, , March 7, 2005

One of the most simple but also most powerful ideas in spectral theory is Weyl's theorem, of which a typical application is (in this introduction, in order to avoid technicalities, we take potentials bounded):

Theorem 1.1. If

V, W

are bounded functions on

R^{ν}

and

{lim}_{| x | \to \infty} [V (x) - W (x)] = 0

, then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (- Δ + V) = σ_{ess} (- Δ + W) \end{matrix}

(1.1)

Our goal in this paper is to find a generalization of this result that allows “slippage” near infinity. Typical of our results are the following:

Theorem 1.2. Let

V

be a bounded periodic function on

(- \infty, \infty)

and

H_{V}

the operator

- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}} + V (x)

L^{2} (R)

. For

x > 0

, define

W (x) = V (x + \sqrt{x})

and let

H_{W}

- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}} + W (x)

L^{2} (0, \infty)

with some selfadjoint boundary conditions at zero. Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (H_{W}) = σ (H_{V}) \end{matrix}

(1.2)

Theorem 1.3. Let

α

be irrational and let

H

be the discrete Schrödinger operator on

ℓ^{2} (Z)

with potential

λ cos (α n)

. Let

\tilde{H}

be the discrete Schrödinger operator on

ℓ^{2} ({0, 1, 2, . . .})

with potential

λ cos (α n + \sqrt{n})

. Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (\tilde{H}) = σ (H) \end{matrix}

(1.3)

Our original motivation in this work was extending a theorem of Barrios-López [8] in the theory of orthogonal polynomials on the unit circle (OPUC); see [60, 61] .

Theorem 1.4 (see Example 4.3.10 of [60] ). Let

{α_{n}}_{n = 0}^{\infty}

be a sequence of Verblunsky coefficients so that for some

a \in (0, 1)

, one has

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{n \to \infty} | α_{n} | = a {lim}_{n \to \infty} \frac{α_{n + 1}}{α_{n}} = 1 \end{matrix}

(1.4)

Then the CMV matrix for

α_{n}

has essential spectrum identical to the case

α_{n} \equiv a

This goes beyond Weyl's theorem in that

α_{n}

may not approach

a

; rather

| α_{n} | \to a

but the phase is slowly varying and may not have a limit. The way to understand this result is to realize that

α_{n} \equiv a

is a periodic set of Verblunsky coefficients. The set of periodic coefficients with the same essential spectrum is, for each

λ \in \partial D

(

D = {z | | z | < 1}

), the constant sequence

α_{n} = λ a

. 1.5 says in a precise sense that the given

α_{n}

is approaching this isospectral torus. We wanted to prove, and have proven, the following:

Theorem 1.5. If a set of Verblunsky coefficients or Jacobi parameters is asymptotic to an isospectral torus, then the essential spectrum of the corresponding CMV or Jacobi matrix is identical to the common essential spectrum of the isospectral torus.

In Section 5 , we will be precise about what we mean by “asymptotic to an isospectral torus.” Theorem 1.5 positively settles Conjecture 12.2.3 of [61] .

In the end, we found an extremely general result. To describe it, we recall some ideas in our earlier paper [41] . We will first consider Jacobi matrices (

b_{n} \in R

a_{n} > 0

)

\begin{matrix} J = (\begin{matrix} b_{1} & a_{1} & 0 & \cdot \cdot \cdot \\ a_{1} & b_{2} & a_{2} & \cdot \cdot \cdot \\ 0 & a_{2} & b_{3} & . . . \\ . . . & . . . & . . . & . . . \end{matrix}) \end{matrix}

(1.5)

where, in line with our convention to deal with the simplest cases in this introduction, we suppose there is a

K \in (0, \infty)

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{n} | b_{n} | + {sup}_{n} | a_{n} | + {sup}_{n} | a_{n} |^{- 1} \leq K \end{matrix}

(1.6)

A right limit point of

J

is a double-sided Jacobi matrix,

J^{(r)}

, with parameters

{a_{n}^{(r)}, b_{n}^{(r)}}_{n = - \infty}^{\infty}

so that there is a subsequence

n_{j}

with

\begin{matrix} a_{n_{j} + ℓ} \to a_{ℓ}^{(r)} b_{n_{j} + ℓ} \to b_{ℓ}^{(r)} \end{matrix}

(1.7)

j \to \infty

for each fixed

ℓ = 0, \pm 1, \pm 2, . . .

. In [41] , we noted that

Proposition 1.6. For each right limit point,

σ (J^{(r)}) \subset σ_{ess} (J)

This is a basic result that many, including us, regard as immediate.

For if

λ \in σ (J^{(r)})

and

φ^{(m)}

is a sequence of unit trial functions with

∥ (J^{(r)} - λ) φ^{(m)} ∥ \to 0

, then for any

j (m) \to \infty

∥ (J - λ) φ^{(m)} (\cdot + n_{j (m)}) ∥ \to 0

, and if

j (m)

is chosen going to infinity fast enough, then

φ^{(m)} (\cdot - n_{j (m)}) \to 0

weakly, so

λ \in σ_{ess} (J)

Let

ℛ

be the set of right limit points. Clearly, Proposition 1.6 says that

\begin{matrix} \bar{⋃_{r \in ℛ} σ (J^{(r)})} \subset σ_{ess} (J) \end{matrix}

(1.8)

Our new realization here for this example is that

Theorem 1.7. If 1.6 holds, then

\begin{matrix} \bar{⋃_{r \in ℛ} σ (J^{(r)})} = σ_{ess} (J) \end{matrix}

(1.9)

Remark. It is an interesting open question whether anything is gained in 1.9 by taking the closure—that is whether the union is already closed.

In every example we can analyze the union is closed, but we do not know if this is true in general.

Surprisingly, the proof will be a rather simple trial function argument. The difficulty with such an argument tried naively is the following: To say

J^{(r)}

is a right limit point means that there are

L_{m} \to \infty

so that

J ↾ [n_{j (m)} - L_{m}, n_{j (m)} + L_{m}]

shifted to

[- L_{m}, L_{m}]

converges uniformly to

J^{(r)} ↾ [- L_{m}, L_{m}]

. But

L_{m}

might grow very slowly with

m

. Weyl's criterion says that if

λ \in σ_{ess} (J)

, there are trial functions,

φ_{k}

, supported on

[n_{k} - {\tilde{L}}_{k}, n_{k} + {\tilde{L}}_{k}]

∥ (J - λ) φ_{k} ∥ \to 0

. By a compactness argument, one can suppose the

n_{k}

are actually

n_{j (m)}

's for some right limit. The difficulty is that

{\tilde{L}}_{m}

might grow much faster than

L_{m}

, so translated

φ_{k}

's are not good trial functions for

J^{(r)}

The key to overcoming this difficulty is to prove that one can localize trial functions in some interval of fixed size

L

, making a localization error of

O (L^{- 1})

. This is what we will do in Section 2 . In this idea, we were motivated by arguments in Avron et al. [5] , although to handle the continuum case, we will need to work harder.

The use of localization ideas to understand essential spectrum, an implementation using double commutators, is not new — it goes back to Enss [21] and was raised to high art by Sigal [57] . Enss and Sigal, and also Agmon [1] and Garding [23] , later used these ideas and positivity inequalities to locate

inf σ_{ess} (H)

, which suffices for the HVZ theorem but not for some of our applications.

What distinguishes our approach and allows stronger results is that, first, we use trial functions exclusively and, second, as noted above, we study all of

σ_{ess}

rather than only its infimum. Third, and most significantly, we do not limit ourselves to sets that are cones near infinity and instead take balls. This gives us small operator errors rather than compact operator errors (although one can modify our arguments and take ball sizes that go to infinity slowly, and so get a compact localization error). It makes the method much more flexible.

While this paper is lengthy because of many different applications, the underlying idea is captured by the mantra “localization plus compactness.” Here compactness means that resolvents restricted to balls of fixed size translated to zero lie in compact sets. We have in mind the topology of norm converegence once resolvents are multiplied by the characteristic functions of arbitrary fixed balls.

Because we need to control

∥ (A - λ) φ ∥^{2}

and not just

〈 φ, (A - λ) φ 〉

, if we used double commutators, we would need to control

[j, [j, (A - λ)^{2}]]

, so in the continuum case we get unbounded operators and the double commutator is complicated. For this reason, following [5] , we use single commutators and settle for an inequality rather than the equality one gets from double commutators.

We present the localization lemmas in Section 2 and prove our main results in Section 3 . Section 4 discusses an interesting phenomena involving Schrödinger operators with severe oscillations at infinity.

Section 5 has the applications to potentials asymptotic to isospectral tori and includes results stronger than Theorems 1.2 , 1.3 , and 1.5 .

In particular, we settle positively Conjecture 12.2.3 of [61] . Section 6 discusses the HVZ theorem, and Section 7 other applications. Section 8 discusses magnetic fields.

We can handle the common Schrödinger operators associated to quantum theory with or without magnetic fields as well as orthogonal polynomials on the real line (OPRL) and unit circle (OPUC).

It is a pleasure to thank D. Damanik and R. Killip for useful discussions, and A. Sobolev and B. Thaller for useful correspondence.

This research was completed during B.S.'s stay as a Lady Davis Visiting Professor at The Hebrew University of Jerusalem. He would like to thank H. Farkas for the hospitality of the Einstein Institute of Mathematics at The Hebrew University.

2 Localization Estimates

Here we will use localization formulae but with partitions of unity that are concentrated on balls of fixed size in place of the previous applications that typically take

j

's that are homogeneous of degree zero near infinity. Also, we use single commutators.

Let

ℋ

be a separable Hilbert space and

A

a selfadjoint operator on

ℋ

. Let

{j_{α}}

be a set of bounded selfadjoint operators indexed by either a discrete set,

S

, like

Z^{ν}

or by

α \in R^{ν}

. In the latter case, we suppose

j_{α}

is measurable and uniformly bounded in

α

. We assume that

{j_{α}}

is a partition of unity, namely,

\begin{matrix} \sum_{α \in S} j_{α}^{2} = 1 or \int_{α \in R^{ν}} j_{α}^{2} d^{ν} α = 1 \end{matrix}

(2.1)

where the convergence of the sum or the meaning of the integral is in the weak operator topology sense. Two examples that will often arise are where

ℋ = ℓ^{2} (Z^{ν})

ψ \in ℓ^{2} (Z^{ν})

is real-valued with

\sum_{n} ψ (n)^{2} = 1

, and

{j_{m}}_{m \in Z^{ν}}

is multiplication by

ψ (\cdot - m)

, or where

ℋ = L^{2} (R^{ν}, d^{ν} x)

ψ \in L^{2} (R^{ν}, d^{ν} x) \cap L^{\infty} (R^{ν}, d^{ν} x)

is real-valued with

\int ψ (x)^{2} d^{ν} x = 1

, and

{j_{y}}_{y \in R^{ν}}

is multiplication by

ψ (\cdot - y)

Assume that for each

α

j_{α}

maps the domain of

A

to itself and let

φ

be a vector in the domain of

A

. Notice that

\begin{matrix} ∥ A j_{α} φ ∥^{2} & = ∥ (j_{α} A + [A, j_{α}]) φ ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq 2 ∥ j_{α} A φ ∥^{2} + 2 ∥ [A, j_{α}] φ ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

(2.2)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Thus

Proposition 2.1.

\begin{matrix} \sum_{α} ∥ A j_{α} φ ∥^{2} \leq 2 ∥ A φ ∥^{2} + 〈 φ, C φ 〉 \end{matrix}

(2.3)

where

\begin{matrix} C = 2 \sum_{α} - [A, j_{α}]^{2} \end{matrix}

(2.4)

Remark. Since

[A, j_{α}]

is skew-adjoint,

- [A, j_{α}]^{2} = [j_{α}, A]^{*} [j_{α}, A] \geq 0

Proof. 2.3 is immediate from 2.2 since

\begin{matrix} \sum_{α} ∥ j_{α} A φ ∥^{2} = \sum_{α} 〈 A φ, j_{α}^{2} A φ 〉 = ∥ A φ ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

(2.5)

and

\begin{matrix} ∥ [A, j_{α}] φ ∥^{2} = - 〈 φ, [A, j_{α}]^{2} φ 〉 \end{matrix}

(2.6)

□

Theorem 2.2. There exists an

α

so that

j_{α} φ \neq 0

and

\begin{matrix} ∥ A j_{α} φ ∥^{2} \leq {2 {(\frac{∥ A φ ∥}{∥ φ ∥})}^{2} + ∥ C ∥} ∥ j_{α} φ ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

(2.7)

Proof. Call the quantity in ${}$ in 2.7 $d$ . Then, since $∥ φ ∥^{2} = \sum_{α} ∥ j_{α} φ ∥^{2}$ , 2.3 implies $\sum_{α} [∥ A j_{α} φ ∥^{2} - d ∥ j_{α} φ ∥^{2}] \leq 0$ so at least one term with $∥ j_{α} φ ∥ \neq 0$ is nonpositive. □

