Totally characteristic operators on the half space

Written by Claude Opus 5.5 (Anthropic), September 2026. Self-checked by the writing AI. Public domain (CC0).

Edited and supplemented by Codex, September 2026. The additions and editorial corrections are also public domain (CC0).

This lesson builds the local calculus of totally characteristic pseudodifferential operators on the closed half space ℝ¯+n={xn≥0}\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+=\{x_n\geq0\}. The differential operators of this kind are generated by the vector fields tangent to the boundary, which are the combinations of ∂1,…,∂n−1\partial_1,\ldots,\partial_{n-1} and xn∂nx_n\partial_n with smooth coefficients. They respect the boundary: the boundary values of PuPu depend only on the boundary values of uu, and the normal derivatives of PuPu of order kk at the boundary depend only on those of uu of order at most kk. The pseudodifferential operators of the class come from symbols a(x,ξ)a(x,\xi) in which the normal frequency ξn\xi_n is replaced by xnξnx_n\xi_n before quantization. A condition on the Fourier transform of the symbol in ξn\xi_n, called lacunarity, makes the output in the open half space depend only on the input there.

We prove that these operators act on functions and on distributions on the half space, and we compute their commutators and the boundary jets of their outputs. We describe the kernels of the operators of order −∞-\infty near the corner xn=yn=0x_n=y_n=0 by blowing up the corner, and we show that these kernels are conormal there. The class is closed under adjoints and compositions, with asymptotic formulas for the symbols. Operators of order 0 are bounded on L2L^2, on Sobolev spaces of every real order and on dyadic Besov spaces, and operators of every order preserve the distributions that are conormal to the boundary. In one respect the class differs from the ordinary calculus: operators of order −∞-\infty need not improve regularity at all, because their kernels are singular at the corner.

These operators matter because they are the pseudodifferential counterpart of the differential operators tangent to the boundary. Since they respect the boundary, they can be combined with operators on the boundary, such as taking boundary values. On manifolds with boundary they form the b-calculus, which is used for instance in index theory.

The lesson assumes the symbol calculus on ℝn\mathbb R^n from the lesson From symbol estimates to operators on every Sobolev scale; conormal distributions and smooth extension across a boundary from Singularities along a submanifold and smooth boundary passage; and local Besov spaces from Detecting regularity without choosing coordinates. It also uses tempered distributions, the Fourier transform and two facts from functional analysis. Section1 states the precise facts used from the linked lessons and identifies their proof sections.

The freely available author versions [Melrose] and [Loya] provide further reading. The mathematical arguments used here are proved in this lesson and its linked prerequisites.

1. Conventions and background

Notation

Throughout n≥1n\geq1, x=(x′,xn)∈ℝn−1×ℝx=(x',x_n)\in\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\mathbb R, and ℝ±n={x:±xn>0},ℝ¯+n={x:xn≥0}. \mathbb R^n_\pm=\{x:\pm x_n>0\},\qquad \overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+=\{x:x_n\geq0\}. We write D=−i∂D=-i\partial, û(ξ)=∫e−ix⋅ξu(x)dx\widehat u(\xi)=\int e^{-ix\cdot\xi}u(x)\,dx (inverse factor (2π)−n(2\pi)^{-n}), ⟨ξ⟩=(1+|ξ|2)1/2\langle\xi\rangle=(1+|\xi|^2)^{1/2}, and (u,v)=∫uv¯(u,v)=\int u\overline v, linear in the first argument. For a function of (x,ξ)(x,\xi) we write a(β)(α)=∂ξα∂xβaa^{(\alpha)}_{(\beta)}=\partial_\xi^\alpha\partial_x^\beta a.

C∞(ℝ¯+n)C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) denotes the functions on ℝ¯+n\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+ that are smooth in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+ and whose derivatives all extend continuously to ℝ¯+n\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+. Every such function is the restriction of a smooth function on ℝn\mathbb R^n; this is the extension fact in the list below. Cb∞C^\infty_b means smooth with all derivatives bounded.

Sobolev and Besov spaces. H(s)H_{(s)} is the space of tempered distributions uu whose Fourier transform is locally square integrable and for which the norm ∥u∥(s)2=(2π)−n∫⟨ξ⟩2s|û|2dξ\|u\|_{(s)}^2=(2\pi)^{-n}\int\langle\xi\rangle^{2s}|\widehat u|^2d\xi is finite. With the sharp annuli A0={|ξ|<1}A_0=\{|\xi|<1\}, Aj={2j−1≤|ξ|<2j}A_j=\{2^{j-1}\leq|\xi|<2^j\} and the Fourier projections Πj\Pi_j onto them, the dyadic Besov norm is ∥u∥B2,ps=∥(2js∥Πju∥L2)j≥0∥ℓp,1≤p≤∞.(1.1) \|u\|_{B^s_{2,p}}=\big\|\big(2^{js}\|\Pi_ju\|_{L^2}\big)_{j\geq0}\big\|_{\ell^p},\qquad 1\leq p\leq\infty . \tag{1.1} B2,psB^s_{2,p} is the space of tempered distributions with locally square-integrable Fourier transform for which this norm is finite. Since ⟨ξ⟩\langle\xi\rangle is comparable to 2j2^j on AjA_j, B2,2s=H(s)B^s_{2,2}=H_{(s)} with equivalent norms. A distribution uu on an open set Ω⊂ℝn\Omega\subset\mathbb R^n lies in the local space B2,p,locs(Ω)B^s_{2,p,\mathrm{loc}}(\Omega) if χu\chi u, extended by zero, lies in B2,psB^s_{2,p} for every χ∈C0∞(Ω)\chi\in C_0^\infty(\Omega).

Values of symbols. All symbols may take values in L(ℂp,ℂq)L(\mathbb C^p,\mathbb C^q) for fixed finite p,qp,q. Then |⋅||\cdot| is the operator norm, products keep their order, and complex conjugation of a symbol is replaced by the conjugate transpose a*a^*. Every statement below holds in this generality with the same proof, except the square-root step in the proof of Theorem 10.1, where we say what changes. The reader may keep p=q=1p=q=1 in mind.

We also use Peetre’s inequality (1+|ξ+ζ|)s≤(1+|ξ|)s(1+|ζ|)|s|(1+|\xi+\zeta|)^s\leq(1+|\xi|)^s(1+|\zeta|)^{|s|} for real ss, which follows from 1+|ξ|≤(1+|ξ+ζ|)(1+|ζ|)1+|\xi|\leq(1+|\xi+\zeta|)(1+|\zeta|).

Proofs used from earlier lessons

Fourier inversion and Plancherel on 𝒮\mathcal S, 𝒮′\mathcal S' and L2L^2 are proved in the Fourier lesson, Sections1–2 and7–8. The Schwartz kernel theorem for continuous linear maps 𝒮(ℝn)→𝒮′(ℝn)\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n)\to\mathcal S'(\mathbb R^n) is proved in the Weyl-product lesson, Sections4.1–4.5. Dominated convergence and Fubini’s theorem are proved in the measure chapter, Sections16.1–16.5, and Taylor’s formula in the calculus chapter, Section13.6. The following statements specify the other exact interfaces used below.

Symbols and operators on ℝn\mathbb R^n. These facts are proved in the lesson From symbol estimates to operators on every Sobolev scale.

Symbol classes. For m∈ℝm\in\mathbb R, Sm(ℝN×ℝk)S^m(\mathbb R^N\times\mathbb R^k) is the space of smooth functions a(x,ξ)a(x,\xi) with |∂ξα∂xβa(x,ξ)|≤Cαβ(1+|ξ|)m−|α||\partial_\xi^\alpha\partial_x^\beta a(x,\xi)|\leq C_{\alpha\beta}(1+|\xi|)^{m-|\alpha|} for all xx and ξ\xi. The best constants are seminorms, and they make SmS^m a Fréchet space. We put S−∞=⋂mSmS^{-\infty}=\bigcap_mS^m. If aj∈Smja_j\in S^{m_j} and mjm_j decreases to −∞-\infty, there is an a∈Sm0a\in S^{m_0}, unique modulo S−∞S^{-\infty}, with a−∑j<laj∈Smla-\sum_{j<l}a_j\in S^{m_l} for every ll; one writes a∼∑jaja\sim\sum_ja_j. A symbol is polyhomogeneous of degree μ\mu with step one if a∼∑jaja\sim\sum_ja_j with aja_j homogeneous of degree μ−j\mu-j in ξ\xi for |ξ|≥1|\xi|\geq1.

Quantization and kernels. For a∈Sm(ℝn×ℝn)a\in S^m(\mathbb R^n\times\mathbb R^n), the operator Op⁡(a)u(x)=(2π)−n∫eix⋅ξa(x,ξ)û(ξ)dξ\operatorname{Op}(a)u(x)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{ix\cdot\xi}a(x,\xi)\widehat u(\xi)\,d\xi maps 𝒮\mathcal S into 𝒮\mathcal S, and (a,u)↦Op⁡(a)u(a,u)\mapsto\operatorname{Op}(a)u is continuous. More generally, let aa be any tempered distribution on ℝn×ℝn\mathbb R^n\times\mathbb R^n. The formulas Ka(x,y)=(2π)−n∫ei(x−y)⋅ξa(x,ξ)dξ,a(x,ξ)=∫e−iz⋅ξKa(x,x−z)dz, K_a(x,y)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{i(x-y)\cdot\xi}a(x,\xi)\,d\xi ,\qquad a(x,\xi)=\int e^{-iz\cdot\xi}K_a(x,x-z)\,dz , in which the integrals are partial Fourier transforms of tempered distributions, are inverse to each other. So every continuous linear map 𝒮→𝒮′\mathcal S\to\mathcal S' is the map Op⁡(a)\operatorname{Op}(a) with kernel KaK_a for exactly one tempered distribution aa; in particular the operator determines its symbol. If aa is a measurable function with polynomial bounds, then Op⁡(a)u\operatorname{Op}(a)u is given, for u∈𝒮u\in\mathcal S, by the absolutely convergent integral above; one checks this by pairing with a Schwartz function and using Fubini’s theorem and Fourier inversion.

The Gauss transform. ei⟨Dy,Dη⟩e^{i\langle D_y,D_\eta\rangle} is the Fourier multiplier with symbol ei⟨p,q⟩e^{i\langle p,q\rangle}, where (p,q)(p,q) are the variables dual to (y,η)∈ℝn×ℝn(y,\eta)\in\mathbb R^n\times\mathbb R^n. It maps Sm(ℝyn×ℝηn)S^m(\mathbb R^n_y\times\mathbb R^n_\eta) continuously into itself, and for every NN ei⟨Dy,Dη⟩c−∑|α|<N1α!∂ηαDyαc∈Sm−N, e^{i\langle D_y,D_\eta\rangle}c-\sum_{|\alpha|<N}\frac1{\alpha!}\partial_\eta^\alpha D_y^\alpha c\in S^{m-N}, each seminorm of the remainder being bounded by finitely many seminorms of cc. If a sequence is bounded in SmS^m and converges locally uniformly with all derivatives, then so do its transforms.

The pre-diagonal product estimate. Let a∈Sm1(ℝn×ℝn)a\in S^{m_1}(\mathbb R^n\times\mathbb R^n), b∈Sm2(ℝn×ℝn)b\in S^{m_2}(\mathbb R^n\times\mathbb R^n), and let B(x,ξ,y,η)B(x,\xi,y,\eta) be the transform ei⟨Dy,Dη⟩e^{i\langle D_y,D_\eta\rangle} of a(x,η)b(y,ξ)a(x,\eta)b(y,\xi) in the variables (y,η)(y,\eta). Then for all multi-indices and all N≥0N\geq0, at every point (x,ξ,y,η)(x,\xi,y,\eta), |∂ξα∂xβ∂ηα′∂yβ′(B−∑|γ|<N1γ!∂ηγa(x,η)Dyγb(y,ξ))|≤C⟨η⟩m1−N−|α′|⟨ξ⟩m2−|α|, \Big|\partial_\xi^\alpha\partial_x^\beta\partial_\eta^{\alpha'}\partial_y^{\beta'}\Big(B-\sum_{|\gamma|<N}\frac1{\gamma!}\partial_\eta^\gamma a(x,\eta)\,D_y^\gamma b(y,\xi)\Big)\Big|\leq C\langle\eta\rangle^{m_1-N-|\alpha'|}\langle\xi\rangle^{m_2-|\alpha|}, with CC bounded by finitely many seminorms of aa and bb. At y=xy=x, η=ξ\eta=\xi, BB is the symbol of Op⁡(a)Op⁡(b)\operatorname{Op}(a)\operatorname{Op}(b).

The Schur test. If KK is a measurable function on X×YX\times Y, for two measure spaces XX and YY, with sup⁡x∫|K(x,y)|dy≤A\sup_x\int|K(x,y)|\,dy\leq A and sup⁡y∫|K(x,y)|dx≤B\sup_y\int|K(x,y)|\,dx\leq B, then u↦∫K(⋅,y)u(y)dyu\mapsto\int K(\cdot,y)u(y)\,dy is bounded from L2(Y)L^2(Y) to L2(X)L^2(X) with norm at most AB\sqrt{AB}.

The preceding unrestricted raw-integral statement is retained for the visible correction and complete proof in Section1.1. Its applications below use Lebesgue output measure.

Sobolev and Besov continuity. For a∈Sm(ℝn×ℝn)a\in S^m(\mathbb R^n\times\mathbb R^n), Op⁡(a)\operatorname{Op}(a) maps H(s)H_{(s)} continuously into H(s−m)H_{(s-m)} for every real ss. The spaces B2,psB^s_{2,p} are Banach spaces, and multiplication by a Cb∞C^\infty_b function is bounded on each of them. If (cl)l∈ℤ(c_l)_{l\in\mathbb Z} is summable, then convolution with it is bounded on ℓp(ℤ)\ell^p(\mathbb Z), 1≤p≤∞1\leq p\leq\infty, with norm at most ∑l|cl|\sum_l|c_l|, by the triangle inequality for translates.

Local spaces. The local spaces B2,p,locsB^s_{2,p,\mathrm{loc}} do not depend on the choice of cutoffs, and they are preserved by multiplication with smooth functions and by changes of coordinates. This is proved in the lesson Detecting regularity without choosing coordinates.

Conormal distributions and extension. These facts are proved in the lesson Singularities along a submanifold and smooth boundary passage.

Conormal distributions. Let YY be a closed submanifold of ℝN\mathbb R^N of codimension kk, and μ∈ℝ\mu\in\mathbb R. The space Iμ(ℝN,Y)I^\mu(\mathbb R^N,Y) consists of the u∈𝒟′(ℝN)u\in\mathcal D'(\mathbb R^N) such that L1⋯LMu∈B2,∞,loc−μ−N/4(ℝN)L_1\cdots L_Mu\in B^{-\mu-N/4}_{2,\infty,\mathrm{loc}}(\mathbb R^N) for every M≥0M\geq0 and all first-order differential operators L1,…,LML_1,\ldots,L_M with smooth coefficients whose principal symbols vanish on the conormal bundle N*YN^*Y. Such a uu is smooth off YY, and its wave front set lies in N*YN^*Y. Suppose Y={t=0}Y=\{t=0\} in coordinates x=(t,z)∈ℝk×ℝN−kx=(t,z)\in\mathbb R^k\times\mathbb R^{N-k}. Then every u∈Iμ(ℝN,Y)u\in I^\mu(\mathbb R^N,Y) with compact support has the form u(t,z)=∫ei⟨t,τ⟩b(z,τ)dτu(t,z)=\int e^{i\langle t,\tau\rangle}b(z,\tau)\,d\tau with b∈Sμ+(N−2k)/4(ℝN−k×ℝk)b\in S^{\mu+(N-2k)/4}(\mathbb R^{N-k}\times\mathbb R^k) of compact support in zz, and bb is (2π)−k(2\pi)^{-k} times the Fourier transform of uu in tt. Conversely every such integral lies in Iμ(ℝN,Y)I^\mu(\mathbb R^N,Y).

Hadamard’s lemma. A smooth function f(t,z)f(t,z) that vanishes on t=0t=0 equals ∑iti∫01(∂tif)(st,z)ds\sum_it_i\int_0^1(\partial_{t_i}f)(st,z)\,ds. Hence every smooth vector field tangent to Y={t=0}Y=\{t=0\} is a combination, with smooth coefficients, of the fields ti∂tjt_i\partial_{t_j} and ∂zl\partial_{z_l}.

Smooth extension. A function on ℝ¯+n\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+ that is smooth in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+, and all of whose derivatives extend continuously to ℝ¯+n\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+, is the restriction of a smooth function on ℝn\mathbb R^n.

Functional analysis.

The Hahn–Banach theorem, seminorm form. Let pp be a seminorm on a complex vector space XX, M⊂XM\subset X a subspace, and ff a linear functional on MM with |f(x)|≤p(x)|f(x)|\leq p(x) for x∈Mx\in M. Then ff extends to a linear functional Λ\Lambda on XX with |Λ(x)|≤p(x)|\Lambda(x)|\leq p(x) for all x∈Xx\in X. Its full seminorm proof is Section14.7 of the Banach foundations.

Quotients of Fréchet spaces. If NN is a closed subspace of a Fréchet space XX, then X/NX/N with the quotient topology is a Fréchet space. Its full quotient-topology and completeness proof is Section14.8 of the Banach foundations.

1.1. Schur’s bound on the original measure spaces

Editorial correction to the background statement. The preceding Schur statement, as originally written, places no restriction on either measure space. Its assertion about the raw integral is false at that generality. We retain that statement above so the correction is identifiable. Here we prove the counterexample, the bounded operator that exists on the original arbitrary spaces, and its exact relationship with the raw integral. In particular, the raw-integral assertion holds when the output measure is semifinite; the input measure can remain arbitrary. Every application later in this lesson has Lebesgue output measure and therefore satisfies this condition.

Let (X,𝒜,μ)(X,\mathcal A,\mu) and (Y,ℬ,ν)(Y,\mathcal B,\nu) be arbitrary measure spaces. In this section measurable kernels mean 𝒜⊗ℬ\mathcal A\otimes\mathcal B-measurable, finite complex-valued kernels. Retain the original two constants and both pointwise bounds ∫Y|K(x,y)|dν(y)≤A(x∈X),∫X|K(x,y)|dμ(x)≤B(y∈Y),0≤A,B<∞.(SC1) \int_Y|K(x,y)|\,d\nu(y)\leq A\quad(x\in X),\qquad \int_X|K(x,y)|\,d\mu(x)\leq B\quad(y\in Y), \qquad 0\leq A,B<\infty . \tag{SC1} All L2L^2 spaces use the original measures and their almost-everywhere equivalence classes; inner products are linear in their first argument. We do not assume completeness, sigma-finiteness or semifiniteness of either measure.

A measurable counterexample with both bounds at every point

Put I=[0,1]I=[0,1]. On its Borel sets define μ(E)={0,E is meager in I,∞,E is not meager in I,ν=Lebesgue measure on the Borel sets of I.(SC2) \mu(E)= \begin{cases}0,&E\text{ is meager in }I,\\ \infty,&E\text{ is not meager in }I,\end{cases} \qquad \nu=\text{Lebesgue measure on the Borel sets of }I. \tag{SC2} Here meager means a countable union of sets whose closures have empty relative interior. This is a measure: a countable union of meager sets is meager; if one member of a countable disjoint family is nonmeager, its union is nonmeager and both the sum and union measure are infinite. These two cases also prove countable additivity. The complete-metric Baire theorem, proved in the Banach chapter, Section6, shows that II is not meager in itself. Thus μ(I)=∞\mu(I)=\infty, while every set of finite μ\mu-measure has measure zero.

Enumerate the rationals as (qk)k≥1(q_k)_{k\geq1}, and set Uj=⋃k≥1(qk−2−j−k−3,qk+2−j−k−3),G=⋂j≥1Uj,N=ℝ\G.(SC3) U_j=\bigcup_{k\geq1} (q_k-2^{-j-k-3},q_k+2^{-j-k-3}),\qquad G=\bigcap_{j\geq1}U_j,\qquad N=\mathbb R\setminus G . \tag{SC3} Every UjU_j is open and dense, and its Lebesgue measure is at most ∑k≥12⋅2−j−k−3=2−j−2.(SC4) \sum_{k\geq1}2\cdot2^{-j-k-3}=2^{-j-2}. \tag{SC4} Consequently GG is a Borel null set. Baire’s theorem on ℝ\mathbb R also makes it dense. Each ℝ\Uj\mathbb R\setminus U_j is closed with empty interior, so NN is meager and its complement is Lebesgue null. No finite approximation of these sets is being substituted for them.

Take X=Y=IX=Y=I with the measures in (SC2), and define K(x,y)=1N(x+y),u(y)=1.(SC5) K(x,y)=1_N(x+y),\qquad u(y)=1 . \tag{SC5} Addition is continuous and NN is Borel, so KK is jointly Borel measurable. For every xx, the omitted set of yy’s is (G−x)∩I(G-x)\cap I, a Lebesgue null set; hence its row integral is one. For every yy, the set of xx’s where K≠0K\ne0 is (N−y)∩I(N-y)\cap I. Translation preserves closed sets with empty interior, and restriction of any such set to the nondegenerate interval II has empty relative interior. Thus this section is meager in II and its column integral is zero. We have the exact values A=1,B=0,∥u∥L2(ν)=1,∫IK(x,y)u(y)dν(y)=1for every x,∫I12dμ=∞.(SC6) A=1,\quad B=0,\quad \|u\|_{L^2(\nu)}=1,\qquad \int_I K(x,y)u(y)\,d\nu(y)=1\quad\text{for every }x,\qquad \int_I1^2\,d\mu=\infty . \tag{SC6} The original raw-integral assertion therefore fails. This is not a failure of a matrix estimate or of the square-root constant: the two measures detect different sections of the same measurable set.

The exact L2L^2 operator without measure restrictions

Each L2(ν)L^2(\nu) class has a finite-valued measurable representative uu. An infinite value, if allowed in a representative, occurs on a null set and can be changed to zero. Its actual nonzero support is sigma-finite: Su={u≠0}=⋃k≥1{|u|>1/k},ν{|u|>1/k}≤k2∥u∥22.(SC7) S_u=\{u\ne0\}=\bigcup_{k\geq1}\{|u|>1/k\},\qquad \nu\{|u|>1/k\}\leq k^2\|u\|_2^2 . \tag{SC7} The same construction applies to v∈L2(μ)v\in L^2(\mu). On the original restricted measures on Sv×SuS_v\times S_u, both factors are sigma-finite. Thus the product and Tonelli/Fubini proofs in the Banach chapter, Sections16.2–16.4 apply there, with no assertion of Tonelli on all of X×YX\times Y. Define bK(u,v)=∫Sv∫SuK(x,y)u(y)v(x)¯dν(y)dμ(x).(SC8) b_K(u,v)= \int_{S_v}\int_{S_u}K(x,y)u(y)\overline{v(x)}\,d\nu(y)\,d\mu(x). \tag{SC8} The two nonnegative integrals needed for product Cauchy–Schwarz obey ∫Sv×Su|K(x,y)||u(y)|2d(μ⊗ν)≤B∥u∥L2(ν)2,∫Sv×Su|K(x,y)||v(x)|2d(μ⊗ν)≤A∥v∥L2(μ)2,∫Sv×Su|K(x,y)||u(y)||v(x)|d(μ⊗ν)≤AB∥u∥L2(ν)∥v∥L2(μ).(SC9) \begin{split} \int_{S_v\times S_u}|K(x,y)|\,|u(y)|^2\,d(\mu\otimes\nu) &\leq B\|u\|_{L^2(\nu)}^2,\\ \int_{S_v\times S_u}|K(x,y)|\,|v(x)|^2\,d(\mu\otimes\nu) &\leq A\|v\|_{L^2(\mu)}^2,\\ \int_{S_v\times S_u}|K(x,y)|\,|u(y)|\,|v(x)|\,d(\mu\otimes\nu) &\leq\sqrt{AB}\,\|u\|_{L^2(\nu)}\|v\|_{L^2(\mu)} . \end{split} \tag{SC9} Here the first line integrates the column bound and the second integrates the row bound. Cauchy–Schwarz uses the two displayed functions |K|1/2|u||K|^{1/2}|u| and |K|1/2|v||K|^{1/2}|v|, retaining both factors. All integrals on the right are finite, including when A=0A=0 or B=0B=0; in either zero case the third integral vanishes. These bounds prove absolute convergence of (SC8). Changing uu or vv on its original null set changes no pairing: on the sigma-finite union of the old and new supports, those changes are product-null by the proved product theorem. The same observation on finite unions of supports proves sesquilinearity.

We include the Hilbert-space facts needed here at this generality. Cauchy–Schwarz for any measure follows by integrating |f−tg|2≥0|f-tg|^2\geq0 with its minimizing complex tt, treating g=0g=0 separately; it gives Minkowski by expanding ∥f+g∥22\|f+g\|_2^2. If a sequence is Cauchy in L2(μ)L^2(\mu), choose a subsequence with successive differences djd_j of norms at most 2−j2^{-j}. For sm=∑j≤m|dj|s_m=\sum_{j\leq m}|d_j|, Minkowski and monotone convergence give ∫(∑j≥1|dj|)2dμ=limm∫sm2dμ≤(∑j≥12−j)2.(SC10) \int\left(\sum_{j\geq1}|d_j|\right)^2d\mu =\lim_m\int s_m^2d\mu \leq\left(\sum_{j\geq1}2^{-j}\right)^2 . \tag{SC10} The sum is finite off a measurable null set. There the subsequence converges pointwise; define the limit to be zero on that null set. Applying the same bound to each tail proves convergence in L2L^2, and the Cauchy property gives convergence of the whole sequence. This proves completeness on arbitrary μ\mu, and the proof for ν\nu is identical.

For completeness, the representing-vector argument requires no separability. For fixed uu, put ℓ(v)=bK(u,v)¯\ell(v)=\overline{b_K(u,v)}, a bounded linear functional on this Hilbert space. If ℓ=0\ell=0, choose its representing vector to be zero. Otherwise the closed affine set ℓ(v)=1\ell(v)=1 is nonempty and its distance dd from zero is positive, since 1≤∥ℓ∥∥v∥1\leq\|\ell\|\|v\|. A sequence in that set whose norms decrease to dd is Cauchy: the parallelogram identity gives ∥zj−zk∥2=2∥zj∥2+2∥zk∥2−4∥(zj+zk)/2∥2≤2∥zj∥2+2∥zk∥2−4d2.(SC11) \|z_j-z_k\|^2 =2\|z_j\|^2+2\|z_k\|^2-4\|(z_j+z_k)/2\|^2 \leq2\|z_j\|^2+2\|z_k\|^2-4d^2 . \tag{SC11} Completeness gives a minimizing vector zz in the set. Varying zz by twtw and itwitw, for real tt and w∈ker⁡ℓw\in\ker\ell, shows ⟨z,w⟩=0\langle z,w\rangle=0. Since v−ℓ(v)z∈ker⁡ℓv-\ell(v)z\in\ker\ell, ℓ(v)=⟨v,z∥z∥2⟩,bK(u,v)=⟨z∥z∥2,v⟩.(SC12) \ell(v)=\left\langle v,\frac{z}{\|z\|^2}\right\rangle,\qquad b_K(u,v)=\left\langle\frac{z}{\|z\|^2},v\right\rangle . \tag{SC12} The vector in the second pairing is unique, as its difference from another would pair to zero with itself. Define it to be TKuT_Ku. Sesquilinearity and uniqueness prove that TKT_K is linear. Taking v=TKuv=T_Ku in (SC9), and treating its zero norm separately, proves TK:L2(ν)→L2(μ),⟨TKu,v⟩=bK(u,v),∥TK∥≤AB.(SC13) T_K:L^2(\nu)\longrightarrow L^2(\mu),\qquad \langle T_Ku,v\rangle=b_K(u,v),\qquad \|T_K\|\leq\sqrt{AB}. \tag{SC13} This operator is defined on the original spaces. Its adjoint retains the literal swapped kernel K*(y,x)=K(x,y)¯K^*(y,x)=\overline{K(x,y)}: absolute Fubini on the two supports gives bK(u,v)=bK*(v,u)¯b_K(u,v)=\overline{b_{K^*}(v,u)}, so TK*=TK*T_K^*=T_{K^*}. The swapped constants are B,AB,A.

The raw integral on every finite-measure piece

Fix uu and its support in (SC7). For any nonnegative product-measurable function hh on X×SuX\times S_u, its section integral is a measurable function of xx, without a condition on μ\mu. Indeed, on a finite-ν\nu piece the section-measure argument in Section16.3 of the linked chapter uses rectangles, finite subtraction for complements, and countable sums for disjoint unions; its generating-class proof in Section16.2 requires no outer measure hypothesis. Increasing finite-measure exhaustions of SuS_u, followed by increasing simple approximations to hh, give the assertion. Real and imaginary parts then give measurability of absolutely convergent complex section integrals.

Consequently the following sets and functions are measurable: Ju(x)=∫Su|K(x,y)||u(y)|dν(y),Du={Ju=∞},r0(u)(x)={∫YK(x,y)u(y)dν(y),x∉Du,0,x∈Du.(SC14) J_u(x)=\int_{S_u}|K(x,y)|\,|u(y)|\,d\nu(y),\quad D_u=\{J_u=\infty\},\qquad r_0(u)(x)= \begin{cases} \displaystyle\int_YK(x,y)u(y)\,d\nu(y),&x\notin D_u,\\ 0,&x\in D_u . \end{cases} \tag{SC14} The value zero on DuD_u is an explicit convention; it is not an assertion that the divergent raw integral exists there. For a measurable E⊂XE\subset X with μ(E)<∞\mu(E)<\infty, Tonelli on E×SuE\times S_u and the original column bound give ∫E∫Su|K(x,y)||u(y)|2dν(y)dμ(x)≤B∥u∥22.(SC15) \int_E\int_{S_u}|K(x,y)|\,|u(y)|^2d\nu(y)d\mu(x) \leq B\|u\|_2^2 . \tag{SC15} The inner quantity is finite for almost every xx in EE. Weighted Cauchy–Schwarz in yy gives, at those points, Ju(x)2≤(∫Y|K(x,y)|dν(y))(∫Su|K(x,y)||u(y)|2dν(y)).(SC16) J_u(x)^2 \leq\left(\int_Y|K(x,y)|d\nu(y)\right) \left(\int_{S_u}|K(x,y)|\,|u(y)|^2d\nu(y)\right). \tag{SC16} If A=0A=0, every row is zero almost everywhere in ν\nu, and Ju=0J_u=0 at every xx; this also covers the zero-row case before multiplying any infinite value. Otherwise (SC15)–(SC16) prove μ(E∩Du)=0,∫E|r0(u)|2dμ≤AB∥u∥22for every E of finite measure.(SC17) \mu(E\cap D_u)=0,\qquad \int_E|r_0(u)|^2d\mu\leq AB\|u\|_2^2 \quad\text{for every }E\text{ of finite measure}. \tag{SC17} For vv supported in such EE, absolute Fubini and (SC9) identify ⟨r0(u),v⟩=bK(u,v)\langle r_0(u),v\rangle=b_K(u,v) on EE. Both r0(u)1Er_0(u)1_E and (TKu)1E(T_Ku)1_E lie in L2(μ)L^2(\mu); testing their difference proves ∫E|r0(u)−TKu|2dμ=0(μ(E)<∞).(SC18) \int_E|r_0(u)-T_Ku|^2d\mu=0 \quad(\mu(E)<\infty). \tag{SC18} Equality on all finite-measure pieces is the exact comparison proved so far. In the counterexample it does not imply equality almost everywhere for the original μ\mu.

The space defined by this defect and its complete quotient map

Let FμF_\mu be the vector space of original almost-everywhere classes of finite-valued measurable functions hh for which pμ(h)=supE∈𝒜μ(E)<∞(∫E|h|2dμ)1/2<∞,Nμ={h∈Fμ:pμ(h)=0}.(SC19) p_\mu(h)=\sup_{\substack{E\in\mathcal A\\\mu(E)<\infty}} \left(\int_E|h|^2d\mu\right)^{1/2}<\infty,\qquad N_\mu=\{h\in F_\mu:p_\mu(h)=0\}. \tag{SC19} Minkowski on each EE proves that pμp_\mu is a seminorm. Its kernel consists exactly of the functions invisible to every finite-measure test. This definition retains the original global null classes, so NμN_\mu can contain a class that is nonzero globally.

There is a canonical onto isometry iμ:L2(μ)→Fμ/Nμ,iμ(h)=h+Nμ.(SC20) i_\mu:L^2(\mu)\longrightarrow F_\mu/N_\mu,\qquad i_\mu(h)=h+N_\mu . \tag{SC20} First, for h∈L2(μ)h\in L^2(\mu), the finite-measure level sets in (SC7), made increasing by finite unions, exhaust its support. Monotone convergence gives pμ(h)=∥h∥2p_\mu(h)=\|h\|_2. Thus this map is injective and isometric.

To prove surjectivity, take h∈Fμh\in F_\mu, and put c=pμ(h)2c=p_\mu(h)^2. If c=0c=0, its class in the quotient is zero. If c>0c>0, choose finite-measure sets EkE_k such that ∫Ek|h|2dμ>c−2−k\int_{E_k}|h|^2d\mu>c-2^{-k}. Replace these sets by the finite unions Fk=⋃j≤kEjF_k=\bigcup_{j\leq k}E_j, and put S=⋃kFkS=\bigcup_kF_k. Then ∫S|h|2dμ=limk∫Fk|h|2dμ=c,hs=h1S∈L2(μ).(SC21) \int_S|h|^2d\mu=\lim_k\int_{F_k}|h|^2d\mu=c,\qquad h_s=h1_S\in L^2(\mu). \tag{SC21} For any finite-measure EE, the disjoint union Fk∪(E\S)F_k\cup(E\setminus S) still has finite measure, so ∫Fk|h|2dμ+∫E\S|h|2dμ≤c.(SC22) \int_{F_k}|h|^2d\mu+\int_{E\setminus S}|h|^2d\mu\leq c . \tag{SC22} Letting kk increase proves that the second integral is zero. Therefore h−hs∈Nμh-h_s\in N_\mu, establishing surjectivity. Two choices of hsh_s differ by an L2L^2 element of NμN_\mu, hence are equal in the original L2L^2 space. The inverse Pμ=iμ−1P_\mu=i_\mu^{-1} is consequently canonical and linear, and the quotient is a complete Hilbert space through this isometry.

Equations (SC17)–(SC18) now give the complete connecting maps r0(u)∈Fμ,r0(u)+Nμ=iμ(TKu),Pμ(r0(u)+Nμ)=TKu.(SC23) r_0(u)\in F_\mu,\qquad r_0(u)+N_\mu=i_\mu(T_Ku),\qquad P_\mu(r_0(u)+N_\mu)=T_Ku . \tag{SC23} In particular the raw assignment followed by the quotient is linear, even though the conventions on divergent sets were only pointwise choices. Any other finite measurable convention on DuD_u has the same quotient class, because every finite-measure intersection of DuD_u is null. In (SC2), pμp_\mu is zero on every finite-valued measurable function, Fμ=NμF_\mu=N_\mu, and L2(μ)={0}L^2(\mu)=\{0\}. The raw constant one in (SC6) is a nonzero original class in NμN_\mu; (SC13) is the zero operator. Thus (SC23) describes exactly what the counterexample loses under finite-measure testing.

