Weighted Szegő Kernels on Planar Domains

For u\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega),

Since u\phi T\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega), \mathcal{C}(\overline{u\varphi}\overline{T})\in A^{\infty}(\Omega). Therefore, \overline{T}\overline{\mathcal{C}(\overline{u\varphi}\overline{T})} is orthogonal to H^2(\partial\Omega) with respect to the standard inner product. This implies that \overline{T}\varphi^{-1}\overline{\mathcal{C}(\overline{u\varphi}\overline{T})} is orthogonal to H^2(\partial\Omega) with respect to the weighted inner product. Since \mathcal{C}u\in A^{\infty}(\Omega)\subset H^2(\partial\Omega),

and this completes the proof.

To understand \mathcal{A}_{\varphi}=\mathcal{C}-\mathcal{C}^*_{\varphi}, for u\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega) and z_0\in\partial\Omega, let

\mathcal{H}u is well defined and Plemelj’s theorem shows that

Therefore, for u\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega),

So, for z\in\partial\Omega, we have

For z,\zeta\in\partial\Omega, let

The C^{\infty}-smoothness of A_{\varphi}(z,\zeta) follows from a straightforward adaptation of the reasoning in Section 5 of [Be0] that deals with the unweighted version of the Kerzman–Stein kernel. Since A_{\varphi}\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega\times\partial\Omega), the principal value integral above is a standard integral. Therefore,

It follows from Proposition 2.2 that \mathcal{A}_{\varphi} maps L^2_{\varphi}(\partial\Omega) into C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega) and satisfies an L^2_{\varphi} estimate, namely \lVert \mathcal{A}_{\varphi}u\rVert_{\varphi}\leq c\lVert u\rVert_{\varphi}. Thus, by Proposition 2.1

for u\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega). Since C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega) is dense in L^2_{\varphi}(\partial\Omega) with respect to its norm, and since \mathcal{C} maps C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega) into A^{\infty}(\partial\Omega), the Cauchy transform extends to be a bounded operator \mathcal{C}_{\varphi} from L^2_{\varphi}(\partial\Omega) into H^2(\partial\Omega). It is known that \mathcal{C}h = h for all h\in A^{\infty}(\partial\Omega). Therefore, \mathcal{C}_{\varphi} is a bounded operator from L^2_{\varphi}(\partial\Omega) onto H^2_{\varphi}(\partial\Omega).

Let s be a non-negative integer. Then there exists a positive integer n=n(s) and a constant K=K(s) such that

for all u\in L^2(\partial \Omega). The weighted Kerzman-Stein identity states that P_{\varphi}(I+\mathcal{A}_{\varphi})=\mathcal{C}_{\varphi}. Taking the L^2_{\varphi} adjoint on both sides and using the fact that \mathcal{A}_{\varphi}^{*}=(\mathcal{C}_{\varphi}-\mathcal{C}^*_{\varphi})^{*}=\mathcal{C}^*_{\varphi}-\mathcal{C}_{\varphi}=-\mathcal{A}_{\varphi} gives

On subtracting the above formula from the weighted Kerzman-Stein formula, we get P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}+\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}P_{\varphi}=\mathcal{A}_{\varphi} and hence P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}=\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}(I-P_{\varphi}). Since P_{\varphi}=\mathcal{C}-P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}, we obtain that

We shall use this formula to give estimates for P_{\varphi}. Let z(t) denote the parametrization of \partial\Omega where t ranges over the domain of parametrization J. Then, for u\in L^2_{\varphi}(\partial\Omega)

where

Finally, (Proof) shows that

where C_2=\sqrt{\left(\int_{\zeta\in\partial\Omega}\varphi(\zeta)\right)}. Therefore, we have proved that \Vert P_{\varphi}u\Vert_s\leq C\Vert u\Vert_n, where

The other conclusions are straightforward.

