2000 Mathematics Subject Classification. Primary 58J40; Secondary 32V05, 35H10, 53D10.
Intrinsic notion of principal symbol for the Heisenberg calculus
Raphaël Ponge
Department of Mathematics, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA. E-mail address : ponge@math.ohio-state.edu
-
Abstract.
In this paper we define an intrinsic notion of principal for the Hypoelliptic calculus on Heisenberg manifolds. More precisely, the principal symbol of a
DO appears as a homogeneous section over the linear dual of the tangent Lie algebra bundle of the manifold. This definition is an important step towards using global
-theoretic tools in the Heisenberg setting, such as those involved in the elliptic setting for proving the Atiyah-Singer index theorem or the regularity of the eta invariant. On the other hand, the intrinsic definition of the principal symbol enables us to give an intrinsic sense to the model operator of
DO at point and to give a definitive proof that the Heisenberg calculus is modelled at each point by the calculus of left-invariant
DO's on the tangent group at the point. This also allows us to define an intrinsic Rockland condition for
DO's which is shown to be equivalent to the invertibility of the principal symbol, provided that the Levi form has constant rank. Furthermore, we review the main hypoellipticity results on Heisenberg manifolds in terms of the results of the paper. In particular, we complete the treatment of the Kohn Laplacian of [BG] and establish that for the horizontal sublaplacian the invertibility of the principal symbol is equivalent to some condition on the Levi form, called condition
. Incidentally, this paper provides us with a relatively up-to-date overview of the main facts about the Heisenberg calculus.
1 Introduction
The aim of this paper is to define a global and intrinsic notion of the principal symbol for the hypoelliptic calculus on Heisenberg manifolds, along with some applications. On the way, we complete the treatment of the Kohn Laplacian of [BG] and gives a complete treatment for the horizontal sublaplacian on a Heisenberg manifold acting on forms.
Recall that a Heisenberg manifold
consists of a manifold
together with a distinguished hyperplane bundle
. This definition includes as main examples the Heisenberg group and its quotients by cocompact lattices, (codimension 1) foliations, CR and contact manifolds, as well as the confolations of [ET] . Moreover, in this context the natural operators such as Hörmander's sum of squares, the Kohn Laplacian, the horizontal sublaplacian or the contact Laplacian of [Ru] , while they may be hypoelliptic, are definitely not elliptic. Thus, the standard elliptic calculus cannot be used efficiently to study these operators.
The relevant substitute to the elliptic calculus is the Heisenberg calculus of Beals-Greiner [BG] and Taylor [Tay] , which extends seminal works of Boutet de Monvel [Bo1] , Dynin ([Dy1] , [Dy2] ) and Folland-Stein [FS] (see also [BGH] , [CGGP] , [EMM] , [Gri] , [H¨3] ). The idea in the Heisenberg calculus,which goes back to Elias Stein, is to build a pseudodifferential calculus on Heisenberg manifoldsmodelled on that of left-invariant pseudodifferential operators on nilpotent groups. This stems fromthe fact that the relevant tangent structure for a Heisenberg manifold
is that of a bundle
of two-step nilpotent Lie groups (see [BG] , [Be] , [EMM] , [FS] , [Gro] , [Po2] , [Ro2] ). In the original monographs [BG] and [Tay] the principal symbol is only defined in local coordinates,so the definition a priori depends on the choice of these coordinates. In the special case of a contactmanifold, an intrinsic definition have been given in the unpublished book [EMM] , as a section overa bundle of jets of vector fields representing the tangent group bundle of the contact manifold.This approach is similar to that of Melrose [Me2] in the setting of the
-calculus for manifolds withboundary. In this paper we give an intrinsic definition of the principal symbol, valid for an arbitraryHeisenberg manifold, in terms of the description of the tangent Lie group bundle in [Po2] . As aconsequence, we can reformulate in a global fashion previously known criterions for existence ofparametrices in the Heisenberg calculus. In particular, we can define a Rockland condition foroperators in the Heisenberg calculus in a fully intrinsic way and show that this condition allowsto determine the existence of a parametrix when the Levi form of the Heisenberg manifold hasconstant rank. More importantly, since our approach of the principal symbol connects nicely with the constructionof the tangent groupoid of a Heisenberg manifold in [Po2] , this presumably allows us to make useof global
-theoretic arguments in the Heisenberg setting, as those involved in the proof of the(full) Atiyah-Singer index theorem ([AS1] , [AS2] ) and the regularity of the eta invariant for generalselfadjoint elliptic
DO's ([APS] , [Gi] ) or, equivalently, the vanishing of the noncommutative residueof a
DO projection (see [Wo1] , [BL] , [Po1] ). More precisely, this paper can also be seen as a steptowards extending the aforementioned results to the Heisenberg setting. On the other hand, for strictly pseudoconvex CR manifolds this should allows us to recover andto extend in a rather simple way a recent result of Hirachi [Hi] on the invariance of the integral ofthe logarithmic singularity of the Szegö kernel (see also [Bo2] ), in connection with the program of Fefferman [Fe] for the Szegö and the Bergman kernels on strictly pseudoconvex complex domains.
1.1 Intrinsic notion of principal symbol for the Heisenberg calculus
Given a Heisenberg a manifold
and a vector bundle
we let
denote the linear dual of the Lie algebra bundle associated to the tangent Lie group bundle. For
we let
denote the class of
DO's of order
acting on section of
and, letting
be the canonical projection, we define
as the space of sections
such that for any
we have
|
(1.1)
|
The principal symbol of an operator
is obtained as an element of
as follows. As shown in [Po2] the tangent Lie group bundle
of a Heisenberg manifold
can be described as the bundle
endowed with a law group encoded by the Levi form
such that, for sections
and
of
, we have
|
(1.2)
|
It is also shown in [Po2] that at a point
this approach to
is equivalent to the extrinsic one in [BG] in terms of the Lie group of a nilpotent Lie algebra of jets of vector fields at point of a local chart. This is made by means of a special kind of privileged coordinates at
, called Heisenberg coordinates.
As a byproduct of the equivalence between the two approaches, we obtain that in Heisenberg coordinates a Heisenberg diffeomorphism
is well approximated by the induced isomorphism
between the tangent Lie group bundles (see [Po2] ). This allows us to carry out the proof of the invariance by Heisenberg diffeomorphisms of the Heisenberg calculus in Heisenberg coordinates, rather than in privileged coordinates as in [BG] (see Section 8 ).
As a consequence we can prove:
Theorem 1.1.
Let
be a
DO of order
. Then there exists a unique symbol a unique symbol
such that, for any
, the symbol
agrees in trivializing Heisenberg coordinates centered at
with the principal symbol of
at
.
We call the symbol
the principal symbol of
. In order to distinguish it from the other definition of the principal symbol in local coordinates, we will sometimes refer to it as the global principal symbol, while the other principal symbol will be called the local principal symbol.
Let us now describe the main properties of the global principal symbol. First, we have:
Proposition 1.2.
For every
the principal symbol map
gives rise to a linear isomorphism
.
If
has principal symbol
then for any
we define the model operator
of
at
as the operator as the left-invariant
DO on
with symbol
, that is, the left-convolution operator with the inverse Fourier transform of
(see Definition 4.7 ).
On the other hand, for any
the product law on
defines a product for symbols,
|
(1.3)
|
This product depends smoothly enough on
to give rise to a product
|
(1.4)
|
such that for
,
, we have
|
(1.5)
|
This comes from the fact that in local coordinates the above product is nicely related to the product of local homogeneous symbols of [BG] . As a consequence we get:
Proposition 1.3.
For
let
and suppose that
or
is properly supported.
1) We have
.
2) At every point
the model operator of
is
.
Next, it is shown in [BG] that the transpose of a
DO is again a
DO. Thanks to the results of [Po2] , we can prove a version of this result in Heisenberg coordinates (see Section 9 ). As a consequence, we identify the principal symbol of transpose, for we get:
Proposition 1.4.
Let
have principal symbol
. Then: 1) The principal symbol of the transpose
is
; 2) If
is the model operator of
at
, then the model operator of
at
is the transpose operator
.
Assume now that
is endowed with a positive density and
with a Hermitian metric, and let
be the associated
-Hilbert space. Then we have:
Proposition 1.5.
Let
have principal symbol
. Then: 1) The principal symbol of the adjoint
is
.
2) If
denotes the model operator of
at
then the model operator of
at
is the adjoint
of
.
1.2 Rockland condition and hypoellipticity
It is shown in [BG] that, in local coordinates, the invertibility of the local principal symbol is equivalent to the existence of a
DO parametrix. Thanks to Proposition 1.3 and the relationship in local coordinates between the local and global principal symbols, we can reformulate this result in a global fashion. More precisely, we have:
Proposition 1.6.
Let
be a
DO of order
. Then the following are equivalent:
1) The principal symbol
of
is invertible with respect to the convolution product for homogeneous symbols; 2) The operator
admits a parametrix
in
.
Furthermore, if 1) and 2) hold then
is hypoelliptic with gain of
-derivatives.
In fact, it may be difficult to determine whether the principal symbol of a
DO is invertible because in general the convolution product for symbols is not the pointwise product of symbols. In particular, in the Heisenberg setting, the product of principal symbols is neither commutative, nor microlocal.
Nevertheless, to determine the invertibility of the principal symbol we can make use of a general representation theoretic criterion, the Rockland condition: a
DO-operator
satisfies the Rockland condition at a point
when its model operator
satisfies the Rockland condition on
, i.e., for every nontrivial irreducible unitary representation
of
some (unbounded) operator
acting on the representation space of
is injective on the space of smooth vectors of
.
It is well known that a left-invariant homogeneous
DO on a nilpotent group is hypoelliptic if, and only if, it satisfies the Rockland condition, and it further admits an inverse if, and only if, together with its transpose it satisfies the Rockland condition (e.g. [HN1] , [HN2] , [CGGP] ). Thus if
is a
DO such that
and
satisfies the Rockland condition at every point then, for any
, then the model operator of
is invertible. However, whether this inverse depends smoothly enough with respect to
to yield an inverse for the principal symbol is a more delicate issue.
We show here that this occurs when the Levi form ( 1.2 ) has constant rank, say
. In this case the tangent Lie group is a fiber bundle with typical fiber
. This allows us to make use of results of Christ et al. [CGGP] about families of
DO's on a fixed nilpotent graded group to get:
Proposition 1.7.
Let
be a
DO of order
,
, and suppose that the Levi form ( 1.2 ) has constant rank. Then the following are equivalent:
(i)
and
satisfy the Rockland condition at every point of
; (ii)
and
satisfy the Rockland condition at every point of
; (iii) The principal symbol of
is invertible.
In particular, if (i) and (ii) holds then
admits a
DO parametrix and is hypoelliptic with loss of
derivatives.
In particular, when
is selfadfoint and the Levi form has constant rank the Rockland condition for
is equivalent to the invertibility of the principal symbol of
.
Finally, if
denotes the rank of the Levi form at
then we have
.
Therefore, the irreducible unitary representations of
are two kinds, one dimensional representations on
and infinite dimensional representations on
. In the former case the Rockland condition corresponds to the invertibility of the principal symbol along
, while in the latter case it is enough to look at the representations coming from that of
with Planck constants
(see Section 5 ).
1.3 Hypoellipticity criterions for sublaplacians
It is interesting to look at the previous results in the case of sublaplacians, as this covers several important examples such as Hörmander's sum of squares, the Kohn Laplacian or the horizontal sublaplacian.
Here by sublaplacian we mean a differential operator
such that near every point
we can write
in the form,
|
(1.6)
|
where
is a
-frame of
, so that
span
, the term
is a smooth section of
and the notation
stands for a differential operator of Heisenberg order
.
In this case the Rockland condition and the invertibility of the reduces to the following. Let
be the matrix of
with respect to the
-frame
, so that for
we have
|
(1.7)
|
Let
be the rank of
and
, let
denoting the eigenvalues of
and consider the condition,
|
(1.8)
|
where the singular set
is defined as follows,
|
(1.10)
|
As is turns out this condition makes sense independently of the choice of the
-frame and is the relevant condition to look at in the case of a sublaplacian. More precisely, we have:
Proposition 1.8.