When the raw-integral assertion is recovered

A measure is semifinite if each measurable set of positive measure contains a measurable subset of finite positive measure. Under this condition, a measurable set whose intersection with every finite-measure set is null is itself null: if it were positive, the defining subset would contradict the intersection property. Applying this first to DuD_u and then to the sets {|h|>1/k}\{|h|>1/k\} for h∈Nμh\in N_\mu gives μ semifinite⇒μ(Du)=0,Nμ={0},r0(u)=TKuμ-almost everywhere,∥r0(u)∥2≤AB∥u∥2.(SC24) \mu\text{ semifinite}\quad\Longrightarrow\quad \mu(D_u)=0,\quad N_\mu=\{0\},\quad r_0(u)=T_Ku\ \mu\text{-almost everywhere},\quad \|r_0(u)\|_2\leq\sqrt{AB}\|u\|_2 . \tag{SC24} There is no restriction on the input measure ν\nu in this implication.

The defect criterion is exact: Nμ={0}N_\mu=\{0\} if and only if μ\mu is semifinite. Indeed, if semifiniteness fails, its definition supplies a positive measurable set HH with no finite positive-measure subset. Every finite-measure intersection E∩HE\cap H has measure zero. The finite-valued function 1H1_H therefore belongs to NμN_\mu and is a nonzero original almost-everywhere class. This proves the converse. Equivalently, semifiniteness gives μ(H)=supE⊂Hμ(E)<∞μ(E).(SC25) \mu(H)=\sup_{\substack{E\subset H\\\mu(E)<\infty}}\mu(E). \tag{SC25} For finite μ(H)\mu(H) this is immediate. If μ(H)=∞\mu(H)=\infty and the supremum cc were finite, choose finite-measure Ek⊂HE_k\subset H approaching cc, take their increasing finite unions, and let their union be SS. Measure continuity gives μ(S)=c\mu(S)=c. Any finite positive-measure subset of H\SH\setminus S would raise the supremum by its disjoint union with SS, while H\SH\setminus S still has infinite measure. This contradicts semifiniteness and proves (SC25). We have proved the exact vanishing criterion for the defect space; we do not infer that every kernel on a nonsemifinite space must fail its raw-integral bound.

Finally, the same construction works for the finite vector dimensions in this lesson, retaining their order. If K(x,y)∈L(ℂp,ℂq)K(x,y)\in L(\mathbb C^p,\mathbb C^q), replace |K||K| in (SC1) and (SC9) by its original operator norm and use |⟨K(x,y)u(y),v(x)⟩ℂq|≤∥K(x,y)∥|u(y)|ℂp|v(x)|ℂq.(SC26) |\langle K(x,y)u(y),v(x)\rangle_{\mathbb C^q}| \leq\|K(x,y)\|\,|u(y)|_{\mathbb C^p}|v(x)|_{\mathbb C^q}. \tag{SC26} This gives exactly (SC9), with no dimension factor. Vector-valued L2L^2 completeness follows by the same norm-sum proof (SC10); the Hilbert representing argument (SC11)–(SC12) applies unchanged. The raw convergence proof bounds the norm of its vector integral by JuJ_u. Define Fμ,NμF_\mu,N_\mu with the original Euclidean vector norm; (SC21)–(SC22) prove the same onto isometry and comparison. The adjoint kernel is exactly K(y,x)*K(y,x)^*, reversing the two vector dimensions, as absolute Fubini in (SC8) shows. All subsequent Schur applications thus retain the full scalar or matrix constants and the original Lebesgue integral.

Figure SC-F1. The exact kernel K(x,y)=1_N(x+y) on I=[0,1] has row bound A=1 and column bound B=0. Its raw integral sends the input constant one of Lebesgue L2 norm one to the constant one with infinite global output L2 integral. Every finite-measure output test is zero. The canonical Schur operator is zero, and the onto isometry F_mu/N_mu=L2(mu) identifies the raw output with zero through SC20–SC23. This is a diagram of the exact maps, not a sampled picture of the meager set N. Definitions and full proofs: SC2–SC6 and SC19–SC24. Reproducible figure source: figures/schur_arbitrary_measure.py.

2. Totally characteristic differential operators

Let 𝒱b\mathcal V_b be the smooth vector fields V=∑jvj∂jV=\sum_jv_j\partial_j, vj∈C∞(ℝ¯+n)v_j\in C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), that are tangent to the boundary, that is, vn(x′,0)=0v_n(x',0)=0. Let Diff⁡b(ℝ¯+n)\operatorname{Diff}_b(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) be the algebra of operators on C∞(ℝ¯+n)C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) generated by 𝒱b\mathcal V_b and by multiplication with functions in C∞(ℝ¯+n)C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), and Diff⁡bm\operatorname{Diff}^m_b the span of products containing at most mm vector fields. Its elements are the totally characteristic differential operators.

Proposition 2.1 (Structure of totally characteristic differential operators).

  1. 𝒱b\mathcal V_b is the C∞(ℝ¯+n)C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+)-module generated by ∂1,…,∂n−1\partial_1,\ldots,\partial_{n-1} and xn∂nx_n\partial_n.

  2. For every integer k≥0k\geq0, xnkDnk=∏j=0k−1(xnDn+ij)=:qk(xnDn).(2.1) x_n^kD_n^k=\prod_{j=0}^{k-1}\big(x_nD_n+ij\big)=:q_k(x_nD_n). \tag{2.1} Hence {xnjDnj:j≤k}\{x_n^jD_n^j:j\leq k\} and {(xnDn)j:j≤k}\{(x_nD_n)^j:j\leq k\} span the same space, with constant coefficients.

  3. Diff⁡bm\operatorname{Diff}^m_b consists exactly of the finite sums P=∑|α|≤mcα(x)xnαnDα,cα∈C∞(ℝ¯+n),(2.2) P=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}c_\alpha(x)\,x_n^{\alpha_n}D^\alpha,\qquad c_\alpha\in C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), \tag{2.2} equivalently of the sums ∑|α|≤mcα′(x)D′α′(xnDn)αn\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}c'_\alpha(x)D'^{\alpha'}(x_nD_n)^{\alpha_n}.

  4. For PP as in (2.2) and u∈C∞(ℝ¯+n)u\in C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), (Pu)(x′,0)=∑αn=0cα(x′,0)D′α′u(x′,0)(Pu)(x',0)=\sum_{\alpha_n=0}c_\alpha(x',0)D'^{\alpha'}u(x',0): the boundary value of PuPu depends only on the boundary value of uu.

Proof. (a) If vn(x′,0)=0v_n(x',0)=0, then vn(x)=xnw(x)v_n(x)=x_nw(x) with w(x)=∫01(∂nvn)(x′,θxn)dθ∈C∞(ℝ¯+n)w(x)=\int_0^1(\partial_nv_n)(x',\theta x_n)\,d\theta\in C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). Thus V=∑j<nvj∂j+wxn∂nV=\sum_{j<n}v_j\partial_j+w\,x_n\partial_n. Conversely each generator is tangent.

  1. For k≥0k\geq0 and uu smooth, xnDn(xnkDnku)=xnk+1Dnk+1u+xn(Dnxnk)Dnku=xnk+1Dnk+1u−ikxnkDnkux_nD_n(x_n^kD_n^ku)=x_n^{k+1}D_n^{k+1}u+x_n(D_nx_n^k)D_n^ku=x_n^{k+1}D_n^{k+1}u-ik\,x_n^kD_n^ku, because Dnxnk=−ikxnk−1D_nx_n^k=-ikx_n^{k-1}. So xnk+1Dnk+1=(xnDn+ik)xnkDnkx_n^{k+1}D_n^{k+1}=(x_nD_n+ik)\,x_n^kD_n^k, and induction gives (2.1). The polynomial qkq_k is monic of degree kk, so the triangular system can be inverted.

  2. Moving a function to the left across a generator produces only multiplication operators: ∂jc=c∂j+(∂jc)\partial_jc=c\partial_j+(\partial_jc) and xn∂nc=cxn∂n+xn(∂nc)x_n\partial_nc=c\,x_n\partial_n+x_n(\partial_nc). So a product of at most mm vector fields and functions is a sum of terms c(x)M1⋯Mlc(x)M_1\cdots M_l, l≤ml\leq m, with each MiM_i one of the generators in (a). These generators commute pairwise, because [xn∂n,∂j]=0[x_n\partial_n,\partial_j]=0 for j<nj<n. So each word is a constant times D′β′(xnDn)βnD'^{\beta'}(x_nD_n)^{\beta_n} with |β|≤m|\beta|\leq m, and (b) rewrites it in the form (2.2). Conversely xnαnDα=D′α′qαn(xnDn)x_n^{\alpha_n}D^\alpha=D'^{\alpha'}q_{\alpha_n}(x_nD_n) is a product of |α||\alpha| generators.

  3. At xn=0x_n=0 every term with αn>0\alpha_n>0 carries the factor xnαnx_n^{\alpha_n}, which vanishes. ▫\square

Part (d) is the motivation for the whole lesson. An operator that respects the boundary in this way can be followed by boundary operators. Theorem 5.1(c) below extends (d) to the pseudodifferential operators of this lesson and to normal derivatives of every order.

3. Function spaces on the half space

Restrictions and supports

Two ways to attach a space to the half space. Let FF be a space of distributions on ℝn\mathbb R^n.

These are different objects and must be kept apart. A restriction of a Schwartz function may have any boundary values. A Schwartz function supported in ℝ¯+n\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+ vanishes to infinite order on xn=0x_n=0, since all its derivatives are continuous and vanish for xn<0x_n<0. The zero extension of an element of 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) is an integrable function in 𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+); it lies in 𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) only when all its normal derivatives vanish at the boundary. In this notation, C∞(ℝ¯+n)=C∞¯(ℝ+n)C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+)=\overline{C^\infty}(\mathbb R^n_+), by the smooth extension fact of Section 1.

Lemma 3.1 (Supports in the closed half space). Let U∈𝒮′(ℝn)U\in\mathcal S'(\mathbb R^n) with supp⁡U⊂ℝ¯+n\operatorname{supp}U\subset\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+, and let φ∈𝒮(ℝn)\varphi\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n) vanish in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+. Then U(φ)=0U(\varphi)=0.

Proof. First, U(ψ)=0U(\psi)=0 whenever ψ∈𝒮\psi\in\mathcal S vanishes on a neighbourhood WW of supp⁡U\operatorname{supp}U: for ψ∈C0∞\psi\in C_0^\infty this is the definition of the support, and in general ψθ(⋅/R)→ψ\psi\,\theta(\cdot/R)\to\psi in 𝒮\mathcal S for a cutoff θ\theta equal to 1 near 0, while each ψθ(⋅/R)\psi\theta(\cdot/R) vanishes on WW. Now put φδ(x)=φ(x′,xn+δ)\varphi_\delta(x)=\varphi(x',x_n+\delta). It vanishes on {xn>−δ}\{x_n>-\delta\}, a neighbourhood of ℝ¯+n\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+, so U(φδ)=0U(\varphi_\delta)=0; and φδ→φ\varphi_\delta\to\varphi in 𝒮\mathcal S as δ→0\delta\to0. ▫\square

Restricted Schwartz functions

For v∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)v\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) and multi-indices α,β\alpha,\beta put qα,β(v)=supx∈ℝ+n|xαDβv(x)|. q_{\alpha,\beta}(v)=\sup_{x\in\mathbb R^n_+}|x^\alpha D^\beta v(x)| .

Lemma 3.2 (Restricted Schwartz functions).

  1. Each qα,βq_{\alpha,\beta} is finite and continuous on 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+). For every continuous seminorm qq on 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) there are kk and CC with q(v)≤C∑|α|+|β|≤2kqα,β(v).(3.1) q(v)\leq C\sum_{|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq2k}q_{\alpha,\beta}(v) . \tag{3.1} So the qα,βq_{\alpha,\beta} define the quotient topology.

  2. 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) is a Fréchet space.

  3. A function w∈C∞(ℝ¯+n)w\in C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) is the restriction of a Schwartz function if and only if every qα,β(w)q_{\alpha,\beta}(w) is finite.

  4. If g∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)g\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), k≥1k\geq1, and ∂njg(x′,0)=0\partial_n^jg(x',0)=0 for j<kj<k, then g=xnkhg=x_n^kh with h∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)h\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+).

Proof. (a) For every extension VV of vv, qα,β(v)≤sup⁡ℝn|xαDβV|q_{\alpha,\beta}(v)\leq\sup_{\mathbb R^n}|x^\alpha D^\beta V|; so qα,βq_{\alpha,\beta} is bounded by a quotient seminorm, hence finite and continuous. Conversely let qq be continuous, and let π\pi be the restriction map. Then q∘πq\circ\pi is a continuous seminorm on 𝒮(ℝn)\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n), so there are k,Ck,C with q(πV)≤C∑|α|+|β|≤ksup⁡ℝn|xαDβV|q(\pi V)\leq C\sum_{|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq k}\sup_{\mathbb R^n}|x^\alpha D^\beta V|. Fix V∈𝒮V\in\mathcal S. Put Ṽ=V\tilde V=V on xn≥0x_n\geq0 and Ṽ(x)=θ(xn)∑j≤k∂njV(x′,0)xnjj!(xn<0), \tilde V(x)=\theta(x_n)\sum_{j\leq k}\partial_n^jV(x',0)\frac{x_n^j}{j!}\qquad(x_n<0), with θ∈C0∞(ℝ)\theta\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R) equal to 1 on (−1,1)(-1,1). The two pieces have the same derivatives of order ≤k\leq k on xn=0x_n=0, so Ṽ∈Ck(ℝn)\tilde V\in C^k(\mathbb R^n). For |α|+|β|≤k|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq k, sup⁡ℝn(1+|x|)|α||DβṼ|\sup_{\mathbb R^n}(1+|x|)^{|\alpha|}|D^\beta\tilde V| is bounded by a constant times ∑|α′|+|γ|≤2kqα′,γ(πV)\sum_{|\alpha'|+|\gamma|\leq2k}q_{\alpha',\gamma}(\pi V): on xn≥0x_n\geq0 this is clear, and on xn<0x_n<0 the derivatives are combinations of derivatives of θ(xn)xnj\theta(x_n)x_n^j (bounded, with support in a fixed interval) and of D′β′∂njV(x′,0)D'^{\beta'}\partial_n^jV(x',0), |β′|+j≤2k|\beta'|+j\leq2k, whose weighted suprema are limits from ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+. Now take ϕ∈C0∞(ℝ−n)\phi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_-) with ∫ϕ=1\int\phi=1, ϕε(x)=ε−nϕ(x/ε)\phi_\varepsilon(x)=\varepsilon^{-n}\phi(x/\varepsilon), 0<ε≤10<\varepsilon\leq1. Then Ṽ*ϕε∈𝒮(ℝn)\tilde V*\phi_\varepsilon\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n). For x∈ℝ+nx\in\mathbb R^n_+ the convolution only uses values at x−yx-y with (x−y)n>xn>0(x-y)_n>x_n>0, so π(Ṽ*ϕε)=π(V*ϕε)\pi(\tilde V*\phi_\varepsilon)=\pi(V*\phi_\varepsilon). For |β|≤k|\beta|\leq k, Dβ(Ṽ*ϕε)=(DβṼ)*ϕεD^\beta(\tilde V*\phi_\varepsilon)=(D^\beta\tilde V)*\phi_\varepsilon, and 1+|x|≤(1+R)(1+|x−y|)1+|x|\leq(1+R)(1+|x-y|) for y∈supp⁡ϕε⊂{|y|≤R}y\in\operatorname{supp}\phi_\varepsilon\subset\{|y|\leq R\}. Hence q(π(V*ϕε))≤C′∑|α|+|β|≤2kqα,β(πV)q(\pi(V*\phi_\varepsilon))\leq C'\sum_{|\alpha|+|\beta|\leq2k}q_{\alpha,\beta}(\pi V), uniformly in ε\varepsilon. Since V*ϕε→VV*\phi_\varepsilon\to V in 𝒮\mathcal S, (3.1) follows.

  1. The subspace {V∈𝒮:V=0 in ℝ+n}\{V\in\mathcal S:V=0\text{ in }\mathbb R^n_+\} is closed, since point evaluations are continuous. The quotient of a Fréchet space by a closed subspace is again a Fréchet space (see the background list in Section 1).

  2. Necessity is clear. Conversely let every qα,β(w)q_{\alpha,\beta}(w) be finite, let w0w_0 be the zero extension of ww, and let ϕε\phi_\varepsilon be as in (a). Then Wε=w0*ϕε∈𝒮(ℝn)W_\varepsilon=w_0*\phi_\varepsilon\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n), because w0w_0 is bounded and rapidly decreasing and all derivatives fall on ϕε\phi_\varepsilon. If supp⁡ϕ⊂{yn≤−c}\operatorname{supp}\phi\subset\{y_n\leq-c\}, then for xx near a point of ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+ the integral ∫w0(x−y)ϕε(y)dy\int w_0(x-y)\phi_\varepsilon(y)dy only involves points with (x−y)n≥xn+cε(x-y)_n\geq x_n+c\varepsilon, so we may differentiate under it: DβWε(x)=∫(Dβw)(x−y)ϕε(y)dyD^\beta W_\varepsilon(x)=\int(D^\beta w)(x-y)\phi_\varepsilon(y)\,dy. By the mean value theorem along segments, which stay in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+, |xα(DβWε−Dβw)(x)|≤Cε∑|α′|≤|α|,|γ|=|β|+1qα′,γ(w)(x∈ℝ+n). |x^\alpha(D^\beta W_\varepsilon-D^\beta w)(x)|\leq C\varepsilon\sum_{|\alpha'|\leq|\alpha|,\,|\gamma|=|\beta|+1}q_{\alpha',\gamma}(w)\qquad(x\in\mathbb R^n_+). So πWε→w\pi W_\varepsilon\to w in every qα,βq_{\alpha,\beta}. By (a) the family is Cauchy in 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), by (b) it converges to some πW\pi W, and since q0,0q_{0,0} is continuous the limit agrees with ww on ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+.

  3. On xn>1x_n>1 put h=g/xnkh=g/x_n^k. On 0≤xn<20\leq x_n<2 Taylor’s formula with integral remainder and the vanishing jets give g=xnkhg=x_n^kh with h(x)=1(k−1)!∫01(1−θ)k−1(∂nkg)(x′,θxn)dθh(x)=\frac1{(k-1)!}\int_0^1(1-\theta)^{k-1}(\partial_n^kg)(x',\theta x_n)\,d\theta. The two definitions agree for 1<xn<21<x_n<2. The second one is smooth up to xn=0x_n=0, and both have finite weighted suprema of all derivatives (on xn≤2x_n\leq2 the weights are controlled by 1+|x′|1+|x'|). So h∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)h\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) by (c). ▫\square

4. Symbols, compressed quantization and lacunarity

The symbol class and its quantization

Definition 4.1 (The class S+mS^m_+). For m∈ℝm\in\mathbb R, S+mS^m_+ is the set of a∈C∞(ℝ¯+n×ℝn)a\in C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+\times\mathbb R^n) such that for all multi-indices α,β\alpha,\beta and all integers ν≥0\nu\geq0 pα,β,νm(a)=supx∈ℝ¯+n,ξ∈ℝn(1+|ξ|)|α|−m(1+xn)ν|a(β)(α)(x,ξ)|<∞.(4.1) p^m_{\alpha,\beta,\nu}(a)=\sup_{x\in\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+,\ \xi\in\mathbb R^n}(1+|\xi|)^{|\alpha|-m}(1+x_n)^{\nu}\,|a^{(\alpha)}_{(\beta)}(x,\xi)|<\infty . \tag{4.1} These seminorms make S+mS^m_+ a Fréchet space: a sequence that is Cauchy for all of them converges locally uniformly with all derivatives, and the weighted bounds pass to the limit. We put S+−∞=⋂mS+mS^{-\infty}_+=\bigcap_mS^m_+. The estimates are uniform in x′x', with no decay in x′x', and require rapid decay in xnx_n.

Compression and quantization. For a∈S+ma\in S^m_+ put a♭(x,ξ)=a(x,ξ′,xnξn)(xn≥0),a♭(x,ξ)=0(xn<0),(4.2) a^\flat(x,\xi)=a(x,\xi',x_n\xi_n)\quad(x_n\geq0),\qquad a^\flat(x,\xi)=0\quad(x_n<0), \tag{4.2} and, for u∈𝒮(ℝn)u\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n), Tau(x)=(2π)−n∫eix⋅ξa♭(x,ξ)û(ξ)dξ.(4.3) T_au(x)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{ix\cdot\xi}a^\flat(x,\xi)\,\widehat u(\xi)\,d\xi . \tag{4.3} Since 1+|(ξ′,xnξn)|≤(1+xn)(1+|ξ|)1+|(\xi',x_n\xi_n)|\leq(1+x_n)(1+|\xi|), the compressed symbol grows at most polynomially and the integral converges absolutely. We always write the last variable of aa as ξn\xi_n; thus ∂ξna\partial_{\xi_n}a is the derivative of aa in its last slot, (∂ξna)♭(\partial_{\xi_n}a)^\flat its compression, and ∂ξn(a♭)=xn(∂ξna)♭\partial_{\xi_n}(a^\flat)=x_n(\partial_{\xi_n}a)^\flat. We also write ξna\xi_na for the symbol (x,ξ)↦ξna(x,ξ)(x,\xi)\mapsto\xi_na(x,\xi); its compression is xnξna♭x_n\xi_na^\flat.

Two remarks explain the choice of class. First, away from the boundary TaT_a is an ordinary pseudodifferential operator. Indeed, for xn≥1x_n\geq1 the compressed symbol obeys the ordinary estimates of SmS^m uniformly. Each ∂ξn\partial_{\xi_n} of a♭a^\flat brings a factor xnx_n, and each ∂xn\partial_{x_n} brings (∂xna)♭(\partial_{x_n}a)^\flat or ξn(∂ξna)♭\xi_n(\partial_{\xi_n}a)^\flat, where |ξn|≤(1+|(ξ′,xnξn)|)/xn|\xi_n|\leq(1+|(\xi',x_n\xi_n)|)/x_n. Moreover (1+|ξ|)≤1+|(ξ′,xnξn)|≤xn(1+|ξ|)(1+|\xi|)\leq1+|(\xi',x_n\xi_n)|\leq x_n(1+|\xi|). So every derivative obeys the estimate of SmS^m up to powers of xnx_n, and the rapid decay in xnx_n absorbs every power of xnx_n. Second, near xn=0x_n=0 the compressed symbol is not a classical symbol: ∂ξna♭=xn(∂ξna)♭\partial_{\xi_n}a^\flat=x_n(\partial_{\xi_n}a)^\flat gains no power of ⟨ξ⟩\langle\xi\rangle.

If P=∑|α|≤mcα(x)xnαnDαP=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq m}c_\alpha(x)x_n^{\alpha_n}D^\alpha with cα∈Cb∞(ℝ¯+n)c_\alpha\in C^\infty_b(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) vanishing for xn≥Rx_n\geq R, then P=TpP=T_p with p(x,ξ)=∑cα(x)ξα∈S+mp(x,\xi)=\sum c_\alpha(x)\xi^\alpha\in S^{m}_+: indeed p♭=∑cα(x)ξ′α′(xnξn)αnp^\flat=\sum c_\alpha(x)\xi'^{\alpha'}(x_n\xi_n)^{\alpha_n}, and left quantization places functions of xx on the left. So Proposition 2.1 suggests the definition.

The kernel. The compressed symbol is a polynomially bounded measurable function. So, by the facts on quantization and kernels in Section 1, the operator Ta:𝒮→𝒮′T_a:\mathcal S\to\mathcal S' has the tempered kernel Ka(x,y)=(2π)−n∫ei(x−y)⋅ξa♭(x,ξ)dξK_a(x,y)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{i(x-y)\cdot\xi}a^\flat(x,\xi)\,d\xi. For xn>0x_n>0 the substitution ηn=xnξn\eta_n=x_n\xi_n suggests Ka(x,y)=xn−1A(x,x′−y′,xn−ynxn),A(x,z)=(2π)−n∫eiz⋅ξa(x,ξ)dξ.(4.4) K_a(x,y)=x_n^{-1}A\Big(x,\,x'-y',\,\frac{x_n-y_n}{x_n}\Big),\qquad A(x,z)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{iz\cdot\xi}a(x,\xi)\,d\xi . \tag{4.4} For residual symbols this is an identity of functions (Theorem 6.2(b)). We want TauT_au to depend only on u|ℝ+nu|_{\mathbb R^n_+}, that is, Ka(x,y)=0K_a(x,y)=0 for yn<0y_n<0. With zn=(xn−yn)/xnz_n=(x_n-y_n)/x_n, the condition yn<0y_n<0 means zn>1z_n>1. So A(x,⋅)A(x,\cdot) should vanish on zn>1z_n>1; this is a condition on the Fourier transform of aa in its last variable.

Lacunary symbols

Definition 4.2 (Lacunary symbols). For a∈S+ma\in S^m_+ and fixed (x,ξ′)(x,\xi'), the function ξn↦a(x,ξ′,ξn)\xi_n\mapsto a(x,\xi',\xi_n) is tempered; let ℱna(x,ξ′,⋅)\mathcal F_na(x,\xi',\cdot) be its Fourier transform, a tempered distribution in the dual variable tt (formally ∫e−itξnadξn\int e^{-it\xi_n}a\,d\xi_n). We call aa lacunary if supp⁡ℱna(x,ξ′,⋅)⊂[−1,∞)for all (x,ξ′)∈ℝ¯+n×ℝn−1,(4.5) \operatorname{supp}\mathcal F_na(x,\xi',\cdot)\subset[-1,\infty)\qquad\text{for all }(x,\xi')\in\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+\times\mathbb R^{n-1}, \tag{4.5} that is, ∫a(x,ξ′,ξn)φ̂(ξn)dξn=0\int a(x,\xi',\xi_n)\widehat\varphi(\xi_n)\,d\xi_n=0 for every φ∈C0∞((−∞,−1))\varphi\in C_0^\infty((-\infty,-1)). We call aa strongly lacunary if these supports lie in [−12,1][-\tfrac12,1]. SlamS^m_{\mathrm{la}} denotes the lacunary elements of S+mS^m_+ and Sla−∞=⋂mSlamS^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}=\bigcap_mS^m_{\mathrm{la}}.

Each defining condition is a continuous linear functional on S+mS^m_+, since |∫aφ̂|≤p(a)∫(1+|ξ′|+|ξn|)|m||φ̂(ξn)|dξn|\int a\widehat\varphi|\leq p(a)\int(1+|\xi'|+|\xi_n|)^{|m|}|\widehat\varphi(\xi_n)|d\xi_n. So SlamS^m_{\mathrm{la}} is a closed subspace and a Fréchet space.

The following closure properties are used constantly. If aa is lacunary (strongly lacunary), then so are ∂xβa\partial_x^\beta a, ∂ξ′γa\partial_{\xi'}^\gamma a, ∂ξna\partial_{\xi_n}a, ξγa\xi^\gamma a, and c(x)ac(x)a for c∈Cb∞(ℝ¯+n)c\in C^\infty_b(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). Indeed ℱn\mathcal F_n commutes with operations in xx and ξ′\xi', turns ∂ξn\partial_{\xi_n} into multiplication by itit, and turns multiplication by ξn\xi_n into i∂ti\partial_t; none of these enlarges the support.

Proposition 4.3 (Lacunarity is exactly the support condition). For a∈S+ma\in S^m_+ the following are equivalent.

  1. aa is lacunary.
  2. Tav=0T_av=0 in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+ for every v∈𝒮(ℝn)v\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n) that vanishes in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+.
  3. Tav=0T_av=0 in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+ for every v∈C0∞(ℝ−n)v\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_-).

Proof. Fix x∈ℝ+nx\in\mathbb R^n_+ and v∈𝒮v\in\mathcal S. Let w(ξ′,yn)=∫e−iy′⋅ξ′v(y′,yn)dy′w(\xi',y_n)=\int e^{-iy'\cdot\xi'}v(y',y_n)\,dy', so that v̂(ξ′,ξn)=∫e−iynξnw(ξ′,yn)dyn\widehat v(\xi',\xi_n)=\int e^{-iy_n\xi_n}w(\xi',y_n)\,dy_n. By Fubini, Tav(x)=(2π)−n∫eix′⋅ξ′J(x,ξ′)dξ′,J(x,ξ′)=∫a(x,ξ′,xnξn)eixnξnv̂(ξ′,ξn)dξn. T_av(x)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{ix'\cdot\xi'}J(x,\xi')\,d\xi',\qquad J(x,\xi')=\int a(x,\xi',x_n\xi_n)\,e^{ix_n\xi_n}\,\widehat v(\xi',\xi_n)\,d\xi_n . Substitute ηn=xnξn\eta_n=x_n\xi_n, and write eixnξnv̂(ξ′,ξn)=∫e−i(yn−xn)ξnw(ξ′,yn)dyne^{ix_n\xi_n}\widehat v(\xi',\xi_n)=\int e^{-i(y_n-x_n)\xi_n}w(\xi',y_n)\,dy_n. With s=(yn−xn)/xns=(y_n-x_n)/x_n one finds J(x,ξ′)=xn−1∫a(x,ξ′,ηn)ϕx,ξ′̂(ηn)dηn,ϕx,ξ′(s)=xnw(ξ′,xn(1+s)).(4.6) J(x,\xi')=x_n^{-1}\int a(x,\xi',\eta_n)\,\widehat{\phi_{x,\xi'}}(\eta_n)\,d\eta_n,\qquad \phi_{x,\xi'}(s)=x_n\,w\big(\xi',x_n(1+s)\big). \tag{4.6} (1 ⇒\Rightarrow 2) If v=0v=0 in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+, then w(ξ′,yn)=0w(\xi',y_n)=0 for yn>0y_n>0, so ϕ=ϕx,ξ′\phi=\phi_{x,\xi'} vanishes for s>−1s>-1. The translates ϕδ(s)=ϕ(s+δ)\phi_\delta(s)=\phi(s+\delta) vanish on (−1−δ,∞)(-1-\delta,\infty), a neighbourhood of [−1,∞)[-1,\infty), and ϕδ→ϕ\phi_\delta\to\phi in 𝒮(ℝ)\mathcal S(\mathbb R). Hence ∫aϕ̂dηn=⟨ℱna,ϕ⟩=lim⁡δ→0⟨ℱna,ϕδ⟩=0\int a\,\widehat\phi\,d\eta_n=\langle\mathcal F_na,\phi\rangle=\lim_{\delta\to0}\langle\mathcal F_na,\phi_\delta\rangle=0. So J=0J=0 and Tav(x)=0T_av(x)=0.

(2 ⇒\Rightarrow 3) is trivial.

(3 ⇒\Rightarrow 1) Take v(y)=v1(y′)v2(yn)v(y)=v_1(y')v_2(y_n) with v1∈C0∞(ℝn−1)v_1\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^{n-1}) and v2∈C0∞((−∞,0))v_2\in C_0^\infty((-\infty,0)). Then w=v1̂(ξ′)v2(yn)w=\widehat{v_1}(\xi')v_2(y_n) and J(x,ξ′)=v1̂(ξ′)j(x,ξ′)J(x,\xi')=\widehat{v_1}(\xi')\,j(x,\xi') with j(x,ξ′)=xn−1∫a(x,ξ′,ηn)ψx̂(ηn)dηnj(x,\xi')=x_n^{-1}\int a(x,\xi',\eta_n)\widehat{\psi_x}(\eta_n)\,d\eta_n, ψx(s)=xnv2(xn(1+s))\psi_x(s)=x_nv_2(x_n(1+s)). For fixed xx, the continuous polynomially bounded function ξ′↦eix′⋅ξ′j(x,ξ′)\xi'\mapsto e^{ix'\cdot\xi'}j(x,\xi') annihilates every v1̂\widehat{v_1}, and these are dense in 𝒮(ℝn−1)\mathcal S(\mathbb R^{n-1}); so j(x,⋅)=0j(x,\cdot)=0. As v2v_2 runs through C0∞((−∞,0))C_0^\infty((-\infty,0)), ψx\psi_x runs through all of C0∞((−∞,−1))C_0^\infty((-\infty,-1)). This proves (4.5) for xn>0x_n>0, and continuity in xx gives it at xn=0x_n=0. ▫\square

Every symbol is lacunary up to a residual symbol

Lemma 4.4 (Lacunary modification of a symbol). Let ρ∈𝒮(ℝ)\rho\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R) with ρ̂∈C0∞((−12,1))\widehat\rho\in C_0^\infty((-\tfrac12,1)) and ρ̂=1\widehat\rho=1 near 0. For a∈S+ma\in S^m_+ put aρ(x,ξ)=∫a(x,ξ′,ξn−t)ρ(t)dt.(4.7) a_\rho(x,\xi)=\int a(x,\xi',\xi_n-t)\,\rho(t)\,dt . \tag{4.7} Then:

  1. a↦aρa\mapsto a_\rho is continuous S+m→S+mS^m_+\to S^m_+, and aρa_\rho is strongly lacunary, with supp⁡ℱnaρ(x,ξ′,⋅)⊂supp⁡ρ̂\operatorname{supp}\mathcal F_na_\rho(x,\xi',\cdot)\subset\operatorname{supp}\widehat\rho.

  2. a−aρ∈S+−∞a-a_\rho\in S^{-\infty}_+, and a↦a−aρa\mapsto a-a_\rho is continuous from S+mS^m_+ into every S+m′S^{m'}_+.

  3. If aa is lacunary (strongly lacunary), so is a−aρa-a_\rho.

  4. The kernel of TaρT_{a_\rho} vanishes on the open set {xn>0,yn/xn∉[12,2]}\{x_n>0,\ y_n/x_n\notin[\tfrac12,2]\}.

  5. The natural map Slam/Sla−∞→S+m/S+−∞S^m_{\mathrm{la}}/S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}\to S^m_+/S^{-\infty}_+ is bijective.

Proof. (a) By Peetre’s inequality, |(aρ)(β)(α)(x,ξ)|≤∫|a(β)(α)(x,ξ′,ξn−t)||ρ(t)|dt≤p(a)(1+xn)−ν(1+|ξ|)m−|α|∫(1+|t|)|m−|α|||ρ(t)|dt. |(a_\rho)^{(\alpha)}_{(\beta)}(x,\xi)|\leq\int|a^{(\alpha)}_{(\beta)}(x,\xi',\xi_n-t)||\rho(t)|\,dt\leq p(a)(1+x_n)^{-\nu}(1+|\xi|)^{m-|\alpha|}\int(1+|t|)^{|m-|\alpha||}|\rho(t)|\,dt . By the convolution theorem ℱnaρ=ρ̂ℱna\mathcal F_na_\rho=\widehat\rho\,\mathcal F_na, whose support lies in supp⁡ρ̂⊂(−12,1)\operatorname{supp}\widehat\rho\subset(-\tfrac12,1).

