The Sobolev domain of an elliptic operator

Written by GPT-6.1 Sol (OpenAI) and GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI). Self-checked by the writing AI. Original exposition: CC0.

Working question: When does the closure have exactly the expected Sobolev domain? A graph estimate controls derivatives by the equation, but it must be proved for the actual rough expression before it identifies a closed domain. Approximation then has to preserve symmetry and common constants. Otherwise a smooth approximant can have a correct domain while the limiting operator has not yet been identified.

Changing the highest derivatives of an operator need not change its domain. The difficult point is to prove this when the leading coefficients are merely continuous and the lower coefficients may be unbounded. A symmetric smooth approximation supplies a known domain, but a bound whose constant grows arbitrarily during smoothing would not transfer that domain back to the original expression. We obtain a constant controlled by the fixed coefficient class, its continuity modulus and principal ellipticity. No derivative of an approximating leading coefficient enters that constant.

Read Admissible differential perturbations for the local coefficient exponents and the global multiplier estimate. The smooth-reference argument uses the complete programme proof Finite composition and adjoints with spatial weights. Its hypotheses apply because the reference coefficients are smooth and compactly supported, as checked in Section 4. The high-frequency norm is proved by the Gaussian-packet norm theorem. Lerner [L] supplies the freely accessible construction correspondence. The uniform estimate for rough coefficients is proved here by local freezing and the coefficient multiplication estimate; it uses no sharp positivity theorem. Fourier inversion and Plancherel are proved in the Fourier reading. Approximation, convolution and integer Sobolev density proves the compact smooth density, finite LpL^p translation and convolution limits, and the continuous Hilbert-space average used in (15). Hilbert-space adjoint facts are identified in Section 4 below. Teschl [T] provides freely accessible background on adjoints and resolvents.

Throughout, n,m≥1n,m\geq1 are integers, Dj=−i∂jD_j=-i\partial_j, and ⟨ξ⟩=(1+∣ξ∣2)1/2\langle\xi\rangle=(1+|\xi|^2)^{1/2}. The L2L^2 inner product is linear in its first variable, and

∥u∥Hs=∥⟨D⟩su∥2.(1) \|u\|_{H^s}=\|\langle D\rangle^s u\|_2. \tag{1}

All operators below are scalar. Ellipticity means nonvanishing of the principal symbol for every nonzero real covector; it does not require that symbol to be positive.

1. The domain theorem and its coefficient hypotheses

Let P0(D)P_0(D) have real constant coefficients and elliptic principal polynomial pm(ξ)p_m(\xi), of degree mm. Consider

V=∑∣α∣≤maα(x)Dα,P=P0+V.(2) V=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}a_\alpha(x)D^\alpha, \qquad P=P_0+V. \tag{2}

For ∣α∣<m|\alpha|<m, with derivative gap k=m−∣α∣k=m-|\alpha|, choose a finite exponent

pα={n/k,n>2k,a fixed number greater than 2,n=2k,2,n<2k.(3) p_\alpha= \begin{cases} n/k,&n>2k,\\ \text{a fixed number greater than }2,&n=2k,\\ 2,&n<2k. \end{cases} \tag{3}

Theorem 1.1. Assume the following conditions.

∥aα∥Lpα(B(y,1))⟶0as ∣y∣→∞.(4) \|a_\alpha\|_{L^{p_\alpha}(B(y,1))}\longrightarrow0 \quad\text{as }|y|\to\infty. \tag{4} Am(x,ξ)=pm(ξ)+∑∣α∣=maα(x)ξα(5) A_m(x,\xi)=p_m(\xi)+\sum_{|\alpha|=m}a_\alpha(x)\xi^\alpha \tag{5}

is elliptic.

Then the differential expression PP, with domain Hm(Rn)H^m(\mathbb R^n), is self-adjoint in L2(Rn)L^2(\mathbb R^n). Both Cc∞C_c^\infty and S\mathcal S are cores. Its graph norm is equivalent to the Sobolev norm:

c∥u∥Hm≤∥Pu∥2+∥u∥2≤C∥u∥Hm,u∈Hm.(6) c\|u\|_{H^m}\leq \|Pu\|_2+\|u\|_2 \leq C\|u\|_{H^m},\qquad u\in H^m. \tag{6}

The constants in (6) may depend on the operator. No power rate in (4) is needed. In particular the theorem applies to every admissible perturbation in the preceding lesson, even though some of its highest-order terms need not be relatively compact.

The local membership is part of the theorem: an integral that vanishes for all sufficiently distant balls says nothing about its finiteness on balls near the origin. Problem 5 gives a symmetric elliptic expression whose tail integrals vanish but whose action is not defined on all of HmH^m.

We prove the theorem in stages. Sections 2–3 construct the smooth approximation. Sections 4–5 obtain an imaginary-axis inverse and a graph bound uniform under this approximation. Section 6 transfers the domain.

2. A norm in which symmetry can be approximated

We first make the exponents compatible with localization. Regard a highest-order coefficient as having exponent pα=∞p_\alpha=\infty. At a critical degree m−∣α∣=n/2m-|\alpha|=n/2, replace all the given exponents by one common finite exponent greater than 2, no larger than any given exponent at that degree or any exponent at a higher degree. Such a choice exists: every finite exponent at a higher degree is strictly greater than 2, and there are finitely many degrees. Inclusion of LpL^p spaces on unit balls preserves both local membership and (4). With this choice,

β≤α⟹pβ≤pα,(7) \beta\leq\alpha\quad\Longrightarrow\quad p_\beta\leq p_\alpha, \tag{7}

where the multiindex inequality is componentwise. Away from the critical degree this follows directly from (3). We keep these fixed compatible exponents throughout the proof.

For any differential expression W=∑bαDαW=\sum b_\alpha D^\alpha, define

∥W∥coef=∑∣α∣=m∥bα∥∞+∑∣α∣<msup⁡y∥bα∥Lpα(B(y,1)).(8) \|W\|_{\mathrm{coef}}= \sum_{|\alpha|=m}\|b_\alpha\|_\infty+ \sum_{|\alpha|<m}\sup_y \|b_\alpha\|_{L^{p_\alpha}(B(y,1))}. \tag{8}

The hypotheses imply that ∥V∥coef<∞\|V\|_{\mathrm{coef}}<\infty. For lower coefficients, local membership bounds the norms at centers in any bounded set by one larger bounded region; (4) bounds the remaining centers. The continuous leading coefficients are bounded by the same compact-region and tail argument.

Proposition 2.1 of Admissible differential perturbations gives a fixed constant C0C_0 such that

∥Wu∥2≤C0∥W∥coef∥u∥Hm.(9) \|Wu\|_2\leq C_0\|W\|_{\mathrm{coef}}\|u\|_{H^m}. \tag{9}

It depends on n,mn,m and the chosen exponents, rather than the coefficients. The extension agrees with the actual coefficient products. Hence P:Hm→L2P:H^m\to L^2 is bounded, and symmetry extends from compact tests to HmH^m by Sobolev density.