To deal with unbounded

A

's, we will want to suppose that

\sqrt{C}

A

-bounded:

Theorem 2.3. Suppose

A

is unbounded and

\begin{matrix} 〈 φ, C φ 〉 \leq δ (∥ A φ ∥^{2} + ∥ φ ∥^{2}) \end{matrix}

(2.8)

Then there is an

α

with

j_{α} φ \neq 0

so that

\begin{matrix} ∥ A j_{α} φ ∥^{2} \leq {(2 + δ) \frac{∥ A φ ∥^{2}}{∥ φ ∥^{2}} + δ} ∥ j_{α} φ ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

(2.9)

Proof. By 2.3 and 2.8 , we have $\sum_{α} ∥ A j_{α} φ ∥^{2} \leq (2 + δ) ∥ A φ ∥^{2} + δ ∥ φ ∥^{2}$ so, as before, 2.9 follows. □

3 The Essential Spectrum

This is the central part of this paper. We begin with Theorem 1.7 , the simplest of the results:

Proof of Theorem 1.7 . We already proved 1.8 in the remarks after Proposition 1.6 , so suppose

λ \in σ_{ess} (J)

. Recall Weyl's criterion,

λ \in σ_{ess} (J) \Leftrightarrow

there exist unit vectors

φ_{m} ⟶ w 0

with

∥ (J - λ) φ_{m} ∥ \to 0

Given

ɛ

, pick a trial sequence

{φ_{m}}

, such that each

φ_{m}

is supported in

{n | n > m}

, so that

\begin{matrix} ∥ (J - λ) φ_{m} ∥^{2} \leq \frac{1}{3} ɛ^{2} ∥ φ_{m} ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

(3.1)

which we can do, by Weyl's criterion, since

f_{j} ⟶ w 0

implies

\sum_{n < m} | f_{j} (n) |^{2} \to 0

for each

m

For

L = 1, 2, 3, . . .

, let

\begin{matrix} ψ_{L} (n) = {\begin{matrix} \frac{n - 1}{L} & n = 1, 2, . . ., L \\ \frac{2 L - 1 - n}{L} & n = L, L + 1, . . ., 2 L - 1 \\ 0 & n \geq 2 L - 1 \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.2)

and let

\begin{matrix} c_{L}^{2} = \sum_{n} | ψ_{L} (n) |^{2} \end{matrix}

(3.3)

so that

c_{L} \sim L^{1 / 2}

in the sense that for some

0 < a \leq b < \infty

\begin{matrix} a L^{1 / 2} \leq c_{L} \leq b L^{1 / 2} \end{matrix}

(3.4)

For

α = 1, 2, . . .

, let

\begin{matrix} j_{α, L} (n) = c_{L}^{- 1} ψ_{L} (n + α) \end{matrix}

(3.5)

so, by 3.3 ,

\begin{matrix} \sum_{α} j_{α, L}^{2} \equiv 1 \end{matrix}

(3.6)

Since

| ψ_{L} (n + 1) - ψ_{L} (n) | \leq L^{- 1}

, we see that

\begin{matrix} | 〈 δ_{n}, [j_{α, L}, J] δ_{m} 〉 | = {\begin{matrix} {sup}_{n} | a_{n} | c_{L}^{- 1} L^{- 1} & if | n - m | = 1 and | n - α - L | \leq L \\ 0 & otherwise \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(3.7)

Therefore,

C \equiv \sum_{α} 2 [j_{α, L}, J]^{2}

is a 5-diagonal matrix with matrix elements bounded by

\begin{matrix} 2 \cdot 2 (2 L) c_{L}^{- 2} L^{- 2} {({sup}_{n} | a_{n} |)}^{2} \end{matrix}

(3.8)

where the second two comes from the number of

k

's that make a nonzero contribution to

〈 δ_{n}, [j_{α, L}, J] δ_{k} 〉 〈 δ_{k}, [j_{α, L}, J] δ_{m} 〉

. By 3.4 , there is a constant

K

depending on

{sup}_{n} | a_{n} |

so that

\begin{matrix} ∥ C ∥ \leq K L^{- 2} \end{matrix}

(3.9)

Picking

L

K L^{- 2} < ɛ^{2} / 3

, we see, by Theorem 2.2 , there is a

j_{α_{m}}

∥ j_{α_{m}} φ_{m} ∥ \neq 0

and

\begin{matrix} ∥ (J - λ) j_{α_{m}} φ_{m} ∥ \leq ɛ ∥ j_{α_{m}} φ_{m} ∥ \end{matrix}

(3.10)

The intervals

I_{m} = [α_{m} + 1, α_{m} + 2 L - 1]

which support

j_{α_{m}} φ_{m}

, have fixed size, and move out to infinity since

I_{m} \subset {n | n \geq m - L}

. Since the set of real numbers with

| b | + | a | + | a |^{- 1} \leq K

is compact and

L

is finite, we can find a right limit point

J^{(r)}

so that a subsequence of

J ↾ I_{m}

translated by

α_{m} + L

converges to

J^{(r)} ↾ [1 - L, L - 1]

. Using translations of the trial functions

j_{α_{m}} φ_{m}

, we find

ψ_{m}

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{m \to \infty} \frac{∥ (J^{(r)} - λ) ψ_{m} ∥}{∥ ψ_{m} ∥} \leq ɛ \end{matrix}

(3.11)

which means

\begin{matrix} dist (λ, σ (J^{(r)})) \leq ɛ \end{matrix}

(3.12)

Since

ɛ

is arbitrary, we have

λ \in \bar{\cup σ (J^{(r)})}

. □

We have been pedantically careful about the above proof so that below we can be much briefer and just relate to this idea as “localization plus compactness” and not provide details.

We turn next to the CMV matrices defined by a sequence of Verblunsky coefficients

{α_{j}}_{j = 0}^{\infty}

with

α_{j} \in D

. We define the unitary

2 \times 2

matrix

Θ (α) = (\begin{matrix} \bar{α} & ρ \\ ρ & - α \end{matrix})

where

ρ = (1 - | α |^{2})^{1 / 2}

and

ℒ = Θ_{0} \oplus Θ_{2} \oplus Θ_{4} \oplus \dots

ℳ = 1 \oplus Θ_{1} \oplus Θ_{3} + \dots

, where

1

is a

1 \times 1

matrix and

Θ_{j} = Θ (α_{j})

. Then the CMV matrix is the unitary matrix

C = ℒ ℳ

. Given a two-sided sequence

{α_{j}}_{j = - \infty}^{\infty}

, we define

\tilde{ℒ} = \dots Θ_{- 2} \oplus Θ_{0} \oplus Θ_{2}

and

\tilde{ℳ} = Θ_{- 1} \oplus Θ_{1} \oplus Θ_{3} \oplus \dots

ℓ^{2} (Z)

where

Θ_{j}

acts on the span of

δ_{j}

and

δ_{j + 1}

. We set

\tilde{C} = \tilde{ℒ} \tilde{ℳ}

. See [60, 61] for a discussion of the connection of CMV and extended CMV matrices to OPUC. In [60, 61] ,

\tilde{C}

is used for the transpose of

C

(alternate CMV matrix).

Its use here is very different! If

{α_{j}}_{j = 0}^{\infty}

is a set of Verblunsky coefficients with

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{j} | α_{j} | < 1 \end{matrix}

(3.13)

we call

{β_{j}}_{j = - \infty}^{\infty}

a right limit point if there is a sequence

m_{j}

so that for

ℓ = 0, \pm 1, . . .

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{j \to \infty} α_{m_{j} + ℓ} = β_{ℓ} \end{matrix}

(3.14)

and we call

\tilde{C} (β)

a right limit of

C (α)

. We have

Theorem 3.1. Let

C (α)

be the CMV matrix of a sequence obeying 3.13 . Let

ℛ

be the set of right limit extended CMV matrices. Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (C (α)) = \bar{⋃_{ℛ} \tilde{C} (β)} \end{matrix}

(3.15)

Proof. The arguments of Section 2 extend to unitary $A$ if $- [j_{α}, A]^{2}$ is replaced by $[j_{α}, A]^{*} [j_{α}, A]$ . Matrix elements of $[j_{α}, C]$ are bounded by ${sup}_{n, | k | \leq 2} | j_{α} (n + k) - j_{α} (n) |$ since $C$ has matrix elements bounded by $1$ and is 5-diagonal. Thus, $C$ is 9-diagonal, but otherwise the argument extends with no change since ${α | | α | \leq {sup}_{j} | α_{j} |}$ is a compact subset of $D$ . □

Next, we want to remove the condition that

sup | α_{j} | < 1

in the OPUC case and the conditions

sup | b_{j} | < \infty

and

inf | a_{j} | > 0

in the OPRL case. The key, of course, is to preserve compactness, that is, existence of limit points, and to do that, we need only extend the notion of right limit.

{α_{j}}_{j = - \infty}^{\infty}

is a two-sided sequence in

\bar{D}

, one can still define

\tilde{C} (α_{j})

since

Θ (α_{j})

makes sense. If

| α_{j} | = 1

, then

ρ_{j} = 0

and

Θ (α_{j}) = (\begin{matrix} {\bar{α}}_{j} & 0 \\ 0 & - α_{j} \end{matrix})

is a direct sum in such a way

ℒ

and

ℳ

both decouple into direct sums on

ℓ^{2} (- \infty, j] \oplus ℓ^{2} [j + 1, \infty)

C

decouples. If a single

α_{j}

has

| α_{j} | = 1

, we decouple into two semi-infinite matrices (both related by unitary transforms to ordinary CMV matrices), but if more than one

α_{j}

has

| α_{j} | = 1

, there are finite direct summands.

In any event, we can define

\tilde{C} (α_{j})

for

{α_{j}} \in \times_{j = - \infty}^{\infty} \bar{D}

and define right limit points of

C (α_{j})

even if

sup | α_{j} | = 1

. Since matrix elements of

C

are still bounded by

1

C

is still 5-diagonal and

\times_{j = - \infty}^{\infty} \bar{D}

is compact, we immediately have

Theorem 3.2. With the extended notion of

\tilde{C}

, Theorem 3.1 holds even if 3.13 fails.

For bounded Jacobi matrices, we still want

sup (| a_{n} | + | b_{n} |) < \infty

, but we do not need

inf | a_{n} | > 0

. Again, the key is to allow two-sided Jacobi matrices,

J_{r}

, with some

a_{n} = 0

, in which case

J_{r}

decouples on

ℓ^{2} (- \infty, n] \oplus ℓ^{2} [n + 1, \infty)

. If a single

a_{n} = 0

, there are two semi-infinite matrices. If more than one

a_{n} = 0

, there are finite Jacobi summands.

Again, with no change in proof except for the change in the meaning of right limits to allow some

a_{n}^{(r)} = 0

, we have

Theorem 3.3. Theorem 1.7 remains true if 1.6 is replaced by

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{n} (| a_{n} | + | b_{n} |) < \infty \end{matrix}

(3.16)

so long as

J^{(r)}

are allowed with some

a_{n}^{(r)} = 0

In Section 7 , we will use Theorems 3.2 and 3.3 to complement the analysis of Krein (which appeared in Akhiezer-Krein [3] ) for bounded Jacobi matrices with finite essential spectrum, and of Golinskii [24] for OPUC with finite derived sets.

Our commutator argument requires that

| a_{n} |

is bounded, but one can also handle

limsup | b_{n} | = \infty

. It is useful to define:

Definition. Let

A

be a possibly unbounded selfadjoint operator. We say that

+ \infty

lies in

σ_{ess} (A)

σ (A)

is not bounded above, and

- \infty

lies in

σ_{ess} (A)

σ (A)

is not bounded below.

We now allow two-sided Jacobi matrices,

\tilde{J}

, with

b_{n} = + \infty

and/or

b_{n} = - \infty

(and also

a_{n} = 0

). If

| b_{n} | = \infty

, we decouple into

ℓ^{2} (- \infty, n - 1] \oplus ℓ^{2} [n + 1, \infty)

and place

b_{n}

in “

σ_{ess} (\tilde{J})

.” With this extended definition, we still have compactness, that is, for any intervals in

Z_{+}

I_{1}, I_{2}, . . .

of fixed finite size,

ℓ

, with

ℓ^{- 1} \sum_{j \in I_{n}} j \to \infty

, there is a subsequence converging to a set of Jacobi parameters with possibly

b_{n} = + \infty

b_{n} = - \infty

. We therefore have

Theorem 3.4. Theorem 1.7 remains true if 1.6 is replaced by

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{n} | a_{n} | < \infty \end{matrix}

(3.17)

so long as

J^{(r)}

are allowed to have some

a_{n}^{(r)} = 0

and/or some

b_{n}^{(r)} = \pm \infty

Remarks. 1. This includes the conventions on when

\pm \infty

lies in

σ_{ess} (J)

. To prove this requires a simple separate argument. Namely,

〈 δ_{n}, J δ_{n} 〉 = b_{n}

, so

b_{n} \in

numerical range of

J =

convex hull of

σ (J)

Thus, if

b_{n_{j}} \to \pm \infty

, then

\pm \infty \in σ (J)

2. If

{sup}_{n} | a_{n} | = \infty

σ_{ess}

can be very subtle; see [36, 37] .

