Contents
Two exact kernel bridges with the original square, full phase, reflection and trace transport
The two exact kernel bridges retain the graph-kernel intersection. Full phase and reflection: JM4–JM5. Original graph norms and trace transport: JM13–JM17. Actual kernels: JM19–JM20.

Reproduce the figure · Exact figure formulas · Complete graph-domain proofs · Component terms

Exact reflection and phase transport for the original operator

This separate reflection and adjoint supplement proves an exact transport for the original operator. Its complete graph-domain foundations are in The two graph-domain quotients of the local inverse. The receiving original-source proofs are Local inverse, Section 14.6, (CS40)–(CS50) and Section 14.8.5, (CE25)–(CE34). The complete packaged proofs are the local inverse identities and the original-coefficient example. The pinned source citations require repository access. No new external theorem is used, and no novelty is claimed.

All Hilbert inner products below are linear in their first argument. Distribution pairings are complex bilinear. The resulting distinction between the Hilbert adjoint and distributional transpose is retained explicitly.

1. Fixed quantities and the involution on functions and distributions

Keep the original coordinates and all constants:

U=(−1/4,1/4)2,Dj=−i∂xj,p(ξ1,ξ2)=ξ12+iξ2, U=(-1/4,1/4)^2,\qquad D_j=-i\partial_{x_j},\qquad p(\xi_1,\xi_2)=\xi_1^2+i\xi_2, C=(14−207−2032−127−125),λ*=the largest eigenvalue of C,K=41472λ*33e2,a=2−12,ε=2Ka>0.(JM1) C=\begin{pmatrix}14&-20&7\\-20&32&-12\\7&-12&5\end{pmatrix}, \quad\lambda_*=\text{the largest eigenvalue of }C,\quad K=41472\lambda_*\sqrt{33}\,e^2,\quad a=\sqrt{\frac{\sqrt2-1}{2}},\quad \varepsilon=\frac2{Ka}>0 . \tag{JM1}

Let Y=L2(U)Y=L^2(U). For every polynomial qq, keep its complete derivative strength q̃(ξ)2=∑α∈ℕ2|∂ξαq(ξ)|2,Vp={q:supξ∈ℝ2q̃(ξ)/p̃(ξ)<∞},∥q∥p=supξ∈ℝ2q̃(ξ)p̃(ξ). \widetilde q(\xi)^2=\sum_{\alpha\in\mathbb N^2} |\partial_\xi^\alpha q(\xi)|^2, \quad V_p=\{q:\sup_{\xi\in\mathbb R^2}\widetilde q(\xi)/\widetilde p(\xi)<\infty\}, \quad \|q\|_p=\sup_{\xi\in\mathbb R^2}\frac{\widetilde q(\xi)}{\widetilde p(\xi)}. For any actual declared basis q1,…,q4q_1,\ldots,q_4 of the exact space VpV_p, define H={u∈L2(U):qj(D)u∈L2(U),1≤j≤4},∥u∥H2=∥u∥22+∑j=14∥qj(D)u∥22,Hmin=Cc∞(U)¯∥⋅∥H.(JM2) H=\{u\in L^2(U):q_j(D)u\in L^2(U),\ 1\leq j\leq4\}, \quad \|u\|_H^2=\|u\|_2^2+\sum_{j=1}^4\|q_j(D)u\|_2^2, \quad H_{\min}=\overline{C_c^\infty(U)}^{\|\cdot\|_H}. \tag{JM2} The complete proofs of finite dimension, Hilbert completeness, Vp=span⁡{1,ξ1,ξ12,ξ2}V_p=\operatorname{span}\{1,\xi_1,\xi_1^2,\xi_2\}, and the four monomial norms are GM1–GM2 and GM31 of the retained note. No norm for a different basis is substituted for (JM2).

Retain the original full operator and its full Hilbert formal adjoint: P=D12+iD2+εx1D1=−∂12+∂2−iεx1∂1, P=D_1^2+iD_2+\varepsilon x_1D_1 =-\partial_1^2+\partial_2-i\varepsilon x_1\partial_1, A=P†=D12−iD2+εx1D1−iε=−∂12−∂2−iεx1∂1−iε.(JM3) A=P^\dagger =D_1^2-iD_2+\varepsilon x_1D_1-i\varepsilon =-\partial_1^2-\partial_2-i\varepsilon x_1\partial_1-i\varepsilon. \tag{JM3} The zeroth-order term is the contribution from D1(εx1v)=εx1D1v−iεvD_1(\varepsilon x_1 v)=\varepsilon x_1D_1v-i\varepsilon v. It is retained in every calculation below. For this specific smooth coefficient, both expressions act on every distribution; this does not assert that an arbitrary continuous coefficient can multiply any distributional derivative.