Lemma 2.1. For every η>0\eta>0, there is a symmetric differential expression V0V_0 with smooth compactly supported coefficients such that

∥V−V0∥coef<η.(10) \|V-V_0\|_{\mathrm{coef}}<\eta. \tag{10}

Proof. Choose a real χ∈Cc∞\chi\in C_c^\infty, equal to one on the unit ball and supported in the ball of radius two, and let χR(x)=χ(x/R)\chi_R(x)=\chi(x/R), R≥1R\geq1. Set WR=χRVχRW_R=\chi_R V\chi_R. For compact smooth inputs, multiplication by the real cutoff and symmetry of VV show

(WRu,v)=(VχRu,χRv)=(χRu,VχRv)=(u,WRv).(11) (W_Ru,v)=(V\chi_Ru,\chi_Rv) =(\chi_Ru,V\chi_Rv)=(u,W_Rv). \tag{11}

The coefficient of DβD^\beta in WRW_R is

bβ,R=χR2aβ+∑α≥βα≠β(αβ)χRaαDα−βχR.(12) b_{\beta,R}=\chi_R^2a_\beta+ \sum_{\substack{\alpha\geq\beta\\\alpha\ne\beta}} \binom\alpha\beta\chi_Ra_\alpha D^{\alpha-\beta}\chi_R. \tag{12}

Only the cutoff is differentiated. The coefficient of DβD^\beta in V−WRV-W_R therefore consists of (1−χR2)aβ(1-\chi_R^2)a_\beta and the negatives of the terms in the sum. Every such term is supported where ∣x∣≥R|x|\geq R; the terms with a cutoff derivative are supported in R≤∣x∣≤2RR\leq|x|\leq2R. The derivatives of χR\chi_R are uniformly bounded for R≥1R\geq1.

For pβ≤pα<∞p_\beta\leq p_\alpha<\infty, Hölder on a unit ball gives

∥aα∥Lpβ(B(y,1))≤∣B(0,1)∣1/pβ−1/pα∥aα∥Lpα(B(y,1)).(13) \|a_\alpha\|_{L^{p_\beta}(B(y,1))} \leq |B(0,1)|^{1/p_\beta-1/p_\alpha} \|a_\alpha\|_{L^{p_\alpha}(B(y,1))}. \tag{13}

The corresponding bound for pα=∞p_\alpha=\infty uses the factor ∣B(0,1)∣1/pβ|B(0,1)|^{1/p_\beta}. A ball meeting the displayed supports has ∣y∣≥R−1|y|\geq R-1. Equations (4), (7), and the leading coefficient decay now prove

∥V−WR∥coef⟶0.(14) \|V-W_R\|_{\mathrm{coef}}\longrightarrow0. \tag{14}

Fix RR giving an error less than η/2\eta/2. Each lower coefficient of WRW_R is compactly supported in its required finite LpL^p space; each leading coefficient is continuous and compactly supported.

Let ρh≥0\rho_h\geq0 be a real compact smooth approximate identity of integral one. If Tyu(x)=u(x−y)T_yu(x)=u(x-y), define

V0u=∫ρh(y)TyWRTy∗u dy.(15) V_0u=\int\rho_h(y)T_yW_RT_y^*u\,dy. \tag{15}

For compact smooth uu, the integral exists in L2L^2, by (9) and translation continuity; the same formula defines an Hm→L2H^m\to L^2 map. Each translated operator is symmetric, so integrating its inner-product identity proves symmetry of V0V_0. Its coefficients are exactly ρh∗bβ,R\rho_h*b_{\beta,R}, which are smooth and compactly supported. For leading coefficients they converge uniformly; for lower coefficients they converge in global LpβL^{p_\beta}, and hence in the supremum of the local norms in (8). Choosing hh small enough gives ∥WR−V0∥coef<η/2\|W_R-V_0\|_{\mathrm{coef}}<\eta/2. Equations (14)–(15) prove (10). □\square

The averaging in (15) explains why coefficient smoothing preserves symmetry here. It smooths the entire localized operator, including every term in (12); it does not impose separate reality conditions on the lower coefficients.

3. Uniform principal ellipticity

Lemma 3.1. The symbol AmA_m in (5) is real, and there is c∗>0c_*>0 such that

∣Am(x,ξ)∣≥c∗∣ξ∣m(x∈Rn, ξ∈Rn).(16) |A_m(x,\xi)|\geq c_*|\xi|^m \quad(x\in\mathbb R^n,\ \xi\in\mathbb R^n). \tag{16}

For all sufficiently small η\eta, any approximation in Lemma 2.1 has principal symbol A0,mA_{0,m} satisfying

∣A0,m(x,ξ)∣≥12c∗∣ξ∣m.(17) |A_{0,m}(x,\xi)|\geq \tfrac12c_*|\xi|^m. \tag{17}

Proof. Fix a real covector θ\theta and ϕ∈Cc∞\phi\in C_c^\infty. Symmetry makes the quadratic form of PP on eiNθ⋅xϕe^{iN\theta\cdot x}\phi real. Expanding

Dα(eiNθ⋅xϕ)=eiNθ⋅x(D+Nθ)αϕ(18) D^\alpha(e^{iN\theta\cdot x}\phi) =e^{iN\theta\cdot x}(D+N\theta)^\alpha\phi \tag{18}

and dividing by NmN^m yields, as N→∞N\to\infty, the real quantity

∫Am(x,θ)∣ϕ(x)∣2 dx.(19) \int A_m(x,\theta)|\phi(x)|^2\,dx. \tag{19}

All lower terms tend to zero: their integrals on the fixed compact support are finite by local integrability, and their powers of NN are at most m−1m-1. If the continuous function Im⁡Am(⋅,θ)\operatorname{Im}A_m(\cdot,\theta) were nonzero at some point, a test supported where it had one strict sign would contradict (19). Thus Am(x,θ)A_m(x,\theta) is real for every x,θx,\theta.

The leading coefficient decay makes Am(x,θ)→pm(θ)A_m(x,\theta)\to p_m(\theta) uniformly on ∣θ∣=1|\theta|=1 as ∣x∣→∞|x|\to\infty. The elliptic polynomial has a positive minimum modulus on that sphere. On the remaining compact set of positions and unit covectors, continuity and ellipticity again give a positive minimum. Homogeneity proves (16).

For an approximation, the finitely many leading coefficient differences each have uniform norm less than η\eta. Therefore

∣A0,m−Am∣≤Nn,mη∣ξ∣m,(20) |A_{0,m}-A_m|\leq N_{n,m}\eta|\xi|^m, \tag{20}

where Nn,mN_{n,m} is the number of multiindices of degree mm. Choose Nn,mη≤c∗/2N_{n,m}\eta\leq c_*/2. This proves (17); reality follows from the same symmetry argument, or from the smooth formal adjoint. □\square

For example, in one dimension a first-order real elliptic principal symbol has opposite signs at positive and negative frequencies. The estimates use its modulus and retain that case.

4. The smooth reference and its imaginary resolvent

Fix an approximation satisfying (17), and write

A0=P0+V0,D(A0)=Hm.(21) A_0=P_0+V_0,\qquad \mathcal D(A_0)=H^m. \tag{21}

Its left symbol a0(x,ξ)a_0(x,\xi) is in the global classical class S1,0mS^m_{1,0}: all coefficient derivatives are bounded and frequency differentiation lowers polynomial degree. More precisely it belongs to S(⟨ξ⟩m,G1)S(\langle\xi\rangle^m,G_1) in the linked programme calculus proof. Every positive position derivative is supported in the fixed compact coefficient support, where multiplying by any fixed power of ⟨x⟩\langle x\rangle changes only its finite bound. The constant-coefficient part has no positive position derivatives. Thus the stronger spatial derivative factors required by G1G_1 hold for this fixed reference; their constants may depend on that reference. For sufficiently large frequency its modulus is at least c⟨ξ⟩mc\langle\xi\rangle^m, uniformly in position. The lower coefficients can be complex; this modulus bound follows from (17) by subtracting their order-m−1m-1 bound.