Next, we turn to Jacobi matrices on

Z^{ν}

(including

ν = 1

), that is,

J

acts on

ℓ^{2} (Z^{ν})

via

\begin{matrix} (J u) (n) = \sum_{| m - n | = 1} a_{(n, m)} u (m) + \sum_{n} b_{n} u (n) \end{matrix}

(3.18)

where the

b_{n}

's are indexed by

n \in Z^{ν}

and the

a_{(n, m)}

's by bonds

{m, n}

(unordered pairs) with

| m - n | = 1

. For simplicity of exposition, we suppose

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{| m - n | = 1} (| a_{(n, m)} | + | a_{(n, m)} |^{- 1}) + {sup}_{n} | b_{n} | < \infty \end{matrix}

(3.19)

although we can, as above, also handle some limits with

a_{(n, m)} = 0

or some

| b_{n} | = \infty

. With no change, one can also control finite-range off-diagonal terms, and with some effort on controlling

[j_{α}, J]

, it should be possible to control infinite-range off-diagonal terms with sufficiently rapid off-diagonal decay.

Let us call

\tilde{J}

a limit point of

J

at infinity if and only if there are points

n_{j} \in Z^{ν}

with

n_{j} \to \infty

so that for every finite

k, ℓ

\begin{matrix} b_{n_{j} + ℓ} \to {\tilde{b}}_{ℓ} a_{(n_{j} + ℓ, n_{j} + k)} \to {\tilde{a}}_{(k, ℓ)} \end{matrix}

(3.20)

Let

ℒ

denote the set of limits

\tilde{J}

. Then

Theorem 3.5. Let

J

be a Jacobi matrix of the form 3.18 on

ℓ^{2} (Z^{ν})

. Suppose 3.19 holds. Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (J) = \bar{⋃_{\tilde{J} \in ℒ} σ (\tilde{J})} \end{matrix}

(3.21)

Proof. We can define partitions of unity $j_{α, L}$ indexed by $α \in Z^{ν}$ with $j_{α} (n) \neq 0$ only if $| n - α | \leq L$ and with $- \sum_{α} [j_{α}, J]^{2}$ bounded by $O (L^{- 2})$ . With this, the proof is the same as in the one-dimensional case. □

It is often comforting to only consider limit points in a single direction. Because the sphere is compact, this is easy.

Definition. Let

e \in S^{ν - 1}

, the unit sphere in

R^{ν}

. We say

\tilde{J}

is a limit point in direction

e

if the

n_{j}

in 3.20 obey

n_{j} / | n_{j} | \to e

We let

ℒ_{e}

denote the limit points in direction

e

Suppose

\tilde{J}

is a limit point for

J

with sequence

n_{j}

. Since

S^{ν - 1}

is compact, we can find a subsequence

n_{j (k)}

n_{j (k)} / | n_{j (k)} | \to e_{0}

for some

e_{0}

. The subsequence also converges to

\tilde{J}

\tilde{J}

is a limit point for direction

e_{0}

. Thus,

Theorem 3.6. Let

J

be a Jacobi matrix of the form 3.18 on

ℓ^{2} (R^{ν})

. Suppose 3.19 holds. Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (J) = \bar{⋃_{e \in S^{ν - 1}} ⋃_{\tilde{J} \in ℒ_{e}} σ (\tilde{J})} \end{matrix}

(3.22)

For example, if

ν = 1

, we can consider left and right limit points. Finally, we turn to Schrödinger operators. Here we need some kind of compactness condition of the

- Δ + V

that prevents

V

from oscillating wildly at infinity (but see the next section). We begin with a warmup case that will be the core of our general case:

Theorem 3.7. Let

V

be a uniformly continuous, bounded function on

R^{ν}

. For each

e \in S^{ν}

, call

W

a limit of

V

in direction

e

if and only if there exists

x_{j} \in R^{ν}

with

| x_{j} | \to \infty

and

x_{j} / | x_{j} | \to e

so that

V (x_{j} + y) \to W (y)

. Then, with

ℒ_{e}

the limits in direction

e

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (- Δ + V) = \bar{⋃_{e} ⋃_{W \in ℒ_{e}} σ (- Δ + W)} \end{matrix}

(3.23)

Remarks. 1. While we have not stated it explicitly, there is a result for half-line operators.

2. Uniform continuity means

\forall ɛ, \exists δ

, so

| x - y | < δ \Rightarrow | V (x) - V (y) | < ɛ

. It is not hard to see this is equivalent to

{V (\cdot + y)}_{y \in Z^{ν}}

being equicontinuous.

Proof. As noted, uniform continuity implies uniform equicontinuity so, by the Arzela-Ascoli theorem (see [54] ), given any sequence of balls ${x | | x - y_{j} | \leq L}$ , there is an $e$ and a $W$ in $ℒ_{e}$ so $V (\cdot + y_{j}) \to W (\cdot)$ uniformly on ${x | | x | \leq L}$ . This is the compactness needed for our argument.
To handle localization, pick any nonnegative rotation invariant $C^{\infty}$ function $ψ$ supported on ${x | | x | \leq 1}$ with $\int ψ (x)^{2} d^{ν} x = 1$ . Define $j_{x, L}$ as the operator of multiplication by the function $j_{x, L} (y) = L^{- ν / 2} ψ (L^{- 1} (y - x))$ and note that $\int j_{x, L}^{2} d^{ν} x = 1$ With $A = (- Δ + V - λ)$ and $C = 2 \int - [A, j_{x, L}]^{2} d^{ν} x$ , we have 2.8 with $δ = O (L^{- 2})$ , since $C = L^{- 2} (c_{1} Δ + c_{2})$ for constants $c_{1}$ and $c_{2}$ (for $C$ is translation and rotation invariant and scale covariant). 3.23 follows in the usual way. □

Our final result in this section concerns Schrödinger operators with potentially singular

V

's. As in the last case, we will suppose regularity at infinity. In the next section, we will show how to deal with irregular oscillations near infinity. Recall the Kato class and norm [2, 18] is defined by

Definition.

V : R^{ν} \to R

is said to live in the Kato class,

K_{ν}

, if and only if

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{α ↓ 0} [{sup}_{x} \int_{| x - y | \leq α} | x - y |^{2 - ν} | V (y) | d^{ν} y] = 0 \end{matrix}

(3.24)

(If

ν = 1, 2

, the definition is different. If

ν = 2

| x - y |^{2 - ν}

is replaced by

log [| x - y |^{- 1}]

, and if

ν = 1

, we require

{sup}_{x} \int_{| x - y | \leq 1} | V (y) | d y < \infty

.) The

K_{ν}

norm is defined by

\begin{matrix} ∥ V ∥_{K_{ν}} = {sup}_{x} \int_{| x - y | \leq 1} | x - y |^{2 - ν} | V (y) | d^{ν} y \end{matrix}

(3.25)

We introduce here

Definition.

V : R^{ν} \to R

is called uniformly Kato if and only if

V \in K_{ν}

and

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{y ↓ 0} ∥ V - V (\cdot - y) ∥_{K_{ν}} = 0 \end{matrix}

(3.26)

Example 3.8. Let

\begin{matrix} V (x) = sin (x_{1}^{2}) \end{matrix}

(3.27)

Then

V \in K_{ν}

, but for

(x_{0})_{1}

large and

y = (π / 2 (x_{0})_{1}, y_{2}, . . .)

[(x_{0} + y)_{1}]^{2} = (x_{0})_{1}^{2} + π + O (1 / (x_{0})_{1})

, so for

x

near

x_{0}

V (x) - V (x - y) \sim 2 V (x)

, and because of the

| V (\cdot) |

in 3.25 , we do not have 3.26 . We discuss this further in the next section.

Example 3.9. We say

p

is canonical for

R^{μ}

p = μ / 2

where

μ \geq 3

p > 2

μ = 2

, and

p = 1

μ = 1

. If

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{x} \int_{| x - y | \leq 1} | V (y) |^{p} d^{μ} y < \infty \end{matrix}

(3.28)

then

V \in K_{μ}

(see [18] ). Moreover, if

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{| x | \to \infty} \int_{| x - y | \leq 1} | V (y) |^{p} d^{μ} y = 0 \end{matrix}

(3.29)

it is easy to see that 3.26 holds because

V

is small at infinity, and 3.26 holds for

L^{p}

norm if

V \in L^{p}

Example 3.10. If

π : R^{ν} \to R^{μ}

is a linear map onto

R^{μ}

and

W \in K_{μ}

, then

V (x) = W (π x)

is in

K_{ν}

and the

K_{ν}

norm of

V

is bounded by a

π

-dependent constant times the

K_{μ}

norm of

W

W

obeys 3.26 , so does

V

We will combine Examples 3.9 and 3.10 in our study of the HVZ theorem.

Proposition 3.11. Let

V

be a uniformly Kato potential on

R^{ν}

and let

H_{x} = - Δ + (\cdot - x)

. Then for any sequence

x_{k} \to \infty

, there is a subsequence

x_{k (m)}

and a selfadjoint operator

H_{\infty}

so that for

z \in C \ [a, \infty)

for some

a \in R

, we have

\begin{matrix} ∥ [(H_{x_{k (m)}} - z)^{- 1} - (H_{\infty} - z)^{- 1}] χ_{S} ∥ \to 0 \end{matrix}

(3.30)

for

χ_{S}

, the characteristic function of an arbitrary bounded set.

Remark. Formally,

H_{\infty}

is a Schrödinger operator of the form

H_{0} + V_{\infty}

, but

V_{\infty}

, as constructed, is only in the completion of

K_{ν}

, and that is known to include some distributions (see [25, 47] ).

Proof. It is known that if

W \in K_{ν}

, then

W

- Δ

form bounded with relative bound zero with bounds depending only on

K_{ν}

norms (see [18] ). Thus, since all

V_{x}

's have the same

K_{ν}

norm, we can find

a

H_{x} \geq a

for all

x

. It also means that for each

z \in C \ [a, \infty)

, we can bound

∥ | W |^{1 / 2} (H_{x} - z)^{- 1} Δ^{1 / 2} ∥

c ∥ W ∥_{K_{ν}}

with

c

only

z

-dependent and

∥ V ∥_{K_{ν}}

-dependent.

Let

φ

be a

C^{\infty}

function of compact support and note (constants are

z

∥ V ∥_{K_{ν}}

-dependent)

\begin{matrix} ∥ | W |^{1 / 2} [(H - z)^{- 1}, φ] ∥ & \leq ∥ W^{1 / 2} (H - z)^{- 1} [Δ, φ] (H - z)^{- 1} ∥ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \leq c ∥ W^{1 / 2} (H - z)^{- 1} Δ^{1 / 2} ∥ ∥ \nabla φ ∥ \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

This in turn implies that if

S_{1}

is a ball of radius

r

fixed about

x_{0}

and

S_{2}

a ball of radius

R > r

, then

∥ W^{1 / 2} (1 - χ_{S_{2}}) (H - z)^{- 1} χ_{S_{1}} ∥ \to 0

R \to \infty

. So if

∥ (W_{n} - W) χ_{S} ∥_{K_{ν}} \to 0

for all balls, and

{sup}_{n} ∥ W_{n} ∥_{K_{ν}} < \infty

, then

∥ ((- Δ + W_{n} - z)^{- 1} - (- Δ + W - z)^{- 1}) χ_{S} ∥ \to 0

for all

S

In this way, we see that if

V

is uniformly Kato and

V_{x_{n}} \to V_{\infty}

K_{ν}

uniformly on all balls, then

\begin{matrix} ∥ [(H_{x_{n}} - z)^{- 1} - (H_{\infty} - z)]^{- 1} χ_{S} ∥ \to 0 \end{matrix}

(3.31)

The condition of

V

being uniformly Kato means convolutions of

V

with a

C^{\infty}

approximate identity converge to

V

K_{ν}

norm. Call the approximations

V^{(m)}

. Each is

C^{\infty}

with bounded derivatives and so, by the equicontinuity argument in Theorem 3.7 , we can find

x_{j_{m} (n)}

and

V_{\infty}^{(m)}

∥ [(- Δ + V_{x_{j_{m} (n)}}^{(m)} - z)^{- 1} - (- Δ + V_{\infty}^{(m)} - z)^{- 1}] χ_{S} ∥ \to 0