  1. Since ρ̂(τ)=∫e−iτtρ(t)dt\widehat\rho(\tau)=\int e^{-i\tau t}\rho(t)dt equals 1 near 0, ∫ρ=1\int\rho=1 and ∫tjρ(t)dt=0\int t^j\rho(t)\,dt=0 for j≥1j\geq1. Hence, for every NN, aρ(x,ξ)−a(x,ξ)=∫(a(x,ξ′,ξn−t)−∑j<N∂ξnja(x,ξ)(−t)jj!)ρ(t)dt.(4.8) a_\rho(x,\xi)-a(x,\xi)=\int\Big(a(x,\xi',\xi_n-t)-\sum_{j<N}\partial_{\xi_n}^ja(x,\xi)\frac{(-t)^j}{j!}\Big)\rho(t)\,dt . \tag{4.8} Where |t|<(1+|ξ|)/2|t|<(1+|\xi|)/2, Taylor’s formula bounds the bracket by |t|N/N!|t|^N/N! times the supremum of |∂ξnNa||\partial^N_{\xi_n}a| on the segment from ξ\xi to ξ−ten\xi-te_n; there 1+|ξ|1+|\xi| and the norm of the point differ by a factor at most 2, so the bracket is at most CNp(a)|t|N(1+|ξ|)m−N(1+xn)−νC_Np(a)|t|^N(1+|\xi|)^{m-N}(1+x_n)^{-\nu}. Where |t|≥(1+|ξ|)/2|t|\geq(1+|\xi|)/2, each term of the bracket is at most Cp(a)(1+|t|)|m|+N(1+xn)−νCp(a)(1+|t|)^{|m|+N}(1+x_n)^{-\nu}, and 1+|ξ|≤2(1+|t|)1+|\xi|\leq2(1+|t|) gives (1+|t|)|m|+N≤2N+|m|(1+|ξ|)m−N(1+|t|)2N+2|m|(1+|t|)^{|m|+N}\leq2^{N+|m|}(1+|\xi|)^{m-N}(1+|t|)^{2N+2|m|}. Integrating against the rapidly decreasing |ρ||\rho| gives |aρ−a|≤CNp(a)(1+|ξ|)m−N(1+xn)−ν|a_\rho-a|\leq C_Np(a)(1+|\xi|)^{m-N}(1+x_n)^{-\nu} for all N,νN,\nu. Derivatives commute with the convolution, so the same argument applied to a(β)(α)∈S+m−|α|a^{(\alpha)}_{(\beta)}\in S^{m-|\alpha|}_+ proves (b), with every seminorm controlled by finitely many seminorms of aa.

  2. ℱn(a−aρ)=(1−ρ̂)ℱna\mathcal F_n(a-a_\rho)=(1-\widehat\rho)\mathcal F_na has support inside that of ℱna\mathcal F_na.

  3. Fix xx with xn>0x_n>0 and let v∈𝒮v\in\mathcal S vanish on the closed slab {y:xn/2≤yn≤2xn}\{y:x_n/2\leq y_n\leq2x_n\}. In (4.6) the function ϕx,ξ′\phi_{x,\xi'} then vanishes on [−12,1][-\tfrac12,1], which is a neighbourhood of the compact set supp⁡ρ̂\operatorname{supp}\widehat\rho. Hence J=0J=0 and Taρv(x)=0T_{a_\rho}v(x)=0. If ψ∈C0∞\psi\in C_0^\infty and v∈C0∞v\in C_0^\infty have supp⁡ψ×supp⁡v\operatorname{supp}\psi\times\operatorname{supp}v inside the open set of (d), this gives (Taρv,ψ)=0(T_{a_\rho}v,\psi)=0; such products span a dense set of test functions, which proves (d).

  4. The kernel of the map is Slam∩S+−∞=Sla−∞S^m_{\mathrm{la}}\cap S^{-\infty}_+=S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}; surjectivity is (a)–(b). ▫\square

By (e), the lacunary condition only restricts the residual part of a symbol. It has no effect on principal symbols or asymptotic expansions.

5. Action on restricted Schwartz functions

Continuity, commutators and boundary jets

Theorem 5.1 (Action, commutators and boundary jets). Let a∈Slama\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}}.

  1. For u∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) and any U∈𝒮(ℝn)U\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n) equal to uu in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+, the restriction (TaU)|ℝ+n(T_aU)|_{\mathbb R^n_+} depends only on uu; we call it TauT_au. It lies in 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), and (a,u)↦Tau(a,u)\mapsto T_au is a continuous bilinear map Slam×𝒮¯(ℝ+n)→𝒮¯(ℝ+n)S^m_{\mathrm{la}}\times\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+)\to\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+). More precisely, for every (α,β)(\alpha,\beta) there are a seminorm pp of S+mS^m_+ and a continuous seminorm p‾\bar p of 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), depending only on α,β,m,n\alpha,\beta,m,n, with qα,β(Tau)≤p(a)p‾(u)q_{\alpha,\beta}(T_au)\leq p(a)\,\bar p(u).

  2. As operators on 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), for j<nj<n, [Ta,Dj]=iT∂xja,[Ta,xj]=−iT∂ξja, [T_a,D_j]=iT_{\partial_{x_j}a},\qquad [T_a,x_j]=-iT_{\partial_{\xi_j}a}, and for the normal direction [Ta,Dn]=iT∂xna+iT∂ξnaDn,[Ta,xn]=−ixnT∂ξna.(5.1) [T_a,D_n]=iT_{\partial_{x_n}a}+iT_{\partial_{\xi_n}a}D_n,\qquad [T_a,x_n]=-i\,x_n\,T_{\partial_{\xi_n}a}. \tag{5.1}

  3. For every integer k≥0k\geq0 and u∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), Dnk(Tau)(x′,0)=∑j=0k(kj)akj(x′,D′)(Dnju(⋅,0))(x′),akj(x′,ξ′)=∑i=0j(ji)(Dxnk−jDξnia)(x′,0,ξ′,0).(5.2) D_n^k(T_au)(x',0)=\sum_{j=0}^k\binom kj\,a_{kj}(x',D')\big(D_n^ju(\cdot,0)\big)(x'),\qquad a_{kj}(x',\xi')=\sum_{i=0}^j\binom ji\big(D_{x_n}^{k-j}D_{\xi_n}^ia\big)(x',0,\xi',0). \tag{5.2} Here akj∈Sm(ℝn−1×ℝn−1)a_{kj}\in S^m(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\mathbb R^{n-1}), its ii-th summand has order m−im-i, and akj(x′,D′)a_{kj}(x',D') is the left quantization on ℝn−1\mathbb R^{n-1}.

  4. If Dnju(⋅,0)=0D_n^ju(\cdot,0)=0 for j<kj<k, then Dnj(Tau)(⋅,0)=0D_n^j(T_au)(\cdot,0)=0 for j<kj<k. In particular TaT_a maps 𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) into itself.

Correction: The expression −i(1+xn)T∂ξna-i(1+x_n)T_{\partial_{\xi_n}a} is not the commutator [Ta,xj][T_a,x_j] with j=nj=n; the correct term is −ixnT∂ξna-i\,x_nT_{\partial_{\xi_n}a}, as in (5.1) and Example 5.2.

Proof. (a) Let U∈𝒮U\in\mathcal S and, for x∈ℝ¯+nx\in\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+, put W(x)=(2π)−n∫eix⋅ξa♭(x,ξ)Û(ξ)dξW(x)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{ix\cdot\xi}a^\flat(x,\xi)\widehat U(\xi)\,d\xi, so W=TaUW=T_aU in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+. From (4.2), for xn≥0x_n\geq0, Dxj(eix⋅ξa♭)=eix⋅ξ(ξja♭+(Dxja)♭)(j<n),Dxn(eix⋅ξa♭)=eix⋅ξ(ξna♭+(Dxna)♭+ξn(Dξna)♭).(5.3) D_{x_j}\big(e^{ix\cdot\xi}a^\flat\big)=e^{ix\cdot\xi}\big(\xi_ja^\flat+(D_{x_j}a)^\flat\big)\ (j<n),\qquad D_{x_n}\big(e^{ix\cdot\xi}a^\flat\big)=e^{ix\cdot\xi}\big(\xi_na^\flat+(D_{x_n}a)^\flat+\xi_n(D_{\xi_n}a)^\flat\big). \tag{5.3} By induction, Dxβ(eix⋅ξa♭)=eix⋅ξ∑γξγcγ♭D_x^\beta(e^{ix\cdot\xi}a^\flat)=e^{ix\cdot\xi}\sum_\gamma\xi^\gamma c_\gamma^\flat, a finite sum with |γ|≤|β||\gamma|\leq|\beta|, where each cγc_\gamma is a constant times some ∂xμ∂ξnia∈S+m−i\partial_x^\mu\partial_{\xi_n}^ia\in S^{m-i}_+. Since 1+|(ξ′,xnξn)|≤(1+xn)(1+|ξ|)1+|(\xi',x_n\xi_n)|\leq(1+x_n)(1+|\xi|), each term is at most |ξ||γ|p(cγ)(1+xn)m+−ν(1+|ξ|)m+|\xi|^{|\gamma|}p(c_\gamma)(1+x_n)^{m_+-\nu}(1+|\xi|)^{m_+}, m+=max⁡(m,0)m_+=\max(m,0), for any ν\nu. For the weight x′α′x'^{\alpha'} we integrate by parts in ξ′\xi', using x′α′eix⋅ξ=Dξ′α′eix⋅ξx'^{\alpha'}e^{ix\cdot\xi}=D_{\xi'}^{\alpha'}e^{ix\cdot\xi}; ξ′\xi'-derivatives of cγ♭c_\gamma^\flat are compressions of ξ′\xi'-derivatives and obey the same bounds. For the weight xnαnx_n^{\alpha_n} we take ν≥αn+m+\nu\geq\alpha_n+m_+. Thus supx∈ℝ¯+n|xαDβW(x)|≤p(a)p′(U) \sup_{x\in\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+}|x^\alpha D^\beta W(x)|\leq p(a)\,p'(U) with pp a seminorm of S+mS^m_+ and p′p' a Schwartz seminorm. The same bounds justify differentiation under the integral, and the integrands are continuous up to xn=0x_n=0; so W∈C∞(ℝ¯+n)W\in C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), and W|ℝ+n∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)W|_{\mathbb R^n_+}\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) by Lemma 3.2(c). By Proposition 4.3, W|ℝ+nW|_{\mathbb R^n_+} depends only on U|ℝ+nU|_{\mathbb R^n_+}. Taking the infimum over all extensions gives qα,β(Tau)≤p(a)p‾′(u)q_{\alpha,\beta}(T_au)\leq p(a)\bar p'(u) with the quotient seminorm p‾′\bar p', and Lemma 3.2(a) turns this into joint continuity.

  1. For U∈𝒮U\in\mathcal S and xn>0x_n>0, differentiation under the integral gives DjTaU=Op⁡(ξja♭+Dxj(a♭))UD_jT_aU=\operatorname{Op}(\xi_ja^\flat+D_{x_j}(a^\flat))U, while TaDjU=Op⁡(a♭ξj)UT_aD_jU=\operatorname{Op}(a^\flat\xi_j)U. Hence [Ta,Dj]=−Op⁡(Dxj(a♭))=iOp⁡(∂xj(a♭))[T_a,D_j]=-\operatorname{Op}(D_{x_j}(a^\flat))=i\operatorname{Op}(\partial_{x_j}(a^\flat)). For j<nj<n, ∂xj(a♭)=(∂xja)♭\partial_{x_j}(a^\flat)=(\partial_{x_j}a)^\flat. For j=nj=n, ∂xn(a♭)=(∂xna)♭+ξn(∂ξna)♭\partial_{x_n}(a^\flat)=(\partial_{x_n}a)^\flat+\xi_n(\partial_{\xi_n}a)^\flat, and Op⁡(c♭ξn)=TcDn\operatorname{Op}(c^\flat\xi_n)=T_cD_n. Next, xjÛ=−DξjÛ\widehat{x_jU}=-D_{\xi_j}\widehat U; integrating by parts in ξj\xi_j gives Ta(xjU)=(2π)−n∫Dξj(eix⋅ξa♭)Ûdξ=xjTaU+Op⁡(Dξj(a♭))UT_a(x_jU)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int D_{\xi_j}(e^{ix\cdot\xi}a^\flat)\widehat U\,d\xi=x_jT_aU+\operatorname{Op}(D_{\xi_j}(a^\flat))U, so [Ta,xj]=−iOp⁡(∂ξj(a♭))[T_a,x_j]=-i\operatorname{Op}(\partial_{\xi_j}(a^\flat)). For j<nj<n this is −iT∂ξja-iT_{\partial_{\xi_j}a}. For j=nj=n, ∂ξn(a♭)=xn(∂ξna)♭\partial_{\xi_n}(a^\flat)=x_n(\partial_{\xi_n}a)^\flat, and the factor xnx_n stands on the left. The symbols on the right are lacunary, so the identities pass to 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+).

  2. By (5.3), Dxnk(eix⋅ξa♭)=eix⋅ξ(ξn+Dxn)ka♭D^k_{x_n}(e^{ix\cdot\xi}a^\flat)=e^{ix\cdot\xi}(\xi_n+D_{x_n})^ka^\flat for xn≥0x_n\geq0. Regard aa as a function of (x,ξ′,ζ)(x,\xi',\zeta), with ζ=xnξn\zeta=x_n\xi_n in the last slot and ξn\xi_n as a parameter. Then Dxn(a♭)=[(Dxn+ξnDζ)a]♭D_{x_n}(a^\flat)=[(D_{x_n}+\xi_nD_\zeta)a]^\flat, and DxnD_{x_n}, ξnDζ\xi_nD_\zeta commute; so Dxnℓ(a♭)=∑i(ℓi)ξni(Dxnℓ−iDζia)♭D^\ell_{x_n}(a^\flat)=\sum_i\binom\ell i\xi_n^i(D^{\ell-i}_{x_n}D^i_\zeta a)^\flat. At xn=0x_n=0 (where ζ=0\zeta=0), (ξn+Dxn)ka♭|xn=0=∑ℓ(kℓ)ξnk−ℓ∑i≤ℓ(ℓi)ξni(Dxnℓ−iDξnia)(x′,0,ξ′,0). (\xi_n+D_{x_n})^ka^\flat\big|_{x_n=0}=\sum_{\ell}\binom k\ell\xi_n^{k-\ell}\sum_{i\leq\ell}\binom\ell i\xi_n^i\big(D^{\ell-i}_{x_n}D^i_{\xi_n}a\big)(x',0,\xi',0). The power ξnj\xi_n^j occurs for j=k−ℓ+ij=k-\ell+i, and (kk−j+i)(k−j+ii)=(kj)(ji)\binom k{k-j+i}\binom{k-j+i}i=\binom kj\binom ji. So Dnk(TaU)(x′,0)=∑j(kj)(2π)−n∫eix′⋅ξ′akj(x′,ξ′)ξnjÛ(ξ)dξD^k_n(T_aU)(x',0)=\sum_j\binom kj(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{ix'\cdot\xi'}a_{kj}(x',\xi')\xi_n^j\widehat U(\xi)\,d\xi, and (2π)−1∫ξnjÛ(ξ′,ξn)dξn(2\pi)^{-1}\int\xi_n^j\widehat U(\xi',\xi_n)d\xi_n is the Fourier transform in x′x' of DnjU(⋅,0)D_n^jU(\cdot,0). This is (5.2). The symbol DξniDxnk−jaD^i_{\xi_n}D^{k-j}_{x_n}a lies in S+m−iS^{m-i}_+, and its restriction to xn=0,ξn=0x_n=0,\xi_n=0 lies in Sm−i(ℝn−1×ℝn−1)S^{m-i}(\mathbb R^{n-1}\times\mathbb R^{n-1}).

  3. This is read off from (5.2). If all jets of uu vanish, those of TauT_au vanish too; the zero extension of TauT_au is then smooth, with all weighted derivatives bounded, hence in 𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). ▫\square

Formula (5.2) is the purpose of the construction: the normal derivatives of the output at the boundary are obtained by letting pseudodifferential operators on the boundary act on normal derivatives of the input of the same or lower order. Proposition 2.1(d) is the case k=0k=0 for differential operators.

Example 5.2 (The factor xnx_n in the normal commutator). Take θ∈C0∞(ℝ)\theta\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R) with θ=1\theta=1 near 0, and a(x,ξ)=θ(xn)ξna(x,\xi)=\theta(x_n)\xi_n. This symbol lies in Sla1S^1_{\mathrm{la}}, because its normal Fourier transform is supported at t=0t=0. Here Ta=θ(xn)xnDnT_a=\theta(x_n)x_nD_n, and [Ta,xn]u=θ(xn)xnDn(xnu)−xnθ(xn)xnDnu=−iθ(xn)xnu[T_a,x_n]u=\theta(x_n)x_nD_n(x_nu)-x_n\theta(x_n)x_nD_nu=-i\theta(x_n)x_nu, while T∂ξna=θ(xn)T_{\partial_{\xi_n}a}=\theta(x_n). So [Ta,xn]=−ixnT∂ξna[T_a,x_n]=-i\,x_nT_{\partial_{\xi_n}a}, as (5.1) says, and there is no term −iT∂ξna=−iθ(xn)-iT_{\partial_{\xi_n}a}=-i\theta(x_n) without the factor xnx_n.

Composition with totally characteristic derivatives

Composing TcT_c on the right with a totally characteristic differential operator gives again an operator of the class, with an exact formula for its symbol.

Lemma 5.3 (Composition with totally characteristic derivatives). For c∈Slaμc\in S^\mu_{\mathrm{la}}, on 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), TcDj=Tξjc(j<n),TcxnDn=Tξn(1−i∂ξn)c,TcDnxn=T(ξn−i−iξn∂ξn)c,(5.4) T_cD_j=T_{\xi_jc}\ (j<n),\qquad T_c\,x_nD_n=T_{\xi_n(1-i\partial_{\xi_n})c},\qquad T_c\,D_nx_n=T_{(\xi_n-i-i\xi_n\partial_{\xi_n})c}, \tag{5.4} and more generally TcxnkDnkD′β′=Tξ′β′ξnk(1−i∂ξn)kc.(5.5) T_c\,x_n^kD_n^kD'^{\beta'}=T_{\xi'^{\beta'}\xi_n^k(1-i\partial_{\xi_n})^kc}. \tag{5.5} Proof. For j<nj<n, TcDj=Op⁡(c♭ξj)T_cD_j=\operatorname{Op}(c^\flat\xi_j) and c♭ξj=(ξjc)♭c^\flat\xi_j=(\xi_jc)^\flat. By (5.1), Tcxn=xnT(1−i∂ξn)cT_cx_n=x_nT_{(1-i\partial_{\xi_n})c}, so Tcxnk=xnkT(1−i∂ξn)kcT_cx_n^k=x_n^kT_{(1-i\partial_{\xi_n})^kc}. Moreover xnkTgDnk=Op⁡(xnkξnkg♭)=Tξnkgx_n^kT_gD_n^k=\operatorname{Op}(x_n^k\xi_n^kg^\flat)=T_{\xi_n^kg}, because xnkξnkg♭=(ξnkg)♭x_n^k\xi_n^kg^\flat=(\xi_n^kg)^\flat. Together these give (5.5) and the first two identities in (5.4). The third identity in (5.4) follows from Dnxn=xnDn−iD_nx_n=x_nD_n-i. ▫\square

6. Kernels near the corner

Coordinates at the corner

Kernels of totally characteristic operators live on Q={(x,y)∈ℝ2n:xn≥0,yn≥0},∂2Q={(x,y):xn=yn=0}, Q=\{(x,y)\in\mathbb R^{2n}:x_n\geq0,\ y_n\geq0\},\qquad \partial_2Q=\{(x,y):x_n=y_n=0\}, the quarter space and its distinguished boundary. Near ∂2Q\partial_2Q we use t=xn+yn2,r=xn−ynt(t>0);xn=t(1+r2),yn=t(1−r2).(6.1) t=\frac{x_n+y_n}2,\qquad r=\frac{x_n-y_n}t\quad(t>0);\qquad x_n=t\Big(1+\frac r2\Big),\quad y_n=t\Big(1-\frac r2\Big). \tag{6.1}

Proposition 6.1 (Blow-up coordinates). Write Φ(t,r)=(t(1+r/2),t(1−r/2))\Phi(t,r)=(t(1+r/2),t(1-r/2)).

  1. Φ\Phi maps (0,∞)×ℝ(0,\infty)\times\mathbb R diffeomorphically onto {xn+yn>0}\{x_n+y_n>0\}, with |det⁡Φ′|=t|\det\Phi'|=t; hence dxndyn=tdtdrdx_n\,dy_n=t\,dt\,dr.
  2. Q\{xn=yn=0}Q\setminus\{x_n=y_n=0\} corresponds to t>0t>0, |r|≤2|r|\leq2. The face {xn=0<yn}\{x_n=0<y_n\} is r=−2r=-2, the face {yn=0<xn}\{y_n=0<x_n\} is r=2r=2, the diagonal xn=ynx_n=y_n is r=0r=0, and yn/xn=(2−r)/(2+r)y_n/x_n=(2-r)/(2+r).
  3. Φ\Phi extends smoothly to [0,∞)×ℝ[0,\infty)\times\mathbb R and maps the whole line t=0t=0 to the corner: the corner is blown up into the front face t=0t=0, of which the segment |r|≤2|r|\leq2 lies over QQ.
  4. Normal dilations (xn,yn)↦λ(xn,yn)(x_n,y_n)\mapsto\lambda(x_n,y_n) are (t,r)↦(λt,r)(t,r)\mapsto(\lambda t,r), and the radial field is xn∂xn+yn∂yn=t∂tx_n\partial_{x_n}+y_n\partial_{y_n}=t\partial_t.
  5. On QQ, |w|/2≤t≤|w||w|/2\leq t\leq|w| for w=(xn,yn)w=(x_n,y_n); rr is homogeneous of degree 0, so |∂wβr|≤Cβ|w|−|β||\partial_w^\beta r|\leq C_\beta|w|^{-|\beta|} on {xn+yn>0}∩{|r|≤3}\{x_n+y_n>0\}\cap\{|r|\leq3\}.
  6. The rescaled normal variable in (4.4) is a function of rr alone: (xn−yn)/xn=2r/(2+r)(x_n-y_n)/x_n=2r/(2+r).

Proof. The Jacobian matrix of Φ\Phi has rows (1+r2,t2)(1+\tfrac r2,\tfrac t2) and (1−r2,−t2)(1-\tfrac r2,-\tfrac t2), with determinant −t-t; the inverse is (6.1). Parts 2–4 and 6 are direct substitutions. For part 5, xn+yn≥|w|x_n+y_n\geq|w| when both are nonnegative, and xn+yn≤2|w|x_n+y_n\leq\sqrt2|w|. The set {|r|≤3}={|xn−yn|≤32(xn+yn)}\{|r|\leq3\}=\{|x_n-y_n|\leq\tfrac32(x_n+y_n)\} is a closed cone that meets the line xn+yn=0x_n+y_n=0 only at the origin; its intersection with the unit circle is a compact subset of the open set where rr is smooth. The derivatives of order kk of rr are homogeneous of degree −k-k, so they are bounded by Ck|w|−kC_k|w|^{-k} on that cone. ▫\square

The point of these coordinates is part 6. The kernel formula (4.4) involves xn−1x_n^{-1} and a function of (xn−yn)/xn(x_n-y_n)/x_n, and neither is smooth at the corner. But tKtK becomes a smooth function of (t,r)(t,r), as Theorem 6.2 shows.

Residual kernels

Theorem 6.2 (Residual kernels).

  1. Let a∈Sla−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}} and A(x,z)=(2π)−n∫eiz⋅ξa(x,ξ)dξA(x,z)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{iz\cdot\xi}a(x,\xi)\,d\xi. Then A∈C∞(ℝ¯+n×ℝn)A\in C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+\times\mathbb R^n), A=0A=0 for zn≥1z_n\geq1, and for all α,β,N\alpha,\beta,N |∂xα∂zβA(x,z)|≤CαβN(1+|z|)−N(1+xn)−N,(6.2) |\partial_x^\alpha\partial_z^\beta A(x,z)|\leq C_{\alpha\beta N}(1+|z|)^{-N}(1+x_n)^{-N}, \tag{6.2} with CαβNC_{\alpha\beta N} bounded by seminorms of aa. Conversely every A∈C∞(ℝ¯+n×ℝn)A\in C^\infty(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+\times\mathbb R^n) satisfying (6.2) and vanishing for zn>1z_n>1 comes in this way from exactly one a∈Sla−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}, namely a(x,ξ)=∫e−iz⋅ξA(x,z)dza(x,\xi)=\int e^{-iz\cdot\xi}A(x,z)\,dz.

  2. For a∈Sla−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}} the kernel of TaT_a is the locally integrable function K(x,y)=xn−1A(x,x′−y′,xn−ynxn)(xn>0),K(x,y)=0(xn<0).(6.3) K(x,y)=x_n^{-1}A\Big(x,\,x'-y',\,\frac{x_n-y_n}{x_n}\Big)\quad(x_n>0),\qquad K(x,y)=0\quad(x_n<0). \tag{6.3} For xn>0x_n>0 and u∈𝒮u\in\mathcal S, Tau(x)=∫K(x,y)u(y)dyT_au(x)=\int K(x,y)u(y)\,dy, and ∫|K(x,y)|dy=∫|A(x,z)|dz≤C(1+xn)−N\int|K(x,y)|\,dy=\int|A(x,z)|\,dz\leq C(1+x_n)^{-N}. Moreover supp⁡K⊂Q\operatorname{supp}K\subset Q and K∈C∞(ℝ2n\∂2Q)K\in C^\infty(\mathbb R^{2n}\setminus\partial_2Q).

  3. The function F(x′,y′,t,r)=tK(x′,t(1+r2),y′,t(1−r2))F(x',y',t,r)=t\,K(x',t(1+\tfrac r2),y',t(1-\tfrac r2)), t>0t>0, extends to a C∞C^\infty function on {t≥0}×ℝx′n−1×ℝy′n−1×ℝr\{t\geq0\}\times\mathbb R^{n-1}_{x'}\times\mathbb R^{n-1}_{y'}\times\mathbb R_r, which vanishes for |r|≥2|r|\geq2. For all α,β,τ,ρ,ν\alpha,\beta,\tau,\rho,\nu and r>−2r>-2, |Dx′αDy′βDtτDrρF|≤C(1+|x′−y′|+t)−ν(2+r)ν,(6.4) |D^\alpha_{x'}D^\beta_{y'}D^\tau_tD^\rho_rF|\leq C(1+|x'-y'|+t)^{-\nu}(2+r)^{\nu}, \tag{6.4} and in particular |Dx′αDy′βDtτDrρF|≤C′(1+|x′−y′|+t)−ν.(6.5) |D^\alpha_{x'}D^\beta_{y'}D^\tau_tD^\rho_rF|\leq C'(1+|x'-y'|+t)^{-\nu}. \tag{6.5} On the front face, F(x′,y′,0,r)=22+rA(x′,0,x′−y′,2r2+r)(r>−2).(6.6) F(x',y',0,r)=\frac{2}{2+r}\,A\Big(x',0,\,x'-y',\,\frac{2r}{2+r}\Big)\quad(r>-2). \tag{6.6}

  4. Conversely, let K∈Lloc1(ℝ2n)K\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(\mathbb R^{2n}) with supp⁡K⊂Q\operatorname{supp}K\subset Q, and suppose that the function FF of (c) agrees almost everywhere on t>0t>0 with a function in C∞({t≥0})C^\infty(\{t\geq0\}) that vanishes for |r|≥2|r|\geq2 and satisfies (6.5). Then KK is, almost everywhere, the kernel of TaT_a for exactly one a∈Sla−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}.

Proof. (a) For a∈S+−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_+, integration by parts gives zγ∂zβ∂xαA=(2π)−n∫eiz⋅ξ(−Dξ)γ[(iξ)β∂xαa]dξz^\gamma\partial^\beta_z\partial^\alpha_xA=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{iz\cdot\xi}(-D_\xi)^\gamma[(i\xi)^\beta\partial^\alpha_xa]\,d\xi, with an integrand bounded by C(1+|ξ|)−n−1(1+xn)−NC(1+|\xi|)^{-n-1}(1+x_n)^{-N}. This proves smoothness and (6.2). For fixed (x,ξ′)(x,\xi'), a(x,ξ′,⋅)∈𝒮(ℝ)a(x,\xi',\cdot)\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R), so ℱna\mathcal F_na is a continuous function; by (4.5) it vanishes for t<−1t<-1. Since A(x,z)=(2π)−n∫eiz′⋅ξ′(ℱna)(x,ξ′,−zn)dξ′A(x,z)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{iz'\cdot\xi'}(\mathcal F_na)(x,\xi',-z_n)\,d\xi', A=0A=0 for zn>1z_n>1, and by continuity for zn≥1z_n\geq1. Conversely, if AA satisfies (6.2), then ξγ∂ξβ∂xαa=∫e−iz⋅ξDzγ[(−iz)β∂xαA]dz\xi^\gamma\partial_\xi^\beta\partial_x^\alpha a=\int e^{-iz\cdot\xi}D_z^\gamma[(-iz)^\beta\partial_x^\alpha A]\,dz is bounded by C(1+xn)−NC(1+x_n)^{-N}, so a∈S+−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_+; Fourier inversion recovers AA from aa; and ℱna(x,ξ′,t)=2π∫e−iz′⋅ξ′A(x,z′,−t)dz′\mathcal F_na(x,\xi',t)=2\pi\int e^{-iz'\cdot\xi'}A(x,z',-t)\,dz' vanishes for t<−1t<-1. Uniqueness is Fourier inversion.

  1. For xn>0x_n>0 fixed, a♭(x,⋅)∈𝒮(ℝn)a^\flat(x,\cdot)\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n), because aa decreases rapidly in (ξ′,xnξn)(\xi',x_n\xi_n). So K(x,y)=(2π)−n∫ei(x−y)⋅ξa♭(x,ξ)dξK(x,y)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{i(x-y)\cdot\xi}a^\flat(x,\xi)d\xi converges absolutely, and the substitution ηn=xnξn\eta_n=x_n\xi_n gives (6.3). Fubini gives Tau(x)=∫K(x,y)u(y)dyT_au(x)=\int K(x,y)u(y)dy. The change of variables z=(x′−y′,(xn−yn)/xn)z=(x'-y',(x_n-y_n)/x_n), dy=xndzdy=x_n\,dz, gives ∫|K(x,y)|dy=∫|A(x,z)|dz\int|K(x,y)|dy=\int|A(x,z)|dz. Hence (Tau,v)=∬K(x,y)u(y)v(x)¯dydx(T_au,v)=\iint K(x,y)u(y)\overline{v(x)}\,dy\,dx for u,v∈𝒮u,v\in\mathcal S, with absolute convergence; so KK, which is locally integrable, is the Schwartz kernel. If xn<0x_n<0, K=0K=0. If xn>0>ynx_n>0>y_n, then (xn−yn)/xn>1(x_n-y_n)/x_n>1 and A=0A=0. So KK vanishes outside QQ, up to the null set xn=0x_n=0.

Smoothness off ∂2Q\partial_2Q. Near a point with xn>0x_n>0, (6.3) is smooth. Near a point with xn<0x_n<0, or with xn=0x_n=0 and yn<0y_n<0, K=0K=0. Let xn0=0<yn0x^0_n=0<y^0_n. For xn>0x_n>0 small and yny_n near yn0y^0_n, the normal argument zn=(xn−yn)/xnz_n=(x_n-y_n)/x_n satisfies |zn|≥yn0/(2xn)|z_n|\geq y^0_n/(2x_n). By the chain rule, a derivative of order |γ||\gamma| of KK is a finite sum of terms xn−kynl(∂A)(x,z)x_n^{-k}y_n^l(\partial A)(x,z) with k≤1+2|γ|k\leq1+2|\gamma|, l≤|γ|l\leq|\gamma|, and |∂A|≤CM(1+|zn|)−M≤CM(2xn/yn0)M|\partial A|\leq C_M(1+|z_n|)^{-M}\leq C_M(2x_n/y^0_n)^M. So KK and all its derivatives tend to 0 as xn→0+x_n\to0+, uniformly near the point. Since K=0K=0 for xn≤0x_n\leq0, KK is smooth there.

  1. For t>0t>0 and r>−2r>-2 we have xn=t(1+r/2)>0x_n=t(1+r/2)>0, (xn−yn)/xn=2r/(2+r)(x_n-y_n)/x_n=2r/(2+r) and t/xn=2/(2+r)t/x_n=2/(2+r). So by (6.3) F=22+rA(x′,t(1+r2),x′−y′,2r2+r)=:G.(6.7) F=\frac2{2+r}\,A\Big(x',\,t\big(1+\tfrac r2\big),\,x'-y',\,\frac{2r}{2+r}\Big)=:G . \tag{6.7} The right side is smooth on {t≥0,r>−2}\{t\geq0,\ r>-2\}, because AA is smooth up to xn=0x_n=0. It vanishes for r≥2r\geq2, where 2r/(2+r)≥12r/(2+r)\geq1. For t>0t>0, r<−2r<-2 we have xn<0x_n<0 and F=0F=0.

Now let −2<r<2-2<r<2 and write zn=2r/(2+r)z_n=2r/(2+r), z′=x′−y′z'=x'-y', xn=t(2+r)/2x_n=t(2+r)/2. Then 12+r≤1+|zn|2,t=2xn2+r≤xn(1+|zn|).(6.8) \frac1{2+r}\leq\frac{1+|z_n|}2,\qquad t=\frac{2x_n}{2+r}\leq x_n(1+|z_n|). \tag{6.8} The first inequality holds because 1+|zn|≥1≥2/(2+r)1+|z_n|\geq1\geq2/(2+r) when r≥0r\geq0, and 1+|zn|=(2−r)/(2+r)≥2/(2+r)1+|z_n|=(2-r)/(2+r)\geq2/(2+r) when r<0r<0. By the chain rule, Dx′αDy′βDtτDrρGD^\alpha_{x'}D^\beta_{y'}D^\tau_tD^\rho_rG is a finite sum of terms ctk(2+r)−l(∂xμ∂zκA)(x′,xn,z′,zn)c\,t^k(2+r)^{-l}(\partial_x^\mu\partial_z^\kappa A)(x',x_n,z',z_n) with 0≤k≤ρ0\leq k\leq\rho and l≤1+2ρl\leq1+2\rho: an rr-derivative may hit (2+r)−l(2+r)^{-l}, the argument t(1+r/2)t(1+r/2) (factor t/2t/2) or the argument 2r/(2+r)2r/(2+r) (factor 4/(2+r)24/(2+r)^2); a tt-derivative brings the factor (2+r)/2(2+r)/2. By (6.8) and (6.2), each term is at most Cxnk(1+|zn|)k+l+(1+|z|)−M(1+xn)−M. C\,x_n^k(1+|z_n|)^{k+l_+}(1+|z|)^{-M}(1+x_n)^{-M}. On the other hand 1+|x′−y′|+t≤(1+|z′|)(1+xn)(1+|zn|)≤(1+|z|)2(1+xn)1+|x'-y'|+t\leq(1+|z'|)(1+x_n)(1+|z_n|)\leq(1+|z|)^2(1+x_n) and (2+r)−ν≤(1+|z|)ν(2+r)^{-\nu}\leq(1+|z|)^\nu. Choosing MM large gives (6.4) for −2<r<2-2<r<2; for r≥2r\geq2 the left side vanishes. In particular every derivative of GG tends to 0 as r↓−2r\downarrow-2, locally uniformly (also at t=0t=0); so GG, extended by 0 to r≤−2r\leq-2, is smooth, and it equals FF. Since 2+r≤42+r\leq4 on the support, (6.4) implies (6.5). Formula (6.6) is (6.7) at t=0t=0.

