, (x, t) \in R^{n} \times (0, T), \\ \vec{w} (x, 0) = {\vec{w}}_{0} (x) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(5.1)

Here

\vec{w}

and

\vec{f}

are

C^{2}

-value functions on

R^{n} \times (0, T)

H = (\begin{matrix} ℒ & 0 \\ 0 & - ℒ \end{matrix}),

where

ℒ = \sum_{j, k} \partial_{x_{j}} (a_{j k} (x) \partial_{x_{k}})

and

A (x) = (a_{j k} (x))

satisfies the assumptions in subsection 4.1 of Section 4 ,

B = (\begin{matrix} Ψ_{b_{1}} & {\vec{b}}_{2} (x) \cdot \nabla \\ {\bar{\vec{b}}}_{2} (x) \cdot \nabla & - Ψ_{{\bar{b}}_{1}} \end{matrix})

where

b_{1} \in S_{1, 0}^{1}

is odd in

ξ

and

{\vec{b}}_{2} \in C_{b}^{\infty} (R^{n} : R^{n})

, and

C = (\begin{matrix} Ψ_{c_{11}} & Ψ_{c_{12}} \\ Ψ_{c_{21}} & Ψ_{c_{22}} \end{matrix})

where

c_{l m} \in S_{1, 0}^{1}

for

l, m = 1, 2

Next we consider the ultrahyperbolic linear Schrödinger (scalar) equation

\begin{matrix} {\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} u = i ℒ u + Ψ_{b_{1}} u + b_{2} (x) \cdot \nabla \bar{u} + Ψ_{c_{1}} u + Ψ_{c_{2}} \bar{u} + f, \\ u (x, 0) = u_{0} (x) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(5.2)

Taking

\vec{f} = (f, \bar{f})^{T}

\vec{w} = (u, \bar{u})^{T}

and suitable

c

's, equation ( 5.2 ) is reduced to a system as ( 5.1 ).

Theorem 5.1.1 Let

s \in R

. Then there exists

N = N (n) \in N

such that if

| \partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β} b_{1} (x, ξ) | \leq c_{α β} 〈 x 〉^{- N} 〈 ξ 〉^{1 - | β |}, x, ξ \in R^{n},

and

| \partial_{x}^{α} {\vec{b}}_{2} (x) | \leq c_{α β} 〈 x 〉^{- N}, x \in R^{n},

then there exists

T > 0

so that thefollowing holds: Let

u_{0} \in H^{s}

(A) If

f \in L^{1} ([0, T] : H^{s})

, then there is a unique solution

u \in C ([0, T] : H^{s})

of the IVP ( 5.2 ) satisfying

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u (t) ∥_{H^{s}} + {(\int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s + 1 / 2} u (x, t) |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{- N} d x d t)}^{1 / 2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c ∥ u_{0} ∥_{H^{s}} + c \int_{0}^{T} ∥ f (t) ∥_{H^{s}} d t . \end{matrix}

(B) If

f \in L^{2} ([0, T] : H^{s})

, then there is a unique solution

u \in C ([0, T] : H^{s})

of the IVP ( 5.2 ) satisfying

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u (t) ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s + 1 / 2} u (x, t) |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{- N} d x d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c ∥ u_{0} ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + c T \int_{0}^{T} ∥ f (t) ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} d t . \end{matrix}

J^{s - 1 / 2} f \in L^{2} (R^{n} \times [0, T] : 〈 x 〉^{N} d x d t)

then there is a unique solution

u \in C ([0, T] : H^{s})

of the IVP ( 5.2 ) satisfying

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u (t) ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s + 1 / 2} u (x, t) |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{- N} d x d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c ∥ u_{0} ∥_{H^{s}}^{2} + c T \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{s - 1 / 2} f (x, t) |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{N} d x d t . \end{matrix}

Here

c

depends on

s,

ν,

A (x),

b_{1},

{\vec{b}}_{2},

and

c_{l m} .

The goal is to prove Theorem 5.1.1 . The a priori estimates needed to prove Theorem 5.1.1 are essentially reduced to the case

s = 0

by the following commutator result.

Lemma 5.1.2

J^{s} (i H + B + C) = (i H + \tilde{B} + \tilde{C}) J^{s},

where

\begin{matrix} \tilde{B} = - i s \sum_{j, k, l} \partial_{x_{j}} a_{k l} (x) \partial_{x_{j} x_{k} x_{l}}^{3} J^{- 2} (\begin{matrix} 1 & 0 \\ 0 & - 1 \end{matrix}) + B, \end{matrix}

(5.3)

\tilde{C} = (\begin{matrix} Ψ_{{\tilde{c}}_{11}} & Ψ_{{\tilde{c}}_{11}} \\ Ψ_{{\tilde{c}}_{11}} & Ψ_{{\tilde{c}}_{11}} \end{matrix})

and

{\tilde{c}}_{l m} \in S_{1, 0}^{0}

for

l, m = 1, 2

A similar result applies to the scalar equation ( 5.2 ).