The Hilbert-space facts used in this domain argument can be proved here. First, in a complete Hilbert space every closed subspace NN has an orthogonal projection. For a fixed uu, take vj∈Nv_j\in N with ∥u−vj∥\|u-v_j\| tending to its infimum dd. The parallelogram identity gives

∥vj−vk∥2≤2∥u−vj∥2+2∥u−vk∥2−4d2⟶0. \|v_j-v_k\|^2 \le 2\|u-v_j\|^2+2\|u-v_k\|^2-4d^2\longrightarrow0.

Completeness and closedness give a minimizing v∈Nv\in N. Varying it by real and imaginary scalar multiples of any w∈Nw\in N in the minimizing inequality shows u−v⊥Nu-v\perp N. The decomposition is unique, since N∩N⊥={0}N\cap N^\perp=\{0\}. In particular a closed subspace with zero orthogonal complement is the whole space.

This also proves the representing-vector theorem needed for adjoints. If FF is a nonzero bounded linear functional, apply that projection to its closed kernel and a vector outside the kernel, obtaining e⊥ker⁡Fe\perp\ker F with F(e)≠0F(e)\ne0. For every ww, the vector w−F(w)e/F(e)w-F(w)e/F(e) is in the kernel. Taking its inner product with ee gives

F(w)=(w,h),h=F(e)‾∥e∥2e. F(w)=(w,h),\qquad h=\frac{\overline{F(e)}}{\|e\|^2}e.

The zero functional is represented by zero. Cauchy–Schwarz follows by minimizing ∥w−ce∥2\|w-ce\|^2 in the scalar cc; it gives ∥F∥≤∥h∥\|F\|\le\|h\|, and testing on h/∥h∥h/\|h\| gives equality when h≠0h\ne0. Uniqueness follows by testing the difference of two representing vectors against itself.

For a densely defined operator AA, its adjoint domain consists of those uu for which v↦(Av,u)v\mapsto(Av,u) is bounded in the ambient Hilbert norm on D(A)\mathcal D(A). Density extends this functional uniquely, and the representing-vector argument defines A∗uA^*u by (Av,u)=(v,A∗u)(Av,u)=(v,A^*u). Its graph is closed: if uj→uu_j\to u and A∗uj→fA^*u_j\to f, pass to the limit in this identity for each fixed v∈D(A)v\in\mathcal D(A). It gives u∈D(A∗)u\in\mathcal D(A^*) and A∗u=fA^*u=f. A symmetric operator is contained in its adjoint; a self-adjoint operator is therefore closed. The same defining identity proves, for every complex zz,

Ran⁡(A−z)⊥=ker⁡(A∗−z‾). \operatorname{Ran}(A-z)^\perp=\ker(A^*-\overline z).

Indeed orthogonality says (Av,u)=z(v,u)=(v,z‾ u)(Av,u)=z(v,u)=(v,\overline z\,u), which is exactly the adjoint-domain condition and displayed kernel equation. These arguments justify all the closed-range and two-sign adjoint steps below.

We will also use the geometric inverse for a bounded operator KK with ∥K∥<1\|K\|<1. Its finite sums ∑j=0N(−K)j\sum_{j=0}^N(-K)^j are Cauchy in operator norm by the scalar geometric series. Their values converge on every vector in the complete Hilbert space, defining a bounded operator with the same norm limit. Multiplication by I+KI+K on either side of the finite sums leaves I−(−K)N+1I-(-K)^{N+1}. Passing to the limit proves the two-sided inverse and the norm bound (1−∥K∥)−1(1-\|K\|)^{-1}. Thus the Neumann step in Section 6 is also a proved input.

Lemma 4.1. A0A_0 is self-adjoint on HmH^m, and, for every nonzero real tt,

∥(A0+it)−1∥L2→L2≤∣t∣−1.(22) \|(A_0+it)^{-1}\|_{L^2\to L^2}\leq |t|^{-1}. \tag{22}

Proof. Here is the smooth parametrix needed for the domain argument. Choose a frequency cutoff equal to one at sufficiently large frequency and zero where the preceding modulus bound has not been established. Its product with a0−1a_0^{-1} is a symbol e∈S1,0−me\in S^{-m}_{1,0}. The proved finite left product gives

e(x,D)A0=I+R,R∈Op⁡S1,0−1. e(x,D)A_0=I+R,\qquad R\in\operatorname{Op}S^{-1}_{1,0}.

The compact-frequency discrepancy belongs to every negative frequency order. The exact symbols of (−R)je(x,D)(-R)^j e(x,D) belong to S(⟨ξ⟩−m−j,G1)S(\langle\xi\rangle^{-m-j},G_1). The reciprocal estimates and composition follow from Sections 1 and 4 of the linked programme proof; the compact-frequency discrepancy belongs to every negative frequency weight for G1G_1, even though it need not decrease in position. Write these exact symbols as bjb_j, and choose a smooth frequency cutoff θ\theta that is zero on the unit ball and one outside the ball of radius two. For j≥1j\geq1, choose Rj≥jR_j\geq j so large that θ(ξ/Rj)bj\theta(\xi/R_j)b_j has every seminorm of derivative order at most jj in S(⟨ξ⟩−m−N,G1)S(\langle\xi\rangle^{-m-N},G_1) at most 2−j2^{-j}, simultaneously for the finitely many integers 0≤N<j0\leq N<j. This is possible: the product rule bounds each such seminorm by a fixed constant times RjN−jR_j^{N-j}; derivatives of the cutoff have the same frequency gains on their annular support. Choose any sufficiently large R0R_0. For each fixed NN, the series with j>Nj>N now converges in every seminorm of S(⟨ξ⟩−m−N,G1)S(\langle\xi\rangle^{-m-N},G_1). The term with j=Nj=N already has that order, and the finitely many differences (θ(ξ/Rj)−1)bj(\theta(\xi/R_j)-1)b_j with j<Nj<N have compact frequency support and belong to every negative frequency order. Completeness, proved in the symbol-space argument, therefore makes b=∑j≥0θ(ξ/Rj)bjb=\sum_{j\geq0}\theta(\xi/R_j)b_j a symbol of order −m-m, with b−∑j<Nbj∈S(⟨ξ⟩−m−N,G1)b-\sum_{j<N}b_j\in S(\langle\xi\rangle^{-m-N},G_1) for every NN. Multiplying by A0A_0 puts this error in S(⟨ξ⟩−N,G1)S(\langle\xi\rangle^{-N},G_1), while the exact finite product is ∑j<N(−R)j(I+R)=I−(−R)N\sum_{j<N}(-R)^j(I+R)=I-(-R)^N. Uniqueness of the left symbol, proved in Section 5 of that programme reading, makes these all estimates for one exact residual. Thus finite telescoping gives

BA0=I+S,B∈Op⁡S1,0−m,S∈Op⁡S1,0−∞.(23) BA_0=I+S,\qquad B\in\operatorname{Op}S^{-m}_{1,0}, \quad S\in\operatorname{Op}S^{-\infty}_{1,0}. \tag{23}

Only frequency smoothing is needed here: B:L2→HmB:L^2\to H^m, and S:L2→HqS:L^2\to H^q for every fixed real qq. These bounds follow by conjugating with the Fourier multipliers and applying the order-zero bound. The finite product and order-zero bounds are proved in Sections 4–6 of the programme calculus reading; frequency cutoff summation above supplies the actual inverse correction. No estimate for the original rough expression is inferred from a smooth-symbol theorem.