1) The condition ( 6.23 ) makes sense intrinsically for any
.
2) At every point
the Rockland conditions for
and
are equivalent to ( 1.8 ).
3) The principal symbol of
is invertible if, and only if, the condition ( 1.8 ) holds at every point of
. Moreover, when the latter occurs
admits a parametrix in
and is hypoelliptic with loss of one derivative.
The above result is proved in [BG] in the case of scalar sublaplacians, for which the coefficient
in ( 1.6 ) is a complex-valued function, but the general case is not dealt with in [BG] . However, it is necessary to extend the result to sublaplacians acting on sections of vector bundles in order to deal with the Kohn Laplacian and the horizontal sublaplacian acting on forms. In particular, Proposition 1.8 allows us to complete the treatment of the Kohn Laplacian in [BG] (see below).
1.4 Main examples of hypoelliptic operators on Heisenberg manifolds
We devote a section where we explain how the Heisenberg calculus, including the results of this paper, provides us with a unified framework to deal with the hypoellipticity of the main geometric operators on a Heisenberg manifold and to recover well-known results proved using various different approaches.
(a) Hörmander's sum of squares
A Hörmander's sum of squares is an operator of the form
where
are vector fields on
. When
span
we get a sublaplacian and Proposition 1.8 allows us to recover, in this special case, the celebrated result of Hörmander [H¨2] about thehypoellipticity of sum of squares under the bracket condition.
(b) Kohn Laplacian
The Kohn Laplacian is the Laplacian associated to the tangential Cauchy-Riemann complex, or
-complex, on a CR manifold ([KR] , [Koh1] ). It was shown by Kohn [Koh1] that under the condition
the Kohn Laplacian acting on
-forms is hypoelliptic with loss of one derivative.
It was proved by Beals-Greiner [BG] that for the Kohn Laplacian acting on
-forms the condition ( 1.8 ) reduces to the condition
, so we may apply Proposition 1.8 to recover Kohn's result. This allows us to complete the treatment of the Kohn in [BG] , because the initial argument there is not quite complete (see Remark 7.3 ).
(c) Horizontal sublaplacian
The horizontal sublaplacian
on a Heisenberg manifold
can be seen as a horizontal Laplacian acting on the horizontal forms, that is on the sections of
. This operator was first introduced by Tanaka [Ta] for strictly pseudoconvex CR manifolds, but versions of this operator acting on functions were independently defined by Greenleaf [Gr] and Lee [Le] .
While
acting on functions can be seen as a sum of squares up to lower order terms, it seems that little has been done concerning the hypoellipticity of
acting on forms on a general Heisenberg manifolds, except in the contact case (see [Ta] , [Ru] ).
We show here that the invertibility of the principal symbol of
acting on the sections of
reduces to a condition involving
and the Levi form of
only. More precisely, for
let
be the rank of the Levi form
at
. We say that the condition
is satisfied at
when
|
(1.11)
|
We then prove that this condition is the condition ( 1.8 ) for
acting on
. Thus, using Proposition 1.8 we get:
Proposition 1.9.
Let
be the horizontal sublaplacian acting on horizontal forms of degree
.
1) At a point
the Rockland condition for
is equivalent to the condition
.
2) The principal symbol of
is invertible if, and only if, the condition
is satisfied at every point.
(d) Contact Laplacian
Given a contact manifold
the contact Laplacian is associated to the contact complex defined by Rumin [Ru] . Unlike the previous examples this not a sublaplacian and it is even of order 4 on contact forms of middle degrees.
It has been shown by Rumin [Ru] that the contact Laplacian satisfies the Rockland condition on forms of any degree. Rumin then used results of Helffer-Nourrigat [HN3] to deduce that the contact Laplacian was hypoelliptic maximal. Alternatively, we may use Proposition 1.7 to deduce that on contact forms of any degree the contact Laplacian has an invertible principal symbol, hence admits a parametrix in the Heisenberg calculus and is hypoelliptic.
1.5 Organization of the paper
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 we recall the main definitions and examples concerning Heisenberg manifolds and their tangent Lie group bundles. In Section 3 we give a detailed overview of the Heisenberg calculus of [BG] and [Tay] , following closely the exposition of [BG] .
The section 4 is devoted to the definitions and the main properties of the principal symbols and model operators of
DO's. In Section 5 we study the relationships between invertibility of the principal symbol, Rockland condition and hypoellipticity and, in particular, we prove Theorem 1.7 .
In Section 6 we deal with sublaplacians and in particular extend the results of [BG] to sublaplacians acting on sections of vector bundles. In Section 7 we deal with the invertibility of the principal symbols of main geometric operators on Heisenberg manifolds: Hörmander's sum of squares, Kohn Laplacian, horizontal sublaplacian and contact Laplacian. In particular, we prove Proposition 1.9 .
The last two sections are devoted to the proofs of Proposition 3.18 and Proposition 3.21 . These are versions in Heisenberg coordinates of the invariance of the Heisenberg calculus by Heisenberg diffeomorphisms and transposition. The latter were proved in [BG] in a less precise form, but in this paper we need the precise version in Heisenberg coordinates in order to show that the definition of the principal symbol makes sense intrinsically and to determine the principal symbols of the transpose and the adjoint of a
DO.
Acknowledgements.
The author is grateful to the hospitality of the Mathematics Departments of Princeton University and Harvard University where most part of this paper was written. The research of the author was partially supported by the NSF grant DMS 0409005.
2 Heisenberg manifolds and their tangent Lie group bundles
In this section we recall the main facts about Heisenberg manifolds and their tangent Lie group bundle. The exposition here follows closely that of [Po2] .
Definition 2.1.
1) A Heisenberg manifold is a smooth manifold
equipped with a distinguished hyperplane bundle
.
2) A Heisenberg diffeomorphism
from a Heisenberg manifold
onto another Heisenberg manifold
is a diffeomorphism
such that
.
Definition 2.2.
Let
be a Heisenberg manifold. Then: 1) A (local)
-frame for
is a (local) frame
of
so that
span
.
2) A local Heisenberg chart is a local chart together with a local
-frame of
over its domain.
The main examples of Heisenberg manifolds are the following.
(a) Heisenberg group. The
-dimensional Heisenberg group
is
equipped with the group law,
|
(2.1)
|
A left-invariant basis for its Lie algebra
is provided by the vector-fields,
|
(2.2)
|
which for
and
satisfy the Heisenberg relations,
|
(2.3)
|
In particular, the subbundle spanned by the vector fields
defines a left-invariant Heisenberg structure on
.
(b) Foliations. A (smooth) foliation is a manifold
together with a subbundle
which is integrable in the Froebenius' sense, i.e., we have
. Thus, any codimension 1 foliation is a Heisenberg manifold.
(c) Contact manifolds. Opposite to foliations are contact manifolds: a contact structure on a manifold
is given by a global non-vanishing
-form
on
such that
is non-degenerate on
. In particular,
is a Heisenberg manifold. In fact, by Darboux's theorem any contact manifold
is locally contact-diffeomorphic to the Heisenberg group
equipped with its standard contact form
.
(d) Confoliations. According to Elyashberg-Thurston [ET] a confoliation structure on an oriented manifold
is given by a global non-vanishing
-form
on
such that
. In particular, when
(resp.
) we are in presence of a foliation (resp. a contact structure). In any case the hyperplane bundle
defines a Heisenberg structure on
.
(e) CR manifolds. A CR structure on an orientable manifold
is given by a rank
complex subbundle
which is integrable in Froebenius' sense and such that
, where
. Equivalently, the subbundle
has the structure of a complex bundle of (real) dimension
. In particular, the pair
forms a Heisenberg manifold.
Moreover, since
is orientable and
is orientable by means of its complex structure, the normal bundle
is orientable, hence admits a global nonvanishing section
. Let
be the global section of
such that
and
annihilates
. Then Kohn's Levi form is the form
on
such that, for sections
and
of
, we have
|
(2.4)
|
We say that
is strictly pseudoconcex (resp. nondegenerate,
-strictly pseudoconvex) when for some choice of
the Levi form
is everywhere positive definite (resp. is everywhere non-degenerate, has everywhere signature
). In particular, when
is nondegenerate the 1-form
is a contact form on
.
The main example of a CR manifold is that of the (smooth) boundary
of a complex domain
. In particular, when
is strongly pseudoconvex (or strongly pseudoconcave)
is strictly pseudoconvex.
2.1 The tangent Lie group bundle
A simple description of the tangent Lie group bundle of a Heisenberg manifold
can be given as follows.
Lemma 2.3 ([Po2] ).
The Lie bracket of vector fields induces 2-form,
|
(2.5)
|
such that, for any
and any sections
and
of
near
, we have
|
(2.6)
|
Definition 2.4.
The
-form
is called the Levi form of
.
The Levi form
allows us to define a bundle
of graded Lie algebras by endowing
with the smooth fields of Lie Brackets and gradings such that
|
(2.7)
|
for
and
,
in
and
,
in
.
Definition 2.5.
The bundle
is called the tangent Lie algebra bundle of
.
As we can easily check
is a bundle of
-step nilpotent Lie algebras which contains the normal bundle
in its center. Therefore, its associated graded Lie group bundle
can be described as follows. As a bundle
is
and the exponential map is the identity. In particular, the grading of
is as in ( 2.7 ). Moreover, since
is 2-step nilpotent the Campbell-Hausdorff formula gives
|
(2.8)
|
From this we deduce that the product on
is such that
|
(2.9)
|
for sections
,
of
and sections
,
of
.
Definition 2.6.
The bundle
is called the tangent Lie group bundle of
.
In fact, the fibers of
are classified by the Levi form
as follows.
Proposition 2.7 ([Po2] ).
1) Let
. Then
has rank
if, and only if, as a graded Lie group
is isomorphic to
.
2) The Levi form
has constant rank
if, and only if,
is a fiber bundle with typical fiber
.
Now, let
be a Heisenberg diffeomorphism from
onto another Heisenberg manifold
. Since
we see that
induces a smooth vector bundle isomorphism
.
Definition 2.8.
We let
denote the vector bundle isomorphism such that
|
(2.10)
|
for any
and any
and
.
Proposition 2.9 ([Po2] ).
The vector bundle isomorphism
is an isomorphism of graded Lie group bundles from
onto
. In particular, the Lie group bundle isomorphism class of
depends only on the Heisenberg diffeomorphism class of
.
2.2 Heisenberg coordinates and nilpotent approximation of vector fields
It is interesting to relate the intrinsic description of
above with the more extrinsic description of [BG] (see also [Be] , [EMM] , [FS] , [Gro] , [Ro2] ) in terms of the Lie group associated to a nilpotent Lie algebra of model vector fields.
First, let
and let us describe
as the graded Lie algebra of left-invariant vector fields on
by identifying any
with the left-invariant vector fields
on
given by
|
(2.11)
|
This allows us to associate to any vector fields
near
a unique left-invariant vector fields
on
such that
|
(2.12)
|
where
denotes the class of
modulo
.
Definition 2.10.
The left-invariant vector fields
is called the model vector fields of
at
.
Let us look at the above construction in terms of a
-frame
near
, i.e. of a local trivialization of the vector bundle
. For
we let
|
(2.13)
|
With respect to the coordinate system
we can write the product law of
as
|
(2.14)
|
Then the vector fields
,
, in ( 2.12 ) are the left-invariant vector fields corresponding to the vectors
,
, of the canonical basis of
, i.e., we have
|
(2.15)
|
In particular, for
we have the relations,
|
(2.16)
|
Now, let
be a Heisenberg chart near
and let
be the associated
-frame of
. Then there exists a unique affine coordinate change
such that
and
for
. Indeed, if for
we set
then we have
|
(2.17)
|
Definition 2.11.
1) The coordinates provided by
are called the privileged coordinates at
with respect to the
-frame
.