Using the weighted Kerzman-Stein identity P_{\varphi}(I+\mathcal{A}_{\varphi})=\mathcal{C} for functions in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega), we can write for z,w\in\Omega that

We will first study H_1(z,w). For z,w\in\Omega

So, H_1(z,w)\in C^{\infty}(\Omega\times\Omega). Let z_0, w_0\in\partial\Omega be such that z_0\neq w_0. Choose \epsilon>0 such that \overline{D_{\epsilon}(z_0)}\cap \overline{D_{\epsilon}(w_0)}=\emptyset. Choose \chi\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega) such that \chi\equiv 1 on D_{\epsilon}(z_0)\cap\partial\Omega and \chi\equiv 0 on D_{\epsilon}(w_0)\cap\partial\Omega. For z,w\in\Omega

For w\in D_{\epsilon}(w_0)\cap\overline{\Omega}, the function \chi C_{\varphi,w} is in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega). Therefore, (\mathcal{C}(\chi C_{\varphi,w}))(z)\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}) as a function of z for every w\in D_{\epsilon}(w_0)\cap\overline{\Omega}. Given a non-negative integer s, there exists a positive integer n=n(s) and a constant K=K(s)>0 such that \Vert \mathcal{C}u\Vert_{s}\leq K\Vert u\Vert_{n} for all u\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega).

Fix \tilde{z}\in\overline{\Omega} and \tilde{w}\in D_{\epsilon}(w_0)\cap \overline{\Omega}. Given \epsilon>0, we have \Vert\chi C_{\varphi,w}-\chi C_{\varphi,\tilde{w}}\Vert_n<\epsilon and therefore \Vert\mathcal{C}(\chi C_{\varphi,w})-\mathcal{C}(\chi C_{\varphi,\tilde{w}})\Vert_s<K\epsilon for all w close enough to \tilde{w}. Hence, for z and w close enough to \tilde{z} and \tilde{w} respectively, we have

Here, the first term is less than K\epsilon for w close enough to \tilde{w} (and all z\in\overline{\Omega}), and the second term is less than \epsilon for z close enough to \tilde{z} (since \mathcal{C}(\chi C_{\varphi,\tilde{w}})\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega})). Repeat the last step for the derivatives of (\mathcal{C}(\chi C_{\varphi,w}))(z) with respect to z up to order s. Since s is an arbitrary non-negative integer, we have shown that (\mathcal{C}(\chi C_{\varphi,w}))(z) and all its derivatives with respect to z extend continuously to \overline{\Omega}\times (D_{\epsilon}(w_0)\cap\overline{\Omega}). Similarly, we can show that for any non-negative integer k, the function

and all its derivative with respect to z extend continuously to \overline{\Omega}\times (D_{\epsilon}(w_0)\cap\overline{\Omega}). Thus, we have proved that (\mathcal{C}(\chi C_{\varphi,w}))(z)\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}\times (D_{\epsilon}(w_0)\cap\overline{\Omega})) as a function of (z,w).

Now, observe that for z,w\in\Omega,

Since 1-\overline{\chi}\equiv 0 on D_{\epsilon}(z_0)\cap\partial\Omega, we observe by the same arguments as above that the function (\mathcal{C}((1-\overline{\chi})C_{\varphi,z}))(w)\in C^{\infty}((D_{\epsilon}(z_0)\cap\overline{\Omega})\times \overline{\Omega}) as a function of (z,w).

Hence, H_1(z,w)\in C^{\infty}((D_{\epsilon}(z_0)\cap\overline{\Omega})\times (D_{\epsilon}(w_0)\cap\overline{\Omega})). Since (z_0,w_0)\in (\partial\Omega\times\partial\Omega)-\Delta was arbitrary, H_1(z,w)\in C^{\infty}((\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega})-\Delta).

We will now study H_2(z,w)=(P_{\varphi} \mathcal{A}_{\varphi} C_{\varphi,w})(z). For w\in\Omega and \zeta\in\partial\Omega,

where \psi_{\zeta}(\xi)=\overline{A_{\varphi}(\zeta,\xi)}. Since \psi_{\zeta}\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega), the function \mathcal{C}\psi_{\zeta}\in A^{\infty}(\Omega). Therefore, we have that (\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w})(\zeta)\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}) as a function of w for every \zeta\in\partial\Omega. Given a non-negative integer s, there exist a positive integer n=n(s) and a constant K=K(s)>0 such that \Vert \mathcal{C}u\Vert_{s}\leq K\Vert u\Vert_n for all u\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega).