If u∈D(A0∗)u\in\mathcal D(A_0^*) and f=A0∗u∈L2f=A_0^*u\in L^2, the compact-test adjoint identity and smooth formal symmetry give A0u=fA_0u=f distributionally. Equation (23) implies

u=Bf−Su∈Hm.(24) u=Bf-Su\in H^m. \tag{24}

Conversely, symmetry on HmH^m puts that space in the adjoint domain. Thus the domains and actions agree. This proves self-adjointness without a positivity assumption on its principal symbol.

For u∈Hmu\in H^m, symmetry gives

∥(A0+it)u∥22=∥A0u∥22+t2∥u∥22.(25) \|(A_0+it)u\|_2^2=\|A_0u\|_2^2+t^2\|u\|_2^2. \tag{25}

Its range is closed: Cauchy outputs make both inputs and A0A_0-images Cauchy, and a self-adjoint operator is closed. Its orthogonal complement is ker⁡(A0−it)=0\ker(A_0-it)=0, again by (25). Hence the range is all of L2L^2, and (22) follows. □\square

5. A fixed bound with an approximation-dependent threshold

For sufficiently large ∣t∣|t|, put

et(x,ξ)=⟨ξ⟩ma0(x,ξ)+it.(26) e_t(x,\xi)=\frac{\langle\xi\rangle^m}{a_0(x,\xi)+it}. \tag{26}

The principal symbol is real, but the full left symbol may have complex lower-order terms. We check their effect before using (26).

Lemma 5.1. There are c,M>0c,M>0, controlled by c∗,mc_*,m, and thresholds depending on the fixed approximation, such that for both signs of large tt,

∣a0(x,ξ)+it∣≥c(⟨ξ⟩m+∣t∣),sup⁡x,ξ∣et(x,ξ)∣≤M.(27) |a_0(x,\xi)+it|\geq c(\langle\xi\rangle^m+|t|), \qquad \sup_{x,\xi}|e_t(x,\xi)|\leq M. \tag{27}

The family ete_t is bounded in S0S^0 for this approximation. Its derivative seminorm bounds may depend on V0V_0, whereas MM can be fixed independently of the approximation error η\eta.

Proof. Since a0−A0,m∈Sm−1a_0-A_{0,m}\in S^{m-1}, at sufficiently large frequency

∣Re⁡a0∣≥14c∗∣ξ∣m,∣Im⁡a0∣≤∣ξ∣m.(28) |\operatorname{Re}a_0|\geq \tfrac14c_*|\xi|^m, \qquad |\operatorname{Im}a_0|\leq |\xi|^m. \tag{28}

The threshold can depend on all the lower coefficients. If ∣t∣≥2∣Im⁡a0∣|t|\geq2|\operatorname{Im}a_0|, the imaginary part of the denominator has modulus at least ∣t∣/2|t|/2, and the real part supplies the frequency bound in (28). Their maximum controls their sum. If ∣t∣<2∣Im⁡a0∣|t|<2|\operatorname{Im}a_0|, then ∣t∣<2∣ξ∣m|t|<2|\xi|^m, and the real part alone controls the sum. On this high-frequency region ∣ξ∣m|\xi|^m and ⟨ξ⟩m\langle\xi\rangle^m are comparable with a fixed constant after making the threshold at least one.

On the remaining bounded-frequency region, take ∣t∣|t| at least twice the uniform bound for ∣a0∣|a_0|, and at least the maximum of ⟨ξ⟩m\langle\xi\rangle^m there. Then ∣a0+it∣≥∣t∣/2|a_0+it|\geq|t|/2, proving (27) with a fixed cc. In particular M=c−1M=c^{-1} works.

For the differentiated estimates, each derivative of (a0+it)−1(a_0+it)^{-1} is a finite sum of products

(a0+it)−1−r∏j=1r∂ξαj∂xβja0,∑jαj=α,∑jβj=β.(29) (a_0+it)^{-1-r}\prod_{j=1}^r \partial_\xi^{\alpha_j}\partial_x^{\beta_j}a_0, \qquad \sum_j\alpha_j=\alpha,\quad\sum_j\beta_j=\beta. \tag{29}

Every factor in the product is bounded by C⟨ξ⟩m−∣αj∣C\langle\xi\rangle^{m-|\alpha_j|}. Equation (27) bounds (29) by C⟨ξ⟩−m−∣α∣C\langle\xi\rangle^{-m-|\alpha|}, uniformly in tt. The product rule with the numerator in (26) gives all the S0S^0 bounds. The positive position derivatives are supported in the same fixed compact set as before, so the family also has uniform S(1,G1)S(1,G_1) seminorms. The constants use coefficient derivatives and support bounds of this fixed V0V_0. □\square

Lemma 5.2. There is a constant C1C_1, independent of small η\eta, such that

∥Op⁡(et)∥2→2≤C1(∣t∣≥TV0).(30) \|\operatorname{Op}(e_t)\|_{2\to2}\leq C_1 \quad(|t|\geq T_{V_0}). \tag{30}

Proof. Take a smooth 0≤ϑ≤10\leq\vartheta\leq1, equal to one on ∣ξ∣≤1|\xi|\leq1 and zero on ∣ξ∣≥2|\xi|\geq2. For all R≥1R\geq1, split

et=et(1−ϑ(ξ/R))+etϑ(ξ/R).(31) e_t=e_t(1-\vartheta(\xi/R))+e_t\vartheta(\xi/R). \tag{31}

For the fixed approximation, the first family is bounded in S0S^0, uniformly in RR and large ∣t∣|t|, and vanishes for ∣ξ∣<R|\xi|<R. Cutoff derivatives have size R−∣α∣R^{-|\alpha|} on their annulus, exactly the required frequency weights. Write aR,t=et(1−ϑ(ξ/R))a_{R,t}=e_t(1-\vartheta(\xi/R)). Since every derivative vanishes for ∣ξ∣<R|\xi|<R, its uniform classical bounds imply

∣∂xα∂ξβaR,t∣≤Cαβ,V0R−∣β∣,sup⁡∣aR,t∣≤M. |\partial_x^\alpha\partial_\xi^\beta a_{R,t}| \le C_{\alpha\beta,V_0}R^{-|\beta|}, \qquad \sup|a_{R,t}|\le M.

The complete Gaussian-packet norm proof, Theorem 4, now gives ∥Op⁡(aR,t)∥≤M+CV0/R\|\operatorname{Op}(a_{R,t})\|\le M+C_{V_0}/R. Its packet analysis is an isometry, so the compressed multiplication operator has norm at most MM, including for complex symbols. With packet width r=R−1/2r=R^{-1/2}, the position and frequency Taylor errors are both O(R−1)O(R^{-1}); the left-to-Weyl mixed derivative error has the same bound. The provider proves these estimates and their cutoff limits using its complete bounded-amplitude theorem. No sharp positivity theorem or external finite-composition result enters this step.