Proof of Lemma 5.1.2 The lemma follows from the classical

S_{1, 0}^{0}

pseudo-differential calculus of subsection 2.1 in Section 2 .

The next step is to obtain an a priori estimate for Theorem 5.1.1 in the case

s = 0

. The last step will be the reduction to the case

s = 0

(via Lemma 5.1.2 ). From this point,

c

will denote a constant (not necessarily the same at each appearance) depending on

s, ν, A (x), b_{1}, {\vec{b}}_{2}, c_{l m}

and the hypothesis of Theorem 5.1.1 is assumed to be satisfied. In order to simplify notation,

(H^{s})^{2} = H^{s} \times H^{s}

will be denoted merely by

H^{s}

Lemma 5.1.3 Let

T > 0

. For all

\vec{w} \in C ([0, T] : H^{2}) \cap C^{1} ([0, T] : L^{2})

\int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{1 / 2} \vec{w} (x, t) |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{- N} d x d t \leq c (1 + T) {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ \vec{w} (t) ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} ∥ \vec{f} (t) ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} d t

and

\begin{matrix} \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{1 / 2} \vec{w} (x, t) |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{- N} d x d t \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c ((1 + T) {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ \vec{w} (t) ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} + \int_{0}^{T} \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{- 1 / 2} \vec{f} |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{N} d x d t), \end{matrix}

where

\vec{f} (x, t) = \partial_{t} \vec{w} - (i H + \tilde{B} + \tilde{C}) \vec{w}

and

\tilde{B}, \tilde{C}

were given in Lemma 5.1.2 .

Proof of Lemma 5.1.3 By Lemma 5.1.1 there exists a real-valued

p \in S_{1, 0}^{0}

and

c > 0

such that

(H_{h_{2}} p) (x, ξ) \geq c^{'} 〈 x 〉^{- N} | ξ | - c, x, ξ \in R^{n},

where

c^{'} = c^{'} (s)

is to be determined. Let

k (x, ξ) = (\begin{matrix} exp (p (x, ξ)) & 0 \\ 0 & - exp (p (x, ξ)) \end{matrix})

and

K = Ψ_{k}

. Then

K

is a diagonal

2 \times 2

matrix of

S_{1, 0}^{0}

pseudo-differential operators. One can now calculate as follows

\begin{matrix} \partial_{t} 〈 K \vec{w}, \vec{w} 〉_{L^{2} \times L^{2}} & = & {〈 K \partial_{t} \vec{w}, \vec{w} 〉}_{L^{2} \times L^{2}} + {〈 K \vec{w}, \partial_{t} \vec{w} 〉}_{L^{2} \times L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & {〈 (i [K H - H K] + K \tilde{B} + {\tilde{B}}^{*} K) \vec{w}, \vec{w} 〉}_{L^{2} \times L^{2}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + & {〈 [K \tilde{C} + {\tilde{C}}^{*} K] \vec{w}, \vec{w} 〉}_{L^{2} \times L^{2}} + ({〈 K \vec{f}, \vec{w} 〉}_{L^{2} \times L^{2}} + {〈 K \vec{w}, \vec{f} 〉}_{L^{2} \times L^{2}}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = & I + I I + I I I . \end{matrix}

Disregarding symbols of order

0

, the first order symbol of

i [K H - H K] + K \tilde{B} + {\tilde{B}}^{*} K

\begin{matrix} - e^{p} (\begin{matrix} \nabla_{ξ} h_{2} \cdot \nabla_{x} p - \nabla_{x} h_{2} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} p & 0 \\ 0 & \nabla_{ξ} h_{2} \cdot \nabla_{x} p - \nabla_{x} h_{2} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} p \end{matrix}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - 2 s e^{p} (\begin{matrix} \sum_{j k l} \partial_{x_{j}} a_{k l} (x) ξ_{j} ξ_{k} ξ_{l} 〈 ξ 〉^{- 2} & 0 \\ 0 & \sum_{j k l} \partial_{x_{j}} a_{k l} (x) ξ_{j} ξ_{k} ξ_{l} 〈 ξ 〉^{- 2} \end{matrix}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + e^{p} (\begin{matrix} 2 Re b_{1} & 2 i {\vec{b}}_{2} (x) \cdot ξ \\ - 2 i {\bar{\vec{b}}}_{2} (x) \cdot ξ & 2 Re b_{1} \end{matrix}) . \end{matrix}

Choosing

c^{'} (s)

large enough and using the matrix version of the sharp Gårding inequality in [12] , it follows that

\begin{matrix} | I | & \leq & - c 〈 (\begin{matrix} λ J^{1} & 0 \\ 0 & λ J^{1} \end{matrix}) \vec{w}, \vec{w} 〉 + c ∥ \vec{w} ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq & - c \int_{R^{n}} {| J^{1 / 2} \vec{w} (x, t) |}^{2} 〈 x 〉^{- N} d x + c ∥ \vec{w} ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} . \end{matrix}

Using that both

K

and

C

are of order

0

| I I | \leq c ∥ \vec{w} ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} .