2) The map
is called the privileged-coordinate map with respect to the
-frame
.
Remark 2.12.
The privileged coordinates at
are called
-coordinates in [
BG]
, but they correspond to the privileged coordinates of [
Be]
and [
Gro]
in the special case of a Heisenberg manifold.
Next, on
we consider the dilations
|
(2.18)
|
with respect to which
is homogeneous of degree
and
is homogeneous of degree
.
Since in the privileged coordinates at
we have
we can write
|
(2.19)
|
where the
's are smooth functions such that
. Therefore, we may define
|
(2.21)
|
where for
we have set
.
Observe that
is homogeneous of degree
and
are homogeneous of degree
. Moreover, for
we have
|
(2.22)
|
Thus, the linear space spanned by
is a graded 2-step nilpotent Lie algebra
. In particular,
is the Lie algebra of left-invariant vector fields over the graded Lie group
consisting of
equipped with the grading ( 2.18 ) and the group law,
|
(2.23)
|
Now, if near
we let
, then we get
|
(2.24)
|
Comparing this with ( 2.16 ) and ( 2.22 ) then shows that
has the same the constant structures as those of
, hence is isomorphic to it. Consequently, the Lie groups
and
are isomorphic. In fact, as shown in [BG] and [Po2] , an explicit isomorphism is given by
|
(2.25)
|
Definition 2.13.
Let
. Then: 1) The new coordinates provided by
are called Heisenberg coordinates at
with respect to the
-frame
.
2) The map
is called the
-Heisenberg coordinate map.
Remark 2.14.
The Heisenberg coordinates at
have been also considered in [
BG]
as a technical tool for inverting the principal symbol of a hypoelliptic sublaplacian.
Next, by [Po2,Lem. 1.17] we have
|
(2.26)
|
Since
commutes with the Heisenberg dilations ( 2.18 ), using ( 2.20 )–( 2.21 ) we get
|
(2.27)
|
In fact, as shown in [Po2] , in Heisenberg coordinates at
for any vector fields
as
we have
|
(2.28)
|
Therefore, we obtain:
Proposition 2.15 ([Po2] ).
In the Heisenberg coordinates centered at
the tangent Lie group
coincides with
and for any vector fields
the model vector fields
approximates
near
in the sense of ( 2.28 ).
One consequence of the equivalence between the two approaches to
is a tangent approximation for Heisenberg diffeomorphisms as follows.
Let
be a Heisenberg diffeomorphism from
to another Heisenberg manifold
. We also endow
with the pseudo-norm,
|
(2.29)
|
so that, for any
and any
, we have
|
(2.30)
|
Proposition 2.16 ([Po2,Prop. 2.21] ).
Let
and set
. Then, in Heisenberg coordinates at
and at
the diffeomorphism
has a behavior near
of the form
|
(2.31)
|
In particular, there are no terms of the form
,
, in the Taylor expansion of
at
.
Remark 2.17.
An asymptotics similar to ( 2.31 ) is given in [
Be,Prop. 5.20]
in privileged coordinates at
and
, but the leading term there is only a Lie algebra isomorphism from
onto
. This is only in Heisenberg coordinates that we recover the Lie group isomorphism
as the leading term of the asymptotics.
3 Hypoelliptic calculus on Heisenberg manifolds
The Heisenberg calculus is the relevant pseudodifferential tool to study hypoelliptic operators on Heisenberg manifolds. It was independently invented by Beals-Greiner [BG] and Taylor [Tay] , extending previous works of Boutet de Monvel [Bo1] , Folland-Stein [FS] and Dynin ([Dy1] , [Dy2] ) (see also [BGH] , [CGGP] , [EMM] , [Gri] , [H¨3] , [RSt] ). The idea in the Heisenberg calculus is to have a pseudodifferential calculus on a Heisenbergmanifold
which is modeled at any point
by the calculus of left-invariant pseudodifferentialoperators on the tangent group
.
3.1 Left-invariant pseudodifferential operators
Let
be a Heisenberg manifold and let
be the tangent Lie group of
at a point
. We recall here the main facts about left-invariant pseudodifferential operators on
(see also [BG] , [CGGP] , [Tay] ).
Recall that for any finite dimensional vector space
the Schwartz class
is a Fréchet space and the Fourier transform is the continuous isomorphism of
onto
given by
|
(3.1)
|
where
denotes the Lebesgue measure of
.
Definition 3.1.
is the closed subspace of
consisting of
such that for any differential operator
on
we have
.
Since
has the same underlying set as that of its Lie algebra
we can let
and
denote the Fréchet spaces
and
associated to the underlying linear space
of
(notice that the Lebesgue measure of
coincides with the Haar measure of
since
is nilpotent).
Next, for
and
in
we let
|
(3.2)
|
Definition 3.2.
,
, is the space of functions
which are homogeneous of degree
, in the sense that, for any
we have
|
(3.3)
|
In addition
is endowed with the Fréchet space topology induced from that of
.
Note that the image
of
under the Fourier transform consists of functions
such that, given any norm
on
, near
we have
for any integer
.
Thus, any
defines an element of
by letting
|
(3.4)
|
This allows us to define the inverse Fourier transform of
as the element
such that
|
(3.5)
|
Proposition 3.3 ([BG] , [CGGP] ).
1) For any
the left-convolution by
,
|
(3.6)
|
defines a continuous endomorphism of
.
2) There is a continuous bilinear product,
|
(3.7)
|
such that, for any
and
, the composition of the left-convolution operators by
and
is the left-convolution operator by
, that is, we have
|
(3.8)
|
Let us also mention that if
then the convolution operator
is a pseudodifferential operator. Indeed, let
be a (linear) basis of
so that
is in
and
span
. For
let
be the left-invariant vector fields on
such that
. The basis
yields a linear isomorphism
, hence a global chart of
. In this chart
is a homogeneous symbol on
with respect to the dilations
|
(3.9)
|
Similarly, each vector fields
,
, corresponds to a vector fields on
whose symbol is denoted
. Then, setting
, it can be shown that in the above chart the operator
is given by
|
(3.10)
|
In other words
is the pseudodifferential operator
acting on
.
3.2
DO's on an open subset of
Let
be an open subset of
together with a hyperplane bundle
and a
-frame
of
. Then the class of
DO's on
is a class of pseudodifferential operators modelled on that of homogeneous convolution operators on the fibers of
.
Definition 3.4.
,
, is the space of symbols
that are homogeneous of degree
with respect to the
-variable, that is,
|
(3.11)
|
where
denotes the Heisenberg dilation ( 3.9 ).
Observe that the homogeneity of
implies that, for any compact
, it satisfies the estimates
|
(3.12)
|
where
and
.
Definition 3.5.
,
, consists of symbols
with an asymptotic expansion
,
, in the sense that, for any integer
and for any compact
, we have
|
(3.13)
|
Next, for
let
denote the symbol of
(in the classical sense) and set
. For any
it can be shown that the symbol
is in the Hörmander class of symbols of type
(see [BG,Prop. 10.22] ). Therefore, we define a continuous linear operator from
to
by letting
|
(3.14)
|
In the sequel we let
denotes the class of smoothing operators, i.e. of operators given by smooth kernels.
Definition 3.6.
,
, consists of operators
of the form
|
(3.15)
|
with
in
, called the symbol of
, and with
in
.
The above definition of the symbol of
differs from that of [BG] , since there the authors defined it to be
. Note also that
is unique modulo
.
Lemma 3.7.
For
let
. Then there exists
with symbol
. Moreover, the operator
is unique modulo smoothing operators.
The class
does not depend on the choice of the
-frame
(see [BG,Prop. 10.46] ).
Moreover, since it is contained in the class of
DO's of type
we get:
Proposition 3.8.
Let
be a
DO of order
on
.
1)
extends to a continuous linear mapping from
to
and has a distribution kernel which is smooth off the diagonal.
3) Let
if
and
otherwise. Then for any
the operator
extends to a continuos mapping from
to
.
3.3 Composition of
DO's
Recall that there is no symbolic calculus for
DO's of type
since the product of two such
DO's needs not be again a
DO of type
. However, the fact that the
DO's are modelled on left-invariant pseudodifferential operators allows us to construct a symbolic calculus for
DO's. First, for
let
be the leading homogeneous part of
in privileged coordinates centered at
defined according to ( 2.20 )–( 2.21 ). These vectors span a nilpotent Lie algebra of left-invariant vector fields on a nilpotent graded Lie group
which corresponds to
by pulling back the latter from the Heisenberg coordinates at
to the privileged coordinates at
.
As alluded to above the product law of
defines a convolution product for symbols,
|
(3.16)
|
such that, with the notations of ( 3.10 ), on
we have
|
(3.17)
|
As it turns out the product
depends smoothly on
(see [BG,Prop. 13.33] ). Therefore, we get a continuous bilinear product,
|
(3.19)
|
Proposition 3.9 ([BG,Thm. 14.7] ).
For
let
have symbol
and assume that one of these operators is properly supported. Then the operator
is a
DO of order
and has symbol
, with
|
(3.20)
|
where
denotes the sum over the indices such that
and
, and the functions
's are polynomials in the derivatives of the coefficients of the vector fields
.
3.4 The distribution kernels of
DO's
An important fact about
DO's is their characterization in terms of their distribution kernels.
First, we extend the notion of homogeneity of functions to distributions. For
and for
we let
denote the element of
such that
|
(3.21)
|
In the sequel we will also use the notation
for denoting
. We then say that
is homogeneous of degree
,
, when
for any
.
Definition 3.10.
consists of tempered distributions on
which are smooth outside the origin. We equip it with the weakest topology such that the inclusions of
into
and
are continuous.
Definition 3.11.
,
, consists of distributions
in
such that for some functions
,
, we have
|
(3.22)
|
The interest of considering the distribution class
stems from:
Lemma 3.12 ([BG,Prop. 15.24] , [CM,Lem. I.4] ).
1) Any
agrees on
with a distribution
such that
is in
,
.
2) If
is in
then the restriction of
to
belongs to
.
This result is a consequence of the solution to the problem of extending a homogeneous function
into a homogeneous distribution on
and of the fact that for
we have
|
(3.23)
|
In particular, if
is homogeneous of degree
then
is homogeneous of degree
.
The relevant class of kernels for the Heisenberg calculus is the following.
Definition 3.13.
,
, consists of distributions
with an asymptotic expansion
,
, in the sense that, for any integer
, as soon as
is large enough we have
|
(3.24)
|
Since under the Fourier transform the asymptotic expansion ( 3.13 ) for symbols corresponds to that for distributions in ( 3.24 ), using Lemma 3.12 we get:
Lemma 3.14 ([BG,pp. 133–134] ).
Let
. Then the following are equivalent:
(i) The distribution
belongs to
; (ii) We can put
into the form
|
(3.25)
|
for some
,
, and some
.
Moreover, if (i) and (ii) holds and we expand
,
, then we have
where
is the restriction to
of
.
Next, for
let
denote the affine change to the privileged coordinates at
and let us write
with
. Since
and
at
for
, one checks that
.
Let
. As
with
the distribution kernel
of
is represented by the oscillating integrals
|
(3.26)
|
Since
we deduce that
|
(3.27)
|
Combining this with Lemma 3.14 then gives:
Proposition 3.15 ([BG,Thms. 15.39,15.49] ).
Let
be a continuous linear operator with distribution kernel
. Then the following are equivalent:
(i)
is a
DO of order
,
.
(ii) There exist
,
, and
such that
|
(3.28)
|
Furthermore, if (i) and (ii) hold and
,
, then
has symbol
,
, where
is the restriction to
of
.
In the sequel we will need a version of Proposition 3.15 in Heisenberg coordinates. To this end let
denote the coordinate change to the Heisenberg coordinates at
and set
.