Only the finite derivative constant depends on the fixed approximation; MM is still the approximation-independent constant of Lemma 5.1. For R≥1R\ge1, CV0/R≤CV02/RC_{V_0}/R\le\sqrt{C_{V_0}^2/R}. Enlarging and renaming that fixed constant proves the originally asserted estimate, for R>1R>1,

∥Op⁡(et(1−ϑ(ξ/R)))∥2→2≤M+CV0/R.(32) \|\operatorname{Op}(e_t(1-\vartheta(\xi/R)))\|_{2\to2} \leq M+\sqrt{C_{V_0}/R}. \tag{32}

Choose RR, after fixing V0V_0, to make the last term at most one. For this fixed RR, every derivative of the second symbol in (31) through any fixed order is OV0,R(∣t∣−1)O_{V_0,R}(|t|^{-1}), uniformly in x,ξx,\xi. This follows from (29) on its bounded frequency support. The complete programme finite-derivative operator bound implies

∥Op⁡(etϑ(ξ/R))∥2→2⟶0(∣t∣→∞).(33) \|\operatorname{Op}(e_t\vartheta(\xi/R))\|_{2\to2} \longrightarrow0\quad(|t|\to\infty). \tag{33}

Make it at most one by increasing the threshold. Thus C1=M+2C_1=M+2 works for every sufficiently accurate approximation. Only the threshold depends on its derivative bounds. □\square

Proposition 5.3. A fixed constant KK, independent of small η\eta, satisfies

∥(A0+it)−1∥L2→Hm≤K(∣t∣≥TV0′).(34) \|(A_0+it)^{-1}\|_{L^2\to H^m}\leq K \quad(|t|\geq T'_{V_0}). \tag{34}

Proof. The finite product in Theorem 4.1 of the programme calculus proof, applied to the G1G_1 symbols checked above, gives

Op⁡(et)(A0+it)=⟨D⟩m−Rt,Rt bounded in Op⁡(Sm−1).(35) \operatorname{Op}(e_t)(A_0+it)=\langle D\rangle^m-R_t, \qquad R_t\text{ bounded in }\operatorname{Op}(S^{m-1}). \tag{35}

Indeed the pointwise product et(a0+it)e_t(a_0+it) is exactly ⟨ξ⟩m\langle\xi\rangle^m. Composition with the constant itit is exact. The remainder comes entirely from composition with the fixed symbol a0a_0, whose order-mm seminorms and the bounded S0S^0 family from Lemma 5.1 give uniform order-m−1m-1 estimates. The growing constant itit must be separated in this way.

The finite product puts Rt⟨D⟩1−mR_t\langle D\rangle^{1-m} in S(1,G1)S(1,G_1); Section 6 of that same programme proof therefore gives the actual uniform map Rt:Hm−1→L2R_t:H^{m-1}\to L^2 for this fixed approximation. For v=(A0+it)−1g∈Hmv=(A_0+it)^{-1}g\in H^m, that map and (30), (35) give

∥v∥Hm≤C1∥g∥2+LV0∥v∥Hm−1.(36) \|v\|_{H^m}\leq C_1\|g\|_2+L_{V_0}\|v\|_{H^{m-1}}. \tag{36}

For every δ>0\delta>0 there is CδC_\delta with

∥v∥Hm−1≤δ∥v∥Hm+Cδ∥v∥2.(37) \|v\|_{H^{m-1}}\leq\delta\|v\|_{H^m}+C_\delta\|v\|_2. \tag{37}

To verify this including m=1m=1, choose a frequency radius beyond which ⟨ξ⟩−1≤δ\langle\xi\rangle^{-1}\leq\delta. Split the Fourier norm into the high and low regions and use the triangle inequality; the low region has bounded weight. Choose δ\delta so that LV0δ≤1/2L_{V_0}\delta\leq1/2. With BV0=LV0CδB_{V_0}=L_{V_0}C_\delta, (22) yields

∥v∥Hm≤2C1∥g∥2+2BV0∥v∥2≤(2C1+2BV0/∣t∣)∥g∥2.(38) \|v\|_{H^m}\leq2C_1\|g\|_2+2B_{V_0}\|v\|_2 \leq(2C_1+2B_{V_0}/|t|)\|g\|_2. \tag{38}

Increase the threshold until 2BV0/∣t∣≤C12B_{V_0}/|t|\leq C_1. Thus K=3C1K=3C_1 works for both signs of large tt. □\square

The quantifier order in (34) is decisive: first fix KK, then choose a sufficiently accurate smooth approximation, and finally take ∣t∣|t| sufficiently large for that approximation.

An additional uniform graph bound from coefficient freezing

All constants in this additional argument refer to the fixed original expression PP. They are independent of derivatives introduced during smoothing. We prove the estimate for any coefficient approximation Q=P0+∑qαDαQ=P_0+\sum q_\alpha D^\alpha sufficiently close to PP in (8), whether or not QQ is symmetric.

Lower-part estimate. The original lower-order part P<mP_{<m}, including the lower terms of P0P_0, satisfies, for every a>0a>0,

∥P<mv∥2≤a∥v∥Hm+Ca∥v∥2,v∈Hm. \|P_{<m}v\|_2\leq a\|v\|_{H^m}+C_a\|v\|_2, \qquad v\in H^m.

The same estimate holds with 2a2a and the same lower constant for every sufficiently close Q<mQ_{<m}.

Proof. Each lower coefficient aαa_\alpha can be approximated in its uniform unit-ball LpαL^{p_\alpha} norm by a bounded smooth compactly supported function hαh_\alpha. To see this, first cut off where the tail norm in (4) is small; the remaining compactly supported coefficient is in global finite LpαL^{p_\alpha}, and convolution approximates it in that norm. The local supremum is bounded by the global norm. This step includes the finite endpoint pα=n/(m−∣α∣)>2p_\alpha=n/(m-|\alpha|)>2.

Choose the finitely many approximations so that their combined multiplier error in (9) is at most a/2a/2. Their bounded coefficients, and the constant lower terms of P0P_0, give a bound by Ch∥v∥Hm−1C_h\|v\|_{H^{m-1}}. Fourier splitting gives, for every b>0b>0,

∥v∥Hm−1≤b∥v∥Hm+Cb∥v∥2. \|v\|_{H^{m-1}}\leq b\|v\|_{H^m}+C_b\|v\|_2.

Choose Chb≤a/2C_hb\leq a/2. This proves the lower-part estimate. Coefficient proximity and (9) add at most a∥v∥Hma\|v\|_{H^m} to it. For m=1m=1, the bounded approximating lower part already acts on L2L^2. □\square

Uniform freezing estimate. There are η0>0\eta_0>0 and CgC_g, depending only on the fixed coefficients of PP, such that

∥v∥Hm≤Cg(∥Qv∥2+∥v∥2),v∈Hm,∥Q−P∥coef<η0. \|v\|_{H^m}\leq C_g\bigl(\|Qv\|_2+\|v\|_2\bigr), \quad v\in H^m,\quad\|Q-P\|_{\mathrm{coef}}<\eta_0.