The estimate of

I I I

is split into two cases according to the desired norm of

\vec{f}

. This is identical to the elliptic case given in Section 2 .

Combining estimates, integrating in

t

and using the

L^{2}

-boundedness of

K

, Lemma 5.1.3 follows.

Remark 5.1.1 We will use Lemma 5.1.3 for

\vec{ω} = (J^{s} u, \bar{J^{s} u})

, where

u

solves the scalar equation ( 5.2 ).

5.2 Linear Ultrahyperbolic $L^{2}$ -Well posedness

Our goal in this subsection is to established the following result,

Lemma 5.2.1 Let

T > 0

. For all

u \in C ([0, T]; H^{2}) \cap C^{1} ([0, T]; H^{2})

the following two estimates hold.

(A) ${sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} \leq c ∥ u (0) ∥_{L^{2}} + c T {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}} + c \int_{0}^{T} ∥ f ∥_{L^{2}} d t$ ,
(B) ${sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} \leq c ∥ u (0) ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} + c T {sup}_{0 \leq t \leq T} ∥ u ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} + c \int_{0}^{T} ∥ f ∥_{L^{2}}^{2} d t .$

Here

f = \partial_{t} u - (i ℒ u + Ψ_{b_{1}} u + {\vec{b}}_{2} \cdot \nabla \bar{u} + Ψ_{c_{1}} u + Ψ_{c_{2}} \bar{u})

analogously to Lemma 5.1.3 .

The proof of Lemma 5.2.1 involves several steps. The first one is to cut

ℒ - ℒ_{0}

at infinity. Therefore for

R

large enough and to be fixed later on we define

a_{j k}^{R} (x) = θ (\frac{x}{R}) a_{j k} (x) + (1 - θ (\frac{x}{R})) a_{j k}^{0} = a_{j k}^{0} + θ (\frac{x}{R}) (a_{j k} (x) - a_{j k}^{0}),

with

θ

a smooth cut off function such that

θ (x) = 1

| x | < 1

and

θ (x) = 0

| x | > 2

. Define

ℒ^{R} (x) = - \sum_{j, k} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}} (a_{j k}^{R} (x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{k}}),

h_{2}^{R}

its corresponding hamiltonian and

ℰ^{R} (x) = ℒ (x) - ℒ^{R} (x) .

Therefore

ℰ^{R} (x) = - \sum_{j, k} \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{j}} (e_{j k} (x) \frac{\partial}{\partial x_{k}})

with

e_{j k} (x) = (1 - θ (\frac{x}{R})) (a_{j k} (x) - a_{j k}^{0}) .

The main point is to apply a suitable pseudo-differential operator

K^{R}

to the corresponding system in order to cancel the first order terms. We begin with the definition and some properties of

K^{R}

and its symbol. We recall that

χ \in C^{\infty} (R)

χ (t) = 0

for

| t | \leq 1

and

χ (t) = 1

for

| t | \geq 2

Definition 5.2.1 Let

R = 2^{j_{0}}

for

j_{0} \in N .

Recall the definition of

\tilde{B}

in Lemma 5.1.2 . We define

(i) $b^{R} (x, ξ) = s \sum_{j, k, l} \partial_{x_{j}} a_{j k}^{R} (x) ξ_{j} ξ_{k} ξ_{l} 〈 ξ 〉^{- 2} - Re b_{1} (x, ξ),$
(ii) $p^{R} (x, ξ) = χ (\frac{1}{2} | ξ |) \int_{- \infty}^{0} b^{R} (X^{R} (σ; x, ξ), Ξ (σ; x, ξ)) d σ,$
(iii) $p_{e}^{R} (x, ξ) = \frac{1}{2} (p^{R} (x, ξ) + p^{R} (x, - ξ)),$
(iv) $k^{R} (x, ξ) = exp (p_{e}^{R} (x, ξ)),$
(v) ${\tilde{k}}^{R} (x, ξ) = exp (- p_{e}^{R} (x, ξ)),$
(vi) $B^{R} = Ψ_{b^{R}}, P^{R} = Ψ_{p^{R}}, P_{e}^{R} = Ψ_{p_{e}^{R}}, K^{R} = Ψ_{k^{R}}, {\tilde{K}}^{R} = Ψ_{{\tilde{k}}^{R}},$
(vii) $b^{R} = b_{0}^{R} + \sum_{j = j_{0}}^{\infty} b_{j}^{R}$ , with $b_{j}^{R} (x) = (θ (\frac{x}{2^{j + 1}}) - θ (\frac{x}{2^{j}})) b^{R} (x)$ , and analogously $p_{j}^{R}$ , $p_{e j}^{R}$ , $k_{j}^{R}$ , and ${\tilde{k}}_{j}^{R} .$

Some comments about the above definition are in order.