Recall that
is a Lie group isomorphism from
to
such that
for any
. Moreover, using ( 2.25 ) one can check that
and
. Therefore, from ( 3.27 ) we see that we can put
into the form
|
(3.29)
|
In fact, the coordinate changes
give rise to an action on distributions on
given by
|
(3.30)
|
Since
depends smoothly on
, this action induces a continuous linear isomorphisms of
,
, and
onto themselves. As
is polynomial in
in such way that
and
for every
, we deduce that the above action also yields a continuous linear isomorphism of
onto itself and, for every
, we have
|
(3.31)
|
Furthermore, as
is polynomial in
we see that for every
we can write
in the form
with
. It then follows that, for every
, the map
induces a linear isomorphisms of
and
onto themselves. Combining this with ( 3.29 ) and Proposition 3.15 then gives:
Proposition 3.16.
Let
be a continuous linear operator with distribution kernel
. Then the following are equivalent:
(i)
is a
DO of order
,
.
(ii) There exist
,
, and
such that
|
(3.32)
|
Furthermore, if (i) and (ii) hold and
,
, then
has symbol
,
, where
is the restriction to
of
.
Remark 3.17.
Let
. Then ( 3.32 ) shows that the distribution kernel of
at
is
|
(3.33)
|
Moreover, as we are in Heisenberg coordinates already, we have
. Thus, in the form ( 3.32 ) for
we have
. Therefore, if we let
denote the principal symbol of
and let
denote the leading kernel of
, then by Proposition 3.16 we have
|
(3.34)
|
This shows that
is the principal symbol of
at
in Heisenberg coordinates centered at
.
3.5
DO's on a general Heisenberg manifold
Let
be a Heisenberg manifold. As alluded to before the
DO's on an subset of
are
DO's of type
. However, the latter don't make sense on a general manifold, for their class is not preserved by an arbitrary change of chart. Nevertheless, when dealing with
DO's this issue is resolved if we restrict ourselves to changes of Heisenberg charts. Indeed, we have:
Proposition 3.18.
Let
(resp.
) be an open subset of
together with a hyperplane bundle
(resp.
) and a
-frame of
(resp. a
-frame of
). Let
be a Heisenberg diffeormorphism and let
.
1) The operator
is a
DO of order
on
.
2) If the distribution kernel of
is of the form ( 3.32 ) with
then the distribution kernel of
can be written in the form ( 3.32 ) with
such that
|
(3.35)
|
where we have let
and
denote the change to the Heisenberg coordinates at
. In particular, we have
|
(3.36)
|
Remark 3.19.
The version of the above statement in [
BG]
does not contain the asymptotics ( 3.36 ), which will be crucial for giving a global definition of the principal symbol of a
DO in the next section. For this reason give a detailed proof of the above version in Section 8 . This proof will also be useful in [
Po3]
and [
Po4]
for generalizing Proposition 3.18 to holomorphic families of
DO's and to
DO's with parameter.
As a consequence of Proposition 3.18 we can define
DO's on
acting on the sections of a vector bundle
over
.
Definition 3.20.
,
, consists of continuous operators
such that:
(i) The distribution kernel of
is smooth off the diagonal; (ii) For any trivialization
over a local Heisenberg chart
the operator
belongs to
.
All the previous properties of
DO's on an open subset of
hold mutatis standis for
DO's on
acting on sections of
.
3.6 Transposes and adjoints of
DO's
Let us now look at the transpose and adjoints of
DO's. First, given a Heisenberg chart
we have:
Proposition 3.21.
Let
. Then: 1) The transpose operator
is a
DO of order
on
.
2) If we write the distribution kernel of
in the form ( 3.32 ) with
then
can be written in the form ( 3.32 ) with
such that
|
(3.37)
|
where
. In particular,
|
(3.38)
|
Remark 3.22.
The asymptotic expansion ( 3.37 ) is not stated in [
BG]
, but we need it in order to determine the global principal symbol of the transpose of a
DO (see next section). A detailed proof of Proposition 3.21 can be found in Section 9 .
Using this result, or its version in [BG] , we obtain:
Proposition 3.23 ([BG,Thm. 17.4] ).
Let
be a
DO of order
. Then: 1) The transpose operator
is a
DO of order
; 2) If
is endowed with a smooth positive density and
with a Hermitian metric then the adjoint operator
is a
DO of order
.
4 Principal symbol and model operators.
In this section we define the principal symbols and model operators of
DO's and check their main properties.
4.1 Principal symbol and model operators
Let
be the dual bundle of
with canonical projection
.
Definition 4.1.
,
, is the space of sections
which are homogeneous of degree
in the sense that, for any
, we have
|
(4.1)
|
where
denotes the dilation ( 3.2 ).
Let
and for
let
be a Heisenberg chart with domain
and let
be the corresponding transition map, where we have let
.
Let us first assume that
is the trivial line bundle, so that
is a scalar operator. For
we let
, so that
. Since
belongs to
its distribution kernel is of the form ( 3.32 ) with
. Moreover, by Proposition 3.18 we have
|
(4.2)
|
Therefore, if we let
be the leading kernel of
then we get
|
(4.3)
|
Next, for
we define
|
(4.4)
|
By Remark 3.17 for any
the symbol
yields in Heisenberg coordinates centered at
the principal symbol of
at
. Moreover, since
is a linear map, from ( 4.3 ) we get
|
(4.5)
|
This shows that
is an element of
which is independent of the choice of the chart
. Since
is a sheaf this gives rise to a uniquely defined symbol
.
When
is a general vector bundle, the above construction can be carried out similarly, so that we obtain:
Theorem 4.2.
For any
there is a unique symbol
such that if in a local trivializing Heisenberg chart
we let
be the leading kernel for the kernel
in the form ( 3.32 ) for
, then we have
|
(4.6)
|
Equivalently, for any
the symbol
agrees in trivializing Heisenberg coordinates centered at
with the principal symbol of
at
.
Definition 4.3.
For
the symbol
provided by Theorem 4.2 is called the principal symbol of
.
Remark 4.4.
Since we have two notions of principal symbol we shall distinguish between them by saying that
is the global principal symbol of
and that in a local trivializing chart the principal symbol
of
in the sense of ( 3.13 ) is the local principal symbol of
in this chart.
In a local Heisenberg chart
the global symbol
and the local principal symbol
of
can be easily related to each other. Indeed, by Proposition 3.16 we have
|
(4.7)
|
where
denotes the leading kernel for the kernel
in the form ( 3.32 ) for
. By combining this with the definition ( 4.4 ) of
we thus get
|
(4.9)
|
where
is the isomorphism map ( 3.30 ). In particular, since the latter is a linear isomorphism of
onto itself, we see that the map
is a linear isomorphism of
onto itself.
Example 4.5.
Let
be a local
-frame of
near a point
. In any Heisenberg chart associated with this frame the Heisenberg symbol of
is
. In particular, this is true in Heisenberg coordinates centered at
. Thus the (global) principal symbol of
is equal to
in the local trivialization of
defined by the frame
. More generally, for any differential
on
we have
|
(4.10)
|
Thus, for differential operators the global and local principal symbols agree in suitable coordinates.
Alternatively, this result follows from the fact that the isomorphism ( 3.30 ) induces the identity map on distributions
supported in
.
Proposition 4.6.
For every
the principal symbol map
gives rise to a linear isomorphism
.
-
Proof.
By construction the principal symbol of
depends only on his principal part in local coordinates and vanishes everywhere if, and only if, the order of
is
. Therefore, the kernel of the principal symbol map
is
, so
induces an injective linear map
.
To complete the proof it is enough to show that
is surjective. To this end consider a symbol
and let
be a partition of the unity subordinated to an open covering
of
by domains of Heisenberg charts
over which there are trivializations
. For each index
let
be such that
near
and set
|
(4.11)
|
where
is such that
near the origin and
denotes the isomorphism ( 4.9 ) with respect to the chart
. Then we define a a
DO of order
by letting
|
(4.12)
|
For for every index
the local principal symbol of
in the chart
is
, so by ( 4.8 ) its global principal is
, which pulls back to
on
. It follows that the global principal symbol of
is
.
This proves the surjectivity of the map
, so the proof is now complete. □
Next, granted the above definition of the principal symbol, we can define the model operator at a point as follows.
Definition 4.7.
Let
have (global) principal symbol
. Then the model operator of
at
is the left-invariant
DO-operator
with symbol
, i.e.,
|
(4.13)
|
Consider a local trivializing chart
near
and let us relate the model operator
on
to the operator
on
defined using the local principal symbol
of
in this chart. Using ( 3.6 ) and ( 4.8 ) for
we get
|
(4.14)
|
Since
and
is a Lie group isomorphism from
onto
we obtain
|
(4.15)
|
In particular, we have
|
(4.16)
|
4.2 Composition of principal symbols and model operators
Let us now look at the composition of principal symbols. To this end for
we let
be the convolution product for symbols defined by the product law of
under the identification
provided by a
-frame
of
near
, that is,
|
(4.17)
|
Let
be a local trivializing Heisenberg chart chart near
and for
let
have (global) principal symbol
. Recall that under the trivialization of
provided by the
-frame
we have
. Thus,
|
(4.18)
|
On the other hand, using ( 4.8 ) and ( 4.16 ) we see that
is equal to
(4.19)
φ
a
*
[
p
m
1
(
−
i
X
a
)
∘
p
m
2
(
−
i
X
a
)
]
=
φ
a
*
[
p
m
1
(
−
i
X
a
)
]
∘
φ
a
*
[
p
m
2
(
−
i
X
a
)
]
=
(
φ
^
a
*
p
m
1
)
(
−
i
X
(
a
)
)
∘
(
φ
^
a
*
p
m
2
)
(
−
i
X
(
a
)
)
=
[
(
φ
^
a
*
p
m
1
)
*
(
a
)
(
φ
^
a
*
p
m
2
)
]
(
−
i
X
(
a
)
)
.
Hence we have
|
(4.20)
|
where
denotes the inverse of
. Since
, its inverse and
depend smoothly on
, we deduce that that so does
. Therefore, we obtain:
Proposition 4.8.
The group laws on the fibers of
give rise to a convolution product,
|
(4.22)
|
where
denote the convolution product for symbols on
.
Notice that ( 4.20 ) shows that, under the relation ( 4.8 ) between local and global principal symbols, the convolution product ( 4.17 ) for global principal symbols corresponds to the convolution product ( 3.19 ) for local principal symbols. Since by Proposition 3.9 the latter yields the local principal symbol of the product of two
DO's in a local chart, we deduce that the convolution product ( 4.17 ) yields the global principal symbol of the product two
DO's. Moreover, by ( 4.18 ) the global convolution product ( 4.17 ) corresponds to the product of model operators, so the model operator of a product of two
DO's is equal to the product of the model operators. We have thus proved:
Proposition 4.9.
For
let
and suppose that
or
is properly supported.
1) We have
.
2) At every
the model operator of
is
.
4.3 Principal symbol of transposes and adjoints
In this subsection we shall determine the principal symbols and the model operators of transposes and adjoints of
DO's. Recall that if
then by Proposition 3.23 its transpose
is a
DO of order
and its adjoint
is a
DO of order
(assuming
endowed with a positive density and
with a Hermitian metric in order to define the adjoint).
Proposition 4.10.
Let
have principal symbol
. Then: 1) The principal symbol of
is
(this is an element of
); 2) If
is the model operator of
at
then the model operator of
at
is the transpose operator
.
-
Proof.
Let us first assume that
is the trivial line bundle and that
is a scalar operator. In a local Heisenberg chart
we can write the distribution kernels of
and
in the form ( 3.32 ) with
and
in
. Let
and
denote the principal parts of
and
respectively. Then the principal symbols of
and
are
and
respectively. Since ( 3.38 ) implies that
and the Fourier transform commutes with the multiplication by
we get
|
(4.23)
|
Next, for
let
and let
be the left-invariant
DO with symbol
. Then the transpose
is such that, for
and
in
, we have
(4.24)
〈
P
t
f
,
g
〉
=
〈
f
,
P
v
〉
=
〈
1
,
f
(
x
)
(
P
g
)
(
x
)
〉
=
〈
1
,
f
(
x
)
〈
p
ˇ
(
y
)
,
g
(
x
.
y
−
1
)
〉
〉
=
〈
1
⊗
p
ˇ
(
x
,
y
)
,
f
(
x
)
g
(
x
.
y
−
1
)
〉
.