Put ρ(x1,x2)=(x1,−x2),Jf(x1,x2)=e−iεx2f(x1,−x2).(JM4) \rho(x_1,x_2)=(x_1,-x_2),\qquad Jf(x_1,x_2)=e^{-i\varepsilon x_2}f(x_1,-x_2). \tag{JM4} The real reflection has determinant −1-1, absolute Jacobian 11, and preserves the actual open square. Since ε\varepsilon is real, its displayed phase has modulus one. Thus change of variables, with Lebesgue measure and the absolute Jacobian retained, gives ⟨Jf,Jh⟩2=∫Ue−iεx2f(x1,−x2)eiεx2h(x1,−x2)¯dx1dx2=⟨f,h⟩2. \langle Jf,Jh\rangle_2 =\int_U e^{-i\varepsilon x_2}f(x_1,-x_2) e^{i\varepsilon x_2}\overline{h(x_1,-x_2)}\,dx_1\,dx_2 =\langle f,h\rangle_2 . Applying the exact phase twice gives J2f(x)=e−iεx2e−iε(−x2)f(x)=f(x),∥Jf∥2=∥f∥2,J*=J.(JM5) J^2f(x) =e^{-i\varepsilon x_2}e^{-i\varepsilon(-x_2)}f(x)=f(x), \qquad \|Jf\|_2=\|f\|_2,\qquad J^*=J . \tag{JM5} Consequently JJ is a complex-linear unitary involution on YY.

Its distributional extension is specified by the actual bilinear transpose: ⟨JT,ϕ⟩𝒟′,𝒟=⟨T,Jtϕ⟩𝒟′,𝒟,Jtϕ(x1,x2)=eiεx2ϕ(x1,−x2).(JM6) \langle JT,\phi\rangle_{\mathcal D',\mathcal D} =\langle T,J^{\mathrm t}\phi\rangle_{\mathcal D',\mathcal D}, \qquad J^{\mathrm t}\phi(x_1,x_2) =e^{i\varepsilon x_2}\phi(x_1,-x_2). \tag{JM6} The test transform maps Cc∞(U)C_c^\infty(U) continuously to itself; reflection preserves compact support, and differentiation of its smooth phase leaves a finite sum of smooth bounded factors on each compact set. Formula (JM6) therefore defines a distribution for every TT. For an L2L^2 function, the substitution x2↦−x2x_2\mapsto-x_2 in its bilinear integral gives precisely this formula, so it agrees with (JM4). The test transform also squares to the identity, because its phases are eiεx2e^{i\varepsilon x_2} and e−iεx2e^{-i\varepsilon x_2}. Thus J2=IJ^2=I on distributions. In particular the plus sign in JtJ^{\mathrm t} is not replaced by the minus sign of the function formula or by the Hilbert adjoint convention.

For smooth functions, differentiation retains the complete phase contributions and gives D1J=JD1,D2J=J(−D2−ε),x1J=Jx1.(JM7) D_1J=JD_1,\qquad D_2J=J(-D_2-\varepsilon),\qquad x_1J=Jx_1 . \tag{JM7} Indeed differentiation of e−iεx2e^{-i\varepsilon x_2} contributes (−i)(−iε)e−iεx2=−εe−iεx2(-i)(-i\varepsilon)e^{-i\varepsilon x_2}=-\varepsilon e^{-i\varepsilon x_2}; differentiation of the reflected argument contributes ie−iεx2(∂2f)(x1,−x2)i e^{-i\varepsilon x_2}(\partial_2f)(x_1,-x_2). Together these are exactly the second formula. The other coordinate and multiplication formulas follow because neither its phase nor its reflection changes x1x_1.

These formulas also hold on all distributions, without a regularity premise. In the bilinear convention Djt=−DjD_j^{\mathrm t}=-D_j. On tests, direct differentiation of the plus-phase transform gives D1Jt=JtD1D_1J^{\mathrm t}=J^{\mathrm t}D_1 and D2Jt=Jt(−D2+ε)D_2J^{\mathrm t}=J^{\mathrm t}(-D_2+\varepsilon). For the second distributional identity, pair its left side against ϕ\phi to obtain ⟨T,Jt(−D2ϕ)⟩\langle T,J^{\mathrm t}(-D_2\phi)\rangle. The right side pairs as ⟨T,(D2−ε)Jtϕ⟩\langle T,(D_2-\varepsilon)J^{\mathrm t}\phi\rangle, which is the same expression by the displayed test identity. The first and multiplication identities follow by the same transpose calculation. Thus no differentiation or coefficient term is lost in their distributional extension.

2. The full weaker-polynomial pullback and every basis graph bound

Define the original affine frequency transform τ(ξ1,ξ2)=(ξ1,−ξ2−ε),q#(ξ)=q(ξ1,−ξ2−ε). \tau(\xi_1,\xi_2)=(\xi_1,-\xi_2-\varepsilon),\qquad q^\#(\xi)=q(\xi_1,-\xi_2-\varepsilon). It is an involution. Applying (JM7) successively to each monomial, then adding every coefficient, gives on all distributions q(D)J=Jq#(D),∂ξαq#(ξ)=(−1)α2(∂ξαq)(τξ),q#̃(ξ)=q̃(τξ).(JM8) q(D)J=Jq^\#(D),\qquad \partial_\xi^\alpha q^\#(\xi) =(-1)^{\alpha_2}(\partial_\xi^\alpha q)(\tau\xi), \qquad \widetilde{q^\#}(\xi)=\widetilde q(\tau\xi). \tag{JM8} The chain rule has no additional higher-order term, because τ\tau is affine with linear part diag⁡(1,−1)\operatorname{diag}(1,-1). Iterating the first-order chain rule proves the sign (−1)α2(-1)^{\alpha_2} for every multi-index, including zero derivatives.