Fix w_0\in\overline{\Omega} and \zeta_0\in\partial\Omega. Given \epsilon>0, we have \Vert \psi_{\zeta}-\psi_{\zeta_0}\Vert_n<\epsilon for \zeta close enough to \zeta_0. Therefore, considering as a function of w, we have

for \zeta close enough to \zeta_0. Thus, for \zeta and w close enough to \zeta_0 and w_0 respectively,

Here, the first term is less than K\epsilon for \zeta close enough to \zeta_0 (and all w\in\overline{\Omega}), and the second term is less than \epsilon for w close enough to w_0 (since (\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w})(\zeta_0)\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}) as a function of w). Repeat the last step for the derivatives of (\mathcal{A}_{\varphi} C_{\varphi,w})(\zeta) with respect to w up to order s. Since s is an arbitrary non-negative integer, we have shown that (\mathcal{A}_{\varphi} C_{\varphi,w})(\zeta) and all its derivatives with respect to w are continuous on \partial\Omega\times\overline{\Omega}. Let \zeta(t) denote the parametrization of \partial\Omega. For a non-negative integer k, we have

where \psi_{\zeta}^k(\xi)=\overline{\frac{\partial^k}{\partial t^k}A_{\varphi}(\zeta(t),\xi)}. Proceeding as before, we can show that for a non-negative integer k, the function \frac{\partial^k}{\partial t^k}(\mathcal{A}_{\varphi} C_{\varphi,w})(\zeta(t)) and all its derivatives with respect to w are continuous on \partial\Omega\times\overline{\Omega}. Thus, we have proved that (\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w})(\zeta)\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega\times\overline{\Omega}) as a function of (\zeta,w).

For every w\in\overline{\Omega}, the function (\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w})(\zeta)\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega) and therefore P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w}\in A^{\infty}(\Omega), in particular, P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w}\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}). Given a non-negative integer s, there exist a positive integer n=n(s) and a constant C=C(s,\varphi)>0 such that \Vert P_{\varphi}u\Vert_s\leq C \Vert u\Vert_n for all u\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega).

Fix z_0,\,w_0\in\overline{\Omega}. Let \epsilon be arbitary. Since (\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w})(\zeta)\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega\times\overline{\Omega}) as a function of (\zeta,w), we have \Vert \mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w}-\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w_0}\Vert_n<\epsilon and therefore \Vert P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w}-P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w_0}\Vert_s<\epsilon for w close enough to w_0. Thus, for z and w close enough to z_0 and w_0 respectively,

Here, the first term is less than K\epsilon for w close enough to w_0 (and all z\in\overline{\Omega}), and the second term is less than \epsilon for z close enough to z_0 (since P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w_0}\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega})). Repeat the last step for the derivatives of (P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi} C_{\varphi,w})(z) with respect to z up to order s. Since s is an arbitrary non-negative integer, we have shown that (P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi} C_{\varphi,w})(z) and all its derivatives with respect to z are continuous on \overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega}.

Since (\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w})(\zeta)\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega\times\overline{\Omega}) as a function of (\zeta,w), it follows from the estimates for the weighted Szegő projection that (P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w})(z) is infinitely many times differentiable with respect to w in \overline{\Omega}, and that

for any non-negative integer k. Proceeding as before, we can show that for any non-negative integer k, the function \frac{\partial^k}{\partial w^k}(P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w})(z) and all its derivatives with respect to z are continuous on \overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega}. Thus, we have proved that H_2(z,w)=(P_{\varphi}\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w})(z)\in C^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega}).

By the properties of the weighted Garabedian kernel mentioned before, it is easy to see that l_{\varphi} is holomorphic in (z,w)\in\Omega\times\Omega.

For a fixed a\in\Omega, the function L_{\varphi}(\cdot,a) is holomorphic on \Omega\setminus\{a\} with a simple pole at z=a with residue \frac{1}{2\pi}, and extends C^{\infty} smoothly to \partial\Omega. So, l_{\varphi}(\cdot,a)\in A^{\infty}(\Omega). Define

Recall that the functions in L^2(\partial\Omega) orthogonal to H^2_{1/\varphi}(\partial\Omega) are of the form \varphi \overline{HT} where H\in H^2(\partial\Omega). Therefore,

But for z\in\Omega,

Therefore,

Finally, proceeding as in the proof of Theorem 3.2, we obtain that l_{\varphi} extends to be in C^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega}).