We recall that applying the operator

J^{s}

to the equation in ( 5.2 ) the symbol of the first order term for

J^{s} u

is given by (see ( 5.3 ))

s \sum_{j, k, l} \partial_{x_{j}} a_{j k} (x) ξ_{j} ξ_{k} ξ_{l} 〈 ξ 〉^{- 2} - Re b_{1} (x, ξ) .

b^{R} (x, ξ)

in (i) is the approximation (due to our truncation of the second order term) of this symbol.

The symbol of the integrating factor needed to “cancel”

Ψ_{b^{R}}

is given in (iv). The reason to use the even function

p_{e}^{R} (x, ξ)

in (iii) instead of that in (ii) is to preserve the symmetry needed in the integration by parts use to handle the first order term in

\bar{u}

Finally,

{\tilde{K}}^{R} (x, ξ)

is the symbol of a cuasi-inverse of

Ψ_{K}^{R}

Lemma 5.2.2

(i) $p_{e}^{R}, k^{R}, {\tilde{k}}^{R}$ are all even in $ξ$ , and real.
(ii) $(\nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x} p^{R} - \nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} p^{R}) (x, ξ) = b^{R} (x, ξ) + r_{1} (x, ξ)$ where $r_{1} \in S_{1, 0}^{- \infty} .$
(iii) $(\nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x} p_{e}^{R} - \nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} p_{e}^{R}) (x, ξ) = b^{R} (x, ξ) + r_{2} (x, ξ)$ where $r_{2} \in S_{1, 0}^{- \infty} .$
(iv) $(\nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x} k^{R} - \nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} k^{R}) (x, ξ) = k^{R} (x, ξ) b^{R} (x, ξ) + r_{3} (x, ξ)$ where $r_{3} \in S_{1, 0}^{- \infty} .$
(v) $(\nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x} {\tilde{k}}^{R} - \nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} {\tilde{k}}^{R}) (x, ξ) = - {\tilde{k}}^{R} (x, ξ) b^{R} (x, ξ) + r_{4} (x, ξ)$ where $r_{4} \in S_{1, 0}^{- \infty} .$

(vi) Let

ψ \in C^{\infty} (R)

ψ (t) = 1

t \geq \frac{1}{2}

and

ψ (t) = - 1

t \leq - \frac{1}{2}, - 1 \leq ψ \leq 1

. Define

\begin{matrix} a_{j}^{R} (z; x, ξ) = χ (\frac{1}{102^{j}} | x |) p_{e j}^{R} (z + 2^{j} ψ (\frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| x | | ξ |}) \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, ξ) θ (\frac{z}{2^{j + 1}}), \end{matrix}

(5.4)

j = 0, 1, . . .

. Then

a_{j}^{R} \in C_{0}^{\infty} (B_{2^{j + 1}} (0); S_{1, 0}^{0})

and

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} p_{e j}^{R} (x, ξ) = \\ p_{e j}^{R} (x, ξ) (1 - χ (\frac{1}{102^{j}} | x |)) + a_{j}^{R} (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(5.5)

(vii) Set

q (x, ξ) = \sum_{j} p_{e j}^{R} (1 - χ (\frac{1}{102^{j}} | x |))

, and

a^{R} (z; x, ξ) = exp (q) (exp (\sum_{j} a_{j}^{R} (z; x, ξ)) - 1) .

Then

q \in S_{1, 0}^{0}

q (\cdot, ξ) \in S (R^{n})

uniformly in

ξ

a^{R} \in S (R^{n}; S_{1, 0}^{0})

, and

\begin{matrix} k^{R} (x, ξ) = a^{R} (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) + exp (q (x, ξ)) . \end{matrix}

(5.6)

(viii) The seminorms of the remainders $r_{k}$ , $k = 1, 2, 3, 4$ , and of $a_{j}^{R}$ and $q$ grow as $R^{N_{0}}$ with $N_{0} \in Z^{+}$ depending just on the dimension.

Parts (i)–(iii) are preliminary results needed in the proof of (iv). The crucial point (iv) shows at the level of the symbols that the commutator of

K^{R}

and

ℒ^{R} (x)

“cancels”

K^{R} B^{R}

. In (vi) and (vii) we prove that the symbol

k^{R} (x, ξ)

is in the class introduced in Section 3 .