The full original pp-strength at the reflected and translated frequency is p̃(τξ)2=ξ14+(ξ2+ε)2+4ξ12+1+4.(JM9) \widetilde p(\tau\xi)^2 =\xi_1^4+(\xi_2+\varepsilon)^2+4\xi_1^2+1+4. \tag{JM9} This contains the nonzero translated-frequency contribution and both separate constants 11 and 44. To compare it with the original array, the complete derivative array of p#=ξ12−iξ2−iεp^\#=\xi_1^2-i\xi_2-i\varepsilon is the array of p¯=ξ12−iξ2\overline p=\xi_1^2-i\xi_2 with the additional zeroth entry −iε-i\varepsilon and no additional derivative entries. The two arrays have exactly the same first and second derivative entries and all the same zeros. The Euclidean triangle inequality therefore gives p̃(τξ)≤p̃(ξ)+ε≤(1+ε5)p̃(ξ),p̃(ξ)≥1+4=5. \widetilde p(\tau\xi)\leq\widetilde p(\xi)+\varepsilon \leq\left(1+\frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt5}\right)\widetilde p(\xi), \qquad \widetilde p(\xi)\geq\sqrt{1+4}=\sqrt5 . For q∈Vpq\in V_p, keep every factor in q#̃(ξ)=q̃(τξ)≤∥q∥pp̃(τξ)≤(1+ε5)∥q∥pp̃(ξ).(JM10) \widetilde{q^\#}(\xi) =\widetilde q(\tau\xi) \leq\|q\|_p\,\widetilde p(\tau\xi) \leq\left(1+\frac{\varepsilon}{\sqrt5}\right) \|q\|_p\,\widetilde p(\xi). \tag{JM10} Thus q#∈Vpq^\#\in V_p, with the exact proved bound ∥q#∥p≤(1+ε/5)∥q∥p\|q^\#\|_p\leq(1+\varepsilon/\sqrt5)\|q\|_p. Applying it again to q#q^\# yields ∥q∥p≤(1+ε/5)∥q#∥p\|q\|_p\leq(1+\varepsilon/\sqrt5)\|q^\#\|_p, because (q#)#=q(q^\#)^\#=q. This proves both directions of the comparison while retaining the original polynomial as the receiving object.

Let the column of original monomials be r=(1,ξ1,ξ12,ξ2)Tr=(1,\xi_1,\xi_1^2,\xi_2)^{\mathrm T}. For the actual basis in (JM2), write its exact coefficient matrix as q=B0rq=B_0r, where B0∈GL⁡4(ℂ)B_0\in\operatorname{GL}_4(\mathbb C). No coefficient of this basis matrix is discarded. The pullback has the full matrices r#=B#r,B#=(100001000010−ε00−1),q#=βq,β=B0B#B0−1,β2=I4.(JM11) r^\#=B_\#r,\qquad B_\#= \begin{pmatrix} 1&0&0&0\\ 0&1&0&0\\ 0&0&1&0\\ -\varepsilon&0&0&-1 \end{pmatrix},\qquad q^\#=\beta q,\qquad \beta=B_0B_\#B_0^{-1},\qquad \beta^2=I_4 . \tag{JM11} The last row retains the translation term −ε-\varepsilon. The other zero entries are retained in the printed matrix. The basis formula follows by inserting r#r^\# into q#=B0r#q^\#=B_0r^\#. The involution formula follows either by multiplying B#2=I4B_\#^2=I_4 or by applying the polynomial involution twice.

For u∈Hu\in H, (JM8) and (JM11) give qj(D)Ju=J∑kβjkqk(D)uq_j(D)Ju=J\sum_k\beta_{jk}q_k(D)u. Every right side is an L2L^2 function, which proves Ju∈HJu\in H. Exact L2L^2 unitarity then gives the original-norm identity ∥Ju∥H2=∥u∥22+∑j=14∥∑k=14βjkqk(D)u∥22.(JM12) \|Ju\|_H^2 =\|u\|_2^2 +\sum_{j=1}^4 \left\|\sum_{k=1}^4\beta_{jk}q_k(D)u\right\|_2^2. \tag{JM12} Put σβ=∥β∥ℂ4→ℂ4\sigma_\beta=\|\beta\|_{\mathbb C^4\to\mathbb C^4}, with the ordinary Euclidean coefficient-vector norm, and κβ=max⁡{1,σβ}\kappa_\beta=\max\{1,\sigma_\beta\}. The definition of this finite matrix norm and integration imply κβ−1∥u∥H≤∥Ju∥H≤κβ∥u∥H,J:H→H is a bounded involution.(JM13) \kappa_\beta^{-1}\|u\|_H \leq\|Ju\|_H\leq\kappa_\beta\|u\|_H, \qquad J:H\longrightarrow H\text{ is a bounded involution.} \tag{JM13} The upper estimate uses (JM12) and its unchanged separate L2L^2 term. Apply it to JuJu and use J2u=uJ^2u=u for the lower estimate. If a directly summed finite bound is desired, σβ≤(∑j,k|βjk|2)1/2\sigma_\beta\leq(\sum_{j,k}|\beta_{jk}|^2)^{1/2} follows by rowwise Cauchy–Schwarz; every actual basis coefficient remains in that sum.