Since \varphi_k\rightarrow\varphi uniformly as k\rightarrow\infty on \partial\Omega and \varphi is a positive real-valued C^{\infty} function on \partial\Omega, there exists a constant c_{\varphi}>0 such that for large enough k,

for all \zeta\in\partial\Omega. Let us assume that \partial\Omega has been parametrized with respect to arc length. Let a\in\Omega. For large enough k, we have

The same inequality holds when \varphi_k is replaced by \varphi. Therefore, for every h\in H^2(\partial\Omega) and for large enough k, we have by (?)

That is, for large enough k, the evaluation linear functionals at a on H^2_{\varphi_k}(\partial\Omega) and H^2_{\varphi}(\partial\Omega) are bounded with a uniform bound. This implies that

for large enough k. Therefore,

The same inequality holds when \varphi_k is replaced by \varphi. For large enough k, define the bounded linear functionals \Lambda_k on L^2(\partial\Omega) as

It follows from (Proof) that the linear functionals \Lambda_k are bounded with a uniform bound. By the Banach-Alaoglu theorem, \Lambda_k has a weak-{*} convergent subsequence. By passing to this subsequence, denote the weak-{*} limit by \Lambda_0, where

Now, for h\in H^2(\partial\Omega), we have

Note that h\varphi_k converges to h\varphi in L^2(\partial\Omega). Therefore,

Thus,

If f\in {H^2(\partial\Omega)}^{\perp}, then \langle f, S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a)\rangle=0 for all k, and therefore \langle f, S_0\rangle=0. Thus, S_0\in H^2(\partial\Omega) and hence, S_0=S_{\varphi}(\cdot,a).

Now, for a compact K\subset\Omega, the Cauchy integral formula gives

Since the L^2(\partial\Omega)-norm of the functions S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) is uniformly bounded, Montel’s theorem says that the sequence \{S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a)\}_{k=1}^{\infty} is a normal family of holomorphic functions on \Omega. Hence, it has a subsequence that converges to a holomorphic function \Tilde{S}, uniformly on all compact subsets of \Omega. Work with this subsequence in what follows. For all h\in L^2(\partial\Omega)

Recall that S(\cdot,\cdot) denotes the Szegő kernel of \Omega. Since S(\cdot,\zeta)\in L^2(\partial\Omega) for every \zeta\in\Omega, we therefore have

Hence, we must have that \Tilde{S}=S_{\varphi}(\cdot,a). Thus, S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) converges locally uniformly to S_{\varphi}(\cdot,a) on \Omega.

Moreover, if K_1 and K_2 are compact subsets of \Omega. Then, for w\in K_2 and large enough k

Since K_2 is compact, \Vert C_w\Vert is uniformly bounded for w\in K_2. Therefore, there exists an M>0 such that

for large enough k. Hence, Montel’s theorem says that \{S_{\varphi_k}\} has a subsequence that converges locally uniformly to a function H on \Omega\times\Omega which is holomorphic in the first variable and antiholomorphic in the second variable. We must have H=S_{\varphi} from the above discussion. So, S_{\varphi_k}\rightarrow S_{\varphi} uniformly on all the compact subsets of \Omega\times\Omega.

Using the weighted Kerzman-Stein formula as before, we have for z,w\in\Omega,

and similarly

We first analyze G_k(z,w) and prove that the sequence G_k converges to G locally uniformly on (\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega})-\Delta where \Delta=\{(z,z) : z\in\partial\Omega\} is the diagonal of the boundary.

Let D_r(z) \subset \mathbb C denote the disc of radius r > 0 around z \in \mathbb C. It suffices to show convergence on sets of the form (D_r(z_0)\cap \overline{\Omega})\times (D_r(w_0)\cap\overline{\Omega}) where (z_0,w_0)\in(\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega})-\Delta and r>0 is small enough that \overline{D_r(z_0)}\cap \overline{D_r(w_0)}=\emptyset. Also, if z_0\in\Omega (or w_0\in\Omega) then r is chosen such that \overline{D_r(z_0)}\cap \partial\Omega=\emptyset (or \overline{D_r(w_0)}\cap \partial\Omega=\emptyset).