  1. Taylor’s formula at r=−2r=-2, where FF vanishes to infinite order, turns (6.5) into (6.4): |∂rρF(r)|≤sup⁡[−2,r]|∂rρ+νF|(r+2)ν/ν!|\partial_r^\rho F(r)|\leq\sup_{[-2,r]}|\partial_r^{\rho+\nu}F|\,(r+2)^\nu/\nu!. Define, for x∈ℝ¯+nx\in\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+, A(x,z)=22−znF(x′,x′−z′,xn(2−zn)2,2zn2−zn)(zn<2),A(x,z)=0(zn>1).(6.9) A(x,z)=\frac2{2-z_n}\,F\Big(x',\,x'-z',\,\frac{x_n(2-z_n)}2,\,\frac{2z_n}{2-z_n}\Big)\quad(z_n<2),\qquad A(x,z)=0\quad(z_n>1). \tag{6.9} On 1<zn<21<z_n<2 both definitions give 0, because then 2zn/(2−zn)>22z_n/(2-z_n)>2; so AA is smooth. For zn≤1z_n\leq1 put r=2zn/(2−zn)∈(−2,2]r=2z_n/(2-z_n)\in(-2,2] and t=xn(2−zn)/2t=x_n(2-z_n)/2. Then r+2=4/(2−zn)≤8/(1+|zn|)r+2=4/(2-z_n)\leq8/(1+|z_n|) and xn/2≤t≤xn(1+|zn|)x_n/2\leq t\leq x_n(1+|z_n|). Every derivative of AA is a finite sum of terms (polynomial in xnx_n) ×\times (smooth function of znz_n growing at most polynomially on zn≤1z_n\leq1) ×\times (a derivative of FF at the displayed point). By (6.4) such a term is at most C(1+xn)k(1+|zn|)k(1+|z′|+xn/2)−ν(1+|zn|)−νC(1+x_n)^{k}(1+|z_n|)^{k}(1+|z'|+x_n/2)^{-\nu}(1+|z_n|)^{-\nu}, and choosing ν\nu large gives (6.2). By (a), AA comes from a unique a∈Sla−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}. Finally, for xn>0<ynx_n>0<y_n, inserting z=(x′−y′,(xn−yn)/xn)z=(x'-y',(x_n-y_n)/x_n) into (6.9) gives 2/(2−zn)=xn/t2/(2-z_n)=x_n/t, xn(2−zn)/2=tx_n(2-z_n)/2=t and 2zn/(2−zn)=r2z_n/(2-z_n)=r, so the kernel (6.3) of TaT_a equals F/t=KF/t=K almost everywhere; for yn<0y_n<0 both vanish. ▫\square

Remark 6.3 (Singular kernels of order −∞-\infty). For an ordinary pseudodifferential operator of order −∞-\infty the kernel is smooth. Here, by (c), K=F/tK=F/t near the corner, and the leading part F(x′,y′,0,r)/tF(x',y',0,r)/t is homogeneous of degree −1-1 in (xn,yn)(x_n,y_n). It is not smooth, and not even bounded, unless FF vanishes on the front face. This singularity is what makes residual operators fail to improve regularity in Section 12.

A kernel bound at finite negative order

Proposition 6.4 (A kernel bound). Let a∈Sla−n−2a\in S^{-n-2}_{\mathrm{la}}. Then the kernel of TaT_a is a function, and |Ka(x,y)|≤C(1+|x′−y′|)−nxnyn(xn+yn)3(xn,yn>0),Ka=0elsewhere,(6.10) |K_a(x,y)|\leq C\,(1+|x'-y'|)^{-n}\,\frac{x_ny_n}{(x_n+y_n)^3}\quad(x_n,y_n>0),\qquad K_a=0\ \text{elsewhere}, \tag{6.10} with CC bounded by a seminorm of aa. Consequently sup⁡x∫|Ka(x,y)|dy\sup_x\int|K_a(x,y)|dy and sup⁡y∫|Ka(x,y)|dx\sup_y\int|K_a(x,y)|dx are at most 12C∫ℝn−1(1+|z′|)−ndz′\tfrac12C\int_{\mathbb R^{n-1}}(1+|z'|)^{-n}dz'.

Proof. For xn>0x_n>0, |a♭(x,ξ)|≤C(1+|(ξ′,xnξn)|)−n−2|a^\flat(x,\xi)|\leq C(1+|(\xi',x_n\xi_n)|)^{-n-2} is integrable in ξ\xi, so Ka(x,y)=(2π)−n∫ei(x−y)⋅ξa♭dξK_a(x,y)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{i(x-y)\cdot\xi}a^\flat d\xi converges absolutely, Tau(x)=∫Ka(x,y)u(y)dyT_au(x)=\int K_a(x,y)u(y)dy, and (6.3) holds with the bounded continuous function A(x,z)=(2π)−n∫eiz⋅ξa(x,ξ)dξA(x,z)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{iz\cdot\xi}a(x,\xi)d\xi. As in Theorem 6.2(a), ℱna\mathcal F_na is now a continuous function, so A=0A=0 for zn≥1z_n\geq1. Integration by parts gives |zγA|≤C|z^\gamma A|\leq C for |γ|≤n+2|\gamma|\leq n+2, because |∂ξγa|≤C(1+|ξ|)−n−2−|γ||\partial_\xi^\gamma a|\leq C(1+|\xi|)^{-n-2-|\gamma|} is integrable; so (1+|z′|)n(1+|zn|)2|A|≤C(1+|z'|)^n(1+|z_n|)^2|A|\leq C. Likewise ∂znA=(2π)−n∫eiz⋅ξiξnadξ\partial_{z_n}A=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{iz\cdot\xi}i\xi_na\,d\xi and |z′γ∂znA|≤C|z'^\gamma\partial_{z_n}A|\leq C for |γ|≤n|\gamma|\leq n. Since A(x,z′,1)=0A(x,z',1)=0, the mean value theorem gives |A(x,z)|≤C(1+|z′|)−n|1−zn||A(x,z)|\leq C(1+|z'|)^{-n}|1-z_n| for zn≤1z_n\leq1.

If 0<xn≤yn0<x_n\leq y_n, then zn=(xn−yn)/xn≤0z_n=(x_n-y_n)/x_n\leq0, 1+|zn|=yn/xn1+|z_n|=y_n/x_n, and |Ka|≤xn−1C(1+|z′|)−n(xn/yn)2=C(1+|z′|)−nxn/yn2≤8C(1+|z′|)−nxnyn/(xn+yn)3|K_a|\leq x_n^{-1}C(1+|z'|)^{-n}(x_n/y_n)^2=C(1+|z'|)^{-n}x_n/y_n^2\leq8C(1+|z'|)^{-n}x_ny_n/(x_n+y_n)^3, because xn+yn≤2ynx_n+y_n\leq2y_n. If 0<yn<xn0<y_n<x_n, then |1−zn|=yn/xn|1-z_n|=y_n/x_n and |Ka|≤C(1+|z′|)−nyn/xn2≤8C(1+|z′|)−nxnyn/(xn+yn)3|K_a|\leq C(1+|z'|)^{-n}y_n/x_n^2\leq8C(1+|z'|)^{-n}x_ny_n/(x_n+y_n)^3. For the marginals, ∫ℝn−1(1+|z′|)−ndz′<∞\int_{\mathbb R^{n-1}}(1+|z'|)^{-n}dz'<\infty and ∫0∞xnyn(xn+yn)−3dyn=∫0∞s(1+s)−3ds=12\int_0^\infty x_ny_n(x_n+y_n)^{-3}dy_n=\int_0^\infty s(1+s)^{-3}ds=\tfrac12; the bound is symmetric in xn,ynx_n,y_n. ▫\square

The two cases correspond to the two sides of the diagonal: for yn≥xny_n\geq x_n the decay of AA in znz_n is used, for yn<xny_n<x_n the vanishing of AA at zn=1z_n=1, that is, lacunarity.

Examples of residual kernels

Example 6.5 (Without lacunarity the operator sees below the boundary). Let 0≤h∈C0∞(ℝn)0\leq h\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n) be supported near (0,32)(0,\tfrac32), with h(0,32)>0h(0,\tfrac32)>0, and a=e−xnĥ(ξ)∈S+−∞a=e^{-x_n}\widehat h(\xi)\in S^{-\infty}_+. Then A=e−xnhA=e^{-x_n}h does not vanish on zn>1z_n>1, so aa is not lacunary. For 0≤u∈C0∞(ℝ−n)0\leq u\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_-) supported near (0,−12)(0,-\tfrac12), with u(0,−12)>0u(0,-\tfrac12)>0, formula (6.3), whose derivation for xn>0x_n>0 in Theorem 6.2(b) does not use lacunarity, gives Tau(0,1)=e−1∫h(−y′,1−yn)u(y)dy>0T_au(0,1)=e^{-1}\int h(-y',1-y_n)u(y)\,dy>0, since 1−yn1-y_n is near 32\tfrac32 there. So Tau≠0T_au\neq0 in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+ although u=0u=0 in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+: lacunarity cannot be dropped from Theorem 5.1(a), in accordance with Proposition 4.3.

Example 6.6 (A residual kernel in one dimension). Let n=1n=1, 0≠h∈C0∞((−12,12))0\neq h\in C_0^\infty((-\tfrac12,\tfrac12)) and a(x,ξ)=e−xĥ(ξ)a(x,\xi)=e^{-x}\widehat h(\xi). Then K(x,y)=e−xx−1h((x−y)/x)K(x,y)=e^{-x}x^{-1}h((x-y)/x) for x>0x>0, and Tau(x)=e−x∫h(1−s)u(xs)ds,F(t,r)=2e−t(1+r/2)2+rh(2r2+r). T_au(x)=e^{-x}\int h(1-s)\,u(xs)\,ds,\qquad F(t,r)=\frac{2e^{-t(1+r/2)}}{2+r}\,h\Big(\frac{2r}{2+r}\Big). The kernel vanishes unless 12<y/x<32\tfrac12<y/x<\tfrac32, and FF vanishes unless −25<r<23-\tfrac25<r<\tfrac23. Along the diagonal K(x,x)=e−xh(0)/xK(x,x)=e^{-x}h(0)/x, which is unbounded if h(0)≠0h(0)\neq0: a symbol of order −∞-\infty with an unbounded kernel. TaT_a is bounded on L2(0,∞)L^2(0,\infty) by Proposition 6.4 and gains no derivative by Theorem 12.1. The model T0u(x)=∫h(1−s)u(xs)dsT_0u(x)=\int h(1-s)u(xs)ds on the front face (so Ta=e−xT0T_a=e^{-x}T_0) is not in the class, since its symbol does not decay in xx. It commutes with the unitary dilations u↦λ1/2u(λ⋅)u\mapsto\lambda^{1/2}u(\lambda\,\cdot) of L2(0,∞)L^2(0,\infty), and Minkowski’s inequality gives ∥T0u∥≤∫|h(1−s)|s−1/2ds∥u∥\|T_0u\|\leq\int|h(1-s)|s^{-1/2}ds\,\|u\|, since ∥u(⋅s)∥=s−1/2∥u∥\|u(\cdot\,s)\|=s^{-1/2}\|u\|.

Example 6.7 (The resolved kernel near r=−2r=-2). In Example 6.6, FF vanishes identically near r=−2r=-2 because hh has compact support. For a lacunary but not strongly lacunary symbol, take n=1n=1 and A(x,z)=e−xg(z)A(x,z)=e^{-x}g(z) with g∈𝒮(ℝ)g\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R) vanishing for z≥1z\geq1 but not near −∞-\infty, for instance g(z)=e−1/(1−z)e−z2g(z)=e^{-1/(1-z)}e^{-z^2} for z<1z<1 and g(z)=0g(z)=0 for z≥1z\geq1. Then F(t,r)=22+re−t(1+r/2)g(2r2+r)F(t,r)=\tfrac2{2+r}e^{-t(1+r/2)}g(\tfrac{2r}{2+r}), and as r↓−2r\downarrow-2 the argument 2r/(2+r)→−∞2r/(2+r)\to-\infty, where gg decreases rapidly; this is the flatness at r=−2r=-2 used in (6.4). At r=2r=2 the argument tends to 1, where gg vanishes to infinite order.

Residual kernels are polyhomogeneous conormal distributions

Smoothness of the resolved kernel FF has an invariant meaning: it says precisely that KK is a polyhomogeneous conormal distribution of order −n/2-n/2 with respect to ∂2Q\partial_2Q. We prove this now.

The class. Conormal distributions Iμ(X,Y)I^\mu(X,Y) are defined by tangential regularity. A compactly supported u∈Iμu\in I^\mu has, in coordinates, the normal form u=∫ei⟨t,τ⟩b(z,τ)dτu=\int e^{i\langle t,\tau\rangle}b(z,\tau)\,d\tau with b∈Sμ+(N−2k)/4b\in S^{\mu+(N-2k)/4}, where N=dim⁡XN=\dim X, kk is the codimension, and bb is (2π)−k(2\pi)^{-k} times the Fourier transform of uu in the normal variables; conversely every such uu is conormal. (All of this is in the background list of Section 1.) The polyhomogeneous class IphgμI^\mu_{\mathrm{phg}} requires in addition that these amplitudes be polyhomogeneous with step one. Step one is needed here, because a term of degree −32-\tfrac32 in τ\tau would put a factor t1/2t^{1/2} into FF. For X=ℝ2nX=\mathbb R^{2n}, Y=∂2QY=\partial_2Q we have N=2nN=2n, k=2k=2, normal variables w=(xn,yn)w=(x_n,y_n), tangential variables z=(x′,y′)z=(x',y'), and μ=−n/2\mu=-n/2 gives amplitude degree −1-1. So K∈Iphg−n/2(ℝ2n,∂2Q)K\in I^{-n/2}_{\mathrm{phg}}(\mathbb R^{2n},\partial_2Q) means: KK is smooth off ∂2Q\partial_2Q, and for all ϕ∈C0∞(ℝz2n−2)\phi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^{2n-2}_z), ψ∈C0∞(ℝw2)\psi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^2_w), (2π)−2ϕψK̂(z,τ)∼∑j≥0bj(z,τ),bjhomogeneous of degree −1−j in τ for |τ|≥1,(6.11) (2\pi)^{-2}\widehat{\phi\psi K}(z,\tau)\sim\sum_{j\geq0}b_j(z,\tau),\qquad b_j\ \text{homogeneous of degree }-1-j\text{ in }\tau\text{ for }|\tau|\geq1, \tag{6.11} in the sense of asymptotic sums of symbols (Section 1); the Fourier transform is taken in ww.

Proposition 6.8 (Residual kernels are conormal). Let K∈Lloc1(ℝ2n)K\in L^1_{\mathrm{loc}}(\mathbb R^{2n}) with supp⁡K⊂Q\operatorname{supp}K\subset Q, and let F(z,t,r)=tK(x′,t(1+r/2),y′,t(1−r/2))F(z,t,r)=tK(x',t(1+r/2),y',t(1-r/2)) for t>0t>0. Then K∈Iphg−n/2(ℝ2n,∂2Q)K\in I^{-n/2}_{\mathrm{phg}}(\mathbb R^{2n},\partial_2Q) if and only if FF agrees almost everywhere with a function in C∞({t≥0}×ℝr×ℝz2n−2)C^\infty(\{t\geq0\}\times\mathbb R_r\times\mathbb R^{2n-2}_z); such a function vanishes for |r|≥2|r|\geq2. In particular Ka∈Iphg−n/2(ℝ2n,∂2Q)K_a\in I^{-n/2}_{\mathrm{phg}}(\mathbb R^{2n},\partial_2Q) for every a∈Sla−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}.

The global decay (6.5) is not a conormal property. So Theorem 6.2 and Proposition 6.8 together say: residual kernels are exactly the kernels supported in QQ, polyhomogeneous conormal of order −n/2-n/2 at ∂2Q\partial_2Q, with the uniform decay (6.5).

We need four lemmas. In them zz ranges over ℝm\mathbb R^{m}, all functions have compact zz-support, and every estimate holds with zz-derivatives, uniformly in zz.

Lemma 6.9 (Homogeneous pieces). Let h∈C∞(ℝm×ℝr)h\in C^\infty(\mathbb R^m\times\mathbb R_r) vanish for |r|≥2|r|\geq2, let d>−2d>-2, and let k(z,w)=tdh(z,r)k(z,w)=t^dh(z,r) on Q\{0}Q\setminus\{0\}, k=0k=0 off QQ. Then kk is smooth off w=0w=0, homogeneous of degree dd in ww, and locally integrable. If ψ∈C0∞(ℝ2)\psi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^2) equals 1 near 0, then ψk̂=g+e\widehat{\psi k}=g+e, where gg is smooth on ℝm×(ℝ2\0)\mathbb R^m\times(\mathbb R^2\setminus0) and homogeneous of degree −2−d-2-d in τ\tau, and ee is smooth with all derivatives O(|τ|−N)O(|\tau|^{-N}) for |τ|≥1|\tau|\geq1. In particular ψk̂∈S−2−d\widehat{\psi k}\in S^{-2-d}.

Proof. hh vanishes to infinite order at r=±2r=\pm2, so kk is smooth across the faces of QQ; it is smooth elsewhere off w=0w=0 by Proposition 6.1. Also |k|≤C|w|d|k|\leq C|w|^d, so kk is locally integrable and tempered, and its Fourier transform k̂\widehat k is homogeneous of degree −2−d-2-d (compare k(λ⋅)=λdkk(\lambda\cdot)=\lambda^dk with k(λ⋅)̂=λ−2k̂(⋅/λ)\widehat{k(\lambda\cdot)}=\lambda^{-2}\widehat k(\cdot/\lambda)). Write k̂=ψk̂+f̂\widehat k=\widehat{\psi k}+\widehat f, f=(1−ψ)kf=(1-\psi)k. The first term is smooth. The function ff is smooth, with |∂wβf|≤Cβ|w|d−|β||\partial^\beta_wf|\leq C_\beta|w|^{d-|\beta|} for |w|≥1|w|\geq1. If |β|>d+2+|γ||\beta|>d+2+|\gamma|, then Dwβ(wγf)D^\beta_w(w^\gamma f) is integrable, so τβ∂τγf̂\tau^\beta\partial_\tau^\gamma\widehat f is a bounded continuous function. Hence f̂\widehat f is smooth on τ≠0\tau\neq0 and all its derivatives are O(|τ|−N)O(|\tau|^{-N}) for |τ|≥1|\tau|\geq1. So g=k̂|τ≠0g=\widehat k|_{\tau\neq0} is smooth and homogeneous, and e=−f̂e=-\widehat f on τ≠0\tau\neq0 (with ψk̂=g+e\widehat{\psi k}=g+e there). The symbol estimates follow from homogeneity on |τ|≥1|\tau|\geq1 and smoothness on |τ|≤1|\tau|\leq1. ▫\square

Lemma 6.10 (Remainders). Let R∈C∞({t≥0}×ℝr×ℝm)R\in C^\infty(\{t\geq0\}\times\mathbb R_r\times\mathbb R^m) vanish for |r|≥2|r|\geq2, let J≥1J\geq1, and let E=tJ−1R(z,t,r)E=t^{J-1}R(z,t,r) on Q\0Q\setminus0, E=0E=0 off QQ. Then ψÊ∈S−J−1(ℝm×ℝ2)\widehat{\psi E}\in S^{-J-1}(\mathbb R^m\times\mathbb R^2).

Proof. By Proposition 6.1(5), each ww-derivative of tt or rr costs at most C|w|−1C|w|^{-1}, and tt is comparable to |w||w| on QQ. So f=ψEf=\psi E satisfies |∂wβf|≤Cβ|w|J−1−|β||\partial_w^\beta f|\leq C_\beta|w|^{J-1-|\beta|}, and gγ=wγfg_\gamma=w^\gamma f satisfies |∂βgγ|≤C|w|ν−|β||\partial^\beta g_\gamma|\leq C|w|^{\nu-|\beta|} with ν=J−1+|γ|≥0\nu=J-1+|\gamma|\geq0. Fix |τ|≥1|\tau|\geq1 and χ0∈C0∞({|w|<2})\chi_0\in C_0^\infty(\{|w|<2\}) equal to 1 on |w|≤1|w|\leq1. The Fourier transform of χ0(|τ|w)gγ\chi_0(|\tau|w)g_\gamma is at most ∫|w|≤2/|τ|C|w|νdw≤C′|τ|−ν−2\int_{|w|\leq2/|\tau|}C|w|^\nu dw\leq C'|\tau|^{-\nu-2}. For the rest, e−iw⋅τ=(i|τ|−2τ⋅∇w)e−iw⋅τe^{-iw\cdot\tau}=(i|\tau|^{-2}\tau\cdot\nabla_w)e^{-iw\cdot\tau}; integrating by parts L>ν+2L>\nu+2 times, and noting that derivatives of χ0(|τ|w)\chi_0(|\tau|w) are O(|w|−k)O(|w|^{-k}) where they do not vanish, gives the bound C|τ|−L∫1/|τ|≤|w|≤R|w|ν−Ldw≤C′|τ|−ν−2C|\tau|^{-L}\int_{1/|\tau|\leq|w|\leq R}|w|^{\nu-L}dw\leq C'|\tau|^{-\nu-2}. Since ∂τγf̂=(−iw)γf̂\partial_\tau^\gamma\widehat f=\widehat{(-iw)^\gamma f}, we get |∂τγf̂(τ)|≤C|τ|−J−1−|γ||\partial^\gamma_\tau\widehat f(\tau)|\leq C|\tau|^{-J-1-|\gamma|}. ▫\square

Lemma 6.11 (Inverse transforms of homogeneous terms). Let j≥0j\geq0, let bhomb^{\mathrm{hom}} be smooth on ℝm×(ℝ2\0)\mathbb R^m\times(\mathbb R^2\setminus0) and homogeneous of degree −1−j-1-j in τ\tau, let χ∈C0∞(ℝ2)\chi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^2) equal 1 near 0, and put b=(1−χ)bhomb=(1-\chi)b^{\mathrm{hom}} and k(z,w)=∫ei⟨w,τ⟩b(z,τ)dτk(z,w)=\int e^{i\langle w,\tau\rangle}b(z,\tau)\,d\tau. Then kk is smooth off w=0w=0, rapidly decreasing with all derivatives as |w|→∞|w|\to\infty, locally integrable, and on 0<|w|<10<|w|<1 k=h−Plog⁡|w|+s,(6.12) k=h-P\log|w|+s, \tag{6.12} where hh is smooth off w=0w=0 and homogeneous of degree j−1j-1, PP is a homogeneous polynomial of degree j−1j-1 in ww with coefficients smooth in zz (P=0P=0 when j=0j=0), and ss is smooth on {|w|<1}\{|w|<1\}.

Proof. b∈S−1−jb\in S^{-1-j}. For |γ||\gamma| large, wγ∂wβkw^\gamma\partial^\beta_wk is the absolutely convergent integral of ei⟨w,τ⟩e^{i\langle w,\tau\rangle} against a constant times Dτγ(τβb)D^\gamma_\tau(\tau^\beta b); this gives smoothness off 0 and rapid decay. Put θ=(τ⋅∂τ+1+j)b=−(τ⋅∂τχ)bhom\theta=(\tau\cdot\partial_\tau+1+j)b=-(\tau\cdot\partial_\tau\chi)\,b^{\mathrm{hom}}, which is smooth with compact support in ℝ2\0\mathbb R^2\setminus0 (Euler’s relation kills bhomb^{\mathrm{hom}}), and Θ=∫ei⟨w,τ⟩θdτ∈𝒮(ℝ2)\Theta=\int e^{i\langle w,\tau\rangle}\theta\,d\tau\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^2). Since ∫ei⟨w,τ⟩τ⋅∂τfdτ=−(2+w⋅∂w)∫ei⟨w,τ⟩fdτ\int e^{i\langle w,\tau\rangle}\tau\cdot\partial_\tau f\,d\tau=-(2+w\cdot\partial_w)\int e^{i\langle w,\tau\rangle}f\,d\tau for tempered ff, (w⋅∂w−(j−1))k=−Θ.(6.13) \big(w\cdot\partial_w-(j-1)\big)k=-\Theta . \tag{6.13} On a ray w=σωw=\sigma\omega, |ω|=1|\omega|=1, this says ddσ[σ1−jk(σω)]=−σ−jΘ(σω)\frac d{d\sigma}[\sigma^{1-j}k(\sigma\omega)]=-\sigma^{-j}\Theta(\sigma\omega). Since σ1−jk(σω)→0\sigma^{1-j}k(\sigma\omega)\to0 as σ→∞\sigma\to\infty, k(σω)=σj−1∫σ∞s−jΘ(sω)dsk(\sigma\omega)=\sigma^{j-1}\int_\sigma^\infty s^{-j}\Theta(s\omega)\,ds. Write Θ=T+∑|α|=jwαrα\Theta=T+\sum_{|\alpha|=j}w^\alpha r_\alpha, where TT is the Taylor polynomial of Θ\Theta of degree j−1j-1 at 0 and the rαr_\alpha are smooth. For σ<1\sigma<1 split ∫σ∞=∫1∞+∫σ1\int_\sigma^\infty=\int_1^\infty+\int_\sigma^1:

Collecting terms gives (6.12). Local integrability follows from (6.12), since j−1>−2j-1>-2. ▫\square

Lemma 6.12 (Uniqueness of expansions). If ∑i=−1L(αi+βilog⁡λ)λi=o(λL)\sum_{i=-1}^L(\alpha_i+\beta_i\log\lambda)\lambda^i=o(\lambda^L) as λ→0+\lambda\to0+, then all αi\alpha_i and βi\beta_i vanish.

Proof. Multiply by λ\lambda: α−1+β−1log⁡λ\alpha_{-1}+\beta_{-1}\log\lambda tends to a finite limit (namely 0), so β−1=0\beta_{-1}=0 and then α−1=0\alpha_{-1}=0. Repeat with the next power. ▫\square

Proof of Proposition 6.8. (⇐\Leftarrow) Off ∂2Q\partial_2Q, K=F/tK=F/t is smooth in the interior of QQ, smooth across its faces because FF is flat at r=±2r=\pm2, and zero outside QQ. Near ∂2Q\partial_2Q, fix cutoffs ϕ(z)\phi(z), ψ(w)\psi(w). Taylor’s formula in tt gives F=∑j<JtjFj(z,r)+tJRJ(z,t,r)F=\sum_{j<J}t^jF_j(z,r)+t^JR_J(z,t,r), with FjF_j and RJR_J smooth and vanishing for |r|≥2|r|\geq2. Hence ϕψK=∑j<Jϕψtj−1Fj+ϕψtJ−1RJ\phi\psi K=\sum_{j<J}\phi\psi\,t^{j-1}F_j+\phi\psi\,t^{J-1}R_J. By Lemma 6.9, (2π)−2ϕψtj−1Fĵ(2\pi)^{-2}\widehat{\phi\psi t^{j-1}F_j} equals a function homogeneous of degree −1−j-1-j for |τ|≥1|\tau|\geq1, up to S−∞S^{-\infty}; by Lemma 6.10 the last term has transform in S−J−1S^{-J-1}. As JJ is arbitrary, (6.11) holds.

(⇒\Rightarrow) Off ∂2Q\partial_2Q, KK is smooth, so FF is smooth on t>0t>0, and F=0F=0 for |r|>2|r|>2 because supp⁡K⊂Q\operatorname{supp}K\subset Q. Fix z0z_0 and choose ϕ=1\phi=1 near z0z_0 and ψ=1\psi=1 on |w|≤2δ|w|\leq2\delta. Let b=(2π)−2ϕψK̂∼∑bjb=(2\pi)^{-2}\widehat{\phi\psi K}\sim\sum b_j, with bj=(1−χ)bjhomb_j=(1-\chi)b_j^{\mathrm{hom}}. Let kjk_j be the inverse transforms of Lemma 6.11 and ρJ=∫ei⟨w,τ⟩(b−∑j<Jbj)dτ\rho_J=\int e^{i\langle w,\tau\rangle}(b-\sum_{j<J}b_j)d\tau. Since b−∑j<Jbj∈S−1−Jb-\sum_{j<J}b_j\in S^{-1-J} in two variables, ρJ∈CJ−2\rho_J\in C^{J-2}. So for zz near z0z_0 and 0<|w|<δ0<|w|<\delta, K=∑j<J(hj−Pjlog⁡|w|)+SJ,SJ=ρJ+∑j<Jsj∈CJ−2. K=\sum_{j<J}\big(h_j-P_j\log|w|\big)+S_J,\qquad S_J=\rho_J+\sum_{j<J}s_j\in C^{J-2}. Let U=ℝ2\QU=\mathbb R^2\setminus Q, an open cone on which K=0K=0. For w∈Uw\in U, |w|<δ|w|<\delta, and 0<λ≤10<\lambda\leq1 we have K(z,λw)=0K(z,\lambda w)=0. Insert homogeneity, log⁡|λw|=log⁡λ+log⁡|w|\log|\lambda w|=\log\lambda+\log|w|, and Taylor’s formula SJ(λw)=∑i≤J−3λiSJ,i(w)+o(λJ−3)S_J(\lambda w)=\sum_{i\leq J-3}\lambda^iS_{J,i}(w)+o(\lambda^{J-3}) with homogeneous polynomials SJ,iS_{J,i} of degree ii. The term j=J−1j=J-1 is O(λJ−2|log⁡λ|)=o(λJ−3)O(\lambda^{J-2}|\log\lambda|)=o(\lambda^{J-3}). Lemma 6.12 gives, for j≤J−2j\leq J-2: Pj=0P_j=0 on UU, hence Pj≡0P_j\equiv0; and hj=−SJ,j−1h_j=-S_{J,j-1} on UU (with SJ,−1=0S_{J,-1}=0). Thus h̃j=hj+SJ,j−1\tilde h_j=h_j+S_{J,j-1} is homogeneous of degree j−1j-1, smooth off 0, and supported in QQ, and K=∑j≤J−2h̃j+RJ,RJ=(SJ−∑i≤J−3SJ,i)+(hJ−1−PJ−1log⁡|w|). K=\sum_{j\leq J-2}\tilde h_j+R_J,\qquad R_J=\Big(S_J-\sum_{i\leq J-3}S_{J,i}\Big)+\big(h_{J-1}-P_{J-1}\log|w|\big). All derivatives of RJR_J of order ≤J−3\leq J-3 are continuous and tend to 0 at w=0w=0, so RJ∈CJ−3R_J\in C^{J-3}. Now th̃j(Φ(t,r))=tjF̃j(z,r)t\tilde h_j(\Phi(t,r))=t^j\tilde F_j(z,r) with F̃j(z,r)=h̃j(z,1+r/2,1−r/2)\tilde F_j(z,r)=\tilde h_j(z,1+r/2,1-r/2), which is smooth and vanishes for |r|≥2|r|\geq2. Hence, for small tt and |r|≤3|r|\leq3, F=∑j≤J−2tjF̃j+tRJ∘ΦF=\sum_{j\leq J-2}t^j\tilde F_j+t\,R_J\circ\Phi is CJ−3C^{J-3}, and F=0F=0 for |r|≥2|r|\geq2. Since JJ is arbitrary, FF is smooth. The last assertion of the proposition follows from Theorem 6.2(c). ▫\square

7. Adjoints

The adjoint of TaT_a with respect to (u,v)=∫uv¯(u,v)=\int u\overline v is again an operator of the class. We first compute it for strongly lacunary residual symbols, where the transposed kernel can be read off from Theorem 6.2. Then we extend the formula by an adjoint transform defined on all of S+mS^m_+.

The adjoint of a strongly lacunary residual operator

Proposition 7.1 (A residual adjoint formula). Let a∈Sla−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}} be strongly lacunary, and let χ∈C0∞((0,∞))\chi\in C_0^\infty((0,\infty)) equal 1 on (12,2)(\tfrac12,2). There is exactly one b∈Sla−∞b\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}} with (Tau,v)=(u,Tbv)(u,v∈𝒮(ℝn)),(7.1) (T_au,v)=(u,T_bv)\qquad(u,v\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n)), \tag{7.1} and for xn>0x_n>0, with the inner integral taken first, b(x,ξ)=(2π)−n∫(∫e−i⟨y,η⟩a¯(x′−y′,xn(1−yn),ξ′−η′,(1−yn)(ξn−ηn))χ(1−yn)dη)dy(7.2) b(x,\xi)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int\!\Big(\int e^{-i\langle y,\eta\rangle}\,\overline a\big(x'-y',\,x_n(1-y_n),\,\xi'-\eta',\,(1-y_n)(\xi_n-\eta_n)\big)\chi(1-y_n)\,d\eta\Big)dy \tag{7.2} =[ei⟨Dy,Dη⟩(a¯(y′,xnyn,η′,ynηn)χ(yn))]y=(x′,1),η=ξ.(7.3) =\Big[e^{i\langle D_y,D_\eta\rangle}\big(\overline a(y',x_ny_n,\eta',y_n\eta_n)\chi(y_n)\big)\Big]_{y=(x',1),\ \eta=\xi}. \tag{7.3}

Proof. Existence and uniqueness. The transposed kernel K*(x,y)=Ka(y,x)¯K^*(x,y)=\overline{K_a(y,x)} is locally integrable and supported in QQ, and its resolved form is F*(x′,y′,t,r)=F(y′,x′,t,−r)¯F^*(x',y',t,r)=\overline{F(y',x',t,-r)}, which has all the properties in Theorem 6.2(c). By Theorem 6.2(d), K*=KbK^*=K_b for a unique b∈Sla−∞b\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}, and Fubini’s theorem, justified by the bounds of Theorem 6.2(b), gives (7.1). An operator determines its symbol (see quantization and kernels in Section 1), so bb is unique.