Therefore, using the change of variable
and the fact
we get
|
(4.25)
|
Since
with
, we obtain
|
(4.26)
|
Thus
is the left-convolution operator with symbol
.
Now, since the model operator
is the left-invariant
DO with symbol
, it follows that
agrees with the transpose of
.
In the general case, when
is not the trivial bundle, we can similarly show that
is a
DO of order
with principal symbol
and such that at every point
its model operator at
is the transpose
of
. □
Assume now that
is endowed with a positive density and
with a Hermitian metric respectively and let
be the associated
-Hilbert space.
Proposition 4.11.
Let
have principal symbol
. Then: 1) The principal symbol of
is
.
2) If
denotes the model operator of
at
then the model operator of
at
is the adjoint
of
.
-
Proof.
Let us first assume that
is the trivial line bundle, so that
is a scalar operator. Moreover, since the above statements are local ones, it is enough to prove them in a local Heisenberg chart
and we may assume that
is a
DO on
.
Let
be the conjugate operator of
, so that
for any
.
By Proposition 3.16 the distribution kernel of
of the form ( 3.32 ) with
in
, so the kernel of
takes the form
|
(4.27)
|
Since the conjugation of distribution
induces an anti-linear isomorphism from
onto
, it follows from Proposition 3.16 that
is a
DO of order
and its kernel can be put into the form ( 3.32 ) with
. In particular, if we let
denote the leading kernel of
then the leading kernel of
is
.
Thus
has principal symbol,
|
(4.28)
|
Moreover, since
the model operator at
of
is such that, for any
, we have
|
(4.29)
|
so
agrees with
.
Combining this with Proposition 3.21 and Proposition 4.10 we thus see that
is a
DO of order
such that:
If we put the kernel of
into the form ( 3.32 ) with respect to
, then the leading kernel of
is
; The global principal symbol of
is
; The model operator at
of
is
.
Now, let
be the smooth positive density on
coming from that of
. The formal adjoint
of
with respect to
is such that
|
(4.30)
|
Thus
, which shows that
is a
DO of order
. Moreover, as in the proof of Proposition 3.21 in Section 9 , we can prove that the kernel of
can be put into the form ( 3.32 ) with
such that
|
(4.31)
|
In particular, the kernels
and
agree modulo
, hence have same leading kernel. It then follows that
and
have same principal symbol and same model operator at a point
, that is, we have
and
.
Finally, assume that
is a general bundle, so that the restriction of
to
is given by a matrix
of
DO's of order
. Let
,
, be the Hermitian metric on
coming from that of
. Then the adjoint of
with respect to this Hermitian metric is
. Therefore, in a the same way as in the scalar case we can prove that
has principal symbol
and its model operator at any point
is
. □
5 Hypoellipticity, parametrices and the Rockland condition
In this section we define a Rockland condition for
DO's and relate it to the invertibility of the principal symbol to get hypoellipticity criterions.
First, by [BG,Sect. 18] in a local Heisenberg chart the invertibility of the local principal symbol of a
DO is equivalent to the existence of a
DO-parametrix. Using the global principal symbol we can give a global reformulation of this result as follows.
Proposition 5.1.
Let
be a
DO of order
such that
. The following are equivalent:
1) The principal symbol
of
is invertible with respect to the convolution product for homogeneous symbols; 2)
admits a parametrix
in
, so that
.
-
Proof.
First, it immediately follows from Proposition 4.9 that 2) implies 1). Conversely, in a local trivializing Heisenberg chart ( 4.20 ) shows that the invertibility of the global principal
is equivalent to that of the local principal symbol. Once the latter is granted Lemma 3.7 and Proposition 3.9 allows us to carry out in a local trivializing Heisenberg chart the standard parametrix construction in a trivializing Heisenberg chart to get a parametrix for
as a
DO of order
(see [BG,p. 142] ). A classical partition of the unity argument then allows us to produce a parametrix for
in
. □
When a
DO has an invertible principal symbol using the Sobolev regularity properties of its parametrices allows us to get:
Proposition 5.2 ([BG,p. 142] ).
Let
be a
DO of order
whose principal symbol is invertible. If
then
is hypoelliptic with loss of
-derivatives, i.e., for any
, any
and any
, we have
|
(5.1)
|
In particular, if
is compact then, for any reals
and
, we have the estimate,
|
(5.2)
|
Remark 5.3.
We can give sharper hypoellipticity regularity results for
DO's in terms of suitably weighted Sobolev spaces (see [
FS]
, [
Po3]
). When
is a differential operator and the Levi form is non-vanishing these results correspond to the maximal hypoellipticity of
as in [
HN3]
.
Now, let
be a
DO of order
and assume that
is endowed with a positive density and
with a Hermitian metric. Let
be the model operator of
at a point
and let
be a (nontrivial) unitary representation of
. We define the symbol
as follows (see also [Ro1] , [Gł] , [CGGP] ).
Let
be the subspace of
spanned by the vectors of the form
|
(5.3)
|
as
ranges over
and
over
. Then we let
denote the (unbounded) operator of
with domain
such that
|
(5.4)
|
One can check that
is the adjoint of
on
, hence is densely defined. Thus
is closeable and we can let
denotes its closure. In the sequel we let
, where
denotes the space of smooth vectors of
(i.e. the subspace of vectors
so that
is smooth from
to
).
Proposition 5.4 ([CGGP] ).
1) The domain of
always contains
.
2) If
then the operator
is bounded.
3) We have
.
4) If
and
are
DO's on
then
.
Remark 5.5.
If
and
is a differentiable operator then, as it is left-invariant,
belongs to the enveloping algebra
of the Lie algebra
of
. In this case
coincides on
with the operator
, where
is the representation of
induced by
.
Definition 5.6.
We say that
satisfies the Rockland condition at
if for any nontrivial unitary irreducible representation
of
the operator
is injective on
.
Since
with
, there are left-invariant vector fields
on
such that
are the left-invariant vector fields on
given by ( 2.2 ) and
for
. Then, up to unitary equivalence, the nontrivial irreducible representations of
are of two types:
(i) Infinite dimensional representations
parametrized by
and
such that
|
(5.6)
|
Moreover, in this case we have
.
(ii) One dimensional representations
indexed by
such that
|
(5.7)
|
In particular, if
with
then the homogeneity of the symbol
implies that we have
where
accordingly with the sign of
.
On the other hand, for the representations in (ii) we have
. Therefore, we get:
Proposition 5.7.
The Rockland condition for
,
, holds, and only if, the following two conditions are satisfied:
(i) The operators
,
, are injective on
; (ii) The restriction of the symbol
to
is pointwise invertible.
Remark 5.8.
In the case of
the conditions (i) and (ii) have those considered by Taylor [
Tay]
.
Next, if
has an invertible principal symbol, hence admits a parametrix
, then for any
we have
and
are equal to
on
and
respectively. It then follows from Proposition 5.4 that for any nontrivial irreducible unitary representation
of
the operators
and
are injective on
. Thus
and
satisfy the Rockland condition at every point of
. Conversely, if at some point
the model operator
satisfies the Rockland condition then
is hypoelliptic (see [Ro1] , [Bea] , [Gł] ; see also [HN1] , [HN2] , [CGGP] ). The latter fact then implies that
admits a fundamental solution
so that
(see [Fo] , [Ge] , [CGGP] ). In particular, the inverse Fourier transform of
yields an inverse for the symbol of
.
This shows that if
and
satisfies the Rockland condition at every point then for any
there exists
so that
. However, it is an open problem to determine whether
depends smoothly
and so define an element of
.
The above issue is at least true in the case of sublaplacians (see [BG] and next section). As we shall now see this result can be extended to arbitrary
DO's when the Levi form of
has constant rank. More precisely, we have:
Proposition 5.9.
Suppose that the Levi form of
has constant rank and let
. Then the following are equivalent:
(i)
and
satisfy the Rockland condition at every point of
; (ii)
and
satisfy the Rockland condition at every point of
; (iii) The principal symbol of
is invertible.
In particular, if (i) holds then
admits a parametrix in
and is hypoelliptic with loss of
derivatives.
-
Proof.
We saw that (i) implies (iii) already. The same argument shows that (ii) implies (i). Thus we only need to prove the converse statements.
Assume that
and
satisfies the Rockland condition at every point. For sake of simplicity let us further assume that
is the trivial line bundle, so that
and
are scalar operators. We need to show that the principal symbol of
is invertible. As this is a local issue it is enough to prove it in a local Heisenberg chart
, so we may assume that
and
are
DO's on
.
Moreover, since the Levi form has constant rank it follows from [Po2,Prop. 2.8] that
is a fiber bundle of Lie group with fiber
, where
is the rank of the Levi form.
Therefore, by considering a trivialization of this fiber bundle by means of a suitable local
-frame (see [Po2,p. 5] ) we may further assume that
is the trivial bundle
. In particular, the families of model operators
and
can be seen as smooth families of left-invariant
DO's on
as in [CGGP] .
Now, since
satisfies the Rockland condition for every
it follows from [CGGP,Thm. 5(d)] near every
there exists an open neighborhood
of
and a smooth family
such that if for
we let
be the left-convolution operator with
acting on
then
is a left-inverse for
.
As
satisfies the Rockland condition for every
the same arguments show that
is left-invertible on
for any
in an open neighborhood
of
contained in
.
Thus
is invertible with two-side inverse
.
Since
is the left-invariant
DO with symbol
in
we see that we have
|
(5.8)
|
In fact, as
depends smoothly on
, that is, yields an element of
, we get a symbol in
by letting
. Then ( 5.8 ) shows that
is an inverse for
on
. This shows that
is invertible near every point of
, so
is an invertible symbol.
Next, since the aforementioned result of [CGGP] remains valid mutatis standis for systems, by working in a local trivializing Heisenberg chart we can similarly show that, in the case
is a general bundle, if
and
satisfy the Rockland condition at every point then the the principal symbol of
is invertible. Thus the assertions (i) and (ii) are equivalent. Finally, the above arguments remain valid when we replace the transpose
by the adjoint of
, so the statements (ii) and (iii) are equivalent. □
In particular, when the Levi form of
has constant rank and
is selfadjoint the Rockland condition for
is equivalent to the invertibility of the principal symbol of
, hence is equivalent to the existence of a parametrix in
.
6 Hypoellipticity criterions for sublaplacians
The main focus of this section is on sublaplacians, which furnish several important examples of operators on Heisenberg manifolds. The scalar case was dealt with in [BG] , but the results were not extended to sublaplacians acting on sections of vector bundles. These extensions are necessary in order to deal with sublaplacians acting on forms such as the Kohn Laplacian or the horizontal sublaplacian (see next section).
In this section, after having explained the scalar case from the point of view this paper, we extend the results to the non-scalar case. In particular, this will allow us to complete the treatment of the Kohn Laplacian in [BG] (see Remark 7.3 ahead).
Definition 6.1.
A differential operator
is a sublaplacian when, near any point
, we can put
in the form,
|
(6.1)
|
where
is a local
-frame of
, the coefficient
is a local section of
and the notation
means a differential operator of Heisenberg order
.
Let us look at the Rockland condition for a scalar sublaplacian
. Let
and let
be a local
-frame of
so that near
we can write
|
(6.2)
|
where
is a smooth function near
. Using ( 4.10 ) we see that the principal symbol of
is
|
(6.3)
|
In particular we have
for
, which shows that the condition (i) of Proposition 5.7 is always satisfied.