Since

V_{x}^{(m)} \to V_{x}

uniformly in

x

, a standard

ɛ / 3

argument (see [54] ) shows that one can find

x_{j (m)}

∥ [(H_{x_{m}} - z)^{- 1} - (H_{x_{m^{'}}} - z)^{- 1}] χ_{S} ∥

is small for each

S

m, m^{'} \to \infty

. In this way, we obtain the necessary limit operator. □

Given

V

uniformly Kato, the limits constructed by Proposition 3.11 where

x_{n} / | x_{n} | \to e

are called limits of

H

in direction

e

Theorem 3.12. Let

V

be uniformly Kato. Let

ℒ_{e}

denote the limits of

H

in direction

e

. Then,

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (H) = \bar{⋃_{e} ⋃_{H_{\infty} \in ℒ_{e}} σ (H_{\infty})} \end{matrix}

(3.32)

Proof. We pick $a$ so $H_{x} \geq a$ for all $x$ . Pick $z \in (- \infty, a)$ and let ${\tilde{A}}_{x} = (H_{x} - z)^{- 1}$ . As above, $∥ [{\tilde{A}}_{x}, j_{α}] ∥ \leq c ∥ \nabla j_{α} ∥$ for any $j_{α}$ in $C_{0}^{\infty}$ .
For $λ \in σ_{ess} (H)$ , let $A = (H_{x} - z)^{- 1} - (λ - z)^{- 1}$ . Theorem 2.2 provides the necessary localization estimate. Proposition 3.11 provides the necessary compactness. 3.32 is then proven in the same way as earlier theorems. □

4 Schrodinger Operators With Severe Oscillations at Infinity

This section is an aside to note that the lack of uniformity at infinity that can occur if

V

is merely

K_{ν}

is irrelevant to essential spectrum. We begin with Example 3.8 , the canonical example of severe oscillations at infinity:

Proposition 4.1. Let

\begin{matrix} W (x) = sin (x^{2}) \end{matrix}

(4.1)

(0, \infty)

and let

H_{0} = - \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}}

with

u (0) = 0

boundary conditions. Then

(1) $W (H_{0} + 1)^{- 1}$ is not compact.
(2) $(H_{0} + 1)^{- 1 / 2} W (H_{0} - 1)^{- 1 / 2}$ is compact.

Remarks. 1. Our proof of (1) shows that

W f (H_{0})

is noncompact for any continuous

f ≢ 0

(0, \infty)

2. Consideration of

W = \vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{Q}

potentials goes back to the 1970's; (see [7, 10, 11, 15, 16, 19, 33, 34, 48, 55, 56, 62] ).

Proof. (1) Let

φ

be a nonzero

C_{0}^{\infty} (0, \infty)

function in

L^{2}

and let

\begin{matrix} ψ_{n} (x) = [(H_{0} + 1) φ] (x - n) \end{matrix}

(4.2)

Then

\begin{matrix} ∥ W (H_{0} + 1)^{- 1} ψ_{n} ∥^{2} & = \int W (x)^{2} φ (x - n)^{2} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \frac{1}{2} \int φ (x)^{2} d x - \frac{1}{2} \int cos (2 x^{2}) φ (x - n)^{2} d x \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} \to \frac{1}{2} \int φ (x)^{2} d x \neq 0 \end{matrix}

(4.3)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

by an integration by parts. Since

ψ_{n} ⟶ w 0

, this shows

W (H_{0} - 1)^{- 1}

is not compact.

(2) Since

\frac{d}{d x} [- \frac{1}{2 x} cos (x^{2})] = sin (x^{2}) + O (x^{- 2})

, we see

Q (x) = {lim}_{y \to \infty} - \int_{x}^{y} W (z) d z

exists and obeys

\begin{matrix} | Q (x) | \leq c (x + 1)^{- 1} \end{matrix}

(4.4)

Thus

W = [\frac{d}{d x}, Q]

, so

(H_{0} + 1)^{- 1 / 2} W (H_{0} + 1)^{- 1 / 2} = ((H_{0} + 1)^{- 1 / 2} \frac{d}{d x}) (Q (H_{0} + 1)^{- 1 / 2}) + c c

Since

(H_{0} + 1)^{- 1 / 2} \frac{d}{d x}

is bounded and

Q (H_{0} - 1)^{- 1 / 2}

is compact (by 4.4 ),

(H_{0} + 1)^{- 1 / 2} W (H_{0} + 1)^{- 1 / 2}

is compact. □

Thus, oscillations at infinity are irrelevant for essential spectrum!

While the slick argument above somewhat obscures the underlying physics, the reason such oscillations do not matter has to do with the fact that

σ_{ess} (H)

involves fixed energy, and oscillations only matter at high energy. Our proof below will implement this strategy more directly.

We begin by noting that the proof of Proposition 3.11 implies the following:

Theorem 4.2. Suppose

V_{n}

is a sequence of multiplicative operators so that

(i) For any

ɛ > 0

, there is

C_{ɛ}

so that

\begin{matrix} 〈 φ, | V_{n} | φ 〉 \leq ɛ ∥ \nabla φ ∥^{2} + C_{ɛ} ∥ φ ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

(4.5)

for any

n

and all

φ \in Q (- Δ)

(ii) For any ball

S

about zero,

\begin{matrix} ∥ (- Δ + 1)^{- 1 / 2} χ_{S} (V_{n} - V_{m}) (- Δ + 1)^{- 1 / 2} ∥ \to 0 \end{matrix}

(4.6)

n, m \to \infty

Then for any ball and

z \in C \ [a, \infty)

\begin{matrix} ∥ [(- Δ + V_{n} - z)^{- 1} - (- Δ + V_{m} - z)^{- 1}] χ_{S} ∥ \to 0 \end{matrix}

(4.7)

Moreover, if 4.6 holds as

n \to \infty

with

V_{m}

replaced by some

V_{\infty}

, then

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{n \to \infty} ∥ [(- Δ + V_{n} - z)^{- 1} - (- Δ + V_{\infty} - z)^{- 1}] χ_{S} ∥ = 0 \end{matrix}

(4.8)

As an immediate corollary, we obtain

Theorem 4.3. Let

V \in K_{ν}

obey

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{R \to \infty} {sup}_{| x | \geq R} \int_{| x - y | \leq 1} | x - y |^{- (ν - 2)} | V (y) | d^{ν} y = 0 \end{matrix}

(4.9)

Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (- Δ + V) = [0, \infty) \end{matrix}

(4.10)

Remark. If 4.9 holds, we say that

V

K_{ν}

small at infinity.

Proof. By Theorem 4.2 , if

x_{n} \to \infty

\begin{matrix} ∥ [(- Δ + V (\cdot - x_{n}) - z)^{- 1} - (- Δ - z)^{- 1}] χ_{S} ∥ \to 0 \end{matrix}

(4.11)

so, in a sense,

- Δ

is the unique limit point at infinity. The standard localization argument proves 4.10 . □

Here is the key to studying general

V \in K_{ν}

with no uniformity at infinity:

Proposition 4.4. Let

V_{n}

be a sequence of functions supported in a fixed ball

{x | | x | \leq R}

. Suppose

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{α ↓ 0} {sup}_{n, x} \int_{| x - y | \leq α} | x - y |^{- (ν - 2)} | V_{n} (y) | d^{ν} y = 0 \end{matrix}

(4.12)

Then there is a subsequence

V_{n (j)}

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{j, k \to \infty} ∥ (- Δ + 1)^{- 1 / 2} (V_{n (j)} - V_{n (k)}) (- Δ + 1)^{- 1 / 2} ∥ = 0 \end{matrix}

(4.13)

Proof. Given

K

, let

P_{K}

be the projection in momentum space onto

| p | \leq K

and

Q_{K} = 1 - P_{K}

. 4.12 implies that for any

ɛ > 0

\begin{matrix} 〈 φ, | V_{n} | φ 〉 \leq ɛ ∥ \nabla φ ∥^{2} + C_{ɛ} ∥ φ ∥^{2} \end{matrix}

(4.14)

for a fixed

C_{ɛ}

and all

n

. This implies that

\begin{matrix} ∥ | V_{n} |^{1 / 2} (- Δ + 1)^{- 1 / 2} Q_{K} ∥^{2} \leq ɛ + C_{ɛ} (K^{2} + 1)^{- 1 / 2} \end{matrix}

(4.15)

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{K \to \infty} {sup}_{n} ∥ | V_{n} |^{1 / 2} (- Δ + 1)^{- 1 / 2} Q_{K} ∥ = 0 \end{matrix}

(4.16)

Thus, by a standard diagonalization argument, it suffices to show that for each

K

, there is a subsequence so that

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{j, k \to \infty} ∥ (- Δ + 1)^{- 1 / 2} P_{K} (V_{n (j)} - V_{n (k)}) P_{K} (- Δ + 1)^{- 1 / 2} ∥ = 0 \end{matrix}

(4.17)

In momentum space,

\begin{matrix} Q_{n} = (- Δ + 1)^{- 1 / 2} P_{K} V_{n} P_{K} (- Δ + 1)^{- 1 / 2} \end{matrix}

(4.18)

has an integral kernel

\begin{matrix} Q_{n} (p, q) = χ_{| p | \leq K} (p) (p^{2} + 1)^{- 1 / 2} {\hat{V}}_{n} (p - q) χ_{| q | \leq K} (q) (q^{2} + 1)^{1 / 2} \end{matrix}

(4.19)

By 4.12 and the fixed support hypothesis, we have

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{n} (∥ V_{n} ∥_{L_{1}} + ∥ \vec{x} V_{n} ∥_{L^{1}}) < \infty \end{matrix}

(4.20)

so that

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{n} (| {\hat{V}}_{n} (k) | + | \nabla {\hat{V}}_{n} (k) |) < \infty \end{matrix}

(4.21)

which means

{V_{n} (k) | | k | \leq 2 K}

is a uniformly equicontinuous family, so we can find a subsequence so

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{j, k \to \infty} {sup}_{| k | \leq 2 K} | {\hat{V}}_{n (j)} (k) - {\hat{V}}_{n (ℓ)} (k) | = 0 \end{matrix}

(4.22)

It follows from 4.19 that

\begin{matrix} \int | Q_{n (j)} (p, q) - Q_{n (ℓ)} (p, q) |^{2} d p d q \to 0 \end{matrix}

(4.23)

so 4.17 holds since the Hilbert-Schmidt norm dominates the operator norm. □

Given

V \in K_{ν}

, we say

\tilde{H}

is a limit point at infinity in direction

e

if there exists

x_{n} \to \infty

with

x_{n} / | x_{n} | \to e

so that for the characteristic function of any ball and

z \in C \ [a, \infty)

, we have

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{n \to \infty} ∥ [(- Δ + V (x - x_{n}) - z)^{- 1} - (\tilde{H} - z)^{- 1}] χ_{S} ∥ = 0 \end{matrix}

(4.24)

Let

ℒ_{e}

denote the set of limit points in direction

e

. Then our standard argument using Theorem 4.2 and Proposition 4.4 to get compactness implies

Theorem 4.5. Let

V \in K_{ν}

. Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (- Δ + V) = \bar{⋃_{e} ⋃_{\tilde{H} \in ℒ_{e}} σ (\tilde{H})} \end{matrix}

(4.25)

5 Potentials Asymptotic to Isospectral Tori

As a warmup, we will prove the following result which includes Theorem 1.2 as a special case. We will consider functions

f : R^{ν} \to R^{ν}

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{| x | \to \infty} {sup}_{| y | \leq L} | f (x) - f (x + y) | = 0 \end{matrix}

(5.1)

for each

L

. For example, if

f

C^{1}

outside some ball and

| \nabla f (x) | \to 0

(e.g.,

f (x) = \sqrt{x} \frac{x}{| x |}

), then 5.1 holds.

Theorem 5.1. Let

V

be a function on

R^{ν}

, periodic in

ν

independent directions, so

V

is uniformly Kato (e.g.,

V \in L_{loc}^{p}

with

p

a canonical value for

R^{ν}

). Let

f

obey 5.1 . Let

W (x) = V (x + f (x))

. Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (- Δ + W) = σ (- Δ + V) \end{matrix}

(5.2)

Proof. Let $L$ be the integral lattice generated by some set of periods so $V (x + ℓ) = V (x)$ if $ℓ \in L$ . Let $π : R^{ν} \to R^{ν} / L$ be the canonical projection. If $x_{j} \in R^{ν}$ , since $R^{ν} / L$ is compact, we can find a subsequence $m (j)$ so $π ((x_{m (j)}) + f (x_{m (j)})) \to x_{\infty}$ . Then $- Δ + W (\cdot - x_{m (j)}) \to - Δ + V (x - x_{\infty})$ so the limits are translates of $- Δ + V$ , which all have the same essential spectrum. 5.2 is immediate from Theorem 3.12 . □

Our next result includes Theorem 1.3 .