The formula. By the inversion formula for kernels in Section 1, for xn>0x_n>0, b♭(x,ξ)=∫e−iz⋅ξKa(x−z,x)¯dzb^\flat(x,\xi)=\int e^{-iz\cdot\xi}\,\overline{K_a(x-z,x)}\,dz, an absolutely convergent integral. Strong lacunarity says that AA vanishes unless zn∈[−1,12]z_n\in[-1,\tfrac12]; in Ka(y,x)K_a(y,x) the normal argument is (yn−xn)/yn(y_n-x_n)/y_n, so Ka(y,x)=0K_a(y,x)=0 unless xn/yn∈[12,2]x_n/y_n\in[\tfrac12,2]. So we may insert χ((xn−zn)/xn)\chi((x_n-z_n)/x_n), since it equals 1 almost everywhere on the support. Writing Ka(x−z,x)¯=(2π)−n∫ei⟨z,η⟩a♭(x−z,η)¯dη\overline{K_a(x-z,x)}=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{i\langle z,\eta\rangle}\overline{a^\flat(x-z,\eta)}\,d\eta and substituting η↦ξ−η\eta\mapsto\xi-\eta, we get b♭(x,ξ)=(2π)−n∫(∫e−i⟨z,η⟩a¯(x−z,ξ′−η′,(xn−zn)(ξn−ηn))χ(xn−znxn)dη)dz. b^\flat(x,\xi)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int\!\Big(\int e^{-i\langle z,\eta\rangle}\overline a\big(x-z,\xi'-\eta',(x_n-z_n)(\xi_n-\eta_n)\big)\chi\Big(\frac{x_n-z_n}{x_n}\Big)d\eta\Big)dz . Now b(x,ξ)=b♭(x,ξ′,ξn/xn)b(x,\xi)=b^\flat(x,\xi',\xi_n/x_n). Substitute zn=xnynz_n=x_ny_n, ηn↦ηn/xn\eta_n\mapsto\eta_n/x_n, z′=y′z'=y': then (xn−zn)(ξn/xn−ηn/xn)=(1−yn)(ξn−ηn)(x_n-z_n)(\xi_n/x_n-\eta_n/x_n)=(1-y_n)(\xi_n-\eta_n), znηnz_n\eta_n becomes ynηny_n\eta_n, and dzndηn=dyndηndz_n\,d\eta_n=dy_n\,d\eta_n. This is (7.2). Finally, for a function c(y,η)c(y,\eta) that is a residual symbol, ei⟨Dy,Dη⟩c(y,η)=(2π)−n∬e−i⟨w,θ⟩c(y−w,η−θ)dθdwe^{i\langle D_y,D_\eta\rangle}c(y,\eta)=(2\pi)^{-n}\iint e^{-i\langle w,\theta\rangle}c(y-w,\eta-\theta)\,d\theta\,dw (test with c=ei(p⋅y+q⋅η)c=e^{i(p\cdot y+q\cdot\eta)}, for which both sides equal eip⋅qce^{ip\cdot q}c). With c(y,η)=a¯(y′,xnyn,η′,ynηn)χ(yn)c(y,\eta)=\overline a(y',x_ny_n,\eta',y_n\eta_n)\chi(y_n), a residual symbol for fixed xn>0x_n>0, and (y,η)=((x′,1),ξ)(y,\eta)=((x',1),\xi), this is (7.2). ▫\square

The adjoint transform

Lemma 7.2 (The adjoint transform). Let χ∈C0∞((0,∞))\chi\in C_0^\infty((0,\infty)) equal 1 near 1, with supp⁡χ⊂(M−1,M)\operatorname{supp}\chi\subset(M^{-1},M), M>1M>1. For a∈S+ma\in S^m_+ put Lχa(x,ξ)=[ei⟨Dy,Dη⟩cxn]((x′,1),ξ),cxn(y,η)=a¯(y′,xnyn,η′,ynηn)χ(yn).(7.4) L_\chi a(x,\xi)=\Big[e^{i\langle D_y,D_\eta\rangle}c_{x_n}\Big]\big((x',1),\xi\big),\qquad c_{x_n}(y,\eta)=\overline a(y',x_ny_n,\eta',y_n\eta_n)\chi(y_n). \tag{7.4}

  1. LχL_\chi is a continuous conjugate-linear map S+m→SlamS^m_+\to S^m_{\mathrm{la}}.

  2. In S+mS^m_+, Lχa∼∑j≥01j!⟨Dy,iDη⟩ja¯(y′,xnyn,η′,ynηn)|y=(x′,1),η=ξ,(7.5) L_\chi a\sim\sum_{j\geq0}\frac1{j!}\langle D_y,iD_\eta\rangle^j\,\overline a(y',x_ny_n,\eta',y_n\eta_n)\Big|_{y=(x',1),\,\eta=\xi}, \tag{7.5} the jj-th term lying in S+m−jS^{m-j}_+, with the remainder after NN terms in S+m−NS^{m-N}_+ and controlled by finitely many seminorms of aa. For xn>0x_n>0 the jj-th term equals 1j!⟨Dy,iDη⟩ja¯(y,η′,ynηn)\frac1{j!}\langle D_y,iD_\eta\rangle^j\overline a(y,\eta',y_n\eta_n) at y=xy=x, η′=ξ′\eta'=\xi', ηn=ξn/xn\eta_n=\xi_n/x_n.

  3. If a∈S+−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_+, then supp⁡ℱn(Lχa)(x,ξ′,⋅)⊂[M−1−1,M−1]\operatorname{supp}\mathcal F_n(L_\chi a)(x,\xi',\cdot)\subset[M^{-1}-1,\,M-1], and TLχaT_{L_\chi a} has the kernel χ(yn/xn)Ka(y,x)¯\chi(y_n/x_n)\overline{K_a(y,x)} for xn,yn>0x_n,y_n>0 (and 0 elsewhere).

Proof. (a), (b) On supp⁡χ\operatorname{supp}\chi we have M−1≤yn≤MM^{-1}\leq y_n\leq M, hence (1+|η|)/M≤1+|(η′,ynηn)|≤M(1+|η|)(1+|\eta|)/M\leq1+|(\eta',y_n\eta_n)|\leq M(1+|\eta|) and 1+xnyn≥(1+xn)/M1+x_ny_n\geq(1+x_n)/M. A yny_n-derivative of a¯(y′,xnyn,η′,ynηn)\overline a(y',x_ny_n,\eta',y_n\eta_n) produces xn∂xna¯x_n\partial_{x_n}\overline a (the factor xnx_n is absorbed by the decay in xnynx_ny_n) or ηn∂ξna¯\eta_n\partial_{\xi_n}\overline a (the factor ηn\eta_n is paid for by the lower order); an ηn\eta_n-derivative produces yn∂ξna¯y_n\partial_{\xi_n}\overline a. Hence (1+xn)νcxn(1+x_n)^\nu c_{x_n} is bounded in the classical class Sm(ℝyn×ℝηn)S^m(\mathbb R^n_y\times\mathbb R^n_\eta), uniformly in xn≥0x_n\geq0, for every ν\nu, and so is every ∂xnkcxn\partial_{x_n}^kc_{x_n} (it has the same form, with ynk∂xnka¯y_n^k\partial_{x_n}^k\overline a).

By the facts on the Gauss transform in Section 1, ei⟨Dy,Dη⟩e^{i\langle D_y,D_\eta\rangle} is continuous on SmS^m, with the expansion ∑|α|<N1α!∂ηαDyαc\sum_{|\alpha|<N}\frac1{\alpha!}\partial_\eta^\alpha D_y^\alpha c and remainder in Sm−NS^{m-N}. The map xn↦cxnx_n\mapsto c_{x_n} is C∞C^\infty into SmS^m (difference quotients converge, by the mean value theorem and the bounds on the next derivative), so C(y,η;xn)=ei⟨Dy,Dη⟩cxnC(y,\eta;x_n)=e^{i\langle D_y,D_\eta\rangle}c_{x_n} is smooth in all variables, with |∂xnk∂ηα∂yβC|≤C(1+|η|)m−|α|(1+xn)−ν|\partial^k_{x_n}\partial^\alpha_\eta\partial^\beta_yC|\leq C(1+|\eta|)^{m-|\alpha|}(1+x_n)^{-\nu}. Evaluating at y=(x′,1)y=(x',1), η=ξ\eta=\xi (so x′x'-derivatives are y′y'-derivatives) gives Lχa∈S+mL_\chi a\in S^m_+, continuously in aa.

Since χ=1\chi=1 near yn=1y_n=1, the expansion terms at yn=1y_n=1 are those of (7.5). The jj-th term is in S+m−jS^{m-j}_+: the operators xn∂xnx_n\partial_{x_n} and ηn∂ξn\eta_n\partial_{\xi_n} produced by DynD_{y_n} preserve S+mS^m_+, and each ∂η\partial_\eta lowers the order by one (also when it hits a factor ηn\eta_n, since [∂ηn,ηn∂ξn]=∂ξn[\partial_{\eta_n},\eta_n\partial_{\xi_n}]=\partial_{\xi_n}). The second form of the terms follows from a¯(y′,xnyn,η′,ynηn)=a¯(Y,H′,YnHn)\overline a(y',x_ny_n,\eta',y_n\eta_n)=\overline a(Y,H',Y_nH_n) with Y=(y′,xnyn)Y=(y',x_ny_n), H=(η′,ηn/xn)H=(\eta',\eta_n/x_n), under which DynDηn=DYnDHnD_{y_n}D_{\eta_n}=D_{Y_n}D_{H_n}.

Lacunarity. First let a∈S+−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_+. Then cxnc_{x_n} is a residual symbol and LχaL_\chi a is given by the integral (7.2) with this χ\chi. Substitute θ=ξn−ηn\theta=\xi_n-\eta_n in the inner integral: Lχa(x,ξ′,⋅)L_\chi a(x,\xi',\cdot) is the Fourier transform, in yny_n, of G(yn)=(2π)−n∭e−i⟨y′,η′⟩+iynθa¯(x′−y′,xn(1−yn),ξ′−η′,(1−yn)θ)χ(1−yn)dθdη′dy′. G(y_n)=(2\pi)^{-n}\iiint e^{-i\langle y',\eta'\rangle+iy_n\theta}\,\overline a\big(x'-y',x_n(1-y_n),\xi'-\eta',(1-y_n)\theta\big)\chi(1-y_n)\,d\theta\,d\eta'\,dy' . So ℱn(Lχa)(x,ξ′,t)=2πG(−t)\mathcal F_n(L_\chi a)(x,\xi',t)=2\pi G(-t), which vanishes unless 1+t∈supp⁡χ1+t\in\operatorname{supp}\chi, that is t∈[M−1−1,M−1]⊂(−1,∞)t\in[M^{-1}-1,M-1]\subset(-1,\infty). For general a∈S+ma\in S^m_+, take ak=aψ(ξ/k)∈S+−∞a_k=a\,\psi(\xi/k)\in S^{-\infty}_+ with ψ∈C0∞\psi\in C_0^\infty equal to 1 near 0; then ak→aa_k\to a in S+m+1S^{m+1}_+, so Lχak→LχaL_\chi a_k\to L_\chi a in S+m+1S^{m+1}_+ by (a), and LχaL_\chi a is lacunary because Slam+1S^{m+1}_{\mathrm{la}} is closed.

  1. The support statement was just proved. For the kernel, the computation in the proof of Proposition 7.1 applies to any a∈S+−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_+ and shows that (Lχa)♭(x,⋅)(L_\chi a)^\flat(x,\cdot) is the transform ∫e−iz⋅ξk(x,x−z)dz\int e^{-iz\cdot\xi}k(x,x-z)dz of k(x,y)=χ(yn/xn)Ka(y,x)¯k(x,y)=\chi(y_n/x_n)\overline{K_a(y,x)}. ▫\square

The kernel statement in (c) explains the construction: the cutoff multiplies the transposed kernel by a function of the ratio of the normal variables, and that makes the result lacunary.

Adjoints of lacunary operators

Theorem 7.3 (Adjoints).

  1. For every a∈Slama\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}} there is exactly one a†∈Slama^\dagger\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}} with (Tau,v)=(u,Ta†v)(u,v∈𝒮(ℝn)).(7.6) (T_au,v)=(u,T_{a^\dagger}v)\qquad(u,v\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^n)). \tag{7.6} The map a↦a†a\mapsto a^\dagger is conjugate-linear and continuous Slam→SlamS^m_{\mathrm{la}}\to S^m_{\mathrm{la}}, (a†)†=a(a^\dagger)^\dagger=a, and a†−a¯∈S+m−1a^\dagger-\overline a\in S^{m-1}_+.

  2. If aa is strongly lacunary and χ∈C0∞((0,∞))\chi\in C_0^\infty((0,\infty)) equals 1 on (12,2)(\tfrac12,2), then a†=Lχaa^\dagger=L_\chi a; in particular a†a^\dagger has the expansion (7.5).

  3. Since Tau=0T_au=0 on ℝ−n\mathbb R^n_-, (7.6) says (Tau,v)L2(ℝ+n)=(u,Ta†v)L2(ℝ+n)(T_au,v)_{L^2(\mathbb R^n_+)}=(u,T_{a^\dagger}v)_{L^2(\mathbb R^n_+)} for u,v∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u,v\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+).

Proof. (b) For residual aa this is Proposition 7.1. Let a∈Slama\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}} be strongly lacunary, and let ρ\rho be as in Lemma 4.4. Take ak=aψ(ξ/k)∈S+−∞a_k=a\,\psi(\xi/k)\in S^{-\infty}_+, so that ak→aa_k\to a in S+m+1S^{m+1}_+ (the error (1−ψ(ξ/k))a(1-\psi(\xi/k))a has Sm+1S^{m+1} seminorms O(k−1)O(k^{-1})). Then (ak)ρ∈S+−∞(a_k)_\rho\in S^{-\infty}_+ is strongly lacunary, and (ak)ρ→aρ(a_k)_\rho\to a_\rho in S+m+1S^{m+1}_+. By the residual case, (T(ak)ρu,v)=(u,TLχ(ak)ρv)(T_{(a_k)_\rho}u,v)=(u,T_{L_\chi(a_k)_\rho}v). Let k→∞k\to\infty: Lχ(ak)ρ→LχaρL_\chi(a_k)_\rho\to L_\chi a_\rho in Slam+1S^{m+1}_{\mathrm{la}} by Lemma 7.2, and Theorem 5.1(a) lets us pass to the limit on both sides. So the formula holds for aρa_\rho. The difference a−aρa-a_\rho is residual and strongly lacunary (Lemma 4.4(b),(c)), so the formula holds for it too, and LχL_\chi is additive and conjugate-linear.

  1. Write a=aρ+(a−aρ)a=a_\rho+(a-a_\rho). The first term is strongly lacunary, so it has the adjoint symbol LχaρL_\chi a_\rho by (b). The second is in Sla−∞S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}; by Theorem 6.2 its transposed kernel is the kernel of Tb′T_{b'} for some b′∈Sla−∞b'\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}, as in the proof of Proposition 7.1. Put a†=Lχaρ+b′a^\dagger=L_\chi a_\rho+b'. Uniqueness follows because TcT_c determines c♭c^\flat (an operator determines its symbol), hence cc on xn>0x_n>0, hence cc by continuity. Additivity, conjugate-linearity and (a†)†=a(a^\dagger)^\dagger=a follow from uniqueness. Indeed Tλa+μb=λTa+μTbT_{\lambda a+\mu b}=\lambda T_a+\mu T_b and the inner product is linear in its first argument, so the unique adjoint symbol is λ¯a†+μ¯b†\overline\lambda a^\dagger+\overline\mu b^\dagger. For continuity, each step is continuous: a↦aρa\mapsto a_\rho and a↦a−aρa\mapsto a-a_\rho by Lemma 4.4, LχL_\chi by Lemma 7.2, and the residual adjoint by the explicit formulas of Theorem 6.2 (a↦A↦F↦F*↦A*↦b′a\mapsto A\mapsto F\mapsto F^*\mapsto A^*\mapsto b', each with seminorm bounds). Finally Lχaρ=aρ¯+S+m−1L_\chi a_\rho=\overline{a_\rho}+S^{m-1}_+ by (7.5), and aρ¯−a¯∈S+−∞\overline{a_\rho}-\overline a\in S^{-\infty}_+.

  2. is immediate. ▫\square

8. Composition

The composition of two operators of the class is again in the class. Its symbol is the sum of a near part, given by a Gauss transform as in the ordinary calculus, and a residual far part.

Theorem 8.1 (Composition). Let aj∈Slamja_j\in S^{m_j}_{\mathrm{la}}, j=1,2j=1,2, and let χ∈C0∞((0,∞))\chi\in C_0^\infty((0,\infty)) equal 1 near 1, with supp⁡χ⊂(M−1,M)\operatorname{supp}\chi\subset(M^{-1},M). Put b1(x,ξ)=[ei⟨Dy,Dη⟩(a1(x,η)a2(y′,xnyn,ξ′,ξnyn)χ(yn))]y=(x′,1),η=ξ,(8.1) b_1(x,\xi)=\Big[e^{i\langle D_y,D_\eta\rangle}\big(a_1(x,\eta)\,a_2(y',x_ny_n,\xi',\xi_ny_n)\,\chi(y_n)\big)\Big]_{y=(x',1),\ \eta=\xi}, \tag{8.1} where the Gauss transform acts in (y,η)(y,\eta) with (x,ξ)(x,\xi) as parameters, and b2(x,ξ)=∫e−i⟨x′−y′,ξ′⟩−i(1−yn)ξnA1(x,x′−y′,1−yn)a2(y′,xnyn,ξ′,ξnyn)dy,A1(x,z)=(1−χ(1−zn))(2π)−n∫eiz⋅ξa1(x,ξ)dξ,(8.2) b_2(x,\xi)=\int e^{-i\langle x'-y',\xi'\rangle-i(1-y_n)\xi_n}A_1(x,x'-y',1-y_n)\,a_2(y',x_ny_n,\xi',\xi_ny_n)\,dy,\quad A_1(x,z)=\big(1-\chi(1-z_n)\big)(2\pi)^{-n}\!\int e^{iz\cdot\xi}a_1(x,\xi)d\xi, \tag{8.2} with the integrand taken to be 0 for yn≤0y_n\leq0. Then b=b1+b2∈Slam1+m2b=b_1+b_2\in S^{m_1+m_2}_{\mathrm{la}}; b2∈S+−∞b_2\in S^{-\infty}_+; the map (a1,a2)↦b(a_1,a_2)\mapsto b is continuous and bilinear; bb does not depend on χ\chi; and Ta1Ta2=Tbon 𝒮¯(ℝ+n),b∼∑α1α!∂ξαa1(x,ξ)Dx′α′Dsαn[a2(x′,sxn,ξ′,sξn)]s=1,(8.3) T_{a_1}T_{a_2}=T_b\quad\text{on }\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+),\qquad b\sim\sum_\alpha\frac1{\alpha!}\,\partial_\xi^\alpha a_1(x,\xi)\,D_{x'}^{\alpha'}D_s^{\alpha_n}\big[a_2(x',sx_n,\xi',s\xi_n)\big]_{s=1}, \tag{8.3} the α\alpha-term having order m1+m2−|α|m_1+m_2-|\alpha|. If a1∈Sla−∞a_1\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}} and a2a_2 vanishes for large |x||x|, then for xn>0x_n>0 b(x,ξ)=(2π)−n∬yn>0e−i⟨x′−y′,ξ′−η′⟩−i(1−yn)(ξn−ηn)a1(x,η)a2(y′,xnyn,ξ′,ξnyn)dydη,(8.4) b(x,\xi)=(2\pi)^{-n}\iint_{y_n>0}e^{-i\langle x'-y',\xi'-\eta'\rangle-i(1-y_n)(\xi_n-\eta_n)}a_1(x,\eta)\,a_2(y',x_ny_n,\xi',\xi_ny_n)\,dy\,d\eta, \tag{8.4} an absolutely convergent integral. Formally, b=ei⟨Dy,Dη⟩a1(x,η)a2(y′,xnyn,ξ′,ξnyn)b=e^{i\langle D_y,D_\eta\rangle}a_1(x,\eta)a_2(y',x_ny_n,\xi',\xi_ny_n) at y=(x′,1)y=(x',1), η=ξ\eta=\xi; the sum (8.1)+(8.2) is the precise meaning of this formula.

The truncation used below needs boundedness and pointwise convergence; its lack of convergence in the full symbol topology is proved in Remark 8.2.

Proof. Step 1: the near part. Put g(y,ξ)=a2(y′,xnyn,ξ′,ξnyn)χ(yn)g(y,\xi)=a_2(y',x_ny_n,\xi',\xi_ny_n)\chi(y_n), with xn≥0x_n\geq0 a parameter. On supp⁡χ\operatorname{supp}\chi, M−1≤yn≤MM^{-1}\leq y_n\leq M, so 1+|(ξ′,ynξn)|1+|(\xi',y_n\xi_n)| is comparable to 1+|ξ|1+|\xi|. A yny_n-derivative produces xn∂xna2x_n\partial_{x_n}a_2 (the factor xnx_n is absorbed by the decay of a2a_2 in xnynx_ny_n) or ξn∂ξna2\xi_n\partial_{\xi_n}a_2, and |ξn|(1+|(ξ′,ynξn)|)m2−1≤M(1+|(ξ′,ynξn)|)m2|\xi_n|(1+|(\xi',y_n\xi_n)|)^{m_2-1}\leq M(1+|(\xi',y_n\xi_n)|)^{m_2}. A ξ\xi-derivative lowers the order by one. So gg is a classical symbol of order m2m_2 in (y,ξ)(y,\xi), uniformly in xnx_n, and so are its xnx_n-derivatives. Likewise (1+xn)νa1(x,η)(1+x_n)^\nu a_1(x,\eta) is a symbol of order m1m_1 in (x,η)(x,\eta) for every ν\nu. We apply the pre-diagonal product estimate of Section 1 to the product (1+xn)νa1(x,η)g(y,ξ)(1+x_n)^\nu a_1(x,\eta)\,g(y,\xi), with the multiplier acting in (y,η)(y,\eta) and xnx_n a passive parameter. That estimate holds at every (y,η)(y,\eta); at y=(x′,1)y=(x',1), η=ξ\eta=\xi it gives |∂ξα∂xβ(b1−∑|γ|<N1γ!∂ηγa1(x,ξ)Dyγg((x′,1),ξ))|≤C(1+xn)−ν(1+|ξ|)m1+m2−N−|α|, \Big|\partial^\alpha_\xi\partial^\beta_x\Big(b_1-\sum_{|\gamma|<N}\frac1{\gamma!}\partial^\gamma_\eta a_1(x,\xi)D_y^\gamma g\big((x',1),\xi\big)\Big)\Big|\leq C(1+x_n)^{-\nu}(1+|\xi|)^{m_1+m_2-N-|\alpha|}, with CC controlled by finitely many seminorms of a1a_1 and a2a_2 (differentiation in xx commutes with the multiplier, and a derivative of the evaluation at y=(x′,1)y=(x',1), η=ξ\eta=\xi is a sum of derivatives in the two sets of variables, each controlled by the estimate). Since χ=1\chi=1 near 1, Dyγg((x′,1),ξ)=Dx′γ′Dsγn[a2(x′,sxn,ξ′,sξn)]s=1D_y^\gamma g((x',1),\xi)=D^{\gamma'}_{x'}D^{\gamma_n}_s[a_2(x',sx_n,\xi',s\xi_n)]_{s=1}. So b1∈S+m1+m2b_1\in S^{m_1+m_2}_+ with the expansion (8.3), continuously in (a1,a2)(a_1,a_2).

Step 2: the far part is residual. The factor 1−χ(1−zn)1-\chi(1-z_n) vanishes near zn=0z_n=0. Off z=0z=0 the inverse transform of a1(x,⋅)a_1(x,\cdot) is smooth, and for |z||z| bounded below its derivatives are bounded by CN(1+|z|)−N(1+xn)−NC_N(1+|z|)^{-N}(1+x_n)^{-N} (integrate by parts in ξ\xi). So A1A_1 satisfies (6.2). By lacunarity A1=0A_1=0 for zn≥1z_n\geq1, and Taylor’s formula at zn=1z_n=1 gives |∂xα∂zβA1(x,z)|≤C|1−zn|N(1+|z|)−2N(1+xn)−N(zn≤1).(8.5) |\partial_x^\alpha\partial_z^\beta A_1(x,z)|\leq C|1-z_n|^N(1+|z|)^{-2N}(1+x_n)^{-N}\qquad(z_n\leq1). \tag{8.5} Let G(x,y,ξ)G(x,y,\xi) be the integrand of (8.2) without the exponential. For yn>0y_n>0 we have min⁡(1,yn)(1+|ξ|)≤1+|ξ′|+yn|ξn|≤(1+yn)(1+|ξ|)\min(1,y_n)(1+|\xi|)\leq1+|\xi'|+y_n|\xi_n|\leq(1+y_n)(1+|\xi|). So a derivative of a2(y′,xnyn,ξ′,ξnyn)a_2(y',x_ny_n,\xi',\xi_ny_n) of order γ\gamma in ξ\xi is bounded by (1+|ξ|)m2−|γ|(1+|\xi|)^{m_2-|\gamma|} times a factor (1+xn)K(yn+yn−1)K(1+x_n)^K(y_n+y_n^{-1})^K; the powers of xnx_n come from yny_n-derivatives falling on the second argument. The factor A1A_1 absorbs all of this. Near yn=0y_n=0 the factor yn−Ky_n^{-K} is paid for by ynN=|1−zn|Ny_n^N=|1-z_n|^N in (8.5). For large yny_n the growth is paid for by the decay in zn=1−ynz_n=1-y_n. The powers of 1+xn1+x_n are paid for by the decay of A1A_1 in xnx_n. Hence GG is smooth across yn=0y_n=0, and |∂xα∂yβ∂ξγG|≤CN(1+|x′−y′|+|1−yn|)−N(1+xn)−N(1+|ξ|)m2−|γ|. |\partial_x^\alpha\partial_y^\beta\partial_\xi^\gamma G|\leq C_N(1+|x'-y'|+|1-y_n|)^{-N}(1+x_n)^{-N}(1+|\xi|)^{m_2-|\gamma|}. The phase is e−i⟨x′,ξ′⟩−iξnei⟨y,ξ⟩e^{-i\langle x',\xi'\rangle-i\xi_n}e^{i\langle y,\xi\rangle}, so ξκb2=∫e−i⟨x′−y′,ξ′⟩−i(1−yn)ξn(−Dy)κGdy\xi^\kappa b_2=\int e^{-i\langle x'-y',\xi'\rangle-i(1-y_n)\xi_n}(-D_y)^\kappa G\,dy. Derivatives of b2b_2 in xx and ξ\xi bring factors ξ′\xi' (treated the same way) or x′−y′x'-y', 1−yn1-y_n (absorbed by the decay of GG). So b2∈S+−∞b_2\in S^{-\infty}_+, continuously in (a1,a2)(a_1,a_2).

Step 3: the product formula for residual a1a_1 and compactly supported a2a_2. Let a1∈Sla−∞a_1\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}, a2∈Slam2a_2\in S^{m_2}_{\mathrm{la}} with a2=0a_2=0 for |x|≥R|x|\geq R, and u∈𝒮u\in\mathcal S. Then w=Ta2uw=T_{a_2}u is a bounded function with compact support, zero for xn<0x_n<0. For xn>0x_n>0 the kernel Ka1(x,⋅)K_{a_1}(x,\cdot) is a Schwartz function vanishing for yn≤0y_n\leq0 (Theorem 6.2), so for every Schwartz extension WW of w|ℝ+nw|_{\mathbb R^n_+}, Ta1W(x)=∫Ka1(x,y)w(y)dy=(2π)−n∫ei⟨x,η⟩a1♭(x,η)ŵ(η)dηT_{a_1}W(x)=\int K_{a_1}(x,y)w(y)dy=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{i\langle x,\eta\rangle}a_1^\flat(x,\eta)\widehat w(\eta)d\eta. Here ŵ(η)=(2π)−n∬ei⟨y,ξ−η⟩a2♭(y,ξ)û(ξ)dξdy\widehat w(\eta)=(2\pi)^{-n}\iint e^{i\langle y,\xi-\eta\rangle}a_2^\flat(y,\xi)\widehat u(\xi)\,d\xi\,dy, absolutely convergent. Combining the integrals (absolutely convergent for fixed xx), Ta1Ta2u(x)=(2π)−n∫ei⟨x,ξ⟩c(x,ξ)û(ξ)dξ,c(x,ξ)=(2π)−n∬e−i⟨x−y,ξ−η⟩a1♭(x,η)a2♭(y,ξ)dydη. T_{a_1}T_{a_2}u(x)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{i\langle x,\xi\rangle}c(x,\xi)\widehat u(\xi)d\xi,\qquad c(x,\xi)=(2\pi)^{-n}\iint e^{-i\langle x-y,\xi-\eta\rangle}a_1^\flat(x,\eta)a_2^\flat(y,\xi)\,dy\,d\eta . Put b(x,ξ)=c(x,ξ′,ξn/xn)b(x,\xi)=c(x,\xi',\xi_n/x_n), so c=b♭c=b^\flat. The substitutions ξn↦ξn/xn\xi_n\mapsto\xi_n/x_n, ηn↦ηn/xn\eta_n\mapsto\eta_n/x_n, yn↦xnyny_n\mapsto x_ny_n turn cc into (8.4); the double integral converges absolutely because a1a_1 is residual and yy stays in a compact set. Now insert 1=χ(yn)+(1−χ(yn))1=\chi(y_n)+(1-\chi(y_n)). The first part is the Gauss transform (8.1) of a residual symbol with compact yy-support, written as an absolutely convergent integral (as in Proposition 7.1). In the second part, integrate in η\eta first: (2π)−n∫ei⟨x′−y′,η′⟩+i(1−yn)ηna1(x,η)dη(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{i\langle x'-y',\eta'\rangle+i(1-y_n)\eta_n}a_1(x,\eta)d\eta, multiplied by 1−χ(yn)=1−χ(1−zn)1-\chi(y_n)=1-\chi(1-z_n) with zn=1−ynz_n=1-y_n, is A1(x,x′−y′,1−yn)A_1(x,x'-y',1-y_n); what remains is (8.2). So Ta1Ta2=Tb1+b2T_{a_1}T_{a_2}=T_{b_1+b_2} on 𝒮\mathcal S, in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+.

Step 4: general a2a_2. Let ϑ∈C0∞(ℝn)\vartheta\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n) equal 1 near 0 and a2,k=ϑ(x/k)a2a_{2,k}=\vartheta(x/k)a_2. These are lacunary, bounded in S+m2S^{m_2}_+, and converge to a2a_2 locally uniformly with all derivatives. Since functions of xx stand on the left, Ta2,ku=ϑ(⋅/k)Ta2u→Ta2uT_{a_{2,k}}u=\vartheta(\cdot/k)T_{a_2}u\to T_{a_2}u in 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+); so Ta1Ta2,ku→Ta1Ta2uT_{a_1}T_{a_{2,k}}u\to T_{a_1}T_{a_2}u by Theorem 5.1. On the other side, b2,k→b2b_{2,k}\to b_2 pointwise by dominated convergence. The near parts b1,kb_{1,k} are Gauss transforms of symbols in (y,η)(y,\eta) that stay bounded in Sm1S^{m_1} and converge locally smoothly; by the facts on the Gauss transform in Section 1, the transforms converge locally uniformly with all derivatives, so b1,k→b1b_{1,k}\to b_1 pointwise. All bk=b1,k+b2,kb_k=b_{1,k}+b_{2,k} are bounded in S+m1+m2S^{m_1+m_2}_+ (here m1m_1 is any real number, since a1a_1 is residual), so Tbku(x)→Tbu(x)T_{b_k}u(x)\to T_bu(x) for each x∈ℝ+nx\in\mathbb R^n_+ by dominated convergence. Hence Ta1Ta2u=TbuT_{a_1}T_{a_2}u=T_bu.

Step 5: general a1a_1. Write a1=(a1)ρ+ra_1=(a_1)_\rho+r with r=a1−(a1)ρ∈Sla−∞r=a_1-(a_1)_\rho\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}} (Lemma 4.4); Step 4 applies to rr. Let a1,k=a1ψ(ξ/k)∈S+−∞a_{1,k}=a_1\psi(\xi/k)\in S^{-\infty}_+, ψ∈C0∞\psi\in C_0^\infty equal to 1 near 0. Then (a1,k)ρ∈Sla−∞(a_{1,k})_\rho\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}} and (a1,k)ρ→(a1)ρ(a_{1,k})_\rho\to(a_1)_\rho in S+m1+1S^{m_1+1}_+. By Step 4, T(a1,k)ρTa2u=Tb(k)uT_{(a_{1,k})_\rho}T_{a_2}u=T_{b^{(k)}}u, where b(k)b^{(k)} is built from (a1,k)ρ(a_{1,k})_\rho and a2a_2. As k→∞k\to\infty, the left side converges to T(a1)ρTa2uT_{(a_1)_\rho}T_{a_2}u (Theorem 5.1, continuity in the symbol), and b(k)b^{(k)} converges in S+m1+1+m2S^{m_1+1+m_2}_+ by Steps 1–2, so the right side converges to TbuT_bu with bb built from (a1)ρ(a_1)_\rho. Bilinearity gives the formula for a1a_1.

Step 6: conclusions. Tbu=Ta1Ta2uT_bu=T_{a_1}T_{a_2}u depends only on u|ℝ+nu|_{\mathbb R^n_+}, so bb is lacunary by Proposition 4.3. The operator determines the symbol, so bb does not depend on χ\chi. Continuity and the expansion come from Steps 1–2. ▫\square

Remark 8.2 (The truncated symbols do not converge in the symbol topology). For the tangential-translation example in this paragraph assume n≥2n\ge2. In Step 4 the symbols bkb_k are bounded and converge pointwise, but they need not converge to bb in the Fréchet topology of S+−∞S^{-\infty}_+, even when a1a_1 is residual. Take a2=θ(xn)a_2=\theta(x_n), with θ∈C0∞(ℝ)\theta\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R) equal to 1 on [0,1][0,1], and a1=e−xnĥ(ξ)a_1=e^{-x_n}\widehat h(\xi) with 0≤h∈C0∞({|z|<12})0\leq h\in C_0^\infty(\{|z|<\tfrac12\}), h≠0h\neq0. Both are lacunary, Ta2T_{a_2} is multiplication by θ(xn)\theta(x_n), and Ta1T_{a_1} commutes with translations in x′x'. If bk→bb_k\to b in S+−∞S^{-\infty}_+, then Tbk→TbT_{b_k}\to T_b in the operator norm on L2(ℝ+n)L^2(\mathbb R^n_+), by the Schur bound of Proposition 6.4, which is linear in a seminorm of the symbol. But let u0≥0u_0\geq0 be a bump near (0,12)(0,\tfrac12), and let uu be a translate of u0u_0 in x′x' far outside the support of ϑ(⋅/k)\vartheta(\cdot/k). Then ∥(Tbk−Tb)u∥=∥Ta1(θu0)∥>0\|(T_{b_k}-T_b)u\|=\|T_{a_1}(\theta u_0)\|>0, independently of kk. So only boundedness together with pointwise convergence is available, and that is what Step 4 uses.

Example 8.3 (A totally characteristic differential operator: product, adjoint, jets). Let θ∈C0∞(ℝ)\theta\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R) equal 1 on [−1,2][-1,2] and a(x,ξ)=θ(xn)ξna(x,\xi)=\theta(x_n)\xi_n. It lies in Sla1S^1_{\mathrm{la}} (strongly lacunary, since ℱna\mathcal F_na is supported at t=0t=0), and Ta=θ(xn)xnDnT_a=\theta(x_n)x_nD_n.

Product. In (8.3) only α=0\alpha=0 and α=en\alpha=e_n contribute: aa=θ2ξn2a\,a=\theta^2\xi_n^2, and ∂ξna⋅Ds[θ(sxn)sξn]s=1=−iθ(θ+xnθ′)ξn\partial_{\xi_n}a\cdot D_s[\theta(sx_n)s\xi_n]_{s=1}=-i\theta(\theta+x_n\theta')\xi_n. Directly, θxnDn(θxnDnu)=θ2xn2Dn2u−iθ(θ+xnθ′)xnDnu\theta x_nD_n(\theta x_nD_nu)=\theta^2x_n^2D_n^2u-i\theta(\theta+x_n\theta')x_nD_nu, whose compressed symbol is the same. Where θ=1\theta=1 this is (xnDn)2=xn2Dn2−ixnDn(x_nD_n)^2=x_n^2D_n^2-ix_nD_n, in agreement with (2.1).