For the declared monomial basis of GM32, B0=I4B_0=I_4, so β=B#\beta=B_\#. The actual graph norm has its two separate uu terms: ∥Ju∥H2=∥u∥22+∥u∥22+∥D1u∥22+∥D12u∥22+∥D2u+εu∥22 \|Ju\|_H^2 =\|u\|_2^2+\|u\|_2^2+ \|D_1u\|_2^2+\|D_1^2u\|_2^2+\|D_2u+\varepsilon u\|_2^2 =∥u∥H2+ε2∥u∥22+2εRe⁡⟨D2u,u⟩2.(JM14) =\|u\|_H^2+\varepsilon^2\|u\|_2^2 +2\varepsilon\operatorname{Re}\langle D_2u,u\rangle_2. \tag{JM14} The matrix coefficient norm has squared value σβ2=1+ε2/2+(ε/2)ε2+4\sigma_\beta^2=1+\varepsilon^2/2+ (\varepsilon/2)\sqrt{\varepsilon^2+4}: the nontrivial block of β*β\beta^*\beta is (1+ε2εε1)\begin{pmatrix}1+\varepsilon^2&\varepsilon\\\varepsilon&1\end{pmatrix}; its characteristic polynomial gives these two eigenvalues with signs plus and minus, and the other two eigenvalues are one.

Keeping the separate duplicate uu terms gives the stronger proved bound kH2=1+ε24+ε4ε2+8,kH−1∥u∥H≤∥Ju∥H≤kH∥u∥H.(JM15) k_H^2=1+\frac{\varepsilon^2}{4} +\frac{\varepsilon}{4}\sqrt{\varepsilon^2+8}, \qquad k_H^{-1}\|u\|_H\leq\|Ju\|_H\leq k_H\|u\|_H. \tag{JM15} Here is a direct verification in the original metric. For a pair of complex numbers b,db,d, the relevant input expression is |b|2+|b|2+|d|2|b|^2+|b|^2+|d|^2, and its output is |b|2+|b|2+|d+εb|2|b|^2+|b|^2+|d+\varepsilon b|^2. Their Hermitian matrices are respectively diag⁡(2,1)\operatorname{diag}(2,1) and (2+ε2εε1)\begin{pmatrix}2+\varepsilon^2&\varepsilon\\\varepsilon&1\end{pmatrix}. The determinant of the difference with tdiag⁡(2,1)t\operatorname{diag}(2,1) is 2(1−t)2−ε2t2(1-t)^2-\varepsilon^2t. Its larger root is exactly t=kH2t=k_H^2. At that root the matrix kH2diag⁡(2,1)−(2+ε2εε1) k_H^2\operatorname{diag}(2,1)- \begin{pmatrix}2+\varepsilon^2&\varepsilon\\\varepsilon&1\end{pmatrix} has determinant zero and positive diagonal entries: the lower entry is kH2−1>0k_H^2-1>0, and the upper is (ε/2)(ε2+8−ε)>0(\varepsilon/2)(\sqrt{\varepsilon^2+8}-\varepsilon)>0. Its quadratic form is nonnegative, because if the two positive diagonal entries are α,δ\alpha,\delta, their product is ε2\varepsilon^2, and its form is |αb−δd|2|\sqrt\alpha b-\sqrt\delta d|^2. Thus the output pair is bounded by kH2k_H^2 times the input pair. Integrate this bound and retain both other graph derivatives, whose norms are unchanged by JJ. Since kH2≥1k_H^2\geq1, they obey the same upper bound. Apply it to JuJu for the inverse estimate. This proves (JM15) as a bound in the original graph metric. It does not assert equality with the actual graph-operator norm, nor replace the original metric by the two-dimensional coefficient matrix.

3. The actual minimal domain and every trace phase

The map JJ sends Cc∞(U)C_c^\infty(U) onto itself: reflection preserves the square and compact support, and multiplication by its smooth phase preserves smoothness. By (JM13) both JJ and its inverse are bounded on the actual HH. If uj→uu_j\to u in HH with compactly supported smooth uju_j, then Juj→JuJu_j\to Ju in the same norm. Applying the involution for the reverse inclusion proves JHmin=Hmin.(JM16) JH_{\min}=H_{\min}. \tag{JM16}