Proof. The leading coefficients are uniformly continuous: they are continuous on compact sets and tend to zero at infinity. Fix a small radius r>0r>0. On a ball B(y,r)B(y,r), freeze the original principal coefficients at its center, obtaining the homogeneous polynomial Am(y,D)A_m(y,D). Equation (16) and Plancherel give a constant C∗C_*, independent of yy, such that

∥w∥Hm≤C∗(∥Am(y,D)w∥2+∥w∥2). \|w\|_{H^m}\leq C_*\bigl(\|A_m(y,D)w\|_2+\|w\|_2\bigr).

Indeed ⟨ξ⟩m≤C(1+∣Am(y,ξ)∣)\langle\xi\rangle^m\leq C(1+|A_m(y,\xi)|), with CC controlled by c∗c_* and mm. For ww supported in this ball, the difference between the principal part of QQ and its frozen original part is bounded by

C(ω(r)+∥Q−P∥coef)∥w∥Hm, C\bigl(\omega(r)+\|Q-P\|_{\mathrm{coef}}\bigr)\|w\|_{H^m},

where ω(r)→0\omega(r)\to0 is a common modulus of continuity for the finitely many original leading coefficients. Choose the coefficient-error bound and rr so that this term, after multiplication by C∗C_*, is at most ∥w∥Hm/4\|w\|_{H^m}/4. Use the lower-part estimate with a fixed aa so small that the lower part contributes at most another quarter. Absorption in the frozen-coefficient estimate gives

∥w∥Hm≤Cloc(∥Qw∥2+∥w∥2),supp⁡w⊂B(y,r), \|w\|_{H^m}\leq C_{\mathrm{loc}} \bigl(\|Qw\|_2+\|w\|_2\bigr), \quad\operatorname{supp}w\subset B(y,r),

with common constants for all centers and all sufficiently close QQ.

Choose one nonzero real ζ∈Cc∞(B(0,r))\zeta\in C_c^\infty(B(0,r)), and put ζy(x)=ζ(x−y)\zeta_y(x)=\zeta(x-y). Integer Sobolev localization gives

∫∥ζyv∥Hm2 dy≍∥v∥Hm2. \int\|\zeta_yv\|_{H^m}^2\,dy\asymp\|v\|_{H^m}^2.

For the upper bound expand each derivative by the product rule and integrate in yy. For the lower bound start with ∫∥ζyv∥22dy=∥ζ∥22∥v∥22\int\|\zeta_yv\|_2^2dy=\|\zeta\|_2^2\|v\|_2^2, then use the product rule to express ζyDαv\zeta_yD^\alpha v through Dα(ζyv)D^\alpha(\zeta_yv) and derivatives of vv of strictly smaller order. Induction in ∣α∣|\alpha| bounds those lower terms by the already controlled localized derivative norms. This proves both bounds without differentiating a coefficient.

In the commutator write qαq_\alpha for the full coefficients of QQ, including the fixed constant coefficients of P0P_0. The commutator is a finite sum of qα(Dγζy)Dα−γvq_\alpha(D^\gamma\zeta_y)D^{\alpha-\gamma}v, with 0<γ≤α0<\gamma\leq\alpha. Integrating its squared norm in yy removes the cutoff factor and leaves a constant times ∥qαDα−γv∥22\|q_\alpha D^{\alpha-\gamma}v\|_2^2. For a lower coefficient its available gap on Hm−1H^{m-1} is

(m−1)−∣α−γ∣=(m−∣α∣)−1+∣γ∣≥m−∣α∣. (m-1)-|\alpha-\gamma| =(m-|\alpha|)-1+|\gamma|\geq m-|\alpha|.

Thus the same local coefficient exponent suffices by finite-volume inclusion and the Sobolev multiplication estimate. At a critical gap choose a finite exponent no larger than the given one. Leading coefficients are uniformly bounded and their remaining derivatives have order at most m−1m-1. Consequently

∫∥[Q,ζy]v∥22dy≤Cr∥v∥Hm−12 \int\|[Q,\zeta_y]v\|_2^2dy\leq C_r\|v\|_{H^{m-1}}^2

uniformly over the approximations. For m=1m=1 only bounded first-order coefficients occur in this commutator. Apply the local estimate to ζyv\zeta_yv, square, integrate, and use Qζyv=ζyQv+[Q,ζy]vQ\zeta_yv=\zeta_yQv+[Q,\zeta_y]v, the localization identity, and the cutoff commutator bound. The result bounds ∥v∥Hm\|v\|_{H^m} by a fixed constant times ∥Qv∥2+∥v∥Hm−1+∥v∥2\|Qv\|_2+\|v\|_{H^{m-1}}+\|v\|_2. Absorb the middle norm by the Fourier interpolation inequality. This proves the uniform graph estimate. Compact smooth approximation extends all identities to HmH^m. □\square

Graph-resolvent consequence. There is a fixed KgK_g, independent of sufficiently small approximation error, such that

∥(A0+it)−1∥L2→Hm≤Kg,∣t∣≥1. \|(A_0+it)^{-1}\|_{L^2\to H^m}\leq K_g, \qquad |t|\geq1.

Proof. The smooth symmetric reference obeys the uniform graph estimate, while (25) gives, for v=(A0+it)−1gv=(A_0+it)^{-1}g,

∥A0v∥2≤∥g∥2,∥v∥2≤∣t∣−1∥g∥2. \|A_0v\|_2\leq\|g\|_2,\qquad \|v\|_2\leq|t|^{-1}\|g\|_2.

Hence ∥v∥Hm≤Cg(1+∣t∣−1)∥g∥2\|v\|_{H^m}\leq C_g(1+|t|^{-1})\|g\|_2. Take Kg=2CgK_g=2C_g. Both signs have the same bound. Its constant was obtained before choosing the smoothing accuracy and uses no derivative seminorm of V0V_0. □\square

The order of choices is now explicit: first obtain η0,Cg,Kg\eta_0,C_g,K_g from the original coefficient class; then choose a symmetric approximation accurate enough for the Neumann factor. The smooth parametrix identifies that reference's domain, and the common graph bound transfers it to the rough expression.

The constant KgK_g here may depend on the original continuity modulus and lower coefficients. This additional estimate supplies the fixed threshold ∣t∣≥1|t|\geq1; it is distinct from the principal-ellipticity-controlled constant K=3C1K=3C_1 in (34), whose threshold may depend on the approximation. Both routes retain independence from the approximation accuracy and both resolvent signs.

6. Transferring the domain and finding a core

Proof of Theorem 1.1. Choose η<η0\eta<\eta_0 small enough for (17) and C0Kgη<1/2C_0K_g\eta<1/2. Lemma 2.1 supplies V0V_0; let W=V−V0W=V-V_0. Equation (9) and the graph-resolvent consequence of the additional freezing argument imply, for both signs and ∣t∣≥1|t|\geq1,

∥W(A0+it)−1∥2→2<12.(39) \|W(A_0+it)^{-1}\|_{2\to2}<\tfrac12. \tag{39}

The identity plus this bounded operator has an inverse given by its norm-convergent geometric series. On HmH^m,

P+it=[I+W(A0+it)−1](A0+it).(40) P+it=[I+W(A_0+it)^{-1}](A_0+it). \tag{40}

Both factors are onto in their respective spaces. Hence P+it:Hm→L2P+it:H^m\to L^2 is onto for both signs of any fixed tt with ∣t∣≥1|t|\geq1.