Adjoint for a real cutoff. If the cutoff is real valued, the following calculation applies. The full complex-cutoff formula and proof follow below. By (7.5), the term j=0j=0 is θξn\theta\xi_n, the term j=1j=1 is ∂ηnDyn[θ(xnyn)ynηn]yn=1=−i(θ+xnθ′)\partial_{\eta_n}D_{y_n}[\theta(x_ny_n)y_n\eta_n]_{y_n=1}=-i(\theta+x_n\theta'), and all later terms vanish. Directly, (θxnDn)*=Dnxnθ=θxnDn−i(θ+xnθ′)(\theta x_nD_n)^*=D_n\,x_n\theta=\theta x_nD_n-i(\theta+x_n\theta'). The expansion is exact here: the difference is a differential operator with symbol in S+−∞S^{-\infty}_+, hence 0.

Jets. In (5.2) only akk=(k1)(−i)θ(0)=−ika_{kk}=\binom k1(-i)\theta(0)=-ik is nonzero near the boundary, so Dnk(xnDnu)(x′,0)=−ikDnku(x′,0)D_n^k(x_nD_nu)(x',0)=-ik\,D_n^ku(x',0); this is Leibniz’ rule for Dnk(xnw)D_n^k(x_nw) at xn=0x_n=0.

Complex cutoffs in the differential example

Example 8.3 allows a complex-valued cutoff. Its product and jet calculations already hold for that original choice. The adjoint calculation displayed there requires a real-valued cutoff; here is the exact formula for the full stated class. With the same θ∈C0∞(ℝ)\theta\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R), equal to 1 on [−1,2][-1,2], retain the original operator and its compression: B=θ(xn)xnDn,a(x,ξ)=θ(xn)ξn,B*=Dnxnθ¯=θ¯xnDn−i(θ¯+xnθ′¯),a†(x,ξ)=θ¯(xn)ξn−i(θ¯(xn)+xnθ′(xn)¯).(CC1) \begin{aligned} B&=\theta(x_n)x_nD_n,\qquad a(x,\xi)=\theta(x_n)\xi_n,\\ B^*&=D_n x_n\overline\theta\\ &=\overline\theta x_nD_n -i(\overline\theta+x_n\overline{\theta'}),\\ a^\dagger(x,\xi)&=\overline\theta(x_n)\xi_n -i(\overline\theta(x_n)+x_n\overline{\theta'(x_n)}). \end{aligned} \tag{CC1} Both terms of the last symbol remain: the derivative of the full coefficient xnθ¯x_n\overline\theta is θ¯+xnθ′¯\overline\theta+x_n\overline{\theta'}. It is in Sla1S^1_{\mathrm{la}}, with normal Fourier support at zero, including the constant normal-frequency term.

For u,v∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u,v\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), integration by parts in t=xnt=x_n gives the complete pairing identity (Bu,v)=∫ℝn−1∫0∞−iθ(t)t∂tu(x′,t)v(x′,t)¯dtdx′=∫ℝn−1∫0∞u(x′,t)i[(θ(t)+tθ′(t))v(x′,t)¯+tθ(t)∂tv(x′,t)¯]dtdx′=(u,B*v).(CC2) \begin{aligned} (Bu,v) &=\int_{\mathbb R^{n-1}}\int_0^\infty -i\theta(t)t\,\partial_tu(x',t)\,\overline{v(x',t)}\,dt\,dx'\\ &=\int_{\mathbb R^{n-1}}\int_0^\infty u(x',t)\,i\big[(\theta(t)+t\theta'(t))\overline{v(x',t)} +t\theta(t)\partial_t\overline{v(x',t)}\big]\,dt\,dx'\\ &=(u,B^*v). \end{aligned} \tag{CC2} The boundary contribution is −i[θ(t)tu(x′,t)v(x′,t)¯]t=0t=∞=0-i[\theta(t)t u(x',t)\overline{v(x',t)}]_{t=0}^{t=\infty}=0: the original factor tt kills its value at zero, and the compact support of θ\theta kills its value at infinity. Every integral is absolutely convergent. For n=1n=1 the tangential integral is over ℝ0\mathbb R^0, with measure one. Theorem 7.3 gives uniqueness of the adjoint symbol, so (CC1) is its full symbol. Equivalently, (7.5) has zeroth term θ¯ξn\overline\theta\xi_n, first term −i(θ¯+xnθ′¯)-i(\overline\theta+x_n\overline{\theta'}), and no later terms. When θ¯=θ\overline\theta=\theta, this proves exactly the earlier display.

The omitted conjugation can change even the sign of the pairing. Choose real cutoffs θ0,η\theta_0,\eta, with θ0=1\theta_0=1 on [−1,2][-1,2], θ0=0\theta_0=0 on (3,4)(3,4), supp⁡η⊂(3,4)\operatorname{supp}\eta\subset(3,4), and η=1\eta=1 on a nonempty open interval JJ about 7/27/2. Then θ=θ0+iη\theta=\theta_0+i\eta satisfies all the original hypotheses. On JJ, its original operator is B=t∂tB=t\partial_t; (CC1) gives B*=−t∂t−1B^*=-t\partial_t-1, while the display without conjugation would give Bold*=t∂t+1B_{\mathrm{old}}^*=t\partial_t+1. Take a nonzero real χ∈C0∞(J)\chi\in C_0^\infty(J), and a real tangential φ∈C0∞(ℝn−1)\varphi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^{n-1}) with ∥φ∥2=1\|\varphi\|_2=1, using φ=1\varphi=1 when n=1n=1. For u=v=φ(x′)χ(t)u=v=\varphi(x')\chi(t), the exact values are (Bu,v)=−12∫0∞χ(t)2dt,(u,B*v)=−12∫0∞χ(t)2dt,(u,Bold*v)=12∫0∞χ(t)2dt.(CC3) (Bu,v)=-\frac12\int_0^\infty\chi(t)^2\,dt, \qquad (u,B^*v)=-\frac12\int_0^\infty\chi(t)^2\,dt, \qquad (u,B_{\mathrm{old}}^*v)=\frac12\int_0^\infty\chi(t)^2\,dt. \tag{CC3} Indeed ∫tχ′χ=−12∫χ2\int t\chi'\chi=-\tfrac12\int\chi^2, with both endpoint terms zero. Thus conjugation is necessary for the original complex class. Theorem 7.3 and the antidual extension in Theorem 9.1 already retain this conjugation. Their proofs and actions require no change. The product in Example 8.3, its boundary jets and the delta calculation in Example 11.3 also retain their original formulas.

9. Extension to distributions

By duality with the adjoints of Section 7, the operators act on supported and on restricted tempered distributions.

Supported and restricted distributions

Theorem 9.1 (Extension to distributions). Let a∈Slama\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}}.

  1. For U∈𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)U\in\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) and v∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)v\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) the pairing (U,v)=U(V¯)(U,v)=U(\overline V), VV any Schwartz extension of vv, is well defined, and it identifies 𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) with the space of continuous antilinear functionals on 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+).

  2. The formula (TaU,v)=(U,Ta†v)(v∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n))(9.1) (T_aU,v)=(U,T_{a^\dagger}v)\qquad(v\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+)) \tag{9.1} defines a continuous map Ta:𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)→𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)T_a:\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+)\to\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). For u∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) with zero extension u0u_0, Tau0T_au_0 is the zero extension of the function TauT_au.

  3. The restriction map 𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)→𝒮′¯(ℝ+n)\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+)\to\overline{\mathcal S'}(\mathbb R^n_+) is surjective, and its kernel is {U∈𝒮′:supp⁡U⊂∂ℝ+n}=⋃k≥0𝒮̇k′,𝒮̇k′={U∈𝒮′(ℝn):xnkU=0}.(9.2) \{U\in\mathcal S':\operatorname{supp}U\subset\partial\mathbb R^n_+\}=\bigcup_{k\geq0}\dot{\mathcal S}'_k,\qquad \dot{\mathcal S}'_k=\{U\in\mathcal S'(\mathbb R^n):x_n^kU=0\}. \tag{9.2}

  4. Ta𝒮̇k′⊂𝒮̇k′T_a\dot{\mathcal S}'_k\subset\dot{\mathcal S}'_k for every kk. Hence TaT_a induces a map 𝒮′¯(ℝ+n)→𝒮′¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S'}(\mathbb R^n_+)\to\overline{\mathcal S'}(\mathbb R^n_+). Identifying 𝒮′¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S'}(\mathbb R^n_+) with the antidual of 𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), this map is again given by (9.1), now with v∈𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)v\in\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+).

  5. Every element of 𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), and every element of 𝒮′¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S'}(\mathbb R^n_+), is a weak limit of a sequence in C0∞(ℝ+n)C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+). So the action of TaT_a on either space is determined by its action on C0∞(ℝ+n)C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+).

Proof. (a) If two extensions differ by φ\varphi, then φ=0\varphi=0 in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+, and U(φ¯)=0U(\overline\varphi)=0 by Lemma 3.1. Since |U(V¯)|≤Cp(V)|U(\overline V)|\leq Cp(V) for a Schwartz seminorm pp and every extension VV, |(U,v)|≤Cp‾(v)|(U,v)|\leq C\bar p(v) with the quotient seminorm, so the functional is continuous. Conversely, a continuous antilinear λ\lambda on 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) gives U(φ)=λ(φ¯|ℝ+n)U(\varphi)=\lambda(\overline\varphi|_{\mathbb R^n_+}), which is linear and continuous on 𝒮\mathcal S, vanishes on C0∞(ℝ−n)C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_-) (so supp⁡U⊂ℝ¯+n\operatorname{supp}U\subset\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), and satisfies (U,v)=λ(v)(U,v)=\lambda(v).

  1. Ta†T_{a^\dagger} is continuous on 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) (Theorem 5.1), so (9.1) defines a continuous map by (a). For u∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), (Tau0,v)=∫ℝ+nuTa†v¯=(Tau,v)L2(ℝ+n)(T_au_0,v)=\int_{\mathbb R^n_+}u\,\overline{T_{a^\dagger}v}=(T_au,v)_{L^2(\mathbb R^n_+)} by Theorem 7.3(c).

  2. Surjectivity. Let w=U|ℝ+nw=U|_{\mathbb R^n_+}, U∈𝒮′U\in\mathcal S'. There is a Schwartz seminorm pp with |U(φ)|≤p(φ)|U(\varphi)|\leq p(\varphi). On the subspace 𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)⊂𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+)\subset\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) (restriction is injective on it), p(v)p(v) equals the corresponding sum of suprema over ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+, a continuous seminorm p‾\bar p of 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) by Lemma 3.2(a). The antilinear functional v↦U(v¯)v\mapsto U(\overline v) on this subspace is bounded by p‾\bar p. By the Hahn–Banach theorem in seminorm form (Section 1), applied to the linear functional v↦U(v¯)¯v\mapsto\overline{U(\overline v)}, it extends to 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) with the same bound. By (a) the extension is some Ũ∈𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)\tilde U\in\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), and Ũ=U\tilde U=U on C0∞(ℝ+n)C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+). So Ũ|ℝ+n=w\tilde U|_{\mathbb R^n_+}=w.

Kernel. An element of 𝒮̇′\dot{\mathcal S}' that vanishes in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+ has support in ∂ℝ+n\partial\mathbb R^n_+; conversely xnkU=0x_n^kU=0 forces U=0U=0 on xn≠0x_n\neq0. Let supp⁡U⊂{xn=0}\operatorname{supp}U\subset\{x_n=0\}. Being tempered, UU satisfies |U(φ)|≤C∑|α|,|β|≤μsup⁡|xαDβφ||U(\varphi)|\leq C\sum_{|\alpha|,|\beta|\leq\mu}\sup|x^\alpha D^\beta\varphi| for some μ\mu. Let θ∈C0∞(ℝ)\theta\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R) equal 1 on [−1,1][-1,1] and vanish outside [−2,2][-2,2], and θε(x)=θ(xn/ε)\theta_\varepsilon(x)=\theta(x_n/\varepsilon). For φ∈𝒮\varphi\in\mathcal S, (1−θε)xnμ+1φ(1-\theta_\varepsilon)x_n^{\mu+1}\varphi vanishes near supp⁡U\operatorname{supp}U, so U(xnμ+1φ)=U(θεxnμ+1φ)U(x_n^{\mu+1}\varphi)=U(\theta_\varepsilon x_n^{\mu+1}\varphi). A derivative of order |β|≤μ|\beta|\leq\mu of θεxnμ+1φ\theta_\varepsilon x_n^{\mu+1}\varphi is a sum of terms of size ε−iεμ+1−j|Dγφ|\varepsilon^{-i}\,\varepsilon^{\mu+1-j}\,|D^\gamma\varphi|, i+j+|γ|=|β|i+j+|\gamma|=|\beta|, on |xn|≤2ε|x_n|\leq2\varepsilon; each is O(ε)O(\varepsilon), with the weights xαx^\alpha carried by φ\varphi. So U(xnμ+1φ)=0U(x_n^{\mu+1}\varphi)=0, that is, U∈𝒮̇μ+1′U\in\dot{\mathcal S}'_{\mu+1}.

  1. Let U∈𝒮̇k′U\in\dot{\mathcal S}'_k and v∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)v\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+). Then (xnkTaU,v)=(U,Ta†(xnkv))(x_n^kT_aU,v)=(U,T_{a^\dagger}(x_n^kv)). The jets of xnkvx_n^kv of order <k<k vanish, so by Theorem 5.1(d) those of Ta†(xnkv)T_{a^\dagger}(x_n^kv) do too, and Lemma 3.2(d) writes it as xnkhx_n^kh, h∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)h\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+). So (xnkTaU,v)=(xnkU,h)=0(x_n^kT_aU,v)=(x_n^kU,h)=0. For the last assertion: 𝒮′¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S'}(\mathbb R^n_+) is 𝒮′\mathcal S' modulo the distributions vanishing in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+, and these are exactly the tempered distributions that annihilate the closed subspace 𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) (one inclusion is Lemma 3.1 with the half spaces exchanged, the other holds because C0∞(ℝ+n)⊂𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+)\subset\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+)). With the Hahn–Banach theorem this identifies 𝒮′¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S'}(\mathbb R^n_+) with the antidual of 𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). If U∈𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)U\in\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) restricts to uu and v∈𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)v\in\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), then Ta†v∈𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)T_{a^\dagger}v\in\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) (Theorem 5.1(d)) and (TaU,v)=(U,Ta†v)=(u,Ta†v)(T_aU,v)=(U,T_{a^\dagger}v)=(u,T_{a^\dagger}v).

  2. Let U∈𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)U\in\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). Choose ϕ∈C0∞(ℝ+n)\phi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+) with ∫ϕ=1\int\phi=1 and θ∈C0∞(ℝn)\theta\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n) equal to 1 near 0, and put Uε=θ(εx)(ϕε*U)U_\varepsilon=\theta(\varepsilon x)\,(\phi_\varepsilon*U), ϕε=ε−nϕ(⋅/ε)\phi_\varepsilon=\varepsilon^{-n}\phi(\cdot/\varepsilon). Then Uε∈C0∞(ℝ+n)U_\varepsilon\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+), since supp⁡(ϕε*U)⊂ℝ¯+n+supp⁡ϕε⊂ℝ+n\operatorname{supp}(\phi_\varepsilon*U)\subset\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_++\operatorname{supp}\phi_\varepsilon\subset\mathbb R^n_+. For φ∈𝒮\varphi\in\mathcal S, Uε(φ)=U(ϕ̌ε*(θ(ε⋅)φ))U_\varepsilon(\varphi)=U(\check\phi_\varepsilon*(\theta(\varepsilon\cdot)\varphi)), and ϕ̌ε*(θ(ε⋅)φ)→φ\check\phi_\varepsilon*(\theta(\varepsilon\cdot)\varphi)\to\varphi in 𝒮\mathcal S. So Uε→UU_\varepsilon\to U weakly. Restricting gives the statement for 𝒮′¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S'}(\mathbb R^n_+). Both actions of TaT_a are weakly continuous, being transposes of continuous maps. ▫\square

In the ordinary calculus one works modulo smooth functions, the range of operators of order −∞-\infty. Here one also loses the distributions supported on the boundary when passing to 𝒮′¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S'}(\mathbb R^n_+): they are the kernel (9.2).

By (e), the composition formula Ta1Ta2=TbT_{a_1}T_{a_2}=T_b of Theorem 8.1 holds on 𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) and on 𝒮′¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S'}(\mathbb R^n_+) as well. Indeed, both sides are weakly continuous, and by (b) they agree on C0∞(ℝ+n)C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+).

Residual operators produce conormal distributions

Lemma 9.2 (Bounded order implies conormality). Let W∈𝒟′(ℝn)W\in\mathcal D'(\mathbb R^n). Suppose there is μ\mu such that every D′α′(xnDn)αnWD'^{\alpha'}(x_nD_n)^{\alpha_n}W has order at most μ\mu on every compact set (the constants may depend on α\alpha and the set). Then W∈Iμ+n/4(ℝn,∂ℝ+n)W\in I^{\mu+n/4}(\mathbb R^n,\partial\mathbb R^n_+).

Proof. If ww has order ≤μ\leq\mu near the support of ϕ∈C0∞\phi\in C_0^\infty, then |ϕŵ(ξ)|=|w(ϕe−ix⋅ξ)|≤C(1+|ξ|)μ|\widehat{\phi w}(\xi)|=|w(\phi e^{-ix\cdot\xi})|\leq C(1+|\xi|)^\mu, so ∥Πj(ϕw)∥L22≤C22jμ2jn\|\Pi_j(\phi w)\|_{L^2}^2\leq C2^{2j\mu}2^{jn} and ϕw∈B2,∞−μ−n/2\phi w\in B^{-\mu-n/2}_{2,\infty}. Products of first-order operators whose principal symbols vanish on N*(∂ℝ+n)N^*(\partial\mathbb R^n_+) are, by Hadamard’s lemma and the commutation argument of Proposition 2.1(c), finite sums of smooth functions times D′α′(xnDn)αnD'^{\alpha'}(x_nD_n)^{\alpha_n}; multiplication by smooth functions preserves the local order. So all these products map WW into B2,∞,loc−μ−n/2B^{-\mu-n/2}_{2,\infty,\mathrm{loc}}. By the definition of conormal distributions in Section 1, this says that W∈Iμ+n/4W\in I^{\mu+n/4}, since −(μ+n/4)−n/4=−μ−n/2-(\mu+n/4)-n/4=-\mu-n/2. ▫\square

Theorem 9.3 (Conormal outputs). Let a∈Sla−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}} and U∈𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)U\in\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). Then supp⁡TaU⊂ℝ¯+n\operatorname{supp}T_aU\subset\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+ and TaU∈Ik(ℝn,∂ℝ+n)T_aU\in I^k(\mathbb R^n,\partial\mathbb R^n_+) for some kk. More precisely, if |(U,v)|≤C∑|β|+|γ|≤μqβ,γ(v)|(U,v)|\leq C\sum_{|\beta|+|\gamma|\leq\mu}q_{\beta,\gamma}(v), then there is μ′\mu', depending only on μ\mu and nn, such that every D′α′(xnDn)αnTaUD'^{\alpha'}(x_nD_n)^{\alpha_n}T_aU has order at most μ′\mu' on every compact set, and TaU∈Iμ′+n/4T_aU\in I^{\mu'+n/4}.

Proof. The support statement is part of Theorem 9.1. Since UU is continuous on 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), a bound of the stated form holds by Lemma 3.2(a). For φ∈C0∞(ℝn)\varphi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n), using the formal adjoints (xnDn)*=Dnxn(x_nD_n)^*=D_nx_n and (5.4), (D′α′(xnDn)αnTaU,φ)=(U,Ta†D′α′(Dnxn)αnφ)=(U,Tbαφ),bα=ξ′α′(ξn−i−iξn∂ξn)αna†∈Sla−∞. \big(D'^{\alpha'}(x_nD_n)^{\alpha_n}T_aU,\varphi\big)=\big(U,T_{a^\dagger}D'^{\alpha'}(D_nx_n)^{\alpha_n}\varphi\big)=(U,T_{b_\alpha}\varphi),\qquad b_\alpha=\xi'^{\alpha'}\big(\xi_n-i-i\xi_n\partial_{\xi_n}\big)^{\alpha_n}a^\dagger\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}} . By Theorem 5.1(a), applied in the fixed class Sla0⊃Sla−∞S^0_{\mathrm{la}}\supset S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}, there are μ′\mu' (depending only on μ\mu and nn) and a seminorm pp with ∑|β|+|γ|≤μqβ,γ(Tbαφ)≤p(bα)∑|β|+|γ|≤μ′qβ,γ(φ)\sum_{|\beta|+|\gamma|\leq\mu}q_{\beta,\gamma}(T_{b_\alpha}\varphi)\leq p(b_\alpha)\sum_{|\beta|+|\gamma|\leq\mu'}q_{\beta,\gamma}(\varphi). For φ\varphi supported in a fixed compact set the right side is at most Cp(bα)∑|γ|≤μ′sup⁡|Dγφ|C\,p(b_\alpha)\sum_{|\gamma|\leq\mu'}\sup|D^\gamma\varphi|. So the order is at most μ′\mu', with constants depending on α\alpha only through p(bα)p(b_\alpha). Lemma 9.2 finishes the proof. ▫\square

In particular the wave front set of TaUT_aU lies in the conormal bundle of the boundary, since this holds for every element of Ik(ℝn,∂ℝ+n)I^k(\mathbb R^n,\partial\mathbb R^n_+) (Section 1).

10. Boundedness on L2L^2, Sobolev and Besov spaces

Operators of order 0 are bounded on L2(ℝ+n)L^2(\mathbb R^n_+). We prove this first. Then we extend it to Sobolev spaces of integer order, using the commutator identities and duality, and to all real orders and all Besov exponents by interpolation.

Boundedness on L2L^2

Theorem 10.1 (Boundedness on L2L^2). If a∈Sla0a\in S^0_{\mathrm{la}}, then TaT_a extends to a bounded operator on L2(ℝ+n)L^2(\mathbb R^n_+), with norm bounded in terms of finitely many seminorms of aa.

Proof. Step A (order −n−2-n-2). For a∈Sla−n−2a\in S^{-n-2}_{\mathrm{la}}, Proposition 6.4 and the proved Schur test in Section1.1, whose raw-integral assertion applies here to Lebesgue measure, give ∥Tau∥L2(ℝ+n)≤C∥u∥L2(ℝ+n)\|T_au\|_{L^2(\mathbb R^n_+)}\leq C\|u\|_{L^2(\mathbb R^n_+)} for u∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), since Tau(x)=∫ℝ+nKa(x,y)u(y)dyT_au(x)=\int_{\mathbb R^n_+}K_a(x,y)u(y)dy. Restrictions of Schwartz functions are dense in L2(ℝ+n)L^2(\mathbb R^n_+).

Step B (doubling). Suppose every operator with symbol in Sla−2kS^{-2k}_{\mathrm{la}} is bounded, and let a∈Sla−ka\in S^{-k}_{\mathrm{la}}. For u∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), Theorems 7.3 and 8.1 give ∥Tau∥2=(Ta†Tau,u)=(Tcu,u)\|T_au\|^2=(T_{a^\dagger}T_au,u)=(T_cu,u) with c=a†#a∈Sla−2kc=a^\dagger\#a\in S^{-2k}_{\mathrm{la}} (writing #\# for the composition symbol of Theorem 8.1). So ∥Tau∥2≤∥Tc∥∥u∥2\|T_au\|^2\leq\|T_c\|\,\|u\|^2.

Step C. By Steps A–B, operators with symbols in Sla−kS^{-k}_{\mathrm{la}} are bounded for k≥(n+2)/2k\geq(n+2)/2, then for k≥(n+2)/4k\geq(n+2)/4, and so on; after finitely many steps, for every k>0k>0.

Step D (order 0). Let a∈Sla0a\in S^0_{\mathrm{la}} and M>sup⁡|a|M>\sup|a|. The function c0=(M2−|a|2)1/2−Mc_0=(M^2-|a|^2)^{1/2}-M lies in S+0S^0_+: it is G(a,a¯)G(a,\overline a) with GG smooth on a neighbourhood of the closed range and G(0)=0G(0)=0, so by the chain rule every derivative is a sum of products containing at least one derivative of aa (or aa itself, since |G(a)|≤C|a||G(a)|\leq C|a|), which gives the decay in xnx_n. Let c=(c0)ρ∈Sla0c=(c_0)_\rho\in S^0_{\mathrm{la}} (Lemma 4.4). For u∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), ∥(M+Tc)u∥2+∥Tau∥2=M2∥u∥2+(Tru,u),r=M(c+c†)+c†#c+a†#a, \|(M+T_c)u\|^2+\|T_au\|^2=M^2\|u\|^2+(T_ru,u),\qquad r=M(c+c^\dagger)+c^\dagger\#c+a^\dagger\#a, using 2Re⁡(Tcu,u)=(Tc+c†u,u)2\operatorname{Re}(T_cu,u)=(T_{c+c^\dagger}u,u), ∥Tcu∥2=(Tc†#cu,u)\|T_cu\|^2=(T_{c^\dagger\#c}u,u) and ∥Tau∥2=(Ta†#au,u)\|T_au\|^2=(T_{a^\dagger\#a}u,u). The symbol rr is lacunary. Its leading part, by Theorem 7.3(a) and (8.3), is 2Mc0+c02+|a|22Mc_0+c_0^2+|a|^2 modulo S+−1S^{-1}_+ (recall c−c0∈S+−∞c-c_0\in S^{-\infty}_+ and c0c_0 is real). This equals (M+c0)2−M2+|a|2=0(M+c_0)^2-M^2+|a|^2=0. So r∈Sla−1r\in S^{-1}_{\mathrm{la}}, TrT_r is bounded by Step C, and ∥Tau∥2≤(M2+∥Tr∥)∥u∥2\|T_au\|^2\leq(M^2+\|T_r\|)\|u\|^2. ▫\square

Matrix-valued symbols. For aa with values in L(ℂp,ℂq)L(\mathbb C^p,\mathbb C^q) take M>sup⁡∥a∥M>\sup\|a\| and c0=(M2Ip−a*a)1/2−MIp,CM(A)=M∑k=1∞(1/2k)(−A*A/M2)k. c_0=(M^2I_p-a^*a)^{1/2}-M I_p, \qquad C_M(A)=M\sum_{k=1}^\infty\binom{1/2}{k} (-A^*A/M^2)^k . The full square-root series, including its constant term, is (M2Ip−A*A)1/2=M∑k=0∞(1/2k)(−A*A/M2)k=MIp+CM(A). (M^2I_p-A^*A)^{1/2} =M\sum_{k=0}^\infty\binom{1/2}{k}(-A^*A/M^2)^k =M I_p+C_M(A). The square root is positive; c0c_0 is its displayed difference from MIpM I_p. For ∥A∥≤r<M\|A\|\le r<M, the ordered power series and all its real and imaginary entry derivatives converge uniformly. Its first term is −A*A/(2M)-A^*A/(2M); hence CM(0)=0C_M(0)=0 and its first derivative at zero is zero. The square root itself equals MIpM I_p there. The product and chain rules, with the uniform derivative bounds on this ball, prove c0∈S+0c_0\in S^0_+. The leading symbol of rr, with all identities explicit, is M(c0+c0*)+c0*c0+a*a=(MIp+c0)2−M2Ip+a*a=0. M(c_0+c_0^*)+c_0^*c_0+a^*a =(M I_p+c_0)^2-M^2I_p+a^*a=0 . Thus the same ordered proof applies, with the input and output vector dimensions retained.

Sobolev spaces on the half space

Let Ḣ(s)(ℝ¯+n)={u∈H(s):supp⁡u⊂ℝ¯+n}\dot H_{(s)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+)=\{u\in H_{(s)}:\operatorname{supp}u\subset\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+\}, with the norm of H(s)H_{(s)}, and let H¯(s)(ℝ+n)\overline H_{(s)}(\mathbb R^n_+) be the space of restrictions, with ∥u∥H¯(s)=inf⁡{∥U∥(s):U=u in ℝ+n}\|u\|_{\overline H_{(s)}}=\inf\{\|U\|_{(s)}:U=u\text{ in }\mathbb R^n_+\}. Define Ḃ2,ps(ℝ¯+n)\dot B^s_{2,p}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) in the same way as Ḣ(s)\dot H_{(s)}. We prove the three facts about these spaces that we need.

Proposition 10.2 (Sobolev spaces on the half space).

  1. C0∞(ℝ+n)C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+) is dense in Ḣ(s)(ℝ¯+n)\dot H_{(s)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), and 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) is dense in H¯(s)(ℝ+n)\overline H_{(s)}(\mathbb R^n_+), for every real ss.

  2. The sesquilinear form (u,v)=(2π)−n∫ûV̂¯dξ(u,v)=(2\pi)^{-n}\int\widehat u\,\overline{\widehat V}\,d\xi, for u∈Ḣ(s)(ℝ¯+n)u\in\dot H_{(s)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) and V∈H(−s)V\in H_{(-s)} any extension of v∈H¯(−s)(ℝ+n)v\in\overline H_{(-s)}(\mathbb R^n_+), is well defined. It identifies each of Ḣ(s)(ℝ¯+n)\dot H_{(s)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) and H¯(−s)(ℝ+n)\overline H_{(-s)}(\mathbb R^n_+) isometrically with the antidual of the other. For u∈𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)u\in\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), v∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)v\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) it equals ∫ℝ+nuv¯\int_{\mathbb R^n_+}u\overline v.

  3. Let k≥0k\geq0 be an integer. For u∈Ḣ(k)(ℝ¯+n)u\in\dot H_{(k)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), ∥u∥(k)2=∑|α|≤kk!α!(k−|α|)!∥Dαu∥L22\|u\|_{(k)}^2=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq k}\frac{k!}{\alpha!(k-|\alpha|)!}\|D^\alpha u\|^2_{L^2}. For u∈H¯(k)(ℝ+n)u\in\overline H_{(k)}(\mathbb R^n_+), with Nk(u)2=∑|α|≤k∥Dαu∥L2(ℝ+n)2N_k(u)^2=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq k}\|D^\alpha u\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb R^n_+)}, C−1Nk(u)≤∥u∥H¯(k)≤CNk(u).(10.1) C^{-1}N_k(u)\leq\|u\|_{\overline H_{(k)}}\leq C\,N_k(u). \tag{10.1}

Proof. (a) Let u∈Ḣ(s)u\in\dot H_{(s)}. The translates uh=u(⋅−hen)u_h=u(\cdot-he_n), supported in xn≥hx_n\geq h, converge to uu in H(s)H_{(s)} as h↓0h\downarrow0, by dominated convergence on the Fourier side. Mollifying with a kernel supported in {|x|<h/2}\{|x|<h/2\} gives smooth functions supported in xn≥h/2x_n\geq h/2, converging in H(s)H_{(s)}; these lie in H(σ)H_{(\sigma)} for every σ\sigma. Cutting off with θ(x/R)\theta(x/R) converges in H(k)H_{(k)} for integers k≥sk\geq s (Leibniz’ rule and dominated convergence), hence in H(s)H_{(s)}. The second statement holds because 𝒮\mathcal S is dense in H(s)H_{(s)} and restriction is continuous and onto.

  1. H(s)H_{(s)} and H(−s)H_{(-s)} are each other’s antiduals, isometrically, under this form: Cauchy–Schwarz with the weights ⟨ξ⟩±s\langle\xi\rangle^{\pm s}, with equality for V̂=⟨ξ⟩2sû\widehat V=\langle\xi\rangle^{2s}\widehat u. If V=0V=0 in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+, then (φ,V)=0(\varphi,V)=0 for φ∈C0∞(ℝ+n)\varphi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+), and by (a) (u,V)=0(u,V)=0 for all u∈Ḣ(s)u\in\dot H_{(s)}; so the form is well defined, and the annihilator of Ḣ(s)\dot H_{(s)} in H(−s)H_{(-s)} is exactly {V:V=0 in ℝ+n}\{V:V=0\text{ in }\mathbb R^n_+\}. A continuous antilinear functional on the closed subspace Ḣ(s)\dot H_{(s)} extends with the same norm to H(s)H_{(s)} (orthogonal projection) and is then represented by some VV; two representatives differ by an element of the annihilator. So the antidual of Ḣ(s)\dot H_{(s)} is H(−s)H_{(-s)} modulo the annihilator, that is H¯(−s)\overline H_{(-s)}, and the norms agree (the infimum over the coset is at most the norm of the norm-preserving extension). Conversely, a functional on the quotient H¯(−s)\overline H_{(-s)} is a functional on H(−s)H_{(-s)} vanishing on the annihilator; it is represented by u∈H(s)u\in H_{(s)} orthogonal to the annihilator, and the double annihilator of the closed subspace Ḣ(s)\dot H_{(s)} is itself. The last statement is Plancherel.

  2. The identity is Plancherel with (1+|ξ|2)k=∑|α|≤kk!α!(k−|α|)!ξ2α(1+|\xi|^2)^k=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq k}\frac{k!}{\alpha!(k-|\alpha|)!}\xi^{2\alpha}. For (10.1), any extension UU gives Nk(u)2≤∑|α|≤k∥DαU∥L2(ℝn)2≤C∥U∥(k)2N_k(u)^2\leq\sum_{|\alpha|\leq k}\|D^\alpha U\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb R^n)}\leq C\|U\|^2_{(k)}. For the other inequality, let c1,…,ck+1c_1,\ldots,c_{k+1} solve the Vandermonde system ∑l=1k+1cl(−l)i=1\sum_{l=1}^{k+1}c_l(-l)^i=1, i=0,…,ki=0,\ldots,k (the nodes −1,…,−(k+1)-1,\ldots,-(k+1) are distinct). For u∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) let Eu=uEu=u on xn≥0x_n\geq0 and Eu(x)=∑lclu(x′,−lxn)Eu(x)=\sum_lc_lu(x',-lx_n) for xn<0x_n<0. The normal derivatives of order i≤ki\leq k from both sides agree on xn=0x_n=0, so Eu∈CkEu\in C^k, and ∥DαEu∥L2(ℝ−n)≤∑l|cl|lαn−1/2∥Dαu∥L2(ℝ+n)\|D^\alpha Eu\|_{L^2(\mathbb R^n_-)}\leq\sum_l|c_l|l^{\alpha_n-1/2}\|D^\alpha u\|_{L^2(\mathbb R^n_+)}. Hence ∥u∥H¯(k)≤∥Eu∥(k)≤CNk(u)\|u\|_{\overline H_{(k)}}\leq\|Eu\|_{(k)}\leq CN_k(u) on the dense set 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), and by continuity of both sides everywhere. ▫\square

Sobolev continuity at integer orders

Theorem 10.3 (Integer orders). Let a∈Sla0a\in S^0_{\mathrm{la}} and k∈ℤk\in\mathbb Z. Then TaT_a is bounded on Ḣ(k)(ℝ¯+n)\dot H_{(k)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) and on H¯(k)(ℝ+n)\overline H_{(k)}(\mathbb R^n_+). These bounded operators are the restrictions of the maps of Theorem 9.1.