Proof of Lemma 5.2.2 For simplicity of the exposition we shall drop the index

R

The proof of (i) is clear.

As for (ii), it is sufficient to work with each

b_{j}

and the corresponding

p_{j}

. We get

\begin{matrix} (\nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x} p_{j} - \nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} p_{j}) (x, ξ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = - \int_{- \infty}^{0} b_{j} (X (σ; x, ξ), Ξ (σ; x, ξ)) d σ \cdot (\nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} [χ (\frac{1}{2} | ξ |)]) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} + χ (\frac{1}{2} | ξ |) (\nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x} - \nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x}) \int_{- \infty}^{0} b_{j} (X (σ; x, ξ), Ξ (σ; x, ξ)) d σ . \end{matrix}

For the first factor of the first term we use Theorem 4.1.1 in Section 4 to see that is bounded by

c_{N} 2^{- N j}

, and therefore independently of

R

. Then by Theorem 4.2.1 in Section 4 we prove that the derivatives

\partial_{x}^{α} \partial_{ξ}^{β}

inside the integral are bounded by

c_{α β} (| σ | + (| x | + R)^{μ_{α β}})

for

α, β \in N^{n}

. If

| σ | > s_{0}

where

s_{0}

is given in Theorem 4.1.1 of Section 4 , then

| σ | < c | X (σ; x, ξ) | < c 2^{j}

. Otherwise

| σ | < c | x | < c R

, where the last inequality follows from the support properties of

\nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R}

. Therefore from the decay of

b_{j}

and

\nabla A

we conclude that belongs to

S_{1, 0}^{- \infty}

and the corresponding seminorms grow like powers of

R

. By Lemma 2.2.1 in Section 2 , the second term equals

χ (\frac{1}{2} | ξ |) b_{j} (x, ξ) = b_{j} (x, ξ) + (χ (\frac{1}{2} | ξ |) - 1) b_{j} (x, ξ) .

Notice that the last term above is compactly supported in

ξ

(iii)

h_{2}^{R}

is homogeneous of degree 2 in

ξ

, so

\begin{matrix} (\nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x} - \nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{ξ}) [p (x, - ξ)] \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = (\nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R}) (x, ξ) \cdot (\nabla_{x} p) (x, - ξ) + (\nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R}) (x, ξ) \cdot (\nabla_{ξ} p) (x, - ξ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = (- \nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x} p + \nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} p) (x, - ξ) . \end{matrix}

By (ii), this equals

- b (x, - ξ) - r_{1} (x, - ξ) = b (x, ξ) - r_{1} (x, - ξ),

since

b

is odd in

ξ

. This proves (iii).

(iv) By the chain rule -see also the proof of (ii),

\begin{matrix} [\nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x} k - \nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} k] (x, ξ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = k (x, ξ) (\nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x} p_{e} - \nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} p_{e}) (x, ξ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = k (x, ξ) (b (x, ξ) + r_{2} (x, ξ)), \end{matrix}

where

r_{2} (x, ξ)

is compactly supported in

ξ

(v) is similar to (iv).

(vi) From the definition of

a_{j}

we have

supp a_{j} (\cdot; x, ξ) \subset B_{2^{j + 1}} (0)

By homogeneity,

b_{j} (X (σ; x, ξ), Ξ (σ; x, ξ)) = b_{j} (X (| ξ | σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), | ξ | Ξ (| ξ | σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})),

so it follows by a change of variable that

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} p_{e j} (x, ξ) & = & \frac{1}{2} χ (\frac{1}{2} | ξ |) \frac{1}{| ξ |} (\int_{- \infty}^{0} b_{j} (X (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), | ξ | Ξ (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})) d σ - \\ - & \int_{0}^{\infty} b_{j} (X (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), | ξ | Ξ (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})) d σ) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(5.7)

Thus combining ( 5.7 ) and Theorem 4.2.1 in Section 4 and proceeding as in part (ii) we obtain that

a_{j} (z; \cdot, \cdot) \in S_{1, 0}^{0}

uniformly in

z

, and so are in the derivatives with respect to

z

Let us prove ( 5.5 ). We have to see that

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} χ (\frac{1}{102^{j}} | x |) p_{e j} (x, ξ) \\ = χ (\frac{1}{102^{j}} | x |) p_{e j} (P (x, A_{h} ξ) + 2^{j} ψ (\frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| x | | ξ |}) \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, ξ) θ (\frac{P (x, A_{h} ξ)}{2^{j + 1}}) . \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(5.8)

Consider different cases.

1^{\underset{̲}{o}}

| x | \leq 102^{j}

: Here

χ (| \frac{| x |}{102^{j}} |) = 0

so RHS=LHS in ( 5.8 ).