Theorem 5.2. Let

W : R^{d} \to R

be bounded and continuous, and obey

\begin{matrix} W (x + a) = W (x) \end{matrix}

(5.3)

a \in Z^{d}

. Let

(α_{1}, . . ., α_{d})

be such that

{(α_{1} n, α_{2} n, . . ., α_{d} n) | n \in Z}

is dense in

R^{d} / Z^{d}

(i.e.,

1, α_{1}, . . ., α_{d}

are rationally independent). Let

f : Z \to R^{d}

obey

{lim}_{n \to \infty} {sup}_{| m | \leq L} | f (n) - f (n + m) | = 0

for each

L

. Let

V_{0} (n) = W (α n)

and let

\begin{matrix} V (n) = W (α n + f (n)) \end{matrix}

(5.4)

ℓ^{2} (Z)

, let

(h_{0} u) (n) = u (n + 1) + u (n - 1)

. Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (h_{0} + V) = σ (h_{0} + V_{0}) \end{matrix}

(5.5)

Proof. For each $x \in R^{d} / Z^{d}$ , define
$\begin{matrix} V_{x} (n) = W (α n + x) \end{matrix}$ (5.6)
Then a theorem of Avron-Simon [6] (see [18] ) shows that $σ (h_{0} + V_{x})$ is independent of $x$ (and purely essential). Given any sequence $n_{j}$ , find a sequence $n_{j (m)}$ so $f (n_{j (m)}) \to x_{\infty}$ in $R^{d} / Z^{d}$ . Then $V (n + n_{j (m)}) \to V_{x_{\infty}} (n)$ , so by Theorem 1.7 , $σ_{ess} (h_{0} + V) = \bar{⋃_{x} σ (h_{0} + V_{x}) = σ (h_{0} + V_{0})} Λ$ □

Next, we turn to Theorem 1.5 in the OPUC case. Any set of periodic Verblunsky coefficients

{α_{n}}_{n = 0}^{\infty}

with

\begin{matrix} α_{n + p} = α_{n} \end{matrix}

(5.7)

for some

p

defines a natural function on

C \ {0}

Δ (z) = z^{- p / 2} Tr (T_{p} (z))

, where

T_{p}

is a transfer matrix; see Section 11.1 of [61] . (If

p

is odd,

Δ

is double-valued; see Chapter 11 of [61] for how to handle odd

p

Δ

is real on

\partial D

and

σ_{ess} (C (α))

is a union of

ℓ

disjoint intervals;

ℓ \leq p

(generically,

ℓ = p

). As proven in Chapter 11 of [61] ,

\begin{matrix} {β \in D^{p} | Δ (z; {β_{n mod p}}_{n = 0}^{\infty}) = Δ (z; α)} \equiv T_{α} \end{matrix}

(5.8)

is an

ℓ

-dimensional torus called the isospectral torus. Moreover, the two-sided CMV matrix, defined by requiring 5.8 for all

n \in Z

, has

\begin{matrix} σ (\tilde{C} (β)) = σ_{ess} (C (α)) \end{matrix}

(5.9)

for any

β \in T_{α}

Given two sequences

{κ_{n}}_{n = 0}^{\infty}

and

{λ_{n}}_{n = 0}^{\infty}

D^{p}

, define

\begin{matrix} d (κ, λ) \equiv \sum_{n = 0}^{\infty} e^{- n} | κ_{n} - λ_{n} | \end{matrix}

(5.10)

Convergence in

d

-norm is the same as sequential convergence. We define

d (κ, T_{α}) = {inf}_{β \in T_{α}} d (κ, β)

A sequence

γ_{n}

is called asymptotic to

T_{α}

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{m \to \infty} d ({γ_{n + m}}_{n = 0}^{\infty}, T_{α}) = 0 \end{matrix}

(5.11)

Then the OPUC case of Theorem 1.5 (settling Conjecture 12.2.3 of [61] ) says

Theorem 5.3. Let 5.11 hold. Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (C ({γ_{n}}_{n = 0}^{\infty})) = σ_{ess} (C ({α_{n}}_{n = 0}^{\infty})) \end{matrix}

(5.12)

Proof. The right limit points are a subset of ${\tilde{C} ({β_{n mod p}}_{n = - \infty}^{\infty}) | {β}_{n = 0}^{p - 1} \in T_{α}}$ , so by Theorem 3.1 and 5.9 , 5.12 holds. □

By the same argument using isospectral tori for periodic Jacobi matrices [22, 39, 40, 66] and for Schrödinger operators [20, 44, 49] , one has

Theorem 5.4. If

T

is the isospectral torus of a given periodic Jacobi matrix,

\tilde{J}

, and

J

has Jacobi parameters obeying

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{n \to \infty} {min}_{\tilde{a}, \tilde{b} \in T} \sum_{ℓ = 1}^{\infty} [| a_{n + ℓ} - {\tilde{a}}_{ℓ} | + | b_{n + ℓ} - {\tilde{b}}_{ℓ} |] e^{- ℓ} = 0 \end{matrix}

(5.13)

then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (J) = σ (\tilde{J}) \end{matrix}

(5.14)

Theorem 5.5. Let

T

be the isospectral torus of a periodic potential,

V_{0}

, on

R

and

V

[0, \infty)

K_{1}

and

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{| x | \to \infty} {inf}_{W \in T} \int_{0}^{\infty} | V (y + x) - W (y) | e^{- | y |} d y = 0 \end{matrix}

(5.15)

then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}} + V) = σ (- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}} + V_{0}) \end{matrix}

(5.16)

where

- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}} + V

is defined on

L^{2} (0, \infty)

with

u (0) = 0

boundary conditions and

- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}} + V_{0}

is defined on

L^{2} (R, d x)

The following provides an alternate proof of Theorem 4.3.8 of [60] :

Theorem 5.6. Let

{α_{j}}_{j = 0}^{\infty}

and

{β_{j}}_{j = 0}^{\infty}

be two sequences of Verblunsky coefficients. Suppose there exist

λ_{j} \in \partial D

so that

\begin{matrix} (i) & β_{j} λ_{j} - α_{j} & \to 0 \end{matrix}

(5.17)

\begin{matrix} (ii) & λ_{j + 1} {\bar{λ}}_{j} & \to 1 \end{matrix}

(5.18)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (C ({α_{j}}_{j = 0}^{\infty})) = σ_{ess} (C ({β_{j}}_{j = 0}^{\infty})) \end{matrix}

(5.19)

Proof. Let ${γ_{j}}_{j = - \infty}^{\infty}$ be a right limit of ${β_{j}}_{j = 0}^{\infty}$ , that is, $β_{ℓ + n_{k}} \to γ_{ℓ}$ for some $n_{k}$ . By passing to a subsequence, we can suppose $λ_{n_{j}} \to λ_{\infty}$ , in which case 5.18 implies $λ_{n_{j} + ℓ} \to λ_{\infty}$ for each $ℓ$ fixed. By 5.17 , ${λ_{\infty} γ_{j}}_{j = - \infty}^{\infty}$ is a right limit of ${α_{j}}_{j = 0}^{\infty}$ . Since $σ (\tilde{C} ({λ γ_{j}}_{j = - \infty}^{\infty}))$ is $λ$ -independent, 5.19 follows from 3.15 . □

6 The HVZ Theorem

For simplicity of exposition, we begin with a case with an infinity-heavy particle; eventually we will consider a situation even more general than arbitrary

N

-body systems. Thus,

H

acts on

L^{2} (R^{μ (N - 1)}, d x)

with

\begin{matrix} H = - \sum_{j = 1}^{N - 1} (2 m_{j})^{- 1} Δ_{x_{j}} + \sum_{j = 1}^{N - 1} V_{0 j} (x_{j}) + \sum_{1 \leq i < j \leq N - 1} V_{i j} (x_{j} - x_{i}) \end{matrix}

(6.1)

where

x = (x_{1}, . . ., x_{N - 1})

with

x_{j} \in R^{μ}

. Here the

V

's will be in

K_{μ}

with

K_{μ}

vanishing at infinity.

a

will denote a partition

(C_{1} . . . C_{ℓ})

{0, . . ., N - 1}

onto

ℓ \geq 2

clusters. We say

(i j) \subset a

i, j

are in the same cluster,

C \in a

, and

(i j) ⊄ a

i \in C_{k}

and

j \in C_{m}

with

k \neq m

\begin{matrix} H (a) = H - \sum_{i j ⊄ a i < j} V_{i j} (x_{j} - x_{i}) \end{matrix}

(6.2)

with

x_{0} \equiv 0

. The HVZ theorem says that

Theorem 6.1. If each

V_{i j}

is in

K_{μ}

K_{μ}

vanishing at infinity, then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (H) = \bar{⋃_{a} σ (H (a))} \end{matrix}

(6.3)

Since

H (a)

commutes with translations of clusters,

H

has the form

H (a) = T^{a} \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes H_{a}

where

T^{a}

is a Laplacian on

R^{μ (ℓ - 1)}

, and thus, if

Σ (a) = inf σ (H_{a})

, then

σ (H (a)) = [Σ (a), \infty)

. So 6.3 says

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (H) = [Σ, \infty) Σ \equiv {inf}_{a} Σ (a) \end{matrix}

(6.4)

This result is, of course, well-known, going back to Hunziker [30] , van Winter [67] , and Zhislin [71] , with geometric proofs by Enss [21] , Simon [58] , Sigal [57] , and Garding [23] . Until Garding [23] , all proofs involved some kind of combinatorial argument if only the existence of a Ruelle-Simon partition of unity. Like Garding [23] , we will be totally geometric with a straightforward proof exploiting our general machine.

There is one subtlety to mention. Consider the case

μ = 1

N = 3

, so

R^{μ (N - 1)} = R^{2} = {(x_{1}, x_{2}) | x_{1}, x_{2} \in R}

. There are then clearly six special directions:

\pm (1, 0)

\pm (0, 1)

, and

\pm (\frac{1}{\sqrt{2}}, \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}})

. For any other direction

\hat{e}

, if

x_{n} / | x_{n} | \to \hat{e}

V \to 0

, and the limit in that direction is

H_{0} = H ({0}, {1}, {2})

For

e = \pm (1, 0)

| (x_{n})_{1} | \to \infty

and

| (x_{n})_{1} - (x_{n})_{2} | \to \infty

, so the only limit at infinity would appear to be

H ({0, 2}, {1})

. But this is wrong!

To say

x_{n}

has limit

\pm (1, 0)

says

x_{n} / | x_{n} | \to \pm (1, 0)

, so

(x_{n})_{1} \to \pm \infty

But it does not say

(x_{n})_{2} \to 0

, only

(x_{n})_{2} / (x_{n})_{1} \to 0

. For example, if

(x_{n})_{2} \to \infty

, the limit is

H_{0}

. As we will see (it is obvious!), the limits are precisely

H_{0}

and translates of

H ({0, 2}, {1})

. This still proves 6.3 , but with a tiny bit of extra thought needed.

We want to note a general form for extending HVZ due to Agmon [1] . We consider linear surjections

π_{j} : R^{ν} \to R^{μ_{j}}

with

μ_{j} \leq ν

. Let

V_{j} : R^{μ_{j}} \to R

be in

K_{μ_{j}}

vanishing in

K_{μ_{j}}

sense at infinity. Then

\begin{matrix} H = - Δ + \sum_{j} V_{j} (π_{j} x) \end{matrix}

(6.5)

will be called an Agmon Hamiltonian. Given

e \in S^{ν - 1}

, define

\begin{matrix} H_{e} = - Δ + \sum_{{j | π_{j} e = 0}} V_{j} (π_{j} x) \equiv - Δ + V_{e} \end{matrix}

(6.6)

Notice that since

H_{e}

commutes with

x \to x + λ e

H_{e}

has the form

H_{e} = - Δ_{e} \otimes 1 + 1 \otimes (- Δ_{e^{⊥}} + V_{e})

, so

σ (H_{e}) = [Σ_{e}, \infty)

with

Σ_{e} = inf spec (H_{e})

In general, if

\cap_{j} ker (π_{j}) \neq {0}

H

has some translation invariant degrees of freedom and can, and should, be reduced, but the HVZ theorem holds for the unreduced case (and also for the reduced case, since the reduced

H

which acts on

R^{ν} / \cap_{j} ker (π_{j})

has the form 6.5 ).

So we will not consider reduction in detail.

By using

π_{j}

to write

V_{i j} (x_{i} - x_{j})

in terms of mass scaled reduced coordinates, any

N

-body Hamiltonian has the form 6.5 , and 6.5 allows many-body forces. For the case of Theorem 6.1 , if

e

is given, define

a

to be the partition with

(i j) \subset a

if and only if

e_{i} = e_{j}

(with

e_{0} \equiv 0

Then

H_{e} = H (a)

and 6.7 below is 6.3 .