For the monomial basis, the six trace maps in GM55–GM56 have the exact transport γ1,±(Ju)(x2)=e−iεx2(γ1,±u)(−x2),γ1,±′(Ju)(x2)=e−iεx2(γ1,±′u)(−x2), \gamma_{1,\pm}(Ju)(x_2) =e^{-i\varepsilon x_2}(\gamma_{1,\pm}u)(-x_2), \qquad \gamma'_{1,\pm}(Ju)(x_2) =e^{-i\varepsilon x_2}(\gamma'_{1,\pm}u)(-x_2), γ2,+(Ju)=e−iε/4γ2,−u,γ2,−(Ju)=eiε/4γ2,+u.(JM17) \gamma_{2,+}(Ju)=e^{-i\varepsilon/4}\gamma_{2,-}u,\qquad \gamma_{2,-}(Ju)=e^{i\varepsilon/4}\gamma_{2,+}u . \tag{JM17} These are equalities in their actual L2(−1/4,1/4)L^2(-1/4,1/4) trace spaces. To prove the vertical formulas, regard u(x1,⋅)u(x_1,\cdot) and ∂1u(x1,⋅)\partial_1u(x_1,\cdot) as the continuous Hilbert-valued representatives supplied by GM53. The phase-reflection transform on that L2L^2 space is a fixed unitary map independent of x1x_1. It therefore commutes with taking the endpoint limits of those two representatives. The derivative identity (JM7) gives the indicated first derivative as well. For the horizontal formulas, use the continuous representative u(⋅,x2)u(\cdot,x_2) in the other L2L^2 space; reflection changes the endpoint and the phase evaluates at the original endpoint +1/4+1/4 or −1/4-1/4, giving exactly the displayed factors. Thus every side and phase is accounted for. All six zero conditions are transported to themselves, with the horizontal sides exchanged, in agreement with (JM16). No trace of a missing mixed derivative is assumed.

4. The exact kernel bridges and the distinction between two adjoint domains

Using (JM7), with the zeroth-order term in (JM3) still present, gives on every distribution AJ=J[D12+iD2+iε+εx1D1−iε]=JP,PJ=JA.(JM18) AJ =J\bigl[D_1^2+iD_2+i\varepsilon+ \varepsilon x_1D_1-i\varepsilon\bigr] =JP,\qquad PJ=JA. \tag{JM18} The first equality shows the two separate iεi\varepsilon and −iε-i\varepsilon contributions before their cancellation. The second intertwining follows by multiplying AJ=JPAJ=JP on both sides by the involution. This is a proved comparison of the original two operators; neither is used as a replacement definition of the other.

Define the full distributional L2L^2 kernel and the actual graph kernel separately: KP={u∈L2(U):Pu=0 in 𝒟′(U)},N=ker⁡(P:H→Y)=KP∩H, K_P=\{u\in L^2(U):Pu=0\text{ in }\mathcal D'(U)\}, \quad N=\ker(P:H\to Y)=K_P\cap H, N†=ker⁡Tmin⁡*={v∈L2(U):Av=0 in 𝒟′(U)},Tmin=P|Hmin as an operator in Y.(JM19) N^\dagger=\ker T_{\min}^* =\{v\in L^2(U):Av=0\text{ in }\mathcal D'(U)\}, \qquad T_{\min}=P|_{H_{\min}}\text{ as an operator in }Y. \tag{JM19} The adjoint-domain equality is proved in GM26. The first kernel is closed in L2L^2: if uj→uu_j\to u there, every test pairing of PujPu_j converges to that of PuPu, because distributional derivatives and multiplication by the specific smooth coefficient are continuous on distributions. Thus a sequence of zero pairings has a zero limit. The same argument applies to N†N^\dagger.

The distributional identity (JM18) proves JKP⊂N†J K_P\subset N^\dagger, and its reverse identity proves JN†⊂KPJ N^\dagger\subset K_P. Using J2=IJ^2=I proves both surjectivity and inverse formulas. The map J:KP→ker⁡Tmin⁡* is a complex-linear unitary bijection in the original L2 norms. J:K_P\longrightarrow\ker T_{\min}^* \text{ is a complex-linear unitary bijection in the original }L^2\text{ norms}. Preservation of HH then gives the strongest corresponding graph-domain bridge J:N→N†∩H=ker⁡(A:H→Y) is a bounded bijection with inverse J, J:N\longrightarrow N^\dagger\cap H=\ker(A:H\to Y) \text{ is a bounded bijection with inverse }J, κβ−1∥u∥H≤∥Ju∥H≤κβ∥u∥H(u∈N),∥Ju∥2=∥u∥2.(JM20) \kappa_\beta^{-1}\|u\|_H\leq\|Ju\|_H\leq\kappa_\beta\|u\|_H \quad(u\in N), \qquad \|Ju\|_2=\|u\|_2. \tag{JM20} For the monomial basis use the stronger kHk_H bound (JM15). The spaces NN and N†∩HN^\dagger\cap H are closed in their HH norms because they are kernels of bounded maps P,A:H→YP,A:H\to Y. For AA, this boundedness follows directly from its polynomial terms and bounded smooth coefficients, or from A=JPJA=JPJ, (JM13), and ∥P∥≤CP\|P\|\leq C_P. The broader KPK_P is not silently identified with NN. Likewise the full N†N^\dagger is not silently identified with its intersection with HH.

Let AminA_{\min} mean the minimal graph closure in L2L^2 of the formal expression AA initially on Cc∞(U)C_c^\infty(U). This is a different domain question from the Hilbert adjoint Tmin⁡*T_{\min}^*. Indeed unitary transport on L2L^2, the core transport JCc∞=Cc∞JC_c^\infty=C_c^\infty, and (JM18) give Amin=JTminJ,Dom⁡(Amin)=JHmin=Hmin, A_{\min}=JT_{\min}J,\qquad \operatorname{Dom}(A_{\min})=JH_{\min}=H_{\min}, Dom⁡(Tmin⁡*)={v∈L2(U):Av∈L2(U) as a distribution},Tmin⁡*v=Av.(JM21) \operatorname{Dom}(T_{\min}^*) =\{v\in L^2(U):Av\in L^2(U)\text{ as a distribution}\}, \qquad T_{\min}^*v=Av. \tag{JM21} For the closure assertion, the graph map (u,Pu)↦(Ju,JPu)(u,Pu)\mapsto(Ju,JPu) is an isometry on Y⊕YY\oplus Y; it maps the core graph of PP onto the core graph of AA by (JM18). It consequently maps their graph closures onto one another. GM-A1 identifies the first closure domain as HminH_{\min}, and (JM16) gives the displayed transported domain. This proves the first formula, including closedness and dense definition. The second formula retains the fully proved GM26 domain, rather than giving it the minimal trace conditions.