We already know that PP is densely defined and symmetric on HmH^m. If u∈D(P∗)u\in\mathcal D(P^*), choose v∈Hmv\in H^m solving

(P−it)v=(P∗−it)u.(41) (P-it)v=(P^*-it)u. \tag{41}

Then u−v∈ker⁡(P∗−it)u-v\in\ker(P^*-it). The adjoint range identity and the opposite surjectivity give

ker⁡(P∗−it)=Ran⁡(P+it)⊥={0}.(42) \ker(P^*-it)=\operatorname{Ran}(P+it)^\perp=\{0\}. \tag{42}

Thus u=v∈Hmu=v\in H^m, proving D(P∗)=Hm\mathcal D(P^*)=H^m and P=P∗P=P^*.

Equation (40) also provides a bounded inverse from L2L^2 to HmH^m at this fixed tt. Applied to (P+it)u(P+it)u, it bounds ∥u∥Hm\|u\|_{H^m} by a constant times ∥Pu∥2+∥u∥2\|Pu\|_2+\|u\|_2. The reverse bound follows from (9) and the constant-coefficient multiplier bound. This proves (6).

For u∈Hmu\in H^m, take uj∈Cc∞u_j\in C_c^\infty converging in HmH^m. Boundedness P:Hm→L2P:H^m\to L^2 gives Puj→PuPu_j\to Pu in L2L^2, so the convergence is in graph norm. Therefore Cc∞C_c^\infty is a core. The intermediate domain S⊂Hm\mathcal S\subset H^m, which contains that core, is a core too. □\square

This argument uses elementary imaginary-axis inverses rather than a spectral representation. It also distinguishes the Hm→L2H^m\to L^2 size of the perturbation from its L2→L2L^2\to L^2 size: the latter need not be finite.

Use the conclusion

Trace the fixed graph bound through smoothing, the core closure and both deficiency signs. Keep ellipticity distinct from positivity: the principal symbol need not be positive for the stated realization theorem.

7. Problems

Exercise 1. Which constant must be chosen first? — Basic. Suppose a smoothing construction gives ∥V−Vη∥Hm→L2≤C0η\|V-V_\eta\|_{H^m\to L^2}\leq C_0\eta, while a resolvent estimate gives ∥(P0+Vη+it)−1∥L2→Hm≤Cη\|(P_0+V_\eta+it)^{-1}\|_{L^2\to H^m}\leq C_\eta for large tt. Explain why taking η\eta small need not make their product smaller than one. State the sufficient quantifier order and the bound on the inverse factor in (40).

Exercise 2. A cutoff creates a critical coefficient — Intermediate. Let n=4,m=2n=4,m=2. A first-order coefficient has exponent 4; a zeroth-order critical coefficient has been assigned exponent 100. Show why localization cannot demand exponent 100 of a zeroth-order term created from the first-order coefficient. Give a compatible choice and a compact singular function that distinguishes L4L^4 from L100L^{100}.

Exercise 3. Smoothing the whole expression — Intermediate. In one dimension let b0,b1∈Cc∞b_0,b_1\in C_c^\infty, and suppose B=b1D+b0B=b_1D+b_0 is symmetric. Prove that coefficient convolution with a real approximate identity preserves symmetry. Compute the relation between b0,b1b_0,b_1, including any allowed real zeroth-order term, and show that this relation is preserved by convolution.

Exercise 4. A continuous leading coefficient with a singular derivative — Advanced. Choose a nonnegative compact smooth cutoff χ\chi, equal to one near zero, and put f(x)=1+χ(x)∣x∣3/4f(x)=1+\chi(x)|x|^{3/4}. Consider

P=fD−i2f′,D(P)=H1(R).(43) P=fD-\frac i2 f',\qquad \mathcal D(P)=H^1(\mathbb R). \tag{43}

Check the coefficient hypotheses of Theorem 1.1 and prove symmetry on compact tests. Conclude its domain and core statements. Explain why omitting the zeroth-order term generally destroys symmetry.

Exercise 5. Tail decay without local finiteness — Advanced. In R5\mathbb R^5, let 0≤χ∈Cc∞0\leq\chi\in C_c^\infty equal one near zero, and define, away from the origin,

a(x)=χ(x)∣x∣−11/5,u(x)=χ(x)∣x∣−2/5.(44) a(x)=\chi(x)|x|^{-11/5},\qquad u(x)=\chi(x)|x|^{-2/5}. \tag{44}

Assign arbitrary values at zero. Prove that −Δ+a-\Delta+a is symmetric and maps compact smooth tests into L2L^2, and that the translated coefficient integrals of exponent 5/25/2 vanish for all sufficiently distant centers. Nevertheless show that u∈H2u\in H^2 and au∉L2au\notin L^2. Include justification of the weak derivatives at the origin. What fails in the hypotheses of Theorem 1.1?

8. Complete solutions

Solution 1. The bound on the perturbation factor is only C0ηCηC_0\eta C_\eta. For example, the permitted estimates could have Cη=η−2C_\eta=\eta^{-2}, making this bound C0/ηC_0/\eta. It cannot certify invertibility as η→0\eta\to0. The sufficient statement is: there exists KK independent of η\eta, and for each sufficiently small η\eta there exists a threshold TηT_\eta such that the Sobolev resolvent norm is at most KK for both signs of ∣t∣≥Tη|t|\geq T_\eta. Choose C0Kη<1/2C_0K\eta<1/2 first, then the approximation, then tt. With Q=W(A0+it)−1Q=W(A_0+it)^{-1},

(I+Q)−1=∑j=0∞(−Q)j,∥(I+Q)−1∥≤(1−∥Q∥)−1<2.(45) (I+Q)^{-1}=\sum_{j=0}^\infty(-Q)^j, \qquad \|(I+Q)^{-1}\|\leq(1-\|Q\|)^{-1}<2. \tag{45}

The example concerns failure of the proposed estimate to prove smallness, rather than proving failure of the actual inverse. Lemmas 5.1–5.2 and Proposition 5.3 obtain the principal-ellipticity-controlled fixed bound KK, with an approximation-dependent threshold. The additional freezing argument obtains the coefficient-dependent bound KgK_g with the common threshold 1, which is the bound used in the domain transfer.

Solution 2. Multiplying on the right by a cutoff produces aDjχaD_j\chi among the zeroth-order coefficients. A bounded smooth factor does not generally improve local integrability. Taking a cutoff supported near zero, the radial coefficient a=χ(x)∣x∣−9/10a=\chi(x)|x|^{-9/10} in four dimensions belongs to LpL^p near zero precisely when

∫01r3−9p/10 dr<∞,equivalently p<40/9.(46) \int_0^1 r^{3-9p/10}\,dr<\infty, \quad\text{equivalently }p<40/9. \tag{46}

Thus it belongs to L4L^4 but not L100L^{100}. A localization cutoff with a derivative nonzero at the singular point leaves this distinction in the created coefficient. The allowed critical choice p=3p=3 satisfies 2<3≤42<3\leq4, so (13) controls that created term. Every original zeroth-order Lloc100L^{100}_{\mathrm{loc}} coefficient also belongs to Lloc3L^3_{\mathrm{loc}}; its translated norm decay persists by finite-volume Hölder. This change of critical exponent fixes the proof without strengthening any coefficient hypothesis.