Let
be the matrix of the Levi form
with respect to the
-frame
, so that for
we have
|
(6.4)
|
Equivalently, if we let
be the metric on
making orthonormal the frame
, then for any sections
and
of
we have
|
(6.5)
|
The matrix
is antisymmetric, so up to an orthogonal change of frame of
, which does not affect the form ( 6.2 ), we may assume that
is in the normal form,
|
(6.6)
|
so that
are the eigenvalues of
counted with multiplicity, the multiplicity of
being
. Then the model vector fields
are:
|
(6.8)
|
In terms of these vector fields the model operator of
at
is
|
(6.9)
|
Next, under the isomorphism
given by
|
(6.10)
|
the representations
,
, become the representations of
such that
|
(6.13)
|
The spectrum of the harmonic oscillator
is
and all its eigenvectors belong to
. Thus, the operator
is injective on
if, and only if,
is not
. This occurs for any
if, and only if, the following condition holds
|
(6.16)
|
In particular, the condition (ii) of Proposition 5.7 is equivalent to ( 6.14 ). Since the condition (i) is always satisfied, it follows that the Rockland condition for
is equivalent to ( 6.14 ).
Notice also that, independently of the equivalence with the Rockland condition, the condition ( 6.14 ) does not depend on the choice of the
-frame, because as
depends only on the eigenvalues of
which scale in the same way as
under a change of
-frame preserving the form ( 6.2 ).
On the other hand, since the transpose
is given by the formula ( 6.9 ) with
replaced by
, which has no effect on ( 6.14 ), we see that the Rockland condition for
too is equivalent to ( 6.14 ). Therefore, we have obtained:
Proposition 6.2.
The Rockland conditions for
and
at
are both equivalent to ( 6.14 ).
In particular, we see that if the principal symbol of
is invertible then the condition ( 6.14 ) holds at every point. As shown by Beals-Greiner the converse is true as well. The key result is the following.
Proposition 6.3 ([BG,Sect. 5] ).
Let
be a Heisenberg chart near
and set
|
(6.17)
|
Then
is an open subset of
and there exists
such that:
(i)
is analytic with respect to
; (ii) We have
for any
. (iii) For any
the symbol
inverts
on
, i.e., we have
|
(6.18)
|
More precisely,
is obtained from the analytic continuation of the function,
This implies that if the condition ( 6.14 ) is satisfied at every point
then we get an inverse
for
on
by letting
|
(6.19)
|
It thus follows that if ( 6.14 ) holds at every point of
then the principal symbol of
is invertible near any point of
, hence admits an inverse in
. Therefore, we get:
Proposition 6.4.
A scalar sublaplacian
has an invertible principal symbol if, and only if, it satisfies the condition ( 6.14 ) at every point.
Let us now extend the above results to the case of a sublaplacian
acting on the sections of the vector bundle
.
Let
and let
be a local
-frame near
with respect to which we have
|
(6.20)
|
where
is a smooth section of
.
In a suitable basis of
the matrix of
is in triangular form,
|
(6.21)
|
where
denote the eigenvalues of
counted with multiplicity. Therefore, the model operator of
at
is of the form,
|
(6.22)
|
It follows that
satisfies the Rockland condition if, and only if, so does each sublaplacian
,
. Using Proposition 6.4 we then deduce that the Rockland condition
is equivalent to the condition,
|
(6.23)
|
Notice that the same is true for the transpose
. Moreover, the condition ( 6.23 ) is independent of the choice of the basis of
or of the
-frame since the condition involves
only though its eigenvalues of
and the latter scale in the same way as that of
under a change of
-frame preserving the form ( 6.20 ).
Next, concerning the invertibility of the principal symbol of
the following extension of Proposition 6.3 holds.
Proposition 6.5.
Let
be a trivializing Heisenberg chart near
and set
|
(6.24)
|
Then
is an open subset of
and there exists
so that:
(i)
is analytic with respect to
; (ii) We have
for any
.
(iii) For any
the symbol
inverts
on
, that is, we have
|
(6.25)
|
-
Proof.
It is enough to prove that near point
there exists an open neighborhood
contained in
and a function
satisfying the properties (i), (ii) and (iii) on
.
To this end observe that since
for any
, we see that if we let
then any
close enough to
has its spectrum contained in
.
Let
be small enough so that
and define
and
, so that
and
are disjoint open subsets of
containing
and
respectively.
Notice that for any
close enough to
we have
. Otherwise there exists a sequence
converging to
and a sequence of eigenvalues
,
, such that
for any
. Since the sequence
is bounded, we may assume that it converges to some
. Necessarily
is an eigenvalue of
, which contradicts the fact that
. Thus there exists
so that for any
we have
.
Similarly there exists
so that for any
we have
, which implies
. Therefore the open set
is such that for any
we have
, that is,
is an open neighborhood of
contained in
.
Next, let
be a smooth curve of index 1 such that the bounded connected component of
contains
and its unbounded component contains
. Then we define an element of
by letting
|
(6.26)
|
This function is homogeneous of degree
with respect to
and for any
we have
(6.27)
q
μ
(
x
,
.
)
*
x
(
|
ξ
′
|
2
+
i
μ
ξ
0
)
=
1
2
i
π
∫
Γ
q
γ
(
x
,
.
)
*
x
(
|
ξ
′
|
2
+
i
μ
ξ
0
)
(
γ
−
μ
)
−
1
d
γ
,
1
2
i
π
∫
Γ
[
(
γ
−
μ
)
−
1
−
i
q
γ
(
x
,
.
)
*
ξ
0
]
d
γ
=
1
.
Similarly we have
. Thus
satisfies the properties (i), (ii) and (iii) on
. The proof is thus complete. □
In the same way as Proposition 6.3 in the scalar case, Proposition 6.5 implies that when the condition ( 6.23 ) holds everywhere the principal symbol of
admits an inverse in
. We have thus proved:
Proposition 6.6.
1) At every point
the Rockland conditions for
and
are equivalent to ( 6.23 ).
2) The principal symbol of
is invertible if, and only if, the condition ( 6.23 ) holds everywhere. Moreover, when the latter occurs
admits a parametrix in
and is hypoelliptic with loss of 1 derivative.
7 Examples of hypoelliptic operators on Heisenberg manifolds
In this section we explain how the previous results of this paper can used to deal with the hypoellipticity for the main geometric operators on Heisenberg manifolds: Hörmander's sum of squares, Kohn Laplacian, horizontal sublaplacian and contact Laplacian. In particular, the treatment in [BG] of the Kohn Laplacian and we establish a criterion for the invertibility of the horizontal sublaplacian, which has not been done before.
7.1 Hörmander's sum of squares.
Let
be (real) vector fields on a manifold
and consider the sum of squares,
|
(7.1)
|
By a celebrated theorem of Hörmander [H¨2] the operator
is hypoelliptic provided that thefollowing bracket condition is satisfied: the vector fields
together with their successiveLie brackets
span the tangent bundle
at every point. When
span a hyperplane bundle
the operator
is a sublaplacian with realcoefficients and the bracket condition reduces to
, which is equivalent to thenon-vanishing of the Levi form of
. More generally, given a vector bundle
, the theorem of Hörmander holds for sublaplacians
of the form
|
(7.2)
|
where
is a connection on
. In particular, if
is endowed with a positive density and
with a Hermitian metric, this includes the selfadjoint sum of squares,
|
(7.3)
|
In fact, if
is a sublaplacian of the form ( 7.2 ) then in ( 6.1 ) the matrix
vanishes, so that ( 6.23 ) holds if, and only if, the Levi form does not vanish at
. Therefore, we obtain:
Proposition 7.1.
Let
be a (generalized) sum of squares of the form ( 7.2 ). Then: 1) At a point
the operators
and
satisfies the Rockland condition if, and only if, the Levi form
does not vanish at
.
2) The principal symbol of
is invertible if, and only if, the Levi form is non-vanishing.
In particular, when the latter occurs
admits a parametrix in
and is hypoelliptic with loss of one derivative.
In particular, since the nonvanishing of the Levi form is equivalent to the bracket condition
, we see that, the special case of Heisenberg manifolds, we recover the hypoellipticity result of [H¨2] for sums of squares.
7.2 The Kohn Laplacian
In [KR] Kohn-Rossi showed that the Dolbeault complex on a bounded complex domain induces on its boundary a horizontal complex of differential forms. This was later extended by Kohn [Koh1] to the general setting of a CR manifold
as follows.
Let
be a CR manifold with CR bundle
and set
. Then the subbundle
admits an integrable complex structure and the splitting
gives rise to a decomposition
, where
is called a bidegree of a form with values in
.
Assume that
is endowed with a Hermitian metric such that
and
are orthogonal subspaces and complex conjugation is an (antilinear) isometry. This Hermitian metric gives rise to a Hermitian metric on
with respect to which the decomposition
becomes orthogonal. Let
be the orthogonal projection onto
. Then the Kohn-Rossi operator
is given by
|
(7.4)
|
Since the integrability of
implies that
, this yields chain complexes
.
Endowing
with a smooth density
we let
denote the formal adjoint of
. Then the Kohn Laplacian is
|
(7.5)
|
The Kohn Laplacian is a sublaplacian (see [FS,Sect. 13] , [BG,Sect. 20] ) and it was shown by Kohn [Koh1] that under the condition
this operator is hypoelliptic with loss of one derivative when acting on
-forms.
The condition
means that if for
we let
be the signature of
at
, so that
is the rank of
and
the number of its negative eigenvalues, then the condition
is satisfied at
when we have
|
(7.6)
|
For instance, when
is
-strictly pseudoconvex, the
-condition exactly means that we must have
and
.
In fact, as shown in [BG,Sect. 21] , at every point
the condition
is equivalent to the condition ( 6.23 ) for the Kohn Laplacian acting on
-forms. Therefore, using Proposition 6.6 we immediately get:
Proposition 7.2.
Let
be the Kohn Laplacian acting on
-forms.
1) At a point
the Rockland condition for
is equivalent to the condition
.
2) The principal symbol of
is invertible if, and only if, the condition
is satisfied at every point. In particular, when the latter occurs
admits a parametrix in
and is hypoelliptic with loss of one derivative.
Remark 7.3.
The proof of the second part of the statement in [
BG,Sect. 21]
is not quite complete, because Beals-Greiner claim that diagonalizing the leading part of the Kohn Laplacian allows us to use to apply the results for scalar sublaplacians. While this property is true in case of a Levi Metric (see [
FS]
), it may fail for a general metric on
since a smooth eigenframe needs not exists For instance, for the Kohn Laplacian the eigenvalues of the matrix
in ( 6.1 ) with respect to an orthonormal
-frame of
are given in terms of eigenvalues of the Levi form (see Eq. (21.31) in [
BG]
), but the latter need not depend smoothly on
(unless the metric on
is a Levi metric).
Therefore, in order to deal with the Kohn Laplacian acting on forms, we really need to use the version for sublaplacians acting on section of vector bundles, provided by Proposition 6.6 , but not deal with in [
BG]
.
Remark 7.4.
The
-condition is only a sufficient condition for the hypoellipticity of
, as the latter may be hypoelliptic when the
-condition fails (e.g. [
Koh2]
, [
Ko]
, [
Ni]
).
7.3 The horizontal sublaplacian on a Heisenberg manifold
Let
be a Heisenberg manifold endowed with a Riemannian metric and let
be the (complexified) bundle of horizontal forms. Then the horizontal sublaplacian
is given by
|
(7.7)
|
where
denotes the orthogonal projection of
onto
.
This operator was first introduced by Tanaka [Ta] for strictly pseudoconvex CR manifolds, but versions of this operator acting on functions were independently defined by Greenleaf [Gr] and Lee [Le] .
Moreover, it can be shown that
if, and only if, the subbundle
is integrable, so in general
is not the Laplacian of a chain complex.
As we shall see to determine under which condition the principal symbol of
is invertible the relevant condition to look at is the
-condition below.
Definition 7.5.
For
let
denote the rank of the Levi form
at
. Then we say that
satisfies the condition
at
when we have
|
(7.8)
|
For instance, the condition
is satisfied if, and only if, the Levi form does not vanish. Also, if
is a contact manifold or a nondegenerate CR manifold then the Levi form is everywhere nondegenerate, so
and the
-condition becomes
. In any case, we have:
Proposition 7.6.
Let
be the horizontal sublaplacian acting on horizontal forms of degree
.