The actual inclusion Amin⊂Tmin⁡*A_{\min}\subset T_{\min}^* follows from (JM21) since u∈Hminu\in H_{\min} has all polynomial derivatives and hence Au∈L2Au\in L^2. It is proper. For example u0=1u_0=1 is a nonzero member of NN by GM45, so Ju0=e−iεx2Ju_0=e^{-i\varepsilon x_2} is a nonzero element of N†∩HN^\dagger\cap H by (JM18). It is in Dom⁡(Tmin⁡*)\operatorname{Dom}(T_{\min}^*). It cannot be in HminH_{\min}, since (JM16) would put u0u_0 in HminH_{\min}, contradicting the injectivity estimate GM8 or its positive distance in GM46. Thus it is outside the domain of AminA_{\min}. This proves the specific strict inclusion, while making no unproved strict inclusion between KPK_P and NN.

5. The transported completed inverse, closed minimal range, and quotient maps

Retain E:Y→HE:Y\to H, PE=IYPE=I_Y, and EP=IEP=I on HminH_{\min} from GM6–GM8 and the original (CS43)–(CS50). Let R=P(Hmin),RA=A(Hmin). R=P(H_{\min}),\qquad R_A=A(H_{\min}). The exact range transport and minimal graph-operator comparison are RA=JR,Amin(Ju)=J(Tminu)(u∈Hmin).(JM22) R_A=JR,\qquad A_{\min}(Ju)=J(T_{\min}u)\quad(u\in H_{\min}). \tag{JM22} Indeed JJ maps HminH_{\min} onto itself and AJ=JPAJ=JP. This proves each range inclusion and their equality. Since RR is closed in YY by GM-A and JJ is unitary, JRJR is closed.

Define the transported map using its full phases, rather than a new coefficient convention: F=JEJ:Y→H,AF=IY,FAu=u(u∈Hmin),F(JR)=Hmin.(JM23) F=JEJ:Y\longrightarrow H,\qquad AF=I_Y,\qquad FAu=u\quad(u\in H_{\min}),\qquad F(JR)=H_{\min}. \tag{JM23} For boundedness, (JM13), exact L2L^2 unitarity on the input side, and ∥E∥≤CE\|E\|\leq C_E give ∥Ff∥H≤κβCE∥f∥2\|Ff\|_H\leq\kappa_\beta C_E\|f\|_2. The right-inverse formula is AF=AJEJ=JPEJ=JJ=IAF=AJEJ=JPEJ=JJ=I. For u∈Hminu\in H_{\min}, use JAu=PJuJAu=PJu and Ju∈HminJu\in H_{\min} to give FAu=JEPJu=JJu=uFAu=JEPJu=JJu=u. Finally F(JR)=JE(R)=JHmin=HminF(JR)=JE(R)=JH_{\min}=H_{\min}, using the exactly proved GM8 image formula. Hence Amin:Hmin→JR is a bounded bijection with inverse F|JR,∥u∥H≤κβCE∥Au∥2(u∈Hmin).(JM24) A_{\min}:H_{\min}\longrightarrow JR \text{ is a bounded bijection with inverse }F|_{JR}, \quad \|u\|_H\leq\kappa_\beta C_E\|Au\|_2\quad(u\in H_{\min}). \tag{JM24} Its graph-domain operator norm is at most κβCP\kappa_\beta C_P from A=JPJA=JPJ. In the monomial basis, every coefficient gives the explicit independent bound ∥A∥H→Y≤CA=(|−iε|2+ε2/16+|1|2+|−i|2)1/2. \|A\|_{H\to Y} \leq C_A=\left(|-i\varepsilon|^2+ \varepsilon^2/16+|1|^2+|-i|^2\right)^{1/2}. Its first coefficient is the retained zeroth-order term. The corresponding original constants are CP=(|0|2+ε2/16+|1|2+|i|2)1/2,CE=2K(15+15+a2+1+1)1/2. C_P=\left(|0|^2+\varepsilon^2/16+|1|^2+|i|^2\right)^{1/2}, \qquad C_E=2K\left(\frac15+\frac15+a^2+1+1\right)^{1/2}. For that basis ∥F∥≤kHCE\|F\|\leq k_H C_E and the coercive bound in (JM24) also improves to kHCEk_H C_E, using (JM15). Both copies of 1/51/5 and both copies of 11 remain present. The map FF is a right inverse of A:H→YA:H\to Y on every input; its inverse on the minimal realization is F|JRF|_{JR}. There is no claim that Ff∈HminFf\in H_{\min} for f∉JRf\notin JR.