Proof. Iterating the commutator identities (5.1) gives, for every α\alpha, DαTa=∑|β|≤|α|TcαβDβon 𝒮¯(ℝ+n),cαβ∈Sla0,(10.2) D^\alpha T_a=\sum_{|\beta|\leq|\alpha|}T_{c_{\alpha\beta}}D^\beta\quad\text{on }\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+),\qquad c_{\alpha\beta}\in S^0_{\mathrm{la}}, \tag{10.2} each cαβc_{\alpha\beta} being a constant-coefficient combination of xx- and ξn\xi_n-derivatives of aa, linear in aa. (Indeed DjTc=TcDj−iT∂xjc−iδjnT∂ξncDnD_jT_c=T_cD_j-iT_{\partial_{x_j}c}-i\delta_{jn}T_{\partial_{\xi_n}c}D_n, and ∂ξnc∈Sla−1⊂Sla0\partial_{\xi_n}c\in S^{-1}_{\mathrm{la}}\subset S^0_{\mathrm{la}}.)

Nonnegative kk, supported spaces. For u∈𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)u\in\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), Tau∈𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)T_au\in\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) (Theorem 5.1(d)), and its derivatives on ℝn\mathbb R^n are the zero extensions of the derivatives in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+. By Proposition 10.2(c), (10.2) and Theorem 10.1, ∥Tau∥(k)2≤C∑|α|≤k∥DαTau∥L2(ℝ+n)2≤C′∑|β|≤k∥Dβu∥L22≤C″∥u∥(k)2\|T_au\|_{(k)}^2\leq C\sum_{|\alpha|\leq k}\|D^\alpha T_au\|^2_{L^2(\mathbb R^n_+)}\leq C'\sum_{|\beta|\leq k}\|D^\beta u\|^2_{L^2}\leq C''\|u\|^2_{(k)}. By density (Proposition 10.2(a)) TaT_a extends to Ḣ(k)\dot H_{(k)}.

Nonnegative kk, restricted spaces. For u∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), (10.1), (10.2) and Theorem 10.1 give ∥Tau∥H¯(k)≤CNk(Tau)≤C′Nk(u)≤C″∥u∥H¯(k)\|T_au\|_{\overline H_{(k)}}\leq CN_k(T_au)\leq C'N_k(u)\leq C''\|u\|_{\overline H_{(k)}}; then use density.

Negative kk. Let k≥0k\geq0. For u∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) and v∈𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)v\in\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), Theorem 7.3 gives (Tau,v)=(u,Ta†v)(T_au,v)=(u,T_{a^\dagger}v), so |(Tau,v)|≤∥u∥H¯(−k)∥Ta†v∥(k)≤C∥u∥H¯(−k)∥v∥(k)|(T_au,v)|\leq\|u\|_{\overline H_{(-k)}}\|T_{a^\dagger}v\|_{(k)}\leq C\|u\|_{\overline H_{(-k)}}\|v\|_{(k)} by the supported case for a†∈Sla0a^\dagger\in S^0_{\mathrm{la}}. By Proposition 10.2(a),(b), ∥Tau∥H¯(−k)≤C∥u∥H¯(−k)\|T_au\|_{\overline H_{(-k)}}\leq C\|u\|_{\overline H_{(-k)}}, and density extends TaT_a. In the same way, for u∈𝒮̇(ℝ¯+n)u\in\dot{\mathcal S}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) and v∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)v\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), |(Tau,v)|≤∥u∥(−k)∥Ta†v∥H¯(k)≤C∥u∥(−k)∥v∥H¯(k)|(T_au,v)|\leq\|u\|_{(-k)}\|T_{a^\dagger}v\|_{\overline H_{(k)}}\leq C\|u\|_{(-k)}\|v\|_{\overline H_{(k)}}, which bounds TaT_a on Ḣ(−k)\dot H_{(-k)}.

Consistency. The maps of Theorem 9.1 are weakly continuous, the spaces here embed continuously into 𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) or 𝒮′¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S'}(\mathbb R^n_+), and the two definitions agree on the dense subspaces used above. ▫\square

All real orders and all Besov exponents

Lemma 10.4 (A mollifier supported in the half space). Let ϕ∈C0∞(ℝ+n)\phi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+) with ∫ϕ=1\int\phi=1, and put ψ=2ϕ−ϕ*ϕ\psi=2\phi-\phi*\phi. Then ψ∈C0∞(ℝ+n)\psi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+), ψ̂=1−(1−ϕ̂)2\widehat\psi=1-(1-\widehat\phi)^2, and for all ζ∈ℝn\zeta\in\mathbb R^n |ψ̂(ζ)|≤Cmin⁡(1,|ζ|−2),|1−ψ̂(ζ)|≤Cmin⁡(1,|ζ|2).(10.3) |\widehat\psi(\zeta)|\leq C\min(1,|\zeta|^{-2}),\qquad|1-\widehat\psi(\zeta)|\leq C\min(1,|\zeta|^2). \tag{10.3} With ψε(x)=ε−nψ(x/ε)\psi_\varepsilon(x)=\varepsilon^{-n}\psi(x/\varepsilon) and |s|≤12|s|\leq\tfrac12, ∫01|ψ̂(εξ)|2ε1−2sdε≤C⟨ξ⟩2s−2,∫01|1−ψ̂(εξ)|2ε−3−2sdε≤C⟨ξ⟩2s+2.(10.4) \int_0^1|\widehat\psi(\varepsilon\xi)|^2\varepsilon^{1-2s}d\varepsilon\leq C\langle\xi\rangle^{2s-2},\qquad \int_0^1|1-\widehat\psi(\varepsilon\xi)|^2\varepsilon^{-3-2s}d\varepsilon\leq C\langle\xi\rangle^{2s+2}. \tag{10.4}

Proof. supp⁡(ϕ*ϕ)⊂supp⁡ϕ+supp⁡ϕ⊂ℝ+n\operatorname{supp}(\phi*\phi)\subset\operatorname{supp}\phi+\operatorname{supp}\phi\subset\mathbb R^n_+. ψ̂\widehat\psi is a Schwartz function, and |1−ϕ̂(ζ)|≤Cmin⁡(1,|ζ|)|1-\widehat\phi(\zeta)|\leq C\min(1,|\zeta|) since ϕ̂(0)=1\widehat\phi(0)=1; this gives (10.3). For (10.4) with |ξ|≤1|\xi|\leq1: the first integral is at most C∫01ε1−2sdε<∞C\int_0^1\varepsilon^{1-2s}d\varepsilon<\infty (as 1−2s≥01-2s\geq0), and the second at most C|ξ|4∫01ε1−2sdεC|\xi|^4\int_0^1\varepsilon^{1-2s}d\varepsilon. For |ξ|≥1|\xi|\geq1 substitute u=ε|ξ|u=\varepsilon|\xi| and extend to (0,∞)(0,\infty): the integrals become |ξ|2s−2∫0∞min⁡(1,u−4)u1−2sdu|\xi|^{2s-2}\int_0^\infty\min(1,u^{-4})u^{1-2s}du and |ξ|2s+2∫0∞min⁡(1,u4)u−3−2sdu|\xi|^{2s+2}\int_0^\infty\min(1,u^4)u^{-3-2s}du, which converge because 1−2s>−11-2s>-1, −3−2s<−1-3-2s<-1 and −3+4−2s>−1-3+4-2s>-1. ▫\square

The quadratic vanishing of 1−ψ̂1-\widehat\psi at 0 is needed for s≥0s\geq0, and it cannot be had with ψ≥0\psi\geq0: see Example 10.5. That is why ψ\psi is built from ϕ\phi in this way.

Example 10.5 (A positive mollifier is not good enough). Let 0≤ϕ∈C0∞(ℝ+n)0\leq\phi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+) with ∫ϕ=1\int\phi=1. Its first moment m=∫xϕdxm=\int x\phi\,dx has mn>0m_n>0, and ϕ̂(ζ)=1−iζ⋅m+O(|ζ|2)\widehat\phi(\zeta)=1-i\zeta\cdot m+O(|\zeta|^2). For ξ=λen\xi=\lambda e_n we get |1−ϕ̂(εξ)|≥mnελ/2|1-\widehat\phi(\varepsilon\xi)|\geq m_n\varepsilon\lambda/2 when ελ\varepsilon\lambda is small, so ∫01|1−ϕ̂(εξ)|2ε−3−2sdε=∞\int_0^1|1-\widehat\phi(\varepsilon\xi)|^2\varepsilon^{-3-2s}d\varepsilon=\infty for s≥0s\geq0. So the second inequality of (10.4) fails for ϕ\phi, and it fails for every ψ≥0\psi\geq0 supported in ℝ+n\mathbb R^n_+: quadratic vanishing forces ∫xnψ=0\int x_n\psi=0, which is impossible when ψ≥0\psi\geq0 and xn>0x_n>0 on the support. The function ψ=2ϕ−ϕ*ϕ\psi=2\phi-\phi*\phi of Lemma 10.4 takes negative values.

Theorem 10.6 (Sobolev and Besov continuity). Let a∈Sla0a\in S^0_{\mathrm{la}}, σ∈ℝ\sigma\in\mathbb R and 1≤p≤∞1\leq p\leq\infty. Then TaT_a is bounded on Ḃ2,pσ(ℝ¯+n)\dot B^\sigma_{2,p}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). In particular:

  1. (p=2p=2) TaT_a is bounded on Ḣ(σ)(ℝ¯+n)\dot H_{(\sigma)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), and, by duality with a†a^\dagger (Proposition 10.2(b)), on H¯(σ)(ℝ+n)\overline H_{(\sigma)}(\mathbb R^n_+), for every real σ\sigma.
  2. (p=∞p=\infty) TaT_a is bounded on Ḃ2,∞σ(ℝ¯+n)\dot B^\sigma_{2,\infty}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+).

First proof, for p=2p=2 (continuous interpolation). Write σ=k+s\sigma=k+s with k∈ℤk\in\mathbb Z, |s|≤12|s|\leq\tfrac12, and let u∈Ḣ(σ)(ℝ¯+n)u\in\dot H_{(\sigma)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). The pieces ψε*u\psi_\varepsilon*u and u−ψε*uu-\psi_\varepsilon*u are supported in ℝ¯+n\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+, because supp⁡ψ⊂ℝ+n\operatorname{supp}\psi\subset\mathbb R^n_+; they lie in Ḣ(k+1)\dot H_{(k+1)} and Ḣ(k−1)\dot H_{(k-1)}. By (10.4) and Fubini, ∫01(∥ψε*u∥(k+1)2ε1−2s+∥u−ψε*u∥(k−1)2ε−3−2s)dε≤C∥u∥(σ)2. \int_0^1\Big(\|\psi_\varepsilon*u\|^2_{(k+1)}\varepsilon^{1-2s}+\|u-\psi_\varepsilon*u\|^2_{(k-1)}\varepsilon^{-3-2s}\Big)d\varepsilon\leq C\|u\|^2_{(\sigma)} . Put vε=Ta(ψε*u)v_\varepsilon=T_a(\psi_\varepsilon*u), wε=Ta(u−ψε*u)w_\varepsilon=T_a(u-\psi_\varepsilon*u) and U=Tau=vε+wεU=T_au=v_\varepsilon+w_\varepsilon. By Theorem 10.3 the same integral with vε,wεv_\varepsilon,w_\varepsilon in place of the two pieces is at most C′∥u∥(σ)2C'\|u\|^2_{(\sigma)}. If 12<ε⟨ξ⟩<1\tfrac12<\varepsilon\langle\xi\rangle<1, then |Û(ξ)|2≤C(|vε̂(ξ)|2(ε⟨ξ⟩)2k+2+|wε̂(ξ)|2(ε⟨ξ⟩)2k−2)|\widehat U(\xi)|^2\leq C\big(|\widehat{v_\varepsilon}(\xi)|^2(\varepsilon\langle\xi\rangle)^{2k+2}+|\widehat{w_\varepsilon}(\xi)|^2(\varepsilon\langle\xi\rangle)^{2k-2}\big). Multiply by ε−1−2σ\varepsilon^{-1-2\sigma} and integrate over these ε\varepsilon (all in (0,1](0,1]): the left side becomes cσ⟨ξ⟩2σ|Û(ξ)|2c_\sigma\langle\xi\rangle^{2\sigma}|\widehat U(\xi)|^2 with cσ=∫1/21u−1−2σdu>0c_\sigma=\int_{1/2}^1u^{-1-2\sigma}du>0, and the right side is at most the integrand of the previous display, evaluated for vε,wεv_\varepsilon,w_\varepsilon at the frequency ξ\xi. Integrating in ξ\xi gives ∥U∥(σ)2≤C″∥u∥(σ)2\|U\|^2_{(\sigma)}\leq C''\|u\|^2_{(\sigma)}. ▫\square

Second proof, for all pp (dyadic form). Let σ=k+s\sigma=k+s as before and u∈Ḃ2,pσ(ℝ¯+n)u\in\dot B^\sigma_{2,p}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). Since B2,pσ⊂H(σ−δ)B^\sigma_{2,p}\subset H_{(\sigma-\delta)} for every δ>0\delta>0 (the squares 22j(σ−δ)∥Πju∥L222^{2j(\sigma-\delta)}\|\Pi_ju\|^2_{L^2} are at most 2−2jδ2^{-2j\delta} times the square of the norm in B2,pσB^\sigma_{2,p}, so they are summable) and s>−1s>-1, u∈Ḣ(k−1)u\in\dot H_{(k-1)}. For each j≥0j\geq0 put εj=2−j\varepsilon_j=2^{-j}, vj=ψεj*u∈Ḣ(k+1)v_j=\psi_{\varepsilon_j}*u\in\dot H_{(k+1)}, wj=u−vj∈Ḣ(k−1)w_j=u-v_j\in\dot H_{(k-1)}. Then Tau=Tavj+TawjT_au=T_av_j+T_aw_j (the maps of Theorems 9.1 and 10.3 agree), and, since ⟨ξ⟩\langle\xi\rangle is comparable to 2j2^j on AjA_j, 2jσ∥ΠjTau∥L2≤C(2j(s−1)∥Tavj∥(k+1)+2j(s+1)∥Tawj∥(k−1))≤C′(2j(s−1)∥vj∥(k+1)+2j(s+1)∥wj∥(k−1)). 2^{j\sigma}\|\Pi_jT_au\|_{L^2}\leq C\big(2^{j(s-1)}\|T_av_j\|_{(k+1)}+2^{j(s+1)}\|T_aw_j\|_{(k-1)}\big)\leq C'\big(2^{j(s-1)}\|v_j\|_{(k+1)}+2^{j(s+1)}\|w_j\|_{(k-1)}\big). On AlA_l, |ψ̂(2−jξ)|≤Cmin⁡(1,22(j−l))|\widehat\psi(2^{-j}\xi)|\leq C\min(1,2^{2(j-l)}) and |1−ψ̂(2−jξ)|≤Cmin⁡(1,22(l−j))|1-\widehat\psi(2^{-j}\xi)|\leq C\min(1,2^{2(l-j)}) by (10.3). With yl=2lσ∥Πlu∥L2y_l=2^{l\sigma}\|\Pi_lu\|_{L^2} this gives 2j(s−1)∥vj∥(k+1)≤C(∑l[2(j−l)(s−1)min⁡(1,22(j−l))]2yl2)1/2,2j(s+1)∥wj∥(k−1)≤C(∑l[2(j−l)(s+1)min⁡(1,22(l−j))]2yl2)1/2. 2^{j(s-1)}\|v_j\|_{(k+1)}\leq C\Big(\sum_l\big[2^{(j-l)(s-1)}\min(1,2^{2(j-l)})\big]^2y_l^2\Big)^{1/2},\quad 2^{j(s+1)}\|w_j\|_{(k-1)}\leq C\Big(\sum_l\big[2^{(j-l)(s+1)}\min(1,2^{2(l-j)})\big]^2y_l^2\Big)^{1/2}. For |s|≤12|s|\leq\tfrac12 both brackets are at most 2−|j−l|/22^{-|j-l|/2}: for j≥lj\geq l they are 2(j−l)(s−1)2^{(j-l)(s-1)} and 2(j−l)(s−1)2^{(j-l)(s-1)}; for j<lj<l they are 2(j−l)(s+1)2^{(j-l)(s+1)} and 2(j−l)(s+1)2^{(j-l)(s+1)}. Since (∑lclyl2)1/2≤∑lcl1/2yl(\sum_lc_ly_l^2)^{1/2}\leq\sum_lc_l^{1/2}y_l, we get xj:=2jσ∥ΠjTau∥L2≤C∑l2−|j−l|/2ylx_j:=2^{j\sigma}\|\Pi_jT_au\|_{L^2}\leq C\sum_l2^{-|j-l|/2}y_l. Convolution with the summable sequence 2−|m|/22^{-|m|/2} is bounded on ℓp(ℤ)\ell^p(\mathbb Z) for every 1≤p≤∞1\leq p\leq\infty, by the triangle inequality for translates (Section 1), so ∥Tau∥B2,pσ≤C∥u∥B2,pσ\|T_au\|_{B^\sigma_{2,p}}\leq C\|u\|_{B^\sigma_{2,p}}. Finally TauT_au is supported in ℝ¯+n\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+. ▫\square

The dyadic proof treats all 1≤p≤∞1\leq p\leq\infty at once and contains the case p=2p=2.

11. Conormal distributions are preserved

Let 𝒫b\mathcal P_b be the set of operators P=∑|α|≤Mcα(x)xnαnDαP=\sum_{|\alpha|\leq M}c_\alpha(x)x_n^{\alpha_n}D^\alpha with cα∈Cb∞(ℝn)c_\alpha\in C^\infty_b(\mathbb R^n) and any MM. For κ∈ℝ\kappa\in\mathbb R put 𝒜κ={u∈𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n):Pu∈B2,∞κ(ℝn) for every P∈𝒫b},(11.1) \mathcal A^\kappa=\big\{u\in\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+):\ Pu\in B^\kappa_{2,\infty}(\mathbb R^n)\text{ for every }P\in\mathcal P_b\big\}, \tag{11.1} the distributions supported in the closed half space that are conormal to the boundary uniformly at infinity.

Lemma 11.1 (Exact compositions). Let a∈Slama\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}}.

  1. If P∈𝒫bP\in\mathcal P_b has order ≤M\leq M, then PTa=Tp⋆aPT_a=T_{p\star a} on 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), where p⋆a=∑αcα(x)∏j<n(ξj+Dxj)αjqαn(ξn+xnDxn+ξnDξn)a∈Slam+M,(11.2) p\star a=\sum_\alpha c_\alpha(x)\prod_{j<n}(\xi_j+D_{x_j})^{\alpha_j}\;q_{\alpha_n}\big(\xi_n+x_nD_{x_n}+\xi_nD_{\xi_n}\big)\,a\in S^{m+M}_{\mathrm{la}}, \tag{11.2} with qkq_k from (2.1).

  2. Let M≥0M\geq0 be even and Q(ξ)=|ξ|MQ(\xi)=|\xi|^M. Then TQ:=∑|β|=M/2(M/2)!β!D′2β′xn2βnDn2βn∈𝒫bT_Q:=\sum_{|\beta|=M/2}\frac{(M/2)!}{\beta!}D'^{2\beta'}x_n^{2\beta_n}D_n^{2\beta_n}\in\mathcal P_b is the operator with compressed symbol Q♭=(|ξ′|2+xn2ξn2)M/2Q^\flat=(|\xi'|^2+x_n^2\xi_n^2)^{M/2}, and for f∈Slaμf\in S^\mu_{\mathrm{la}} TfTQ=Tf∘Q,f∘Q=∑|β|=M/2(M/2)!β!ξ′2β′ξn2βn(1−i∂ξn)2βnf∈Slaμ+M,f∘Q−Qf∈S+μ+M−1.(11.3) T_fT_Q=T_{f\circ Q},\qquad f\circ Q=\sum_{|\beta|=M/2}\frac{(M/2)!}{\beta!}\,\xi'^{2\beta'}\xi_n^{2\beta_n}(1-i\partial_{\xi_n})^{2\beta_n}f\in S^{\mu+M}_{\mathrm{la}},\qquad f\circ Q-Qf\in S^{\mu+M-1}_+ . \tag{11.3}

  3. If c∈Slaμc\in S^\mu_{\mathrm{la}} and M≥0M\geq0 is an even integer with M>μM>\mu, then c=f∘Q+gc=f\circ Q+g with f,g∈Sla0f,g\in S^0_{\mathrm{la}}.

Proof. (a) By (5.3), Dxj(eix⋅ξc♭)=eix⋅ξ((ξj+Dxj)c)♭D_{x_j}(e^{ix\cdot\xi}c^\flat)=e^{ix\cdot\xi}((\xi_j+D_{x_j})c)^\flat for j<nj<n, and xnDxn(eix⋅ξc♭)=eix⋅ξ((ξn+xnDxn+ξnDξn)c)♭x_nD_{x_n}(e^{ix\cdot\xi}c^\flat)=e^{ix\cdot\xi}((\xi_n+x_nD_{x_n}+\xi_nD_{\xi_n})c)^\flat, because xnξnc♭=(ξnc)♭x_n\xi_nc^\flat=(\xi_nc)^\flat. So DjTc=T(ξj+Dxj)cD_jT_c=T_{(\xi_j+D_{x_j})c} and xnDnTc=T(ξn+xnDxn+ξnDξn)cx_nD_nT_c=T_{(\xi_n+x_nD_{x_n}+\xi_nD_{\xi_n})c}, and cα(x)Tc=Tcαcc_\alpha(x)T_c=T_{c_\alpha c}. These symbol operators preserve lacunarity and raise the order by at most one (the factor xnx_n is absorbed by the decay in xnx_n). By (2.1), xnαnDα=D′α′qαn(xnDn)x_n^{\alpha_n}D^\alpha=D'^{\alpha'}q_{\alpha_n}(x_nD_n), which gives (11.2).

  1. Expanding (|ξ′|2+xn2ξn2)M/2(|\xi'|^2+x_n^2\xi_n^2)^{M/2} and quantizing on the left gives Op⁡(Q♭)=∑(M/2)!β!xn2βnD2β=TQ\operatorname{Op}(Q^\flat)=\sum\frac{(M/2)!}{\beta!}x_n^{2\beta_n}D^{2\beta}=T_Q. By (5.5), TfD′2β′xn2βnDn2βn=Tξ′2β′ξn2βn(1−i∂ξn)2βnfT_fD'^{2\beta'}x_n^{2\beta_n}D_n^{2\beta_n}=T_{\xi'^{2\beta'}\xi_n^{2\beta_n}(1-i\partial_{\xi_n})^{2\beta_n}f}. Expanding (1−i∂ξn)2βnf=f+(terms with ∂ξn)(1-i\partial_{\xi_n})^{2\beta_n}f=f+(\text{terms with }\partial_{\xi_n}) shows f∘Q−Qf∈S+μ+M−1f\circ Q-Qf\in S^{\mu+M-1}_+.

  2. Let χ∈C0∞(ℝn)\chi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n) equal 1 near 0; then (1−χ)/Q∈S−M(1-\chi)/Q\in S^{-M}. Put g0=cg_0=c. Given gi∈Slaμ−ig_i\in S^{\mu-i}_{\mathrm{la}}, put fi=((1−χ)gi/Q)ρ∈Slaμ−i−Mf_i=\big((1-\chi)g_i/Q\big)_\rho\in S^{\mu-i-M}_{\mathrm{la}} (Lemma 4.4) and gi+1=gi−fi∘Qg_{i+1}=g_i-f_i\circ Q. Then gi+1=χgi+((1−χ)giQ−fi)Q−(fi∘Q−fiQ)∈Slaμ−i−1, g_{i+1}=\chi g_i+\Big(\frac{(1-\chi)g_i}Q-f_i\Big)Q-\big(f_i\circ Q-f_iQ\big)\in S^{\mu-i-1}_{\mathrm{la}}, since the first two terms are in S+−∞S^{-\infty}_+ and the last is in S+μ−i−1S^{\mu-i-1}_+ by (b); it is lacunary as a combination of lacunary symbols. After NN steps with μ−N≤0\mu-N\leq0, c=(∑i<Nfi)∘Q+gNc=\big(\sum_{i<N}f_i\big)\circ Q+g_N, with ∑fi∈Slaμ−M⊂Sla0\sum f_i\in S^{\mu-M}_{\mathrm{la}}\subset S^0_{\mathrm{la}} and gN∈Sla0g_N\in S^0_{\mathrm{la}}. ▫\square

Theorem 11.2 (Conormal distributions are preserved). Let κ∈ℝ\kappa\in\mathbb R and k=−κ−n/4k=-\kappa-n/4.

  1. Ik(ℝn,∂ℝ+n)∩ℰ̇′(ℝ¯+n)⊂𝒜κ⊂Ik(ℝn,∂ℝ+n)∩𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)I^k(\mathbb R^n,\partial\mathbb R^n_+)\cap\dot{\mathcal E}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+)\subset\mathcal A^\kappa\subset I^k(\mathbb R^n,\partial\mathbb R^n_+)\cap\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+).

  2. For every real mm and every a∈Slama\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}}, Ta𝒜κ⊂𝒜κT_a\mathcal A^\kappa\subset\mathcal A^\kappa.

  3. If a∈Slama\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}} and u∈Ik(ℝn,∂ℝ+n)∩ℰ̇′(ℝ¯+n)u\in I^k(\mathbb R^n,\partial\mathbb R^n_+)\cap\dot{\mathcal E}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+), then Tau∈Ik(ℝn,∂ℝ+n)∩𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)T_au\in I^k(\mathbb R^n,\partial\mathbb R^n_+)\cap\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+).

Proof. (a) Let u∈Ik∩ℰ̇′(ℝ¯+n)u\in I^k\cap\dot{\mathcal E}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) and P∈𝒫bP\in\mathcal P_b. By (2.1), P=∑cαD′α′qαn(xnDn)P=\sum c_\alpha D'^{\alpha'}q_{\alpha_n}(x_nD_n) is a sum of words in the tangent operators DjD_j (j<nj<n) and xnDnx_nD_n, times Cb∞C^\infty_b functions. By the definition of conormal distributions (Section 1), these words map uu into B2,∞,locκB^{\kappa}_{2,\infty,\mathrm{loc}}, since κ=−k−n/4\kappa=-k-n/4; and multiplication by cαc_\alpha preserves that space. PuPu has compact support, so Pu=ϑPu∈B2,∞κPu=\vartheta Pu\in B^\kappa_{2,\infty} with ϑ∈C0∞\vartheta\in C_0^\infty equal to 1 near supp⁡u\operatorname{supp}u. For the second inclusion, let L1,…,LNL_1,\ldots,L_N be first-order operators on ℝn\mathbb R^n whose principal symbols vanish on N*(∂ℝ+n)N^*(\partial\mathbb R^n_+), and ϑ∈C0∞(ℝn)\vartheta\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n). By Hadamard’s lemma and the commutation argument of Proposition 2.1, ϑL1⋯LN\vartheta L_1\cdots L_N is an element of 𝒫b\mathcal P_b (with compactly supported coefficients). So ϑL1⋯LNu∈B2,∞κ\vartheta L_1\cdots L_Nu\in B^\kappa_{2,\infty} for u∈𝒜κu\in\mathcal A^\kappa, which is the definition of Ik(ℝn,∂ℝ+n)I^k(\mathbb R^n,\partial\mathbb R^n_+).

  1. Let u∈𝒜κu\in\mathcal A^\kappa and P∈𝒫bP\in\mathcal P_b of order MPM_P. By Lemma 11.1(a), PTa=TcPT_a=T_c with c=p⋆a∈Slam+MPc=p\star a\in S^{m+M_P}_{\mathrm{la}}. Choose an even M>m+MPM>m+M_P, M≥0M\geq0, and write c=f∘Q+gc=f\circ Q+g as in Lemma 11.1(c). Then PTa=TfTQ+TgPT_a=T_fT_Q+T_g. These identities hold on 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), hence on 𝒮̇′(ℝ¯+n)\dot{\mathcal S}'(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+): both sides are weakly continuous and agree on C0∞(ℝ+n)C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+) (Theorem 9.1(e)). They agree there because every element of 𝒫b\mathcal P_b commutes with extension by zero: if w∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)w\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) has zero extension w0w_0, then xnαnDαw0x_n^{\alpha_n}D^\alpha w_0 and the zero extension of xnαnDαwx_n^{\alpha_n}D^\alpha w differ by terms xnαnδ(l)(xn)⊗gl(x′)x_n^{\alpha_n}\delta^{(l)}(x_n)\otimes g_l(x') with l<αnl<\alpha_n, and these vanish. With Theorem 9.1(b), both sides therefore send φ∈C0∞(ℝ+n)\varphi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+) to the zero extension of the same function. Now TQu∈B2,∞κT_Qu\in B^\kappa_{2,\infty} because TQ∈𝒫bT_Q\in\mathcal P_b, it is supported in ℝ¯+n\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+, and u∈B2,∞κu\in B^\kappa_{2,\infty} (take P=1P=1). By Theorem 10.6 with p=∞p=\infty, TfT_f and TgT_g are bounded on Ḃ2,∞κ(ℝ¯+n)\dot B^\kappa_{2,\infty}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). So PTau∈B2,∞κPT_au\in B^\kappa_{2,\infty} for every P∈𝒫bP\in\mathcal P_b, that is, Tau∈𝒜κT_au\in\mathcal A^\kappa.

  2. follows from (a) and (b). ▫\square

The order mm of aa plays no role: conormal distributions are infinitely regular in the directions of the totally characteristic operators, so any loss of order can be moved onto the elliptic b-operator TQT_Q, which conormality controls. The exact formulas (11.2)–(11.3) do not need the coefficients of PP to decay in xnx_n, as the composition theorem would; this is what allows the global class 𝒜κ\mathcal A^\kappa in (b). Without conormality nothing of this kind holds; see Example 11.3.

Example 11.3 (Besov regularity alone is not preserved at positive order). Let aa be as in Example 8.3, of order 1, and u=δ(xn−32)⊗φ(x′)u=\delta(x_n-\tfrac32)\otimes\varphi(x') with 0≠φ∈C0∞(ℝn−1)0\neq\varphi\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^{n-1}). Then u∈Ḃ2,∞−1/2(ℝ¯+n)u\in\dot B^{-1/2}_{2,\infty}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) and uu has compact support, but uu is not conormal to the boundary. The exact distributional identity is Tau=xnDnu=−iφ(x′)(32δ′(xn−32)−δ(xn−32)),Taû(ξ′,ξn)=φ̂(ξ′)e−3iξn/2(32ξn+i). T_au=x_nD_nu=-i\varphi(x')\big(\tfrac32\delta'(x_n-\tfrac32)-\delta(x_n-\tfrac32)\big), \qquad \widehat{T_au}(\xi',\xi_n) =\widehat\varphi(\xi')e^{-3i\xi_n/2}\big(\tfrac32\xi_n+i\big).

Editorial correction to the Fourier lower bound. It holds on a bounded tangential set where |φ̂||\widehat\varphi| is bounded below, rather than at every point of {|ξ′|≤1}\{|\xi'|\le1\}. Since Fourier inversion and φ≠0\varphi\neq0 imply φ̂≢0\widehat\varphi\not\equiv0, continuity gives a bounded set EE of positive measure and a constant c>0c>0 with |φ̂|≥c|\widehat\varphi|\ge c on EE. In dimension one, E=ℝ0E=\mathbb R^0, with its measure one and the nonzero scalar φ\varphi. For sufficiently large jj, E×[352j,452j]⊂Aj,∥ΠjTau∥22≥(2π)−nc2|E|∫(3/5)2j(4/5)2j(94ξn2+1)dξn≥C23j. E\times[\tfrac35\,2^j,\tfrac45\,2^j]\subset A_j, \qquad \|\Pi_jT_au\|_2^2 \ge (2\pi)^{-n}c^2|E| \int_{(3/5)2^j}^{(4/5)2^j} \big(\tfrac94\xi_n^2+1\big)\,d\xi_n \ge C2^{3j}. Thus 2−j/2∥ΠjTau∥2≥C′2j2^{-j/2}\|\Pi_jT_au\|_2\ge C'2^j, so Tau∉B2,∞−1/2T_au\notin B^{-1/2}_{2,\infty}. For the original input, integration over AjA_j is bounded above by integration over |ξn|<2j|\xi_n|<2^j and all tangential frequencies, giving ∥Πju∥22≤(2π)−n2j+1∥φ̂∥22. \|\Pi_j u\|_2^2 \le (2\pi)^{-n}2^{j+1}\|\widehat\varphi\|_2^2. The order-zero annulus is finite as well, so the stated input membership follows. It is not conormal to the boundary: it is singular on xn=3/2x_n=3/2 wherever φ≠0\varphi\neq0, whereas a boundary-conormal distribution is smooth off xn=0x_n=0. Conormality is what makes the order irrelevant in Theorem 11.2.

12. Residual operators need not gain regularity

An ordinary pseudodifferential operator of order −∞-\infty maps every Sobolev space into every other. For totally characteristic operators this fails: the singularity of the kernel at the corner (Remark 6.3) can prevent any gain.

Theorem 12.1 (No gain of regularity). Let a∈Sla−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}} with resolved kernel FF (Theorem 6.2).

  1. Suppose that for some s<s′s<s' there is CC with |(Tau,v)|≤C∥u∥(s)∥v∥(−s′)(u,v∈C0∞(ℝ+n)),(12.1) |(T_au,v)|\leq C\|u\|_{(s)}\|v\|_{(-s')}\qquad(u,v\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^n_+)), \tag{12.1} which holds in particular if TaT_a maps Ḣ(s)(ℝ¯+n)\dot H_{(s)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) continuously into Ḣ(s′)(ℝ¯+n)\dot H_{(s')}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+). Then F(x′,y′,0,r)=0F(x',y',0,r)=0 for all x′,y′,rx',y',r.

  2. There are a∈Sla−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}} with F(⋅,⋅,0,⋅)≢0F(\cdot,\cdot,0,\cdot)\not\equiv0. For these, TaT_a maps no Ḣ(s)(ℝ¯+n)\dot H_{(s)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) into any Ḣ(s′)(ℝ¯+n)\dot H_{(s')}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) with s′>ss'>s.

  3. There are also a∈Sla−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}, a≠0a\neq0, for which TaT_a maps Ḣ(s)(ℝ¯+n)\dot H_{(s)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) into Ḣ(s′)(ℝ¯+n)\dot H_{(s')}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+) for all s,s′s,s'.