Theorem 6.2. For any Agmon Hamiltonian,

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (H) = \bar{⋃_{e \in S^{ν - 1}} σ (H_{e})} \end{matrix}

(6.7)

Proof. If $x_{n} / | x_{n} | \to e$ , we can pass to a subsequence where each $π_{j} x_{n}$ has a finite limit, or else has $| π_{j} x_{n} | \to \infty$ . It follows that the limit at infinity for $x_{n}$ is a translation (by $lim π_{j} x_{n}$ ) of $H_{e}$ or of a limit at infinity of $H_{e}$ . Thus, for any $\tilde{H}$ in $ℒ_{e}$ , the set of limits in direction $e$ , $σ (\tilde{H}) \subset σ (H_{e})$ and so, $\bar{⋃_{\tilde{H} \in ℒ_{e}} σ (\tilde{H}}) = σ (H_{e})$ and 6.7 is 4.25 . □

Remark. It is not hard to see that as

e

runs through

S^{ν - 1}

σ (H_{e})

has only finitely many distinct values, so the closure in 6.7 is superfluous.

Because we control

σ_{ess} (H)

directly and do not rely on the a priori fact that one only has to properly locate

inf σ_{ess} (H)

(as do all the proofs quoted above, except the original H,V,Z proofs and Simon [58] ), we can obtain results on

N

-body interactions where the particles move in a fixed background periodic potential with gaps that can produce gaps in

σ_{ess} (H)

7 Additional Applications

We want to consider some additional applications of our machinery that shed light on earlier works:

(a) Sparse bumps, already considered by Klaus [38] using Birman-Schwinger techniques, and Cycon et al. [18] using geometric methods.
(b) Jacobi matrices with $a_{n} \to 0$ and CMV matrices with $| α_{n} | \to 1$ already studied by Maki [46] , Chihara [12] (Jacobi), and by Golinskii [24] (CMV).
(c) Bounded Jacobi matrices and CMV matrices with finite essential spectrum already studied by Krein (in [3] ) and Chihara [13] (Jacobi case), and by Golinskii [24] (CMV case).

Remark. Golinskii [24] for (b) and (c) did not explicitly use CMV matrices but rather studied measures on

\partial D

, but his results are equivalent to statements about CMV matrices.

Here is the sparse potentials result:

Theorem 7.1 ([38, 18] ). Let

W

be an

L^{1}

potential of compact support on

R

. Let

x_{0} < x_{1} < \dots < x_{n} < \dots

x_{n + 1} - x_{n} \to \infty

Let

\begin{matrix} V (x) = \sum_{j = 0}^{\infty} W (x - x_{j}) \end{matrix}

(7.1)

Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}} + V (x)) = σ (- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}} + W) \end{matrix}

(7.2)

Remarks. 1. That

W

has compact support is not needed.

W (x) \to 0

sufficiently fast (e.g., bounded by

x^{- 1 - ɛ}

) will do with no change in proof.

2. Discrete eigenvalues of

- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}} + W

are limit points of eigenvalues for

- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}} + V

Proof. The limits at infinity are $- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}}$ and $- \frac{d^{2}}{d x^{2}} + W (x - a)$ . Now use Theorem 3.12 or Theorem 4.5 . □

Remark. This example is important because it shows that one needs

σ (\tilde{H})

and not just

σ_{ess} (\tilde{H})

As for

a_{n} \to 0

Theorem 7.2 ([12] ). Let

J

be a bounded Jacobi matrix with

a_{n} \to 0

. Let

S

be the limit points of

{b_{n}}_{n = 1}^{\infty}

. Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (J) = S \end{matrix}

(7.3)

Proof. The limit points at infinity are diagonal matrices with diagonal matrix elements in $S$ , and by a compactness argument, every $s \in S$ is a diagonal matrix element of some limit. Theorem 3.3 implies 7.3 . □

Theorem 7.3 ([24] ). Let

C ({α_{n}}_{n = 0}^{\infty})

be a CMV matrix of a sequence of Verblunsky coefficients with

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{n \to \infty} | α_{n} | = 1 \end{matrix}

(7.4)

Let

S

be the set of limit points of

{- {\bar{α}}_{j + 1} α_{j}}

. Then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (C ({α_{j}}_{j = 1}^{\infty})) = S \end{matrix}

(7.5)

Proof. By compactness of $\partial D$ , if $s \in S$ , there is a sequence $n_{j}$ so $α_{n_{j} + ℓ}$ has a limit, $β_{ℓ}$ , for all $ℓ$ and $s = - {\bar{β}}_{1} β_{0}$ . The limiting CMV matrices have $| β_{ℓ} | = 1$ by 7.4 , so are diagonal with matrix elements $- {\bar{β}}_{ℓ + 1} β_{ℓ}$ .
Thus, the spectra of limits lie in $S$ , and by the first sentence, any such $s \in S$ is in the spectrum of a limit. Now use Theorem 3.2 . □

Finally, we turn to the case of finite essential spectrum, first for Jacobi matrices.

Theorem 7.4. Let

x_{1}, . . ., x_{ℓ} \in R

be distinct. A bounded Jacobi matrix

J

has

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (J) = {x_{1}, . . ., x_{ℓ}} \end{matrix}

(7.6)

if and only if

(i)

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{n \to \infty} a_{n} a_{n + 1} . . . a_{n + ℓ - 1} = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.7)

(ii) If

k \leq l

and

n_{j}

is such that

\begin{matrix} a_{n_{j}} \to 0 a_{n_{j} + k} \to 0 \end{matrix}

(7.8)

\begin{matrix} a_{n_{j} + m} \to {\tilde{a}}_{m} \neq 0 & m = 1, 2, . . ., k - 1 \end{matrix}

(7.9)

\begin{matrix} b_{n_{j} + m} \to {\tilde{b}}_{m} & m = 1, 2, . . ., k \end{matrix}

(7.10)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

then the finite

k \times k

matrix,

\begin{matrix} \tilde{J} = (\begin{matrix} {\tilde{b}}_{1} & {\tilde{a}}_{1} \\ {\tilde{a}}_{1} & {\tilde{b}}_{2} & {\tilde{a}}_{2} \\ . . . & . . . & . . . \\ . . . & . . . & {\tilde{a}}_{k} \\ {\tilde{a}}_{k - 1} & {\tilde{b}}_{k} \end{matrix}) \end{matrix}

(7.11)

has spectrum a

k

-element subset of

{x_{1}, . . ., x_{ℓ}}

(iii) Each $x_{j}$ occurs in at least one limit of the form 7.11

Proof. By Theorem 3.3 , 7.6 holds if and only if the limiting $\tilde{J}$ 's have spectrum in ${x_{1}, . . ., x_{ℓ}}$ and there is at least one $\tilde{J}$ with each $x_{j}$ in the spectrum. $\tilde{J}$ is a direct sum of finite and/or semi-infinite and/or infinite pieces. The semi-infinite pieces correspond to Jacobi matrices with nontrivial measures which have infinite spectrum. The two-sided infinite pieces also have infinite spectrum. Finite pieces of length $m$ , which have $a$ 's nonzero, have $m$ points in their spectrum, so no limit can have a direct summand of length $ℓ + 1$ or more. Thus, by compactness, 7.7 holds, that is, any set of $ℓ$ $a$ 's in the limit must have at least one zero.
(ii) is then the assertion that the limits have spectrum in ${x_{1}, . . ., x_{ℓ}}$ , and (iii) is that each $x_{j}$ occurs. □

Theorem 7.5.

(a)

J

obeys

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (J) \subset {x_{1}, . . ., x_{ℓ}} \end{matrix}

(7.12)

if and only if every right limit,

\tilde{J}

, obeys

\begin{matrix} ^{ℓ} \prod_{j = 1} (\tilde{J} - x_{j}) \equiv P (\tilde{J}) = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.13)

(b) $J$ obeys 7.12 if and only if $P (J)$ is compact.

Proof. (a) 7.13 holds if and only if $σ (\tilde{J}) \subset {x_{1}, . . ., x_{ℓ}}$ , so this follows from Theorem 3.3 .
(b) $P (J)$ has finite width. Thus, it is compact if and only if all matrix elements go to zero, which is true (by compactness of translates of $J$ ) if and only if 7.13 holds for all limits. □

We have now come full circle — for Theorem 7.5 (b) is precisely Krein's criterion (stated in [3] ), whose proof is immediate by the spectral mapping theorem and the analysis of the spectrum of compact selfadjoint operators. However, our Theorem 7.4 gives an equivalent, but subtly distinct, way to look at the limits. To see this, consider the case

ℓ = 2

, that is, two limiting eigenvalues

x_{1}

and

x_{2}

This has been computed by Chihara [14] , who found necessary and sufficient conditions for

σ_{ess} (J) = {x_{1}, x_{2}}

are (there is a typo in [14] , where we give

(b_{n} - x_{1}) (b_{n} - x_{2})

in 7.14 ; he gives, after changing to our notation,

(b_{n} - x_{1}) (b_{n + 1} - x_{2})

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{n \to \infty} (a_{n}^{2} + a_{n - 1}^{2} + (b_{n} - x_{1}) (b_{n} - x_{2})) = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.14)

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{n \to \infty} (a_{n} (b_{n} + b_{n + 1} - x_{1} - x_{2})) = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.15)

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{n \to \infty} (a_{n} a_{n + 1}) = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.16)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

To see this from the point of view of

(J - x_{1}) (J - x_{2})

, note that

\begin{matrix} 〈 δ_{n}, (J - x_{1}) (J - x_{2}) δ_{n} 〉 & = a_{n}^{2} + a_{n - 1}^{2} + (b_{n} - x_{1}) (b_{n} - x_{2}) \end{matrix}

(7.17)

\begin{matrix} 〈 δ_{n + 1}, (J - x_{1}) (J - x_{2}) δ_{n} 〉 & = a_{n} (b_{n} - x_{2}) + a_{n} (b_{n + 1} - x_{1}) \end{matrix}

(7.18)

\begin{matrix} 〈 δ_{n + 2}, (J - x_{1}) (J - x_{n}) δ_{n} 〉 & = a_{n} a_{n + 1} \end{matrix}

(7.19)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

If we think in terms of limit points, we get a different-looking set of equations. Consider limits,

\tilde{J}

. Of course, 7.16 is common

\begin{matrix} {\tilde{a}}_{n} {\tilde{a}}_{n + 1} = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.20)

But the conditions on summands of

\tilde{J}

become

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} (7.21) & {\tilde{a}}_{n} = {\tilde{a}}_{n - 1} = 0 \Rightarrow {\tilde{b}}_{n} = x_{1} or {\tilde{b}}_{n} = x_{2} {\tilde{a}}_{n} \neq 0 \Rightarrow {\tilde{b}}_{n + 1} + {\tilde{b}}_{n} = x_{1} + x_{2} and {\tilde{b}}_{n} {\tilde{b}}_{n + 1} - {\tilde{a}}_{n}^{2} = x_{1} x_{2} \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(7.22)

For 7.21 is the result for

1 \times 1

blocks, and 7.22 says

2 \times 2

blocks have eigenvalues

x_{1}

and

x_{2}

. It is an interesting exercise to see that 7.20 – 7.22 are equivalent to

\begin{matrix} {\tilde{a}}_{n}^{2} + {\tilde{a}}_{n + 1}^{2} + ({\tilde{b}}_{n} - x_{1}) ({\tilde{b}}_{n} - x_{2}) = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.23)

\begin{matrix} {\tilde{a}}_{n} ({\tilde{b}}_{n} + {\tilde{b}}_{n + 1} - x_{1} - x_{2}) = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.24)

\begin{matrix} {\tilde{a}}_{n} {\tilde{a}}_{n + 1} = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.25)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

One can analyze CMV matrices similar to the above analysis. The analog of Theorem 7.4 is:

Theorem 7.6. Let

λ_{1}, . . ., λ_{ℓ} \in \partial D

be distinct. A CMV matrix

C

has

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (C) = {λ_{1}, . . ., λ_{ℓ}} \end{matrix}

(7.26)

if and only if

(i)

\begin{matrix} {lim}_{n \to \infty} ρ_{n} ρ_{n + 1} . . . ρ_{n + ℓ - 1} = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.27)

(ii) If

k \leq ℓ

and

n_{j}

is such that

\begin{matrix} ρ_{n_{j}} \to 0 ρ_{n_{j} + k} \to 0 \end{matrix}

(7.28)

\begin{matrix} α_{n_{j} + m} \to {\tilde{α}}_{m} & m = 0, 1, 2, . . ., k - 1, k \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

with

| {\tilde{α}}_{m} | \neq 1

m = 1, . . ., k - 1

(by 7.28 ,

| {\tilde{α}}_{0} | = | {\tilde{α}}_{k} | = 1

), then the matrix (

1 = 1 \times 1

unit matrix)

\begin{matrix} \tilde{C} = [Θ ({\tilde{α}}_{1}) \oplus \dots \oplus Θ ({\tilde{α}}_{k - 1})] [- {\tilde{α}}_{0} 1 \oplus Θ ({\tilde{α}}_{2}) \oplus \dots \oplus Θ ({\tilde{α}}_{k - 2}) \oplus {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{k} 1] \end{matrix}

(7.29)

k

is even and

\begin{matrix} \tilde{C} = [Θ ({\tilde{α}}_{1}) \oplus \dots \oplus Θ ({\tilde{α}}_{k - 2}) \oplus {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{k} 1] [- {\tilde{α}}_{0} 1 \oplus Θ ({\tilde{α}}_{2}) \oplus \dots \oplus Θ ({\tilde{α}}_{k - 1})] \end{matrix}

(7.30)

k

is odd has eigenvalues

k

elements among

λ_{1}, . . ., λ_{ℓ}

(iii) Each of $λ_{1}, . . ., λ_{ℓ}$ occurs as an eigenvalue of some $\tilde{C}$ .