2^{\underset{̲}{o}}

| ξ | \leq 2

R H S = L H S = 0 .

3^{\underset{̲}{o}}

| P (x, A_{h} ξ) | \geq 2^{j}

and

| x | \geq 102^{j}

: First note that

P (P (x, A_{h} ξ) + 2^{j} ψ (\frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| x | | ξ |}) \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, A_{h} ξ) = P (x, A_{h} ξ) .

Next, if

| P (y, A_{h} ξ) | \geq 2^{j} R

for some

y \in R^{n}

, then

b_{j} (X (σ; y, ξ), Ξ (σ; y, ξ)) = 0

for all

σ \in R

because

b_{j}

has

x

-support in

B_{2^{j}} (0),

and the bicharacteristics are lines. It follows that RHS=LHS=0 in ( 5.8 ).

4^{\underset{̲}{o}}

| x | \geq 102^{j}, | ξ | \geq 2, | P (x, A_{h} ξ) | \leq 2^{j}

: Here

χ (| ξ | / 2) = 1

and

θ (\frac{P (x, A_{h} ξ)}{2^{j + 1}}) = 1 .

| x \cdot A_{h} ξ | = | x | | ξ | \sqrt{1 - \frac{| P (x, A_{h} ξ) |^{2}}{| x |^{2}}} \geq \frac{99}{100} | x | | ξ | .

Now split in two subcases according to the sign of

x \cdot A_{h} ξ

4^{\underset{̲}{o}} (a)

x \cdot A_{h} ξ \geq \frac{99}{100} | x | | ξ |

: Here

ψ (\frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| x | | ξ |}) = 1

. Suppose

σ \leq \frac{1}{2} (x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} - 2^{j + 1})

. Then

(x - 2 σ \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}) \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} = x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} - 2 σ \geq 2^{j + 1} .

Hence

X (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) = x - 2 σ \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}

and

b_{j} (X (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), | ξ | Ξ (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})) = 0 .

By ( 5.7 ) and since

\frac{1}{2} (\frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} - 2^{j + 1}) > 0

\begin{matrix} p_{e j} (x, ξ) = \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - \frac{1}{2} χ (\frac{1}{2} | ξ |) \frac{1}{| ξ |} \int_{1 / 2 (x \cdot A_{h} ξ / | ξ | - 2^{j + 1})}^{\infty} b_{j} (X (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), | ξ | Ξ (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})) d σ . \end{matrix}

Doing the change of variable

τ = σ - \frac{1}{2} (x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} - 2^{j + 1})

\begin{matrix} p_{e j} (x, ξ) = \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - \frac{1}{2} χ (\frac{1}{2} | ξ |) \frac{1}{| ξ |} \int_{0}^{\infty} b_{j} (X (τ + \frac{1}{2} (x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} - 2^{j + 1}); x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} , | ξ | Ξ (τ + \frac{1}{2} (x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} - 2^{j + 1}); x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})) d τ . \end{matrix}

Now,

\begin{matrix} X (τ + \frac{1}{2} (x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} - 2^{j + 1}); x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = X (τ; X (\frac{1}{2} (x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} - 2^{j + 1}); x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), Ξ (\frac{1}{2} (x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} - 2^{j + 1}); x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = X (τ; P (x, A_{h} ξ) + 2^{j + 1} \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), \end{matrix}

and similarly,

Ξ (τ + \frac{1}{2} (x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} - 2^{j + 1}); x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) = Ξ (τ; P (x, A_{h} ξ) + 2^{j + 1} \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})

τ \leq 0

then

b_{j} (X (τ; P (x, A_{h} ξ) + 2^{j + 1} \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), | ξ | Ξ (τ; P (x, A_{h} ξ) + 2^{j + 1} \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})) = 0 .

Hence by ( 5.7 )

p_{e j} (x, ξ) = p_{e j} (P (x, A_{h} ξ) + 2^{j + 1} ψ (\frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| x | | ξ |}) \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, ξ) .

Therefore, ( 5.8 ) holds. This finishes case

4^{\underset{̲}{o}} (a)

4^{\underset{̲}{o}} (b)

x \cdot A_{h} ξ \leq - \frac{99}{100} | x | | ξ |

: Here

ψ (\frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| x | | ξ |}) = - 1

Suppose

σ \geq \frac{1}{2} (x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} + 2^{j + 1})

. Then

(x - 2 σ \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}) \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} = x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |} - 2 σ \leq - 2^{j + 1} .

Hence

X (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) = x - 2 σ \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}

and

b_{j} (X (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), | ξ | Ξ (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})) = 0 .