1) At a point
the Rockland condition for
is equivalent to the condition
.
2) The principal symbol of
is invertible if, and only if, the condition
is satisfied at every point. In particular, when the latter occurs
admits a parametrix in
and is hypoelliptic with loss of one derivative.
-
Proof.
First, thanks to Proposition 6.6 we only have to check that for
at any point
the condition ( 6.23 ) for
is equivalent to the condition
.
Next, let
be a Heisenberg chart around
together with an orthonormal
-frame
of
. Let
be the Riemannian metric of
. Then on
we can write the Levi form
in the form,
|
(7.9)
|
for some antisymmetric section
of
. In particular, if for
we let
then we have
|
(7.10)
|
Let
be the rank of
. Since the condition ( 6.23 ) for
at
is independent of the choice of the Heisenberg chart, we may assume that
is chosen in such way that at
we have
and
is in the normal form,
|
(7.11)
|
so that
are the nonzero eigenvalues of
counted with multiplicity.
Let
be the coframe of
dual to
. For a 1-form
we let
denote the exterior product and
denote the interior product with
, that is, the contraction with the vector fields dual to
. For an ordered subset
, so that
,we let
(we make the convention that
). Then the forms
's give rise to an orthonormal frame of
over
. With respect to this frame we have
|
(7.12)
|
Thus,
(7.13)
Δ
b
=
d
b
*
d
b
+
d
b
d
b
*
=
−
∑
j
,
l
[
ɛ
(
ω
j
)
ι
(
ω
l
)
X
j
X
l
+
ι
(
ω
l
)
ɛ
(
ω
j
)
X
l
X
j
]
+
O
H
(
1
)
=
−
1
2
∑
j
,
l
=
1
d
[
(
ɛ
(
ω
j
)
ι
(
ω
l
)
+
ι
(
ω
l
)
ɛ
(
ω
j
)
)
(
X
j
X
l
+
X
l
X
j
)
+
(
ɛ
(
ω
j
)
ι
(
ω
l
)
−
ι
(
ω
l
)
ɛ
(
ω
j
)
)
[
X
j
,
X
l
]
]
+
O
H
(
1
)
.
Combining this with ( 7.10 ) and the relations,
|
(7.14)
|
we then obtain
|
(7.15)
|
In particular, thanks to ( 7.11 ) at
we have
|
(7.16)
|
For
let
and
. Then we have:
(7.17)
1
i
(
ɛ
(
ω
j
)
ι
(
ω
n
+
j
)
−
ɛ
(
ω
n
+
j
)
ι
(
ω
j
)
)
=
−
1
2
[
(
ɛ
(
θ
j
)
+
ɛ
(
θ
j
¯
)
)
(
ι
(
θ
j
¯
)
−
ι
(
θ
j
)
)
−
(
ɛ
(
θ
j
)
−
ɛ
(
θ
j
¯
)
)
(
ι
(
θ
j
¯
)
+
ι
(
θ
j
)
)
]
=
ɛ
(
θ
j
)
ι
(
θ
j
)
−
ɛ
(
θ
j
¯
)
ι
(
θ
j
¯
)
.
Thus,
|
(7.18)
|
For any ordered subset
of
we let
|
(7.19)
|
Then the forms
give rise to an orthonormal frame of
as
and
range over all the ordered subsets of
and
over all the ordered subsets of
. For
we have
|
(7.21)
|
Combining this with ( 7.18 ) then gives
|
(7.22)
|
This shows that
diagonalizes in the basis of
provided by the forms of
with eigenvalues given by the numbers
. In particular, for
we have
|
(7.23)
|
Note that we always have
with equality if, and only if, one the subsets
or
is empty and the other is
, which occurs for eigenvectors in the subspace spanned by the forms
and
as
ranges over all the subsets of
.
Since
are the eigenvalues of
, each of them counted twice, if follows that the condition ( 6.23 ) for
reduces to
. This latter condition is satisfied if, and only if, the space
does contain any of the forms
and
with
subset of
. Therefore, the sublaplacian
satisfies ( 6.23 ) at
if, and only if, the integer
is not between
and
, that is, if, and only if, the condition
holds at
. The proof is thus achieved. □
7.4 Contact complex and the contact Laplacian
Given an orientable contact manifold
the contact complex of Rumin [Ru] can be seen as an attempt to get on
a complex of horizontal differential forms by forcing out the equalities
and
as follows.
Let
and assume that
is endowed with a calibrated almost complex structure
,
, so that
for any section
of
. We then can endow
with the Riemannian metric
.
In addition, let
be the Reeb fields of
. Then we have
|
(7.24)
|
where
denotes the exterior multiplication by
.
There are two ways of modifying the space
of horizontal forms to get a complex. The first one is to force the equality
by restricting the operator
to
since this bundle is stable under
and on there
vanishes.
The second way is to similarly force the equality
by restricting
to
, where
denotes the interior product with
. This amounts to replace
by the operator
, where
is the orthogonal projection onto
.
On the other hand, since
is nondegenerate on
the operator
is injective for
and surjective for
. This implies that
for
and
for
. Therefore, we only have two halves of complexes. The key observation of Rumin is that we get a full complex by connecting the two halves by means of the (second order) differential operator,
|
(7.25)
|
where
is the inverse of
. In other words, letting
for
and
for
, we have the chain complex,
|
(7.26)
|
where
is equal to
for
and to
for
. This complex is called the contact complex of
.
The contact Laplacian
is given by the formulas,
|
(7.27)
|
By comparing the contact Laplacian
to the horizontal sublaplacian
Rumin [Ru] was able to show that on every degree
satisfies the Rockland condition at every point. He then used results of Helffer-Nourrigat ([HN3] ) to show that
was maximal hypoelliptic.
Alternatively, since in the contact case both
and
are nondegenerate on
, once the Rockland condition is granted we may directly apply Proposition 5.9 to get:
Proposition 7.7.
1) For
with
the contact Laplacian
acting on sections of
has an invertible principal symbol of degree
, hence admits a parametrix in
and is hypoelliptic with loss of one derivative.
2) For
the contact Laplacian
acting on sections of
has an invertible principal symbol of degree
, hence admits a parametrix in
and is hypoelliptic with loss of two derivatives.
8 Proof of Proposition 3.18
First, we need the lemma below.
Lemma 8.1.
For
we have
.
-
Proof.
Let
and let
be a multi-order such that
. As
the multiplication by
maps
to
. Composing it with the inverse Fourier transform with respect to
then shows that the map
maps
to
. It then follows that for any
the transform
belongs to
.
Now, if
then by Lemma 3.14 there exists
,
, such that
is equal to
modulo a smooth function. Hence
belongs to
. The lemma is thus proved. □
We are now ready to prove Proposition 3.18 . Let
be an open subset of
together with a hyperplane bundle
and a
-frame of
and let
be a Heisenberg diffeormorphism. Let
and set
. We need to show that
is a
DO of order
on
.
First, by Proposition 3.16 the distribution kernel of
takes the form,
|
(8.1)
|
with
in
and
in
. Therefore, the distribution kernel of
is given by
|
(8.2)
|
where
is the distribution on
given by
|
(8.3)
|
Next, it follows from [Po2,Props. 3.16,3.18] that we have
|
(8.4)
|
where
is a smooth function on
with a behavior near
of the form
|
(8.5)
|
Then a Taylor expansion around
gives
|
(8.7)
|
where we have let
.
Set
. Then ( 8.5 ) implies that near
we have
|
(8.8)
|
Thus all the homogeneous components of degree
in the Taylor expansion for
at
must be zero. Therefore, we can write
|
(8.9)
|
where we have let
, the functions
are in
and the notation
means that
is equal to
if
is an integer and to
otherwise. Thus,
|
(8.10)
|
where we have let
|
(8.12)
|
As in the proof of Proposition 3.16 the smoothness of
and the fact that
for any
imply that
belongs to
. Notice that if
then
. It thus follows from Lemma 8.1 that, for any integer
, the remainder term
is in
as soon as
is large enough.
Let
denote the projection on the first coordinate. In the sequel we will say that a distribution
is properly supported with respect to
when
is a proper map, i.e. for any compact
the set
is compact.
In order to deal with the regularity of
in ( 8.7 ) we need the lemma below.
Lemma 8.2.
There exists a function
properly supported with respect to
such that
near
and, for any multi-order
, we can write
|
(8.13)
|
where the functions
are in
.
-
Proof of the lemma.
Let
be a relatively compact open subset of
and let
.
Since
and
is invertible the implicit function theorem implies that there exist an open interval
containing
, an open subset
of
containing
, open subsets
and
of
containing
and a smooth map
from
to
such that
is contained in
and for any
in
and any
in
we have
|
(8.14)
|
Since
is compact we can cover it by finitely many products
,
, with
. In particular, the sets
and
are open neighborhoods of
and
respectively. Thanks to ( 8.14 ) we have
on
.
Therefore, setting
and
we have
and there exists a smooth map
from
such that for any
in
and any
in
we have
|
(8.15)
|
Furthermore, as
and
for any
, the function
behaves near
as in ( 8.5 ). Therefore, as in ( 8.8 )–( 8.9 ) for any multi-order
we can write
|
(8.16)
|
Setting
then gives
|
(8.17)
|
All this allows us to construct locally finite coverings
and
of
by relatively compact open subsets in such way that, for each integer
, the open
contains
and there exists an open
containing
so that, for any multiorder
, on
we have
|
(8.18)
|
For each
let
be such that
on
and let
be such that
on a neighborhood
of
. Then we construct a locally finite family
as follows: for
we set
and for
we let
|
(8.19)
|
Then
is a well defined smooth function on
supported on
, hence properly supported with respect to
. Also, as
on each product
we see that
on a neighborhood of
. In addition, thanks to ( 8.18 ) on
we have
|
(8.20)
|
where the functions
are in
. The lemma is thus proved. □
Let us go back to the proof of Proposition 3.18 . Thanks to ( 8.7 ) and ( 8.13 ) on
we have
|
(8.21)
|
for some functions
in
. Since
belongs to
it follows from Lemma 8.1 that, for any integer
, as soon as
is taken large enough
is in
and so
is in
.
On the other hand, set
. Since
is supported in
and is properly supported with respect to
this defines a distribution on
. Moreover, using ( 8.10 ) we get
|
(8.22)
|
where the remainder terms
,
are given by
|
(8.24)
|
Each term
belongs to
and, as
and
imply
and
, in the r.h.s. ( 8.22 ) there are only finitely many such distributions in a given space
as
and
range over all multi-orders such that
. Furthermore, the reminder term
is smooth and the other remainder terms
,
, are in
as soon as
is large enough. Thus,
|
(8.25)
|
which implies that
belongs to
and satisfies ( 8.25 ).
Finally, from ( 8.1 ) and the very definition of
on
, we deduce that the distribution kernel of
is equal to
(8.26)
|
ɛ
x
′
|
K
P
(
x
,
−
ɛ
x
(
y
)
)
+
[
1
−
χ
(
x
,
ɛ
x
(
y
)
)
]
|
ɛ
~
φ
(
x
)
′
|
K
P
~
(
φ
(
x
)
,
−
ɛ
~
φ
(
x
)
∘
φ
(
y
)
)
+
R
~
(
φ
(
x
)
,
φ
(
y
)
)
=
|
ɛ
x
′
|
K
P
(
x
,
−
ɛ
x
(
y
)
)
m
o
d
C
∞
(
U
×
U
)
.
Combining this with Proposition 3.16 and the fact that
satisfies ( 8.25 ) completes the proof of Proposition 3.18 .
9 Proof of Proposition 3.21
Let
be a
DO of order
and let us show that its transpose operator
is a
DO of order
. By Proposition 3.16 the distribution kernel of
is of the form,
|
(9.1)
|
with
in
and
in
. Thus the distribution kernel of
can be written as
|
(9.2)
|
where
is the distribution on the open
given by
|
(9.3)
|
Lemma 9.1.
On
we have
|
(9.4)
|
where
is a smooth map with a behavior near
of the form ( 8.5 ).