Proof. Same as Theorem 7.4 . □

The analog of Theorem 7.5 is

Theorem 7.7. Let

λ_{1}, . . ., λ_{ℓ} \in \partial D

be distinct.

(a)

C

obeys

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (C) \subset {λ_{j}, . . ., λ_{ℓ}} \end{matrix}

(7.31)

if and only if every right limit

\tilde{C}

obeys

\begin{matrix} ^{ℓ} \prod_{j = 1} (\tilde{C} - λ_{j}) \equiv P (\tilde{C}) = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.32)

(b) $C$ obeys 7.31 if and only if $P (C)$ is compact.

Proof. Same as Theorem 7.5 . □

We have come to Golinskii's OPUC analog of Krein's theorem [24] .

Again, it is illuminating to consider the case

ℓ = 2

. We will deal directly with limits of

α_{j}

, call them

{\tilde{α}}_{j}

. The Theorem 7.6 view of things is

\begin{matrix} \begin{matrix} (7.34) & \begin{matrix} (7.33) & {\tilde{ρ}}_{n} {\tilde{ρ}}_{n + 1} = 0 {\tilde{ρ}}_{n} = {\tilde{ρ}}_{n + 1} = 0 \Rightarrow - {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n + 1} {\tilde{α}}_{n} = λ_{1} or - {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n + 1} {\tilde{α}}_{n} = λ_{2} {\tilde{ρ}}_{n} \neq 0 \Rightarrow - {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n} {\tilde{α}}_{n - 1} - {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n + 1} {\tilde{α}}_{n} = λ_{1} + λ_{2} and {\tilde{α}}_{n - 1} {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n + 1} = λ_{1} λ_{2} \end{matrix} \end{matrix} \end{matrix}

(7.35)

7.35 comes from the fact that the matrix

C

of 7.29 is

\begin{matrix} (\begin{matrix} {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n} & {\tilde{ρ}}_{n} \\ ρ_{n} & - {\tilde{α}}_{n} \end{matrix}) (\begin{matrix} - {\tilde{α}}_{n - 1} & 0 \\ 0 & {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n + 1} \end{matrix}) \end{matrix}

(7.36)

where the determinant is

{\tilde{α}}_{n - 1} {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n + 1}

and the trace is

- {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n} {\tilde{α}}_{n - 1} - {\tilde{α}}_{n} {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n + 1}

From the point of view of Theorem 7.7 , using the CMV matrix is complicated since

(C - λ_{1}) (C - λ_{2})

is, in general, 9-diagonal! As noted by Golinskii [24] , it is easier to use the GGT matrix (see Section 4.1 of [60] ), since it immediately implies

\begin{matrix} {\tilde{ρ}}_{n} {\tilde{ρ}}_{n + 1} = 〈 δ_{n + 2}, G^{2} δ_{n} 〉 = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.37)

and once that holds,

G

becomes tridiagonal! Thus, one gets from

〈 δ_{n + 1}, (G - λ_{1}) (G - λ_{2}) δ_{n} 〉 = 0

that

\begin{matrix} {\tilde{ρ}}_{n} (- {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n} {\tilde{α}}_{n - 1} - {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n + 1} {\tilde{α}}_{n} - λ_{1} - λ_{2}) = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.38)

and from

〈 δ_{n}, (G - λ_{1}) (G - λ_{2}) δ_{n} 〉 = 0

\begin{matrix} (- {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n + 1} {\tilde{α}}_{n} - λ_{1}) (- {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n} {\tilde{α}}_{n - 1} - λ_{2}) - {\tilde{ρ}}_{n}^{2} {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n + 1} {\tilde{α}}_{n - 1} - ρ_{n + 1}^{2} {\bar{\tilde{α}}}_{n - 2} {\tilde{α}}_{n + 1} = 0 \end{matrix}

(7.39)

Again, it is an interesting exercise that 7.33 – 7.35 are equivalent to 7.37 – 7.39 .

8 Magnetic Fields

A magnetic Hamiltonian acts on

R^{ν}

via

\begin{matrix} H (a, V) = - \sum_{j = 1}^{ν} (\partial_{j} - i a_{j})^{2} + V \end{matrix}

(8.1)

where

a

is vector-valued. The magnetic field is the two-form defined by

\begin{matrix} B_{j k} = \partial_{j} a_{k} - \partial_{k} a_{j} \end{matrix}

(8.2)

λ

is a scalar function, then

\begin{matrix} \tilde{a} = a + \nabla λ \end{matrix}

(8.3)

produces the same

B

, and one has gauge covariance

\begin{matrix} H (\tilde{a}, V) = e^{i λ} H (a, V) e^{- i λ} \end{matrix}

(8.4)

While the mathematically “natural” conditions on

a

are either

a \in L_{loc}^{4}

\nabla \cdot a \in L_{loc}^{2}

, or

a \in L_{loc}^{2}

(see [18, 43, 59] ), for simplicity, we will suppose here that

B

is bounded and uniformly Hölder continuous, that is, for some

δ > 0

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{x, j, k} | B_{j k} (x) | < \infty {sup}_{j, k, | x - y | \leq 1} | x - y |^{- δ} | B_{j k} (x) - B_{j k} (y) | < \infty \end{matrix}

(8.5)

It is certainly true that one can allow suitable local singularities. We will see later what 8.5 implies about choices of

a

. With this kind of regularity on

B

, it is easy to prove that for a shift between different gauges of the type we consider below, the formal gauge covariance 8.4 is mathematically valid. Indeed, more singular gauge changes can be justified (see Leinfelder [42] ).

a_{j} \to 0

at infinity, it is easy to implement the ideas of Sections 3 and 4 with no change in the meaning of limit point at infinity; the limits all have no magnetic field. But as is well known,

a_{j} \to 0

requires, very roughly speaking, that

B

goes to zero at least as fast as

| x |^{- 1 - ɛ}

, so this does not even capture all situations where

B_{i j} \to 0

at infinity. Miller [50] (see also [18, 51] ) noted that, in two and three dimensions, the way to control

B \to 0

at infinity is to make suitable gauge changes in Weyl sequences — and that will also be the key to what we do here.

We will settle for stating a very general limit theorem and not attempt to apply this theorem to recover the rather extensive literature on HVZ theorems and on essential spectra in periodic magnetic fields [4, 9, 17, 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 35, 52, 53, 65, 68, 69, 70, 72, 73, 74, 75] . We have no doubt that can be done and that the ideas below will be useful in future studies.

We note that it should be possible to extend Theorem 5.1 with “slipped periodic” magnetic fields.

Definition. A set of gauges,

a_{x}

, depending on

x

is said to be “regular at infinity” if and only if, for every

R

, we have for some

δ > 0

\begin{matrix} {sup}_{| x - y | \leq R} | a_{x} (y) | < \infty {sup}_{x, y, z | y - z | < 1 | x - y | < R} | y - z |^{- δ} | a_{x} (y) - a_{x} (z) | < \infty \end{matrix}

(8.6)

Proposition 8.1. If 8.5 holds, there exists a set of gauges regular at infinity.

Proof. The transverse gauge,

{\vec{a}}_{x_{0}}

, based at

x_{0}

is defined by

\begin{matrix} a_{x_{0}; j} (x_{0} + y) = \sum_{k} [\int_{0}^{1} s B_{k j} (x_{0} + s y) d s] y_{k} \end{matrix}

(8.7)

That this is a gauge is known (see below), and clearly, if

| x_{0} - y | \leq R

| {\vec{a}}_{x_{0}} (y) | \leq \frac{1}{2} R {sup}_{x} ∥ B (x) ∥

and if

| y - z | < 1

and

| x_{0} - y | < R

| {\vec{a}}_{x_{0}} (y) - {\vec{a}}_{x_{0}} (z) | \leq \frac{1}{2} {{sup}_{x} ∥ B (x) ∥ + (R - 1) {sup}_{| y - z | \leq 1} [| y - z |^{- δ} ∥ B (y) - B (z) ∥]} Λ

□

Remarks. 1. We will call the choice 8.7 the local transverse gauge.

2. Transverse gauge goes back at least to Uhlenbeck [64] , who calls them exponential gauge. They have been used extensively by Loss-Thaller [45] (see also Thaller [63] ) to study scattering.

3. To see that 8.7 is a gauge is a messy calculation if done directly, but there is a lovely indirect argument of Uhlenbeck [64] . Without loss, take

x_{0} = 0

. Call a gauge transverse if

\vec{a} (0) = 0

and

\vec{x} \cdot \vec{a} = 0

Transverse gauges exist, for if

{\vec{a}}_{0}

is any gauge and

\begin{matrix} φ (\vec{x}) = - \int_{0}^{1} \vec{x} \cdot a_{0} (s \vec{x}) d s \end{matrix}

(8.8)

then

\vec{x} \cdot \nabla φ = r \frac{\partial}{\partial r} φ = - \vec{x} \cdot a_{0} (x)

, so

a = a_{0} + \nabla φ

is transverse. Next, note that if

\vec{a}

is a transverse gauge, then

\begin{matrix} \sum x_{k} B_{k j} & = (x \cdot \nabla) a_{j} - {\vec{\nabla}}_{j} (x \cdot a) + a_{j} \end{matrix}

\begin{matrix} = \frac{\partial}{\partial r} r a_{j} \end{matrix}

(8.9)

\begin{matrix}  \end{matrix}

Integrating 8.9 shows 8.7 with

y = 0

is not only a gauge but the unique transverse gauge.

a_{x}

is a set of gauges regular at infinity, we say

\tilde{H}

is a limit at infinity of

H (a, V)

in direction

\hat{e}

if and only if with

\begin{matrix} (U_{x} φ) (y) = φ (y - x) \end{matrix}

(8.10)

we have that for some sequence

x_{n}

| x_{n} | \to \infty

x_{n} / | x_{n} | \to e

, and for each

R < \infty

and

z \in C \ [α, \infty)

\begin{matrix} U_{x_{n}} ((H (a_{x_{n}}, V) - z)^{- 1}) U_{x_{n}}^{- 1} χ_{R} \to (\tilde{H} - z)^{- 1} χ_{R} \end{matrix}

(8.11)

with

χ_{R}

the characteristic function of a ball of radius

R

about

0

. As usual,

ℒ_{e}

denotes the limits at infinity in direction

e

Theorem 8.2. If

V \in K_{ν}

and

B

obeys 8.5 , then

\begin{matrix} σ_{ess} (H (a, V)) = \bar{⋃_{e \in S^{ν - 1}} ⋃_{\tilde{H} \in ℒ_{e}} σ (\tilde{H})} \end{matrix}

(8.12)

In 8.12 , we get the same union if, instead of all regular gauges at infinity, we take only the local transverse gauges.