Therefore since

\frac{1}{2} (2^{j + 1} + \frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}) < 0

\begin{matrix} p_{e j} (x, ξ) \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = - \frac{1}{2} χ (\frac{1}{2} | ξ |) \frac{1}{| ξ |} \int_{- \infty}^{1 / 2 (2^{j + 1} + x \cdot A_{h} ξ / | ξ |)} b_{j} (X (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), | ξ | Ξ (σ; x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})) d σ . \end{matrix}

Let

τ = σ - \frac{1}{2} (2^{j + 1} + x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |})

. Then

\begin{matrix} p_{e j} (x, ξ) = \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} - \frac{1}{2} χ (\frac{1}{2} | ξ |) \frac{1}{| ξ |} \int_{- \infty}^{0} b_{j} (X (τ + \frac{1}{2} (2^{j + 1} + x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}); x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}), \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} , | ξ | Ξ (τ + \frac{1}{2} (2^{j + 1} + x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}); x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})) d τ . \end{matrix}

But

X (τ + \frac{1}{2} (2^{j + 1} + x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}); x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) = X (τ; P (x, A_{h} ξ) - 2^{j + 1} \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |})

and

Ξ (τ + \frac{1}{2} (2^{j + 1} + x \cdot \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}); x, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) = Ξ (τ; P (x, A_{h} ξ) - 2^{j + 1} \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) .

Since

| X (τ; P (x, A_{h} ξ) - 2^{j + 1} \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, \frac{ξ}{| ξ |}) | \geq 2^{j + 1} for τ \geq 0,

it follows from ( 5.7 ) that

p_{e j} (x, ξ) = p_{e j} (P (x, A_{h} ξ) + 2^{j + 1} ψ (\frac{x \cdot A_{h} ξ}{| x | | ξ |}) \frac{A_{h} ξ}{| ξ |}, ξ)

and ( 5.8 ) holds.

For the proof of (vii) notice first that

p_{e j} (1 - χ (\frac{1}{102^{j}} | x |))

has compact support in

x

and therefore belongs to

S_{1, 0}^{0}

. Thanks to the decay properties of

b_{j}

we can summ in

j

to obtain the same property for

q (x, ξ)

. The other conclusions follow by inspection from (vi) and the definition of

k

Finally notice that (viii) follows from the previous steps. This completes the proof of Lemma 5.2.2 .

Definition 5.2.2 The equivalence relation

\sim =

is given by

A_{1} \sim = A_{2} \Leftrightarrow (A_{1} - A_{2}) is L^{2} -bounded with norm \leq C (R),

where

C (R)

grows at most polynomially in

R .

Lemma 5.2.3 Let

q \in S_{1, 0}^{1}

with

q (\cdot, ξ) \in S (R^{n})

uniformly in

ξ

. Let

a \in S (R^{n}; S_{1, 0}^{0})

and

d (x, ξ) = a (P (x, A_{h} ξ); x, ξ) χ (| ξ |) .

Then

(i) $Ψ_{q d} \sim = Ψ_{q} Ψ_{d} \sim = Ψ_{d} Ψ_{q},$
(ii) $Ψ_{q k^{R}} \sim = Ψ_{q} K^{R} \sim = K^{R} Ψ_{q} \sim = Ψ_{q} (K^{R})^{*} \sim = (K^{R})^{*} Ψ_{q},$
(iii) $Ψ_{q {\tilde{k}}^{R}} \sim = Ψ_{q} {\tilde{K}}^{R} \sim = {\tilde{K}}^{R} Ψ_{q} \sim = Ψ_{q} ({\tilde{K}}^{R})^{*} \sim = ({\tilde{K}}^{R})^{*} Ψ_{q},$
(iv) $i [(K^{R})^{*} ℒ^{R} - ℒ^{R} (K^{R})^{*}] \sim = Ψ_{k^{R} b^{R}},$
(v) $i [({\tilde{K}}^{R})^{*} ℒ^{R} - ℒ^{R} ({\tilde{K}}^{R})^{*}] \sim = Ψ_{{\tilde{k}}^{R} b^{R}} .$

The constants for the above inequalities are bounded by

R^{N}

for some fixed power

N

, and by some fixed number of seminorms of

q

and

a .