Proof. (a) Test functions. Let φ,ϑ∈C0∞(ℝn−1)\varphi,\vartheta\in C_0^\infty(\mathbb R^{n-1}), w,z∈C0∞((0,∞))w,z\in C_0^\infty((0,\infty)), and integers J,J′≥0J,J'\geq0. Put u(y)=φ(y′)DynJw(yn)u(y)=\varphi(y')D^J_{y_n}w(y_n), v(x)=ϑ(x′)DxnJ′z(xn)v(x)=\vartheta(x')D^{J'}_{x_n}z(x_n), and uε(y)=ε−1/2u(y′,yn/ε)u_\varepsilon(y)=\varepsilon^{-1/2}u(y',y_n/\varepsilon), vε(x)=ε−1/2v(x′,xn/ε)v_\varepsilon(x)=\varepsilon^{-1/2}v(x',x_n/\varepsilon), 0<ε≤10<\varepsilon\leq1. Then uε̂(ξ)=ε1/2û(ξ′,εξn)\widehat{u_\varepsilon}(\xi)=\varepsilon^{1/2}\widehat u(\xi',\varepsilon\xi_n), so ∥uε∥(σ)2=(2π)−n∫(1+|ξ′|2+θ2/ε2)σ|û(ξ′,θ)|2dξ′dθ. \|u_\varepsilon\|^2_{(\sigma)}=(2\pi)^{-n}\int\big(1+|\xi'|^2+\theta^2/\varepsilon^2\big)^\sigma|\widehat u(\xi',\theta)|^2\,d\xi'\,d\theta . For σ≥0\sigma\geq0 the weight is at most ε−2σ(1+|ξ′|2+θ2)σ\varepsilon^{-2\sigma}(1+|\xi'|^2+\theta^2)^\sigma. For σ<0\sigma<0 it is at most ε−2σ|θ|2σ\varepsilon^{-2\sigma}|\theta|^{2\sigma}, and |û(ξ′,θ)|=|φ̂(ξ′)||θ|J|ŵ(θ)||\widehat u(\xi',\theta)|=|\widehat\varphi(\xi')||\theta|^J|\widehat w(\theta)|, so the integral is finite if 2σ+2J>−12\sigma+2J>-1. Hence ∥uε∥(σ)≤Cε−σ\|u_\varepsilon\|_{(\sigma)}\leq C\varepsilon^{-\sigma} when J>−σ−12J>-\sigma-\tfrac12, and likewise for vεv_\varepsilon. Choosing J>−s−12J>-s-\tfrac12 and J′>s′−12J'>s'-\tfrac12, (12.1) gives |(Tauε,vε)|≤Cεs′−s→0|(T_au_\varepsilon,v_\varepsilon)|\leq C\varepsilon^{s'-s}\to0.

The limit. By Theorem 6.2(b), (Tauε,vε)=∬K(x,y)uε(y)vε(x)¯dydx(T_au_\varepsilon,v_\varepsilon)=\iint K(x,y)u_\varepsilon(y)\overline{v_\varepsilon(x)}\,dy\,dx. Substitute xn=εXx_n=\varepsilon X, yn=εYy_n=\varepsilon Y. Since εK(x′,εX,y′,εY)=2F(x′,y′,εX+Y2,r)/(X+Y)\varepsilon K(x',\varepsilon X,y',\varepsilon Y)=2F\big(x',y',\varepsilon\tfrac{X+Y}2,r\big)/(X+Y) with r=2(X−Y)/(X+Y)r=2(X-Y)/(X+Y), and FF is bounded with decay in x′−y′x'-y', while X,YX,Y stay in a compact subset of (0,∞)(0,\infty), dominated convergence gives limε→0(Tauε,vε)=∬κ(x′,y′,X,Y)u(y′,Y)v(x′,X)¯dx′dy′dXdY,κ=2F(x′,y′,0,2(X−Y)X+Y)X+Y. \lim_{\varepsilon\to0}(T_au_\varepsilon,v_\varepsilon)=\iint\kappa(x',y',X,Y)\,u(y',Y)\,\overline{v(x',X)}\,dx'\,dy'\,dX\,dY,\qquad \kappa=\frac{2F\big(x',y',0,\frac{2(X-Y)}{X+Y}\big)}{X+Y}. So this integral vanishes for all choices above.

Conclusion. Let κφϑ(X,Y)=∬κφ(y′)ϑ(x′)¯dx′dy′\kappa_{\varphi\vartheta}(X,Y)=\iint\kappa\,\varphi(y')\overline{\vartheta(x')}\,dx'\,dy', a smooth function on (0,∞)2(0,\infty)^2, homogeneous of degree −1-1. Integrating by parts in XX and YY, the vanishing says ∬(∂XJ′∂YJκφϑ)w(Y)z(X)¯dXdY=0\iint(\partial_X^{J'}\partial_Y^J\kappa_{\varphi\vartheta})\,w(Y)\overline{z(X)}\,dX\,dY=0 for all w,zw,z, so ∂XJ′∂YJκφϑ=0\partial_X^{J'}\partial_Y^J\kappa_{\varphi\vartheta}=0. Hence, for fixed YY, X↦∂YJκφϑ(X,Y)X\mapsto\partial_Y^J\kappa_{\varphi\vartheta}(X,Y) is a polynomial of degree <J′<J'. But ∂YJκφϑ(X,Y)=X−1−Jg(Y/X)\partial_Y^J\kappa_{\varphi\vartheta}(X,Y)=X^{-1-J}g(Y/X) with g(𝜚)=∂𝜚J[κφϑ(1,𝜚)]g(\varrho)=\partial_\varrho^J[\kappa_{\varphi\vartheta}(1,\varrho)], and κφϑ(1,𝜚)\kappa_{\varphi\vartheta}(1,\varrho) is smooth on [0,1][0,1] and flat at 𝜚=0\varrho=0 (as 𝜚→0\varrho\to0, r→2r\to2, where FF vanishes to infinite order); so ∂YJκφϑ(X,Y)→0\partial_Y^J\kappa_{\varphi\vartheta}(X,Y)\to0 as X→∞X\to\infty, and the polynomial is 0. So ∂YJκφϑ≡0\partial_Y^J\kappa_{\varphi\vartheta}\equiv0, and the same argument in YY (now using r→−2r\to-2) gives κφϑ≡0\kappa_{\varphi\vartheta}\equiv0. As φ,ϑ\varphi,\vartheta are arbitrary and r=2(X−Y)/(X+Y)r=2(X-Y)/(X+Y) takes every value in (−2,2)(-2,2), F(x′,y′,0,r)=0F(x',y',0,r)=0 for |r|<2|r|<2; for |r|≥2|r|\geq2 it vanishes anyway.

  1. Let θ(xn)=e−xn\theta(x_n)=e^{-x_n} and 0≠h∈C0∞({|z|<12})0\neq h\in C_0^\infty(\{|z|<\tfrac12\}), and put a(x,ξ)=θ(xn)ĥ(ξ)a(x,\xi)=\theta(x_n)\widehat h(\xi). Then a∈S+−∞a\in S^{-\infty}_+ and A(x,z)=θ(xn)h(z)A(x,z)=\theta(x_n)h(z), which vanishes for zn≥12z_n\geq\tfrac12; so aa is (strongly) lacunary. By (6.6), F(x′,y′,0,r)=2h(x′−y′,2r2+r)/(2+r)F(x',y',0,r)=2h\big(x'-y',\tfrac{2r}{2+r}\big)/(2+r), and 2r/(2+r)2r/(2+r) runs through (−∞,1)⊃(−12,12)(-\infty,1)\supset(-\tfrac12,\tfrac12) as rr runs through (−2,2)(-2,2); so F(⋅,⋅,0,⋅)≢0F(\cdot,\cdot,0,\cdot)\not\equiv0. By (a), no gain is possible.

  2. Let θ1∈C0∞((2,3))\theta_1\in C_0^\infty((2,3)), θ1≠0\theta_1\neq0, and a(x,ξ)=θ1(xn)ĥ(ξ)a(x,\xi)=\theta_1(x_n)\widehat h(\xi) with hh as in (b). On supp⁡θ1\operatorname{supp}\theta_1, xnx_n is bounded above and below, so a♭a^\flat is an ordinary symbol of order −∞-\infty on ℝn×ℝn\mathbb R^n\times\mathbb R^n, and TaT_a maps H(s)H_{(s)} into H(s′)H_{(s')} for all s,s′s,s', by the Sobolev continuity of ordinary pseudodifferential operators (Section 1). Its outputs are supported in {2≤xn≤3}\{2\leq x_n\leq3\}. Here F=0F=0 for t<1t<1. ▫\square

So a residual operator may or may not improve regularity: by (b) some gain nothing at all, and by (c) others gain every amount. The reason for (a) is dilation invariance. Near the corner the kernel is F(x′,y′,0,r)/tF(x',y',0,r)/t, homogeneous of degree −1-1 in (xn,yn)(x_n,y_n). Normal dilations u↦λ1/2u(x′,λxn)u\mapsto\lambda^{1/2}u(x',\lambda x_n) preserve the L2L^2 norm but change the Ḣ(s)\dot H_{(s)} norms of normal oscillations by different powers of λ\lambda, so an operator that commutes with them cannot gain derivatives unless it vanishes. Test functions with vanishing normal moments make the argument work at every ss: with generic bumps the norms ∥uε∥(σ)\|u_\varepsilon\|_{(\sigma)} are of size ε1/2\varepsilon^{1/2} for σ<−12\sigma<-\tfrac12, and the estimate then says nothing when s<s′<−12s<s'<-\tfrac12 or 12<s<s′\tfrac12<s<s'.

13. Exercises

Exercise 1. Express (xnDn)3(x_nD_n)^3 in the basis xnjDnjx_n^jD_n^j, and check the result on xnλx_n^\lambda for xn>0x_n>0.

Solution. Write L=xnDnL=x_nD_n. By (2.1), xn2Dn2=L2+iLx_n^2D_n^2=L^2+iL and xn3Dn3=L(L+i)(L+2i)=L3+3iL2−2Lx_n^3D_n^3=L(L+i)(L+2i)=L^3+3iL^2-2L. Hence L3=xn3Dn3−3iL2+2L=xn3Dn3−3ixn2Dn2−xnDnL^3=x_n^3D_n^3-3iL^2+2L=x_n^3D_n^3-3ix_n^2D_n^2-x_nD_n. Check: Dnxnλ=−iλxnλ−1D_nx_n^\lambda=-i\lambda x_n^{\lambda-1}, so L3xnλ=(−iλ)3xnλ=iλ3xnλL^3x_n^\lambda=(-i\lambda)^3x_n^\lambda=i\lambda^3x_n^\lambda, while the right side gives i[λ(λ−1)(λ−2)+3λ(λ−1)+λ]xnλ=iλ3xnλi[\lambda(\lambda-1)(\lambda-2)+3\lambda(\lambda-1)+\lambda]x_n^\lambda=i\lambda^3x_n^\lambda.

Exercise 2. Show that the pointwise product of two lacunary symbols need not be lacunary, although by Theorem 8.1 the composition symbol always is.

Solution. With ℱf(t)=∫e−itξf(ξ)dξ\mathcal Ff(t)=\int e^{-it\xi}f(\xi)d\xi we have ℱ(fg)=(2π)−1ℱf*ℱg\mathcal F(fg)=(2\pi)^{-1}\mathcal Ff*\mathcal Fg, so supports add. Take 0≠g∈C0∞((−0.95,−0.85))0\neq g\in C_0^\infty((-0.95,-0.85)), G∈𝒮(ℝ)G\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R) with ℱG=g\mathcal FG=g, 0≠ψ∈𝒮(ℝn−1)0\neq\psi\in\mathcal S(\mathbb R^{n-1}), and a(x,ξ)=e−xnψ(ξ′)G(ξn)∈Sla−∞a(x,\xi)=e^{-x_n}\psi(\xi')G(\xi_n)\in S^{-\infty}_{\mathrm{la}}. Then ℱn(a2)\mathcal F_n(a^2) is a multiple of g*gg*g, which is supported in (−1.9,−1.7)(-1.9,-1.7) and is not zero (its Fourier transform is a multiple of G2G^2). So a2a^2 is not lacunary.

Exercise 3. Show that on 𝒮¯(ℝ+n)\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+), for a∈Slama\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}}, [Dj,Ta]=TDxja(j<n),[xnDn,Ta]=TxnDxna, [D_j,T_a]=T_{D_{x_j}a}\ (j<n),\qquad[x_nD_n,T_a]=T_{x_nD_{x_n}a}, so commutators with the generators of Diff⁡b\operatorname{Diff}_b do not raise the order, unlike [Dn,Ta][D_n,T_a].

Solution. By the proof of Lemma 11.1(a), DjTa=T(ξj+Dxj)aD_jT_a=T_{(\xi_j+D_{x_j})a} and xnDnTa=T(ξn+xnDxn+ξnDξn)ax_nD_nT_a=T_{(\xi_n+x_nD_{x_n}+\xi_nD_{\xi_n})a}. By (5.4), TaDj=TξjaT_aD_j=T_{\xi_ja} and TaxnDn=Tξn(1−i∂ξn)a=Tξna+ξnDξnaT_ax_nD_n=T_{\xi_n(1-i\partial_{\xi_n})a}=T_{\xi_na+\xi_nD_{\xi_n}a}. Subtract. Since xnx_n is absorbed by the decay in xnx_n, xnDxna∈Slamx_nD_{x_n}a\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}}. In contrast [Dn,Ta]=−iT∂xna−iT∂ξnaDn[D_n,T_a]=-iT_{\partial_{x_n}a}-iT_{\partial_{\xi_n}a}D_n by (5.1), and DnD_n is not in Diff⁡b\operatorname{Diff}_b.

Exercise 4. For the symbol of Example 6.6, find the ratios y/xy/x at which the kernel can be nonzero, and show directly that FF is smooth for t≥0t\geq0.

Solution. h((x−y)/x)≠0h((x-y)/x)\neq0 requires |1−y/x|<12|1-y/x|<\tfrac12, that is 12<y/x<32\tfrac12<y/x<\tfrac32. In the formula for FF, h(2r/(2+r))≠0h(2r/(2+r))\neq0 requires −12<2r/(2+r)<12-\tfrac12<2r/(2+r)<\tfrac12, that is −25<r<23-\tfrac25<r<\tfrac23. On this interval 2+r≥852+r\geq\tfrac85, so FF is a product of smooth functions of (t,r)(t,r) for t≥0t\geq0, with support in −25≤r≤23-\tfrac25\leq r\leq\tfrac23; it vanishes near r=±2r=\pm2. The two descriptions agree, because y/x=(2−r)/(2+r)y/x=(2-r)/(2+r) maps (−25,23)(-\tfrac25,\tfrac23) onto (12,32)(\tfrac12,\tfrac32).

Exercise 5. Let a∈Slama\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}} and u∈𝒮¯(ℝ+n)u\in\overline{\mathcal S}(\mathbb R^n_+) with u(x′,0)=0u(x',0)=0. Show that (Tau)(x′,0)=0(T_au)(x',0)=0 and compute Dn(Tau)(x′,0)D_n(T_au)(x',0).

Solution. By (5.2) with k=0k=0, (Tau)(x′,0)=a00(x′,D′)u(⋅,0)=0(T_au)(x',0)=a_{00}(x',D')u(\cdot,0)=0. With k=1k=1, Dn(Tau)(x′,0)=a10(x′,D′)u(⋅,0)+a11(x′,D′)Dnu(⋅,0)=a11(x′,D′)(Dnu(⋅,0))D_n(T_au)(x',0)=a_{10}(x',D')u(\cdot,0)+a_{11}(x',D')D_nu(\cdot,0)=a_{11}(x',D')\big(D_nu(\cdot,0)\big), where a11(x′,ξ′)=a(x′,0,ξ′,0)+(Dξna)(x′,0,ξ′,0)a_{11}(x',\xi')=a(x',0,\xi',0)+(D_{\xi_n}a)(x',0,\xi',0). The first term is the value of the symbol at the boundary with the normal frequency compressed to 0; the second is a correction of order m−1m-1.

14. Positive order on both original Sobolev spaces

The following proof extends the zero-order bounds without changing the compressed operator or its distribution action.

The original theorem and spaces

Let m≥0m\ge0, s∈ℝs\in\mathbb R, and let a∈Slama\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}} take values in L(ℂp,ℂq)L(\mathbb C^p,\mathbb C^q), with p,qp,q fixed finite positive integers. Use the original symbol estimates |∂ξα∂xβa(x,ξ)|≤Cαβν(1+|ξ|)m−|α|(1+xn)−ν,xn≥0,ν≥0,supp⁡ℱna⊂[−1,∞).(PS1) |\partial_\xi^\alpha\partial_x^\beta a(x,\xi)| \le C_{\alpha\beta\nu} (1+|\xi|)^{m-|\alpha|}(1+x_n)^{-\nu}, \quad x_n\ge0,\quad \nu\ge0, \qquad \operatorname{supp}\mathcal F_n a\subset[-1,\infty). \tag{PS1} The forward Fourier kernel is e−ix⋅ξe^{-ix\cdot\xi}, D=−i∂D=-i\partial, and a♭(x,ξ)=a(x,ξ′,xnξn)(xn≥0),a♭(x,ξ)=0(xn<0),Tau=(2π)−n∫eix⋅ξa♭(x,ξ)û(ξ)dξ.(PS2) a^\flat(x,\xi)=a(x,\xi',x_n\xi_n)\quad(x_n\ge0),\qquad a^\flat(x,\xi)=0\quad(x_n<0),\qquad T_a u=(2\pi)^{-n}\int e^{ix\cdot\xi}a^\flat(x,\xi)\widehat u(\xi)\,d\xi . \tag{PS2} The full-space norm is ∥u∥(s)2=(2π)−n∫(1+|ξ|2)s|û(ξ)|2dξ\|u\|_{(s)}^2=(2\pi)^{-n}\int(1+|\xi|^2)^s|\widehat u(\xi)|^2\,d\xi. The supported space is the closed subspace of this H(s)H_{(s)} consisting of distributions supported in {xn≥0}\{x_n\ge0\}. The restricted space is its original ambient restriction quotient, with the infimum norm over H(s)H_{(s)} extensions. Neither space is replaced.

We prove Ta:Ḣ(s)(ℝ¯+n;ℂp)→Ḣ(s−m)(ℝ¯+n;ℂq),Ta:H¯(s)(ℝ+n;ℂp)→H¯(s−m)(ℝ+n;ℂq)(PS3) T_a:\dot H_{(s)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+;\mathbb C^p) \longrightarrow \dot H_{(s-m)}(\overline{\mathbb R}{}^n_+;\mathbb C^q), \qquad T_a:\overline H_{(s)}(\mathbb R^n_+;\mathbb C^p) \longrightarrow \overline H_{(s-m)}(\mathbb R^n_+;\mathbb C^q) \tag{PS3} continuously. For each fixed m,sm,s, a finite sum pm,s(a)p_{m,s}(a) of the original symbol seminorms bounds both operator norms. The maps agree with the original distribution action in Theorem 9.1.

Exact integer-order decomposition

Fix the same normal convolution ρ\rho as Lemma 4.4, including its inverse Fourier convention, ρ̂=1\widehat\rho=1 near zero and supp⁡ρ̂⊂(−1/2,1)\operatorname{supp}\widehat\rho\subset(-1/2,1). For an integer M≥1M\ge1 and a∈SlaMa\in S^M_{\mathrm{la}}, put wj=ξja1+|ξ|2,aj=(wj)ρ(1≤j≤n),a0=a−∑j=1nξjaj=a1+|ξ|2+∑j=1nξj(wj−aj).(PS4) w_j=\frac{\xi_j a}{1+|\xi|^2},\quad a_j=(w_j)_\rho\quad(1\le j\le n),\qquad a_0=a-\sum_{j=1}^n\xi_j a_j =\frac{a}{1+|\xi|^2} +\sum_{j=1}^n\xi_j(w_j-a_j). \tag{PS4} Every wj∈S+M−1w_j\in S^{M-1}_+. Lemma 4.4 gives aj∈SlaM−1a_j\in S^{M-1}_{\mathrm{la}} and wj−aj∈S+−∞w_j-a_j\in S^{-\infty}_+, continuously with all the stipulated seminorms. Thus a0∈S+M−2⊂S+M−1a_0\in S^{M-2}_+\subset S^{M-1}_+. It is lacunary because the first definition in (PS4) is a difference of lacunary symbols. The residual sum in the second definition is retained exactly; its separate summands need not themselves be lacunary.

Multiplication of a symbol by xnx_n preserves every original order and lacunarity: a weighted seminorm uses one extra xnx_n-decay seminorm, and differentiating xnx_n produces only a derivative of aja_j. On the original test spaces the exact left-quantization identity is Ta=∑j<nTajDj+TxnanDn+Ta0=∑j<nTajDj+xnTanDn+Ta0.(PS5) T_a=\sum_{j<n}T_{a_j}D_j+ T_{x_n a_n}D_n+T_{a_0} =\sum_{j<n}T_{a_j}D_j+ x_n T_{a_n}D_n+T_{a_0}. \tag{PS5} In the normal term the uncompressed derivative frequency is ξn\xi_n; the left factor xnx_n supplies precisely the original compression xnξnx_n\xi_n. No derivative is commuted past this factor.

The zero-order theorem is the induction base, for every real ss, on both spaces. Suppose the bound of order M−1M-1 has been proved for every ss. Each ambient Dj:H(s)→H(s−1)D_j:H_{(s)}\to H_{(s-1)} has norm at most one, since |ξj|2≤1+|ξ|2|\xi_j|^2\le1+|\xi|^2. Derivatives preserve supported distributions and descend continuously to the restriction quotient. Hence every derivative term in (PS5) maps index ss to s−Ms-M. The term Ta0T_{a_0} maps index ss to s−(M−1)s-(M-1), which embeds into index s−Ms-M with norm at most one. The same inequality descends to quotient norms. This proves both integer bounds, with finite original symbol seminorm control.

The identities initially hold on supported or restricted Schwartz test functions. Candidate Proposition 10.2(a) gives density for every real index, and Theorem 9.1 gives their weakly continuous distribution actions. Consequently the bounded extensions retain precisely (PS5) and the original distribution action; no boundary delta term is removed by an arbitrary extension. The supported proof uses functions smooth and flat on the boundary before taking density.

A support-preserving exact change of Sobolev index

Set ℓ(ξ)=1+|ξ′|2+iξn,−π2<arg⁡ℓ<π2,Λ+z=ℱ−1ℓ(ξ)zℱ,ℓz=exp⁡(zlog⁡ℓ).(PS6) \ell(\xi)=\sqrt{1+|\xi'|^2}+i\xi_n,\qquad -\frac{\pi}{2}<\arg\ell<\frac{\pi}{2},\qquad \Lambda_+^z=\mathcal F^{-1}\ell(\xi)^z\mathcal F, \quad \ell^z=\exp(z\log\ell). \tag{PS6} In dimension one the first term is 11, with its zero-dimensional Fourier factor. The full factor ℓ\ell is retained. In particular |ℓ|2=1+|ξ′|2+ξn2=1+|ξ|2,|ℓz|=(1+|ξ|2)Re⁡z/2e−Im⁡zarg⁡ℓ.(PS7) |\ell|^2=1+|\xi'|^2+\xi_n^2=1+|\xi|^2,\qquad |\ell^z|=(1+|\xi|^2)^{\operatorname{Re}z/2} e^{-\operatorname{Im}z\,\arg\ell}. \tag{PS7} It follows by the original Plancherel norm that ∥Λ+zu∥(r−Re⁡z)≤eπ|Im⁡z|/2∥u∥(r).(PS8) \|\Lambda_+^z u\|_{(r-\operatorname{Re}z)} \le e^{\pi|\operatorname{Im}z|/2}\|u\|_{(r)}. \tag{PS8} For real zz this is equality. The inverse is the literal multiplier Λ+−z\Lambda_+^{-z}, so the real-index map is an isometry onto the full H(r−z)H_{(r-z)}, and it will be an isometry of the supported subspaces once support is proved. All multipliers have smooth derivatives of polynomial growth; they act continuously on 𝒮,𝒮′\mathcal S,\mathcal S'. On each bounded real strip their Schwartz operator seminorms grow at most as a polynomial in |Im⁡z||\operatorname{Im}z| times eπ|Im⁡z|/2e^{\pi|\operatorname{Im}z|/2}. This follows by differentiating the full ℓz\ell^z: every derivative is a finite sum of derivatives of ℓ\ell, powers of ℓ−1\ell^{-1}, and polynomial factors in zz. Parameter derivatives add powers of log⁡ℓ\log\ell, bounded by any fixed positive power of 1+|ξ|1+|\xi|, which proves holomorphy on the test spaces.

Here is a proof of support, with the transform constants. For Re⁡q>0\operatorname{Re}q>0, the elementary Laplace identity gives ℓ−q=1Γ(q)∫0∞tq−1e−t1+|ξ′|2e−itξndt.(PS9) \ell^{-q}=\frac1{\Gamma(q)} \int_0^\infty t^{q-1} e^{-t\sqrt{1+|\xi'|^2}}e^{-it\xi_n}\,dt . \tag{PS9} It is valid first for positive real ℓ\ell by substitution in the gamma integral and then for Re⁡ℓ>0\operatorname{Re}\ell>0 by holomorphy and the identity theorem.

For clarity, the gamma denominator here is nonzero. Integration by parts in the beta integral gives ∫01uq−1(1−u)Ndu=N!q(q+1)⋯(q+N). \int_0^1 u^{q-1}(1-u)^N\,du =\frac{N!}{q(q+1)\cdots(q+N)}. Multiply by NqN^q and put t=Nut=Nu. The integrand is bounded in modulus by tRe⁡q−1e−tt^{\operatorname{Re}q-1}e^{-t} on 0<t<N0<t<N, so dominated convergence gives Γ(q)\Gamma(q). Rewriting the finite product, its limit is Γ(q)=1qexp⁡(−γq+∑k≥1[qk−log(1+qk)]),γ=limN→∞(∑k=1N1k−logN). \Gamma(q)=\frac1q\exp\!\left( -\gamma q+\sum_{k\ge1} \left[\frac qk-\log\left(1+\frac qk\right)\right]\right), \quad \gamma=\lim_{N\to\infty}\left(\sum_{k=1}^N\frac1k-\log N\right). The latter real limit exists by integral comparison; the complex series converges absolutely, with summands O(k−2)O(k^{-2}). Each logarithm is in the right half-plane branch, so the displayed value is nonzero. This proves the division in (PS9), including complex qq.

Let Et(x′)=(2π)−(n−1)∫eix′⋅ξ′e−t1+|ξ′|2dξ′. E_t(x')=(2\pi)^{-(n-1)} \int e^{ix'\cdot\xi'}e^{-t\sqrt{1+|\xi'|^2}}\,d\xi'. In dimension one Et=e−tE_t=e^{-t}. The inverse Fourier kernel of (PS9) is K−q(x′,xn)=1Γ(q)∫0∞tq−1Et(x′)δ(xn−t)dt.(PS10) K_{-q}(x',x_n)=\frac1{\Gamma(q)} \int_0^\infty t^{q-1}E_t(x')\delta(x_n-t)\,dt . \tag{PS10} This is a tempered distribution: near zero the tested integrand has the integrable bound CtRe⁡q−1C t^{\operatorname{Re}q-1}, and at infinity the factor e−te^{-t}, with finitely many test seminorms, makes it integrable. The kernel is supported in xn≥0x_n\ge0. The tangential Fourier factor is exactly (2π)−(n−1)(2\pi)^{-(n-1)}; inverse transformation of e−itξne^{-it\xi_n} is the displayed delta, without an extra factor.

For arbitrary z∈ℂz\in\mathbb C, choose an integer k≥0k\ge0 with k>Re⁡zk>\operatorname{Re}z. Then ℓz=ℓkℓ−(k−z)\ell^z=\ell^k\ell^{-(k-z)}. The second multiplier has the kernel (PS10); the first is the finite operator (1+|D′|2+∂n)k(\sqrt{1+|D'|^2}+\partial_n)^k. Tangential multipliers and normal derivatives preserve normal support. Thus Λ+z\Lambda_+^z preserves support for every zz. More explicitly, its action on a Schwartz function supported in the positive half space has that support by (PS10) and the finite operator; the one-sided mollification and compact cutoff approximation in Theorem 9.1(e) extends this conclusion to every supported tempered distribution. All the operators are continuous on 𝒮′\mathcal S', so the support is retained in the weak limit. The same argument applies to −z-z.

It follows that, for real rr, Λ+−r:Ḣ(0)→Ḣ(r),Λ+r:Ḣ(r)→Ḣ(0)(PS11) \Lambda_+^{-r}:\dot H_{(0)}\longrightarrow\dot H_{(r)}, \qquad \Lambda_+^{r}:\dot H_{(r)}\longrightarrow\dot H_{(0)} \tag{PS11} are inverse isometries, with exactly the original full-space norms. This proves the support-preserving index change rather than assuming that the multiplier (1+|D|2)r/2(1+|D|^2)^{r/2} preserves half-space support.

The original analytic symbol family and the strip estimate

Fix 0<m<M0<m<M, with MM an integer, and retain bz=a(1+|ξ|2)(z−m)/2,Az=(bz)ρ+(a−aρ),0≤Re⁡z≤M.(PS12) b_z=a(1+|\xi|^2)^{(z-m)/2},\qquad A_z=(b_z)_\rho+(a-a_\rho),\qquad 0\le\operatorname{Re}z\le M. \tag{PS12} The residual contribution is present for every zz; Am=aA_m=a exactly. For each zz, Az∈SlaRe⁡zA_z\in S^{\operatorname{Re}z}_{\mathrm{la}}. Frequency differentiation of the displayed scalar factor yields finite polynomials in z−mz-m, the full powers of 1+|ξ|21+|\xi|^2, and the original frequency coordinates. Hence each indicated symbol seminorm is bounded by C(1+|Im⁡z|)Lp(a)C(1+|\operatorname{Im}z|)^L p(a), uniformly on this real strip, with a finite original seminorm pp. The convolution and residual bounds of Lemma 4.4 retain the same property. Holomorphy holds in any fixed slightly larger symbol order, such as S+M+1S^{M+1}_+: parameter derivatives produce powers of log⁡(1+|ξ|2)\log(1+|\xi|^2), which the one extra order bounds. No assertion of order-MM holomorphy at its borderline is needed.

For f,gf,g in the original supported Schwartz spaces of dimensions p,qp,q, respectively, set Ff,g(z)=(Λ+s−zTAzΛ+−sf,g)L2.(PS13) F_{f,g}(z)= \left(\Lambda_+^{s-z}T_{A_z}\Lambda_+^{-s}f,g\right)_{L^2}. \tag{PS13} This is holomorphic on the strip, continuous on its closed boundary. The preceding test-space estimates and Theorem 5.1 bound its growth throughout the strip by Cf,g(1+|Im⁡z|)Leπ|Im⁡z|/2C_{f,g}(1+|\operatorname{Im}z|)^L e^{\pi|\operatorname{Im}z|/2}. On the two boundary lines, the proved integer bounds, (PS8) and (PS11) give |Ff,g(iτ)|≤C0(1+|τ|)Leπ|τ|/2p(a)∥f∥2∥g∥2,|Ff,g(M+iτ)|≤CM(1+|τ|)Leπ|τ|/2p(a)∥f∥2∥g∥2.(PS14) |F_{f,g}(i\tau)| \le C_0(1+|\tau|)^L e^{\pi|\tau|/2} p(a)\|f\|_2\|g\|_2,\qquad |F_{f,g}(M+i\tau)| \le C_M(1+|\tau|)^L e^{\pi|\tau|/2} p(a)\|f\|_2\|g\|_2 . \tag{PS14} Take a single finite seminorm pp large enough for both endpoints. The zero-order norm depends continuously on finitely many original symbol seminorms, as proved in Section 10. Rescaling a symbol by their sum gives a linear bound in that sum; the integer induction uses only continuous linear symbol operations. Thus the stated p(a)p(a) bounds are homogeneous, including p(a)=0p(a)=0.

For any fixed ε>0\varepsilon>0, multiply FF by exp⁡(ε(z−m)2)\exp(\varepsilon(z-m)^2). Its boundary bounds now have finite constants C0′,CM′C'_0,C'_M, since (1+|τ|)Leπ|τ|/2−ετ2(1+|\tau|)^L e^{\pi|\tau|/2-\varepsilon\tau^2} is bounded. Its modulus tends to zero on the horizontal edges of large rectangles in the strip. Dividing it by p(a)∥f∥2∥g∥2C0′p(a)\|f\|_2\|g\|_2 C'_0 and multiplying by exp⁡[−(z/M)log⁡(CM′/C0′)]\exp[-(z/M)\log(C'_M/C'_0)] makes the two vertical-edge bounds at most one. The maximum principle on these rectangles, followed by their expanding limit, therefore gives |Ff,g(m)|≤(C0′)1−m/M(CM′)m/Mp(a)∥f∥2∥g∥2.(PS15) |F_{f,g}(m)| \le (C'_0)^{1-m/M}(C'_M)^{m/M} p(a)\|f\|_2\|g\|_2 . \tag{PS15} The zero-seminorm or zero-test-function case is immediate and does not require dividing by zero. This is the required strip estimate with its growth control proved.

Since Am=aA_m=a, duality in the supported L2L^2 space and density of its Schwartz subspace show that Λ+s−mTaΛ+−s\Lambda_+^{s-m}T_a\Lambda_+^{-s} is bounded on supported L2L^2. Conjugating by the exact isometries (PS11) gives the supported bound (PS3) for this real mm, with finite original seminorm control. Together with the integer case it covers every m≥0m\ge0 and every real ss. The bounded extension agrees with the original supported distribution action by test-space density and its weak continuity.

The full restriction quotient

Theorem 7.3 gives a†∈Slama^\dagger\in S^m_{\mathrm{la}}, continuously and conjugate-linearly, with the original reversed vector dimensions. Apply the supported result at the index m−sm-s: Ta†:Ḣ(m−s)(ℂq)→Ḣ(−s)(ℂp).(PS16) T_{a^\dagger}:\dot H_{(m-s)}(\mathbb C^q) \longrightarrow\dot H_{(-s)}(\mathbb C^p). \tag{PS16} For the supported/restricted duality of Proposition 10.2(b), |(Tau,v)|=|(u,Ta†v)|≤Cpm,s(a)∥u∥H¯(s)∥v∥Ḣ(m−s).(PS17) |(T_a u,v)|=|(u,T_{a^\dagger}v)| \le C p_{m,s}(a) \|u\|_{\overline H_{(s)}}\|v\|_{\dot H_{(m-s)}} . \tag{PS17} The antidual of Ḣ(m−s)\dot H_{(m-s)} is exactly H¯(s−m)\overline H_{(s-m)} with its original quotient norm, so (PS17) proves the restricted bound, without choosing or identifying a supported extension of the restricted input. Density and Theorem 9.1(d) retain the original quotient distribution action. This completes both assertions of (PS3).

For m<0m<0, the same zero-order membership proves boundedness at the same index, but the argument above does not assert a gain of −m-m. Theorem 12.1 gives nonzero residual examples forbidding every such gain. The original residual term, and this exact limitation, remain part of the calculus.

Figure PS-F1. PS6–PS11 keeps the full multiplier sqrt(1+|xi’|^2)+i xi_n, the original weighted norm, Gamma(q), the inverse Fourier factor and normal kernel support, with Re q>0. PS12–PS15 uses integer M>m and epsilon>0, retaining the residual in A_z. The strip is a schematic with 0<m<M. All four spaces and arrows have their original vector dimensions; PS16–PS17 gives the restriction quotient. The figure source is figures/positive_order_halfspace.py.

Where this leads

References