Proof. By using gauge-transformed Weyl sequences as in [18] , it is easy to see the right side of 8.12 is contained in $σ_{ess} (H (a, V))$ . To complete the proof, we need only show the right side, restricted to local transverse gauges, contains $σ_{ess} (H (a, V))$ .
Localization extends effortlessly since $[j, H (a, V)] = \vec{\nabla} j \cdot (\vec{\nabla} - i \vec{a}) + (\vec{\nabla} - i \vec{a}) \cdot \vec{\nabla} j$ and $∥ (\vec{\nabla} - i \vec{a}) φ ∥^{2}$ is controlled by $H (a, V)$ . Thus, we only need compactness of the gauge-transformed operators. Since 8.6 says the $a_{x}$ 's translated to $0$ are uniformly equicontinuous, compactness of the $a$ 's is immediate. $V$ 's are handled as in Section 4 . □

References

S. Agmon, Lectures on Exponential Decay of Solutions of Second-Order Elliptic Equations: Bounds on Eigenfunctions of $N$ -body Schrödinger operators, Mathematical Notes, 29, Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ; University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo, 1982.
M. Aizenman and B. Simon, Brownian motion and Harnack's inequality for Schrödinger operators, Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 35 (1982), 209–273.
N.I. Akhiezer and M. Krein, Some Questions in the Theory of Moments, Transl. Math. Monographs, Vol. 2, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1962; Russian original, 1938.
J. Avron, I. Herbst, and B. Simon, Schrödinger operators with magnetic fields, II. Separation of center of mass in homogeneous magnetic fields, Ann. Phys. 114 (1978), 431–451.
J. Avron, P. van Mouche, and B. Simon, On the measure of the spectrum for the almost Mathieu operator, Comm. Math. Phys. 132 (1990), 103–118.
J. Avron and B. Simon, Almost periodic Schrödinger operators, II. The integrated density of states, Duke Math. J. 50 (1983), 369–391.
M.L. Baeteman and K. Chadan, Scattering theory with highly singular oscillating potentials, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Sect. A (N.S.) 24 (1976), 1–16.
D. Barrios Rolanía and G. López Lagomasino, Ratio asymptotics for polynomials orthogonal on arcs of the unit circle, Constr. Approx. 15 (1999), 1–31.
P. Briet and H.D. Cornean, Locating the spectrum for magnetic Schrödinger and Dirac operators, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 27 (2002), 1079–1101.
K. Chadan, The number of bound states of singular oscillating potentials, Lett. Math. Phys. 1 (1975/1977), 281–287.
K. Chadan and A. Martin, Inequalities on the number of bound states in oscillating potentials, Comm. Math. Phys. 53 (1977), 221–231.
T.S. Chihara, The derived set of the spectrum of a distribution function, Pacific J. Math. 35 (1970), 571–574.
T.S. Chihara, An Introduction to Orthogonal Polynomials, Mathematics and Its Applications, 13, Gordon and Breach, New York-London-Paris, 1978.
T.S. Chihara, The three term recurrence relation and spectral properties of orthogonal polynomials, in “Orthogonal Polynomials” (Columbus, OH, 1989), pp. 99–114, NATO Adv. Sci. Inst. Ser. C Math. Phys. Sci., 294, Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1990.
M. Combescure, Spectral and scattering theory for a class of strongly oscillating potentials, Comm. Math. Phys. 73 (1980), 43–62.
M. Combescure and J. Ginibre, Spectral and scattering theory for the Schrödinger operator with strongly oscillating potentials, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Sect. A (N.S.) 24 (1976), 17–30.
H.D. Cornean, On the essential spectrum of two-dimensional periodic magnetic Schrödinger operators, Lett. Math. Phys. 49 (1999), 197–211.
H.L. Cycon, R.G. Froese, W. Kirsch, and B. Simon, Schrödinger Operators With Application to Quantum Mechanics and Global Geometry, Texts and Monographs in Physics, Springer, Berlin, 1987.
D. Damanik, D. Hundertmark, and B. Simon, Bound states and the Szegő condition for Jacobi matrices and Schrödinger operators, J. Funct. Anal. 205 (2003), 357–379.
B.A. Dubrovin, V.B. Matveev, and S.P. Novikov, Nonlinear equations of Korteweg-de Vries type, finite-band linear operators and Abelian varieties, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 31 (1976), no. 1(187), 55–136 [Russian].
V. Enss, A note on Hunziker's theorem, Comm. Math. Phys. 52 (1977), 233–238.
H. Flaschka and D.W. McLaughlin, Canonically conjugate variables for the Korteweg-de Vries equation and the Toda lattice with periodic boundary conditions, Progr. Theoret. Phys. 55 (1976), 438–456.
L. Gårding, On the essential spectrum of Schrödinger operators, J. Funct. Anal. 52 (1983), 1–10.
L. Golinskii, Singular measures on the unit circle and their reflection coefficients, J. Approx. Theory 103 (2000), 61–77.
A. Gulisashvili, On the Kato classes of distributions and the BMO-classes, in “Differential Equations and Control Theory” (Athens, OH, 2000), pp. 159–176, Lecture Notes in Pure and Appl. Math., 225, Dekker, New York, 2002.
B. Helffer, On spectral theory for Schrödinger operators with magnetic potentials, in “Spectral and Scattering Theory and Applications,” pp. 113–141, Adv. Stud. Pure Math., 23, Math. Soc. Japan, Tokyo, 1994.
B. Helffer and A. Mohamed, Caractérisation du spectre essentiel de l'opérateur de Schrödinger avec un champ magnétique, Ann. Inst. Fourier (Grenoble) 38 (1988), 95–112.
R. Hempel and I. Herbst, Strong magnetic fields, Dirichlet boundaries, and spectral gaps, Comm. Math. Phys. 169 (1995), 237–259.
G. Hoever, On the spectrum of two-dimensional Schrödinger operators with spherically symmetric, radially periodic magnetic fields, Comm. Math. Phys. 189 (1997), 879–890.
W. Hunziker, On the spectra of Schrödinger multiparticle Hamiltonians, Helv. Phys. Acta 39 (1966), 451–462.
V. Iftimie, Opérateurs différentiels magnétiques: Stabilité des trous dans le spectre, invariance du spectre essentiel et applications, Comm. Partial Differential Equations 18 (1993), 651–686.
Y. Inahama and S. Shirai, The essential spectrum of Schrödinger operators with asymptotically constant magnetic fields on the Poincaré upper-half plane, J. Math. Phys. 44 (2003), 89–106.
R.S. Ismagilov, The spectrum of the Sturm-Liouville equation with oscillating potential, Math. Notes 37 (1985), 476–482; Russian original in Mat. Zametki 37 (1985), 869–879, 942.
A.R. Its and V.B. Matveev, Coordinatewise asymptotic behavior for Schrödinger's equation with a rapidly oscillating potential, in “Mathematical Questions in the Theory of Wave Propagation” Vol. 7, Zap. Naučn. Sem. Leningrad Otdel. Mat. Inst. Steklov (LOMI) 51 (1975), 119–122, 218 [Russian].
A. Iwatsuka, The essential spectrum of two-dimensional Schrödinger operators with perturbed constant magnetic fields, J. Math. Kyoto Univ. 23 (1983), 475–480.
J. Janas and S. Naboko, Spectral analysis of selfadjoint Jacobi matrices with periodically modulated entries, J. Funct. Anal. 191 (2002), 318–342.
J. Janas, S. Naboko, and G. Stolz, Spectral theory for a class of periodically perturbed unbounded Jacobi matrices: Elementary methods, J. Comput. Appl. Math. 171 (2004), 265–276.
M. Klaus, On $- d^{2} / d x^{2} + V$ where $V$ has infinitely many “bumps”, Ann. Inst. H. Poincaré Sect. A (N.S.) 38 (1983), 7–13.
I.M. Krichever, Algebraic curves and nonlinear difference equations, Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 33 (1978), no. 4(202), 215–216 [Russian].
I.M. Krichever, Appendix to “Theta-functions and nonlinear equations” by B.A. Dubrovin, Russian Math. Surveys 36 (1981), 11–92 (1982); Russian original in Uspekhi Mat. Nauk 36 (1981), no. 2(218), 11–80.
Y. Last and B. Simon, Eigenfunctions, transfer matrices, and absolutely continuous spectrum of one-dimensional Schrödinger operators, Invent. Math. 135 (1999), 329–367.
H. Leinfelder, Gauge invariance of Schrödinger operators and related spectral properties, J. Oper. Theory 9 (1983), 163–179.
H. Leinfelder and C. Simader, Schrödinger operators with singular magnetic vector potentials, Math. Z. 176 (1981), 1–19.
B.M. Levitan, Inverse Sturm-Liouville Problems, VNU Science Press, Utrecht, 1987.
M. Loss and B. Thaller, Scattering of particles by long-range magnetic fields, Ann. Physics 176 (1987), 159–180.
D. Maki, A note on recursively defined orthogonal polynomials, Pacific J. Math. 28 (1969), 611–613.
A. Manavi and J. Voigt, Maximal operators associated with Dirichlet forms perturbed by measures, Potential Anal. 16 (2002), 341–346.
V.B. Matveev and M.M. Skriganov, Wave operators for a Schrödinger equation with rapidly oscillating potential, Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 202 (1972), 755–757 [Russian].
H.P. McKean and P. van Moerbeke, The spectrum of Hill's equation, Invent. Math. 30 (1975), 217–274.
K. Miller, Bound States of Quantum Mechanical Particles in Magnetic Fields, Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1982.
K. Miller and B. Simon, Quantum magnetic Hamiltonians with remarkable spectral properties, Phys. Rev. Lett. 44 (1980), 1706–1707.
S. Nakamura, Band spectrum for Schrödinger operators with strong periodic magnetic fields, in “Partial Differential Operators and Mathematical Physics” (Holzhau, 1994), pp. 261–270, Oper. Theory Adv. Appl., 78, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1995.
M. Pascu, On the essential spectrum of the relativistic magnetic Schrödinger operator, Osaka J. Math. 39 (2002), 963–978.
M. Reed and B. Simon, Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics, I: Functional Analysis, Academic Press, New York, 1972.
A. Sarkar, Spectrum of a Schrödinger operator with a class of damped oscillating potentials, J. Indian Inst. Sci. 60 (1978), 65–71.
M. Schechter, Wave operators for oscillating potentials, Lett. Math. Phys. 2 (1977/1978), 127–132.
I.M. Sigal, Geometric methods in the quantum many-body problem. Nonexistence of very negative ions, Comm. Math. Phys. 85 (1982), 309–324.
B. Simon, Geometric methods in multiparticle quantum systems, Comm. Math. Phys. 55 (1977), 259–274.
B. Simon, Maximal and minimal Schrödinger forms, J. Oper. Theory 1 (1979), 37–47.
B. Simon, Orthogonal Polynomials on the Unit Circle, Part 1: Classical Theory, AMS Colloquium Series, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005.
B. Simon, Orthogonal Polynomials on the Unit Circle, Part 2: Spectral Theory, AMS Colloquium Series, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2005.
M.M. Skriganov, The spectrum of a Schrödinger operator with rapidly oscillating potential, in “Boundary Value Problems of Mathematical Physics,” Vol. 8, Trudy Mat. Inst. Steklov. 125 (1973), 187–195, 235 [Russian].
B. Thaller, The Dirac Equation, Texts and Monographs in Physics, Springer, Berlin, 1992.
K. Uhlenbeck, Removable singularities in Yang-Mills fields, Comm. Math. Phys. 83 (1982), 11–29.
T. Umeda and M. Nagase, Spectra of relativistic Schrödinger operators with magnetic vector potentials, Osaka J. Math. 30 (1993), 839–853.
P. van Moerbeke, The spectrum of Jacobi matrices, Invent. Math. 37 (1976), 45–81.
C. van Winter, Theory of finite systems of particles. I. The Green function, Mat.-Fys. Skr. Danske Vid. Selsk. 1 (1964), 1–60.
S.A. Vugalter, Limits on stability of positive molecular ions in a homogeneous magnetic field, Comm. Math. Phys. 180 (1996), 709–731.
S.A. Vugalter and G.M. Zhislin, On the localization of the essential spectrum of energy operators for $n$ -particle quantum systems in a magnetic field, Theoret. and Math. Phys. 97 (1993), 1171–1185 (1994); Russian original in Teoret. Mat. Fiz. 97 (1993), 94–112.
S.A. Vugalter and G.M. Zhislin, Spectral properties of Hamiltonians with a magnetic field under fixation of pseudomomentum, Theoret. and Math. Phys. 113 (1997), 1543–1558 (1998); Russian original in Teoret. Mat. Fiz. 113 (1997), 413–431.
G.M. Zhislin, A study of the spectrum of the Schrödinger operator for a system of several particles, Trudy Moskov. Mat. Obšč. 9 (1960), 81–120 [Russian].
G.M. Zhislin, The essential spectrum of many-particle systems in magnetic fields, St. Petersburg Math. J. 8 (1997), 97–104; Russian original in Algebra i Analiz 8 (1996), 127–136.
G.M. Zhislin, Localization of the essential spectrum of the energy operators of quantum systems with a nonincreasing magnetic field, Theoret. and Math. Phys. 107 (1996), 720–732 (1997); Russian original in Teoret. Mat. Fiz. 107 (1996), 372–387.
G.M. Zhislin, Spectral properties of Hamiltonians with a magnetic field under fixation of pseudomomentum. II, Theoret. and Math. Phys. 118 (1999), 12–31; Russian original in Teoret. Mat. Fiz. 118 (1999), 15–39.
G.M. Zhislin and S.A. Vugalter, Geometric methods for many-particle Hamiltonians with magnetic fields, in “Advances in Differential Equations and Mathematical Physics (Atlanta, GA, 1997), pp. 121–135, Contemp. Math., 217, American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 1998.

March 7, 2005

Yoram Last 1 , 3 and Barry Simon 2 , 3