Proof of Lemma 5.2.3 The proof is based on the calculus developed in Section 3 .(i) Let

φ (x) = {(1 + | x |^{2})}^{- N} = 〈 x 〉^{- 2 N}

, and

\frac{1}{φ} q = \tilde{q}

. Then for

q = φ \tilde{q}

one has

\begin{matrix} Ψ_{q} Ψ_{d} = Ψ_{\tilde{q} φ} Ψ_{d} \sim = Ψ_{\tilde{q}} φ Ψ_{d} \sim = Ψ_{\tilde{q} d} = Ψ_{q d} . \end{matrix}

Here it was used that

φ d

behaves as a classical symbol because for our purposes just finitely many derivatives of the symbol in

ξ

are needed. This number of derivatives determines the choice of

N

Similarly,

\begin{matrix} Ψ_{d} Ψ_{q} \sim = Ψ_{d} φ (I - Δ) J^{- 2} Ψ_{\tilde{q}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \sim = Ψ_{d φ 〈 ξ 〉^{2}} Ψ_{〈 ξ 〉)^{- 2} \tilde{q}} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \sim = Ψ_{d φ 〈 ξ 〉^{2} 〈 ξ 〉^{- 2} \tilde{q}} = Ψ_{\tilde{q} d} . \end{matrix}

In this case we used that

φ (I - Δ)

is a partial differential operator with decay in the coefficients and that

φ (x) 〈 ξ 〉^{2}

behaves as a symbol in

S_{1, 0}^{2}

for all

N

(ii)

Ψ_{q k^{R}} \sim = Ψ_{q} K^{R} \sim = K^{R} Ψ_{q}

follows from the decomposition in Lemma 5.2.2 (vii) of

k^{R}

into a sum of an

S_{1, 0}^{0}

symbol and a symbol of the type

d

in (i). For the remainder of (ii),

\begin{matrix} Ψ_{q} (K^{R})^{*} = (K^{R} Ψ_{q}^{*})^{*} \sim = (K^{R} Ψ_{\bar{q}})^{*} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \sim = (Ψ_{k^{R} \bar{q}})^{*} \sim = Ψ_{{\bar{k}}^{R} q} = Ψ_{k^{R} q} \end{matrix}

because

k^{R} \bar{q} \in S_{1, 0}^{1}

and

k^{R}

is real–valued. Similarly,

\begin{matrix} (K^{R})^{*} Ψ_{q} = (Ψ_{q}^{*} K^{R})^{*} \sim = (Ψ_{\bar{q}} K^{R})^{*} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} (Ψ_{\bar{q} k^{R}})^{*} \sim = Ψ_{q k^{R}} . \end{matrix}

(iii) is similar to (ii).

(iv)

k^{R} b^{R} \in S_{1, 0}^{1}

and is real–valued so, taking adjoints, it suffices to show that

i [K^{R} ℒ^{R} - ℒ^{R} K^{R}] \sim = Ψ_{k^{R} b^{R}} .

Now write

ℒ^{R} = [ℒ^{R} - (A_{h} \nabla) \cdot \nabla] + (A_{h} \nabla) \cdot \nabla

to see that

ℒ^{R}

is a compactly supported perturbation of a constant coefficient operator. By Theorem 3.3.1 in Section 3 and the decomposition in Lemma 5.2.2 (vii), it follows that

i [K^{R} ℒ^{R} - ℒ^{R} K^{R}] \sim = Ψ_{\nabla_{ξ} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{x} k^{R} - \nabla_{x} h_{2}^{R} \cdot \nabla_{ξ} k^{R}} \sim = Ψ_{b^{R} k^{R}}

using Lemma 5.2.2 (iv) in the last equivalence.

(v) is similar to (iv) using Lemma 5.2.2 (v) instead of Lemma 5.2.2 (iv).

This completes the proof of Lemma 5.2.3 .

In order to prove Lemma 5.2.1 we still need some technical results. Recall that

ℒ = ℒ^{R} + ℰ^{R}

and that

K^{R}

and

b^{R}

were given in Definition 5.2.1 .

N_{0}

Proof of Lemma 5.2.4 Part (i) follows from the descomposition of Lemma 5.2.2 (vii) and Theorem 3.2.1 in Section 3 . Part (ii) follows from Lemma 5.2.2 (iv), Theorems 3.3.1 – 3.3.3 in Section 3 and that

k^{R}

is real. As for (iii) follows from Theorems 3.3.1 - 3.3.3 in Section 3 and that

k^{R}

is even in

ξ

. Finally (iv) follows from Lemma 5.2.3 (ii).

Variable coefficient Schrödinger flows for ultrahyperbolic operators

C.E. KenigPartially supported by NSF and IBERDROLA program of Profesores Visitantes University of Chicago, Chicago Il., USA 60637, cek@math.uchicago.edu

G. PoncePartially supported by NSF and IBERDROLA program of Profesores Visitantes University of California, Santa Barbara, Ca, USA ponce@math.ucsb.edu

C. Rolvung Nykredit Markets & Asset Management, Kalvevod Bridge 1–3, DK-1780 Copenhagen V, Denmark, cro@nykredit.dk

L. VegaPartially supported by a MECyT grant Universidad del Pais Vasco, Apdo. 644, 48080, Bilbao, Spain, mtpvegol@lg.ehu.es