The kernel projections are transported exactly: Q=I−EP,QA=I−FA=JQJ,Ran⁡QA=JN=N†∩H,ker⁡QA=F(Y),QAHmin=0.(JM25) Q=I-EP,\qquad Q_A=I-FA=JQJ,\qquad \operatorname{Ran}Q_A=JN=N^\dagger\cap H,\qquad \ker Q_A=F(Y),\qquad Q_AH_{\min}=0. \tag{JM25} The equality follows from F=JEJF=JEJ and A=JPJA=JPJ. Its range, kernel and zero restriction follow by applying the original projection identities GM9–GM11 through the bijections J:H→HJ:H\to H and J:Hmin→HminJ:H_{\min}\to H_{\min}. This also proves its idempotence. An explicit bound is ∥QA∥≤κβ2(1+CECP)\|Q_A\|\leq\kappa_\beta^2(1+C_EC_P); the direct formula gives the additional bound 1+κβCE∥A∥1+\kappa_\beta C_E\,\|A\|. For the monomial basis use kHk_H in place of κβ\kappa_\beta and the proved CAC_A in the second bound. No orthogonality of the graph-domain summands is asserted.

There are exact quotient transports 𝒥H:H/Hmin→H/Hmin,[u]↦[Ju],𝒥Y:Y/R→Y/JR,[f]↦[Jf].(JM26) \mathcal J_H:H/H_{\min}\to H/H_{\min},\quad [u]\mapsto[Ju], \qquad \mathcal J_Y:Y/R\to Y/JR,\quad[f]\mapsto[Jf]. \tag{JM26} The first is well defined by (JM16), involutive, and obeys both κβ\kappa_\beta bounds in the original quotient norm: take the infimum over h∈Hminh\in H_{\min} in ∥J(u−h)∥H\|J(u-h)\|_H, then use the inverse. The second is well defined because J(R)=JRJ(R)=JR. Its inverse is the same formula in the opposite quotient spaces, and it is isometric: infm∈R∥Jf−Jm∥2=infm∈R∥f−m∥2. \inf_{m\in R}\|Jf-Jm\|_2=\inf_{m\in R}\|f-m\|_2. The two actual quotient decompositions therefore commute with JJ: [Ju]↦(QAJu,[AJu])=(JQu,[JPu]). [Ju]\longmapsto(Q_AJu,[AJu]) =(JQu,[JPu]). This is the transport of the original map [u]↦(Qu,[Pu])[u]\mapsto(Qu,[Pu]) by J|NJ|_N and 𝒥Y\mathcal J_Y. The adjoint-side inverse is (v,[f])↦[v+Ff](v,[f])\mapsto[v+Ff], which is well defined because F(JR)=HminF(JR)=H_{\min}. It is inverse by AF=IAF=I, QAF=0Q_AF=0, and u=QAu+FAuu=Q_Au+FAu; these are precisely the identities just proved. Moreover (JR)⟂=J(R⟂)=JN†=KP(JR)^\perp=J(R^\perp)=J N^\dagger=K_P. For its proof, y⟂JRy\perp JR if and only if Jy⟂RJy\perp R by unitarity, and then use the kernel bijection (JM19)–(JM20). Thus the adjoint-side obstruction quotient retains the full L2L^2 kernel of PP; it is not reduced to NN.

6. The exact entire mode phases and graph energies

Retain the complete even and odd functions from GM34 and GM47: φz(x1)=∑k=0∞∏h=0k−1(z−2iεh)(2k)!x12k,ψz(x1)=∑k=0∞∏h=0k−1(z−iε(2h+1))(2k+1)!x12k+1. \varphi_z(x_1)= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{\prod_{h=0}^{k-1}(z-2i\varepsilon h)}{(2k)!}x_1^{2k}, \qquad \psi_z(x_1)= \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{\prod_{h=0}^{k-1}(z-i\varepsilon(2h+1))}{(2k+1)!}x_1^{2k+1}. The empty products are one. Their complete compact convergence, every differentiated series, and actual graph-domain membership were proved in GM34–GM40 and GM47–GM48. With uze=ezx2φz(x1),uzo=ezx2ψz(x1), u_z^{\rm e}=e^{zx_2}\varphi_z(x_1),\qquad u_z^{\rm o}=e^{zx_2}\psi_z(x_1), gλe=eλx2φ−λ−iε(x1),gλo=eλx2ψ−λ−iε(x1), g_\lambda^{\rm e}=e^{\lambda x_2}\varphi_{-\lambda-i\varepsilon}(x_1),\qquad g_\lambda^{\rm o}=e^{\lambda x_2}\psi_{-\lambda-i\varepsilon}(x_1), retain also the actual GM42 parametrization vze=e−(z+iε)x2φz(x1),vzo=e−(z+iε)x2ψz(x1). v_z^{\rm e}=e^{-(z+i\varepsilon)x_2}\varphi_z(x_1),\qquad v_z^{\rm o}=e^{-(z+i\varepsilon)x_2}\psi_z(x_1). The exact full-parameter transport is Juze=vze=g−z−iεe,Juzo=vzo=g−z−iεo,Jgλe=u−λ−iεe,Jgλo=u−λ−iεo.(JM27) Ju_z^{\rm e}=v_z^{\rm e}=g_{-z-i\varepsilon}^{\rm e},\qquad Ju_z^{\rm o}=v_z^{\rm o}=g_{-z-i\varepsilon}^{\rm o},\qquad Jg_\lambda^{\rm e}=u_{-\lambda-i\varepsilon}^{\rm e},\qquad Jg_\lambda^{\rm o}=u_{-\lambda-i\varepsilon}^{\rm o}. \tag{JM27} For example the even left side is e−iεx2ez(−x2)∑k=0∞∏h=0k−1(z−2iεh)(2k)!x12k. e^{-i\varepsilon x_2}e^{z(-x_2)} \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{\prod_{h=0}^{k-1}(z-2i\varepsilon h)}{(2k)!}x_1^{2k}. Its full exponential is e(−z−iε)x2e^{(-z-i\varepsilon)x_2}. At λ=−z−iε\lambda=-z-i\varepsilon, the complete even gg-coefficient is −λ−iε(2h+1)=z−2iεh-\lambda-i\varepsilon(2h+1)=z-2i\varepsilon h. For the odd family its coefficient is −λ−iε−iε(2h+1)=z−iε(2h+1)-\lambda-i\varepsilon-i\varepsilon(2h+1) =z-i\varepsilon(2h+1). Thus every product factor and factorial agrees with the respective original uu series; no phase is discarded. The reverse formulas follow by the same parameter calculation or J2=IJ^2=I.