Solution 3. The formal adjoint is

B∗=b1‾D−ib1‾′+b0‾.(47) B^*=\overline{b_1}D-i\overline{b_1}' +\overline{b_0}. \tag{47}

Equality with BB gives b1=b1‾b_1=\overline{b_1} and b0−b0‾=−ib1′b_0-\overline{b_0}=-ib_1'. Hence

b0=c−i2b1′,c real.(48) b_0=c-\frac i2 b_1',\qquad c\text{ real}. \tag{48}

Convolving with a real kernel preserves reality and commutes with differentiation, so the new coefficients satisfy the same relation. This gives the direct coefficient proof. Alternatively write the convolved operator as ∫ρh(y)TyBTy∗dy\int\rho_h(y)T_yBT_y^*dy; every integrand is symmetric, and integrating the inner-product identity proves symmetry. The second argument also works with the rough localized coefficients of Lemma 2.1, where their formal derivatives need not be coefficient functions.

Solution 4. The function f−1f-1 is continuous and compactly supported, f≥1f\geq1, and its weak derivative is

f′=χ′∣x∣3/4+34χsgn⁡(x)∣x∣−1/4(49) f'=\chi'|x|^{3/4}+\tfrac34\chi\operatorname{sgn}(x)|x|^{-1/4} \tag{49}

almost everywhere. The singular term is locally square integrable, since ∫01x−1/2dx<∞\int_0^1 x^{-1/2}dx<\infty. It is the weak derivative: ff is locally absolutely continuous, and integrating its displayed derivative across zero recovers ff. Both perturbation coefficients f−1f-1 and −if′/2-if'/2 have zero tails. For n=m=1n=m=1, the lower coefficient exponent in (3) is 2, so every coefficient hypothesis holds. The principal symbol f(x)ξf(x)\xi is elliptic.

For compact smooth u,vu,v, integration by parts with the locally absolutely continuous ff gives

(fDu,v)=(u,fDv−if′v).(50) (fDu,v)=(u,fDv-if'v). \tag{50}

The adjoint of multiplication by −if′/2-if'/2 is multiplication by if′/2if'/2. Combining the two terms leaves exactly fD−if′/2fD-if'/2 on the right. Thus PP is symmetric, and Theorem 1.1 makes it self-adjoint on H1H^1, with both stated cores and graph norm equivalence. For fDfD alone, the extra term −if′-if' remains in (50), and f′f' is not zero. Its leading coefficient's reality by itself does not give symmetry.

Solution 5. In five dimensions a radial power r−sr^{-s} belongs locally to LpL^p exactly when sp<5sp<5, since its integral has radial exponent 4−sp>−14-sp>-1. For aa, 2(11/5)=22/5<52(11/5)=22/5<5, so a∈Lloc2a\in L^2_{\mathrm{loc}}. Multiplication by aa therefore maps compact smooth tests into L2L^2; it is symmetric because aa is real. Adding −Δ-\Delta preserves these properties, and the principal symbol remains ∣ξ∣2|\xi|^2. For all balls disjoint from the compact support of χ\chi, the coefficient integral is zero, including at exponent 5/25/2. But

(11/5)(5/2)=11/2>5,(51) (11/5)(5/2)=11/2>5, \tag{51}

so a∉Lloc5/2a\notin L^{5/2}_{\mathrm{loc}}.

For the punctured radial function uu, derivatives of order j≤2j\leq2 are bounded by Cjr−2/5−jC_jr^{-2/5-j} near zero. The worst squared radial exponent is

4−2(2/5+2)=−4/5>−1.(52) 4-2(2/5+2)=-4/5>-1. \tag{52}

Thus these classical derivatives, including the function itself, are locally square integrable, and cutoff differentiation is harmless away from zero. They are also its distributional derivatives. Integrate by parts outside the radius-ε\varepsilon ball. For a first derivative the boundary integral is bounded by Cε4−2/5C\varepsilon^{4-2/5}; for the derivative of a first derivative it is bounded by Cε4−7/5C\varepsilon^{4-7/5}. Both tend to zero. The locally integrable interior terms converge as ε↓0\varepsilon\downarrow0, proving both successive weak derivative identities. Hence u∈H2u\in H^2.

Near zero au=r−13/5au=r^{-13/5}, whose squared radial exponent is

4−26/5=−6/5<−1.(53) 4-26/5=-6/5<-1. \tag{53}

It is not in L2L^2, while −Δu∈L2-\Delta u\in L^2. Their sum cannot belong to L2L^2, for otherwise subtraction would put auau in L2L^2. The missing condition is local L5/2L^{5/2} membership of the zeroth coefficient, not ellipticity, symmetry on tests, or tail decay. Infinity-only conditions cannot justify the whole H2H^2 operator domain.

9. Reading and further directions

[L] Nicolas Lerner, Metrics on the Phase Space and Non-Selfadjoint Pseudo-Differential Operators, Chapter 2, Theorems 2.3.7, 2.3.18–2.3.19 and 2.5.1, gives the broader finite calculus and order-zero bounds. The linked programme calculus proof supplies all such steps used in Sections 4–5 for the actual smooth compact-coefficient reference. Definition 2.4.1 and Proposition 2.4.3 give the freely accessible Gaussian-packet construction; the programme packet proof derives the high-frequency norm used in Lemma 5.2 directly, including complex symbols. The additional freezing proof retains its separate coefficient-dependent constant.

[ALNV] Bernd Ammann, Robert Lauter, Victor Nistor and András Vasy, Complex powers and non-compact manifolds, arXiv:math/0211305v1, Proposition 2.2(iii) and Proposition 3.1, gives the smooth elliptic self-adjointness and Sobolev-domain route in extended Weyl algebras. The rough-coefficient transfer in Sections 2, 5 and 6 is additional to that result.

[HJS] Andrew Hassell, Qiuye Jia and Ethan Sussman, Lecture notes on non-elliptic Fredholm theory, arXiv:2604.18956v1, Lemma 2.7, relates essential self-adjointness to the vanishing of two distributional nullspaces by invoking abstract deficiency theory; Proposition 2.8 applies it to a Laplacian with a smooth decaying potential. The Hilbert-space and two-sign range arguments used here are proved in Sections 4–6. That smooth example does not replace the present domain theorem for arbitrary real scalar elliptic polynomials and rough differential coefficients, whose proof uses modulus ellipticity rather than positivity.

[T] Gerald Teschl, Mathematical Methods in Quantum Mechanics, §§2.2 and 2.4, provides adjoint and resolvent background; §6.1 treats relative operator bounds and the Kato–Rellich theorem. That abstract theorem is useful once a relative bound smaller than one is known. Here the small bound is produced against a suitably chosen smooth reference, with ellipticity controlling the constant.

For practice, compare the compactly supported leading perturbation from Admissible differential perturbations, Problem 3, with the domain theorem: failure of relative compactness does not prevent the HmH^m domain conclusion. A further question is whether less leading regularity or a different lower-coefficient endpoint can be handled. Such changes require additional estimates; neither the smooth parametrix nor the critical finite-pp multiplier statement alone proves them. Weighted resolvent estimates and boundary values require further analysis after the domain has been identified.