Let \chi be a function in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega) such that \chi\equiv 1 on a neighborhood of \overline{D_r(z_0)}\cap \partial\Omega and \chi\equiv 0 on a neighborhood of \overline{D_r(w_0)}\cap \partial\Omega. In case w_0\in\Omega, take \chi\equiv 1. If w_0\in\partial\Omega and z_0\in\Omega, take \chi\equiv 0. For z,w\in\Omega,

There exists a positive integer n and a constant K>0 such that \Vert \mathcal{C}u\Vert_0\leq K \Vert u\Vert_{n} for all u\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega). For \epsilon>0, there exists a positive integer k_1 such that \Vert \chi(C_{\varphi_k,w} - C_{\varphi,w})\Vert_n<\epsilon for all k\geq k_1 and w\in D_r(w_0)\cap \overline{\Omega}. Thus, for all z\in \overline{\Omega}, w\in D_r(w_0)\cap \overline{\Omega} and k\geq k_1, we have

Note that for z,w\in\Omega, we have

There exists a positive integer k_2 such that \Vert (1-\overline{\chi})C_{\varphi_k,z} - (1-\overline{\chi})C_{\varphi,z}\Vert_n<\epsilon for all k\geq k_2 and z\in D_r(z_0)\cap\overline{\Omega}. Thus, for all z\in D_r(z_0)\cap\overline{\Omega}, w\in \overline{\Omega} and k\geq k_2, we have

Hence, for all z\in D_r(z_0)\cap\overline{\Omega}, w\in D_r(w_0)\cap\overline{\Omega} and k\geq \max\{k_1,k_2\}, we have

Thus, G_k(z,w)\rightarrow G(z,w) as k\rightarrow\infty uniformly on (D_r(z_0)\cap\overline{\Omega})\times (D_r(w_0)\cap\overline{\Omega}). So, we have shown that G_k(z,w)\rightarrow G(z,w) as k\rightarrow\infty locally uniformly on (\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega})-\Delta.

We shall now analyze H_k(z,w)=(P_{\varphi_k} \mathcal{A}_{\varphi_k} C_{\varphi_k,w})(z) and prove that the sequence H_k converges to H locally uniformly on (\Omega\times\overline{\Omega}). Let \psi_{\zeta}^k(\xi)=\overline{A_{\varphi_k}(\zeta,\xi)} and \psi_{\zeta}(\xi)=\overline{A_{\varphi}(\zeta,\xi)} where \zeta,\xi\in\partial\Omega. For w\in\overline{\Omega} and \zeta\in\partial\Omega,

It can be easily checked that \Vert \psi^k_{\zeta}-\psi_{\zeta}\Vert_n\rightarrow 0 as k\rightarrow\infty. Thus, (\mathcal{A}_{\varphi_k}C_{\varphi_k,w})(\zeta)\rightarrow (\mathcal{A}_{\varphi}C_{\varphi,w})(\zeta) uniformly on \partial\Omega\times \overline{\Omega} as k\rightarrow\infty when considered as a function of (\zeta,w). Similarly, for a non-negative integer m, it can be shown that

uniformly on \partial\Omega\times \overline{\Omega} as k\rightarrow\infty when considered as a function of (\zeta,w). Now, for z,w\in\overline{\Omega}

Observe that

where

Since \varphi_k\rightarrow\varphi uniformly on \partial\Omega and A_{\varphi_k}\rightarrow A_{\varphi} uniformly on \partial\Omega\times\partial\Omega, the constants C_k are bounded. We have seen above that \Vert \mathcal{A}_{\varphi_k} C_{\varphi_k,w}-\mathcal{A}_{\varphi} C_{\varphi,w}\Vert_n\rightarrow 0 as k\rightarrow\infty uniformly for all w\in\overline{\Omega}. Therefore,

uniformly on \overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega}.