Exact L2L^2 unitarity gives equality of the two mode L2L^2 norms. The graph norms obey the more informative original-metric formula ∥g−z−iεe∥H2=∥uze∥H2+(ε2+2εIm⁡z)∥uze∥22, \|g_{-z-i\varepsilon}^{\rm e}\|_H^2 =\|u_z^{\rm e}\|_H^2+ (\varepsilon^2+2\varepsilon\operatorname{Im}z)\|u_z^{\rm e}\|_2^2, ∥g−z−iεo∥H2=∥uzo∥H2+(ε2+2εIm⁡z)∥uzo∥22(JM28) \|g_{-z-i\varepsilon}^{\rm o}\|_H^2 =\|u_z^{\rm o}\|_H^2+ (\varepsilon^2+2\varepsilon\operatorname{Im}z)\|u_z^{\rm o}\|_2^2 \tag{JM28} for the monomial metric GM32. Indeed D2uz=−izuzD_2u_z=-iz\,u_z in both families, so the cross term in (JM14) has real part Re⁡(−iz)∥uz∥22=(Im⁡z)∥uz∥22\operatorname{Re}(-iz)\|u_z\|_2^2=(\operatorname{Im}z)\|u_z\|_2^2. Every other derivative term and both separate uu terms are unchanged. This proves the formulas, including when that correction is negative. Their full right sides remain nonnegative because they equal the actual squared graph norms with last derivative factor |z+iε|2|z+i\varepsilon|^2. No graph unitarity is inferred from the L2L^2 unitarity.

Finally this comparison also transports the complete bounded solver choices proved in GM58–GM64. If G:Y→HG:Y\to H satisfies PG=IYPG=I_Y and GP=IGP=I on HminH_{\min}, then GA=JGJ,AGA=IY,GAA=I on Hmin,∥GA∥≤κβ∥G∥.(JM29) G_A=JGJ,\qquad AG_A=I_Y,\qquad G_AA=I\text{ on }H_{\min}, \qquad \|G_A\|\leq\kappa_\beta\|G\|. \tag{JM29} The two identities follow by inserting AJ=JPAJ=JP, JA=PJJA=PJ, and JHmin=HminJH_{\min}=H_{\min}; the norm bound uses JJ’s HH bound on the output and its exact unitary input norm. The same conjugation is the inverse correspondence and gives the inverse bound. At G=EG=E it gives the already proved FF.

If the original choice is G=E+LπRG=E+L\pi_R, write GA=F+LAπJR,LA=J|NL𝒥Y−1:Y/JR→N†∩H. G_A=F+L_A\pi_{JR},\qquad L_A=J|_N\,L\,\mathcal J_Y^{-1}: Y/JR\longrightarrow N^\dagger\cap H. To verify this exact parameter formula, note that πRJ=𝒥Y−1πJR\pi_RJ=\mathcal J_Y^{-1}\pi_{JR}, since both send ff to [Jf][Jf] in Y/RY/R. Substitution gives JGJ=JEJ+JLπRJJGJ=JEJ+JL\pi_RJ, exactly the displayed formula. Boundedness and its inverse use the isometry of 𝒥Y\mathcal J_Y and the two graph bounds of J|NJ|_N. Thus the comparison retains the original full solver parameters and transports them to the actual graph-domain adjoint kernels; it does not replace either original operator or confuse a minimal realization with its Hilbert adjoint.

The diagram accompanying this supplement labels both kernel bridges, the exact phase and reflection, and the original square’s trace transport. Its caption points to (JM4)–(JM5), (JM13)–(JM17), and (JM19)–(JM20). The graph-domain note supplies the complete earlier proofs. The bounded original-author TeX comparison records the earlier reading coverage; this supplement makes no additional human-source reading or exhaustive literature claim.