-
Proof.
Let
and
let
, that is,
is the left multiplication by
on
. Then by [Po2,Eq. (3.32)] for
small enough we have
|
(9.5)
|
Since
is a smooth function of
near
, it follows from the implicit function theorem that for
small enough we have
|
(9.6)
|
In particular, for
we get
|
(9.7)
|
Now, the function
depends smoothly on
, so ( 9.7 ) allows us to put it into the form,
|
(9.8)
|
where
is smooth map from
to
with a behavior near
of the form
|
(9.9)
|
In particular, near
the map
has a behavior of the form ( 8.5 ). □
Next, a Taylor expansion around
gives
|
(9.11)
|
where we have let
. Let
. Then because of ( 8.5 ) the same arguments used to prove ( 8.9 ) show that there exist functions
,
, such that
|
(9.12)
|
where we have let
. Thus,
|
(9.14)
|
Next, a further Taylor expansion shows that
is equal to
|
(9.15)
|
where we have let
. Since
is polynomial in
of degree 2 and vanishes for
, we can write
|
(9.16)
|
Therefore, we can put
into the form,
|
(9.17)
|
where the first summation goes over all the multi-orders
,
,
and
such that
,
and
, and we have let
|
(9.19)
|
Now, the distribution
belongs to
. In particular, if
then
. Therefore, for any given integer
Lemma 8.1 tells us that
is in
as soon as
is large enough. It follows that all the remainder terms
,
, belong to
for
large enough.
Similarly, if
and
then
, so using Lemma 8.1 we see that
is in
for
large enough. It then follows that for
large enough the remainder terms
with
and
are all in
as soon as
is chosen large enough.
In order to deal with the last remainder term
notice that, along the same lines as that of the proof of Lemma 8.2 , one can show that there exists a
properly supported with respect to
such that
near
and, for any multi-order
, we can write
|
(9.20)
|
where the functions
are in
. Then we can put
into the form,
|
(9.21)
|
for some functions
in
. As
is in
and we have
, using Lemma 8.1 we see that for
large enough
is in
, so is in
since
is a properly supported with respect to
.
Let
. This defines a distribution on
since
is properly supported with respect to
. Moreover, we have
|
(9.22)
|
where the remainder terms
,
, are given by
|
(9.24)
|
Note that
belongs to
and there are finitely many terms of a given order as
,
,
and
ranges over all the multi-orders such that
and
.
On the other hand, the remainder term
is smooth and it follows from th observations above that the other remainder terms are in
as soon as
is large enough. Thus,
|
(9.25)
|
which incidentally shows that
belongs to
.
Finally, thanks to ( 9.2 ) we can put the kernel of
into the form,
(9.26)
k
P
t
(
x
,
y
)
=
|
ɛ
x
′
|
K
P
(
x
,
−
ɛ
x
(
y
)
)
+
|
ɛ
x
′
|
[
(
1
−
χ
)
K
]
(
x
,
−
ɛ
x
(
y
)
)
+
R
(
y
,
x
)
=
|
ɛ
x
′
|
K
P
(
x
,
−
ɛ
x
(
y
)
)
m
o
d
C
∞
(
U
×
U
)
.
It then follows from Proposition 3.16 that
is a
DO of order
. Moreover, working out the expression for
shows that the asymptotics expansion ( 9.25 ) reduces to ( 3.37 ). The proof of Proposition 3.21 is thus achieved.
References
-
Atiyah, M.F.; Singer, I.M.: The index of elliptic operators. I. Ann. of Math. (2) 87 (1968), 484–530.
-
Atiyah, M.F, Singer, I.M: The index of elliptic operators. III. Ann. of Math. (2) 87, 546–604 (1968).
-
Atiyah, M., Patodi, V., Singer, I.: Spectral asymmetry and Riemannian geometry. III. Math. Proc. Camb. Philos. Soc. 79, 71–99 (1976).
-
Bellaïche, A.: The tangent space in sub-Riemannian geometry. Sub-Riemannian geometry, 1–78, Progr. Math., 144, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1996.
-
Beals, R.: Opérateurs invariants hypoelliptiques sur un groupe de Lie nilpotent. Séminaire Goulaouic-Schwartz (1976-77), Exposé No. 19. Ecole Polytech., Palaiseau, 1977.
-
Beals, R.; Greiner, P.C.: Calculus on Heisenberg manifolds. Annals of Mathematics Studies, vol. 119. Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1988.
-
Boutet de Monvel, L.: Hypoelliptic operators with double characteristics and related pseudo-differential operators. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 27 (1974), 585–639.
-
Boutet de Monvel, L.: Logarithmic trace of Toeplitz projectors. E-print, arXiv, Dec. 04.
-
Boutet de Monvel, L.; Grigis, A.; Helffer, B.: Parametrixes d'opérateurs pseudo-différentiels à caractéristiques multiples. Journées EDP (Rennes, 1975) pp. 93–121. Astérisque, No. 34-35, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1976.
-
Brüning, J.; Lesch, M.: On the eta-invariant of certain nonlocal boundary value problems. Duke Math. J. 96 (1999), no. 2, 425–468.
-
Christ, M.; Geller, D.; Głowacki, P.; Polin, L.: Pseudodifferential operators on groups with dilations. Duke Math. J. 68 (1992) 31–65.
-
Connes, A.: Noncommutative geometry. Academic Press, Inc., San Diego, CA, 1994.
-
Connes, A.; Moscovici, H.: The local index formula in noncommutative geometry. Geom. Funct. Anal. 5 (1995), no. 2, 174–243.
-
Dynin, A.: Pseudodifferential operators on the Heisenberg group. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 225 (1975) 1245–1248.
-
Dynin, A.: An algebra of pseudodifferential operators on the Heisenberg groups. Symbolic calculus. Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR 227 (1976), 792–795.
-
Epstein, C.L.; Melrose, R.B.; Mendoza, G.: The Heisenberg algebra, index theory and homology. To appear. Partially available at http://www-math.mit.edu/~rbm.
-
Eliashberg, Y.; Thurston, W.: Confoliations. University Lecture Series, 13, AMS, Providence, RI, 1998.
-
Fefferman, C.: Parabolic invariant theory in complex analysis. Adv. in Math. 31 (1979), no. 2, 131–262.
-
Folland, G. Subelliptic estimates and function spaces on nilpotent Lie groups. Ark. Mat. 13 (1975) 161–207.
-
Folland, G.; Stein, E.: Estimates for the
complex and analysis on the Heisenberg group. Comm. Pure Appl. Math. 27 (1974) 429–522.
-
Liouville's theorem for homogeneous groups. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 8 (1983) 1665–1677.
-
P.B. Gilkey Invariance theory, the heat equation, and the Atiyah-Singer index theorem. Mathematics Lecture Series, 11. Publish or Perish, Inc., Wilmington, Del., 1984.
-
Głowacki, P.: Stable semigroups of measures as commutative approximate identities on nongraded homogeneous groups. Invent. Math. 83 (1986), no. 3, 557–582.
-
Greenleaf, A.: The first eigenvalue of a sub-Laplacian on a pseudo-Hermitian manifold. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 10 (1985), no. 2, 191–217.
-
Grigis, A.: Hypoellipticité et paramétrix pour des opérateurs pseudodifférentiels à caractéristiques doubles. Journées EDP (Rennes, 1975) pp. 183–205. Astérisque, No. 34-35, Soc. Math. France, Paris, 1976.
-
Gromov, M.: Carnot-Carathéodory spaces seen from within. Sub-Riemannian geometry, 79–323, Progr. Math., 144, Birkhäuser, Basel, 1996.
-
Guillemin, V.W.: A new proof of Weyl's formula on the asymptotic distribution of eigenvalues. Adv. in Math. 55 (1985), no. 2, 131–160.
-
Helffer, B.: Hypoellipticité pour des opérateurs différentiels sur des groupes de Lie nilpotents. Pseudodifferential operator with applications (Bressanone, 1977), pp. 73–88, Liguori, Naples, 1978.
-
Helffer, B.; Nourrigat, F.: Hypoellipticité pour des groupes nilpotents de rang de nilpotence
. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 3 (1978), no. 8, 643–743.
-
Helffer, B.; Nourrigat, J.: Caracterisation des opérateurs hypoelliptiques homogènes invariants à gauche sur un groupe de Lie nilpotent gradué. Comm. Partial Differential Equations 4 (1979), no. 8, 899–958.
-
Helffer, B.; Nourrigat, J.: Hypoellipticité maximale pour des opérateurs polynômes de champs de vecteurs. Prog. Math., No. 58, Birkhäuser, Boston, 1986.
-
Hirachi, K.: Logarithmic singularity of the Szegö kernel and a global invariant of strictly pseudoconvex domains. E-print, arXiv, Sep. 03, 17 pages. To appear in Ann. of Math..
-
L. Hörmander Hypoelliptic second order differential equations. Acta Math. 119 (1967), 147–171.
-
Hörmander, L.: A class of hypoelliptic pseudodifferential operators with double characteristics. Math. Ann. 217 (1975), no. 2, 165–188.
-
Koenig, K.: On maximal Sobolev and Hlder estimates for the tangential Cauchy-Riemann operator and boundary Laplacian. Amer. J. Math. 124 (2002), no. 1, 129–197.
-
J. J. Kohn Boundaries of complex manifolds. 1965 Proc. Conf. Complex Analysis (Minneapolis, 1964) pp. 81–94 Springer, Berlin
-
Kohn, J. J.: Superlogarithmic estimates on pseudoconvex domains and CR manifolds. Ann. of Math. (2) 156 (2002), no. 1, 213–248.
-
Kohn, J.J.; Rossi, H. On the extension of holomorphic functions from the boundary of a complex manifold. Ann. of Math. 81 (1965) 451–472.
-
Lee, J.M.: The Fefferman metric and pseudo-Hermitian invariants. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 296 (1986), no. 1, 411–429.
-
Melrose, R.B.: The Atiyah-Patodi-Singer index theorem. A.K. Peters, Boston, 1993.
-
Nicoara, A.: Regularity results for the tangential Cauchy-Riemann operator and the Szegö projection on weakly pseudoconvex CR manifolds. PhD dissertation, Princeton University, 2002.
-
Ponge, R.: Spectral asymmetry, zeta functions and the noncommutative residue. E-print, arXiv, Oct. 03, 28 pages. Submitted to J. Funct. Anal..
-
Ponge, R.: The tangent groupoid of a Heisenberg manifold. E-print, arXiv, Apr. 04, 17 pages.
-
Ponge, R.: Functional calculus and spectral asymptotics for hypoelliptic operators on Heisenberg manifolds. I. E-print, arXiv, Feb. 05, 74 pages.
-
Ponge, R.: Functional calculus and spectral asymptotics for hypoelliptic operators on Heisenberg manifolds. II. In preparation.
-
Rockland, C.: Hypoellipticity on the Heisenberg group-representation-theoretic criteria. Trans. Amer. Math. Soc. 240 (1978) 1–52.
-
Rockland, C.: Intrinsic nilpotent approximation. Acta Appl. Math. 8 (1987), no. 3, 213–270.
-
Rothschild, L.; Stein, E.: Hypoelliptic differential operators and nilpotent groups. Acta Math. 137 (1976) 247–320.
-
Rumin, M.: Formes différentielles sur les variétés de contact. J. Differential Geom. 39 (1994), no.2, 281–330.
-
Tanaka, N.: A differential geometric study on strongly pseudo-convex manifolds. Lectures in Mathematics, Department of Mathematics, Kyoto University, No. 9. Kinokuniya Book-Store Co., Ltd., Tokyo, 1975.
-
Taylor, M.E.: Noncommutative microlocal analysis. I. Mem. Amer. Math. Soc. 52 (1984), no. 313,
-
Wodzicki, M.: Local invariants of spectral asymmetry. Invent. Math. 75 (1984) 143–177.
Department of Mathematics, Ohio State University, Columbus, USA. E-mail address : ponge@math.ohio-state.edu