Let \mathcal{K} be a compact subset of \Omega. For z\in\mathcal{K} and w\in\overline{\Omega}

Since S_{\varphi}(z,\zeta)\in C^{\infty}(\mathcal{K}\times \partial\Omega), \mathcal{A}_{\varphi} C_{\varphi,w}(\zeta)\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega\times \overline{\Omega}) as a function of (\zeta,w) and \varphi_k\rightarrow\varphi uniformly on \partial\Omega,

uniformly on \mathcal{K}\times\overline{\Omega}. Let

Observe that

Since \varphi_k\rightarrow\varphi uniformly on \partial\Omega and \mathcal{A}_{\varphi} C_{\varphi,w}(\zeta)\in C^{\infty}(\partial\Omega\times\overline{\Omega}) as a function of (\zeta,w), the function

is uniformly bounded for w\in\overline{\Omega}. Now,

where

Therefore,

Since \varphi_k converges to \varphi uniformly on \partial\Omega, it follows that M_k\rightarrow 0 as k\rightarrow\infty. Since S_{\varphi}(z,z) is bounded for z\in \mathcal{K},

uniformly for z\in\mathcal{K}. Thus,

uniformly on \mathcal{K}\times\overline{\Omega}. Since \mathcal{K} is an arbitrary compact subset of \Omega, we see that

locally uniformly on \Omega\times\overline{\Omega}. Thus, we have proved that H_k(z,w)\rightarrow H(z,w) as k\rightarrow\infty locally uniformly on \Omega\times\overline{\Omega}. Combining the convergence results for G_k and H_k, and noting that the Szegő kernel is conjugate symmetric, we finally conclude that

locally uniformly on (\Omega\times\overline{\Omega})\cup (\overline{\Omega}\times\Omega).

Let \{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_N\} be the zero set of f. By [Be1], it is known that

for z,w\in\Omega, where the coefficients c_{ijk} are determined by the condition [c_{ijk}]=[S_{\varphi_k}(a_i,a_j)]^{-1}, and

where [c_{ij}]=[S_{\varphi}(a_i,a_j)]^{-1}. Note that \Delta\subset\mathcal{L}. The above relations hold for all (z,w)\in (\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega})-\mathcal{L} by continuity.

Let K\subset\Omega be compact. Note that for w\in K, L_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,w)-L_{\varphi}(\cdot,w) is a holomorphic function on \Omega as the poles cancel out, and it extends C^{\infty} smoothly to \partial\Omega. By the maximum modulus principle,

Since \varphi_k\rightarrow \varphi uniformly on \partial\Omega and S_{\varphi}\in C^{\infty}(K\times \overline{\Omega}), there exists a constant M>0 and k_0 \ge 1 such that

for all k\geq k_0. By Theorem 4.2 and (?), it follows that

locally uniformly on (\Omega\times\overline{\Omega}) \cap (\overline{\Omega}\times \Omega).

Let \{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_N\} be the zero set of f. Recall that for (z,w)\in(\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega})- \mathcal{L},

where the coefficients c_{ijk} are determined by the condition [c_{ijk}]=[S_{\varphi_k}(a_i,a_j)]^{-1}. For (z,w)\in (\Omega \times \partial\Omega), this can be rewritten as

That is,

where [c_{ijk}]=[S_{\varphi_k}(a_i,a_j)]^{-1}. Similarly,

where [c_{ij}]=[S_{\varphi}(a_i,a_j)]^{-1}. Therefore,

Note that L_{\varphi_k}(w,z) - L_{\varphi}(w,z) is a holomorphic function in z and w and extends to be in C^{\infty}(\overline{\Omega}\times \overline{\Omega}). For a fixed z\in\Omega, the function on the right side in (?) is holomorphic on \Omega - \{z,a_1,\ldots,a_N\} and extends C^{\infty} smoothly to \partial\Omega. Therefore, z,a_1,\ldots,a_N must be removable singularities. Since (?) holds for all w\in\partial\Omega, the identity principle implies that it also holds for all w\in \Omega - \{z,a_1,\ldots,a_N\}. A final continuity argument gives that (?) is true for all (z,w)\in (\overline{\Omega}\times (\overline{\Omega}-\{a_1,\ldots,a_N\}))-\mathcal{L} with z\neq w. Hence the theorem follows using (Proof), (?) and Theorem 4.2.

Consider the constant function \mathbf{1}\in A^{\infty}(\Omega). By Lemma 5.1, there exist constants c_i\in \mathbb C and points a_i\in\Omega, 1 \le i \le k such that

Thus, \Sigma = \sum_{i=1}^k c_i S_{\varphi}(\cdot,a_i) is non-vanishing on \overline{\Omega}. Let a\in\Omega be arbitrary. The function

is smooth on \overline{\Omega}. Recall that for w\in\Omega

Therefore, for z\in\partial\Omega, we have

Note that

is a meromorphic function on \Tilde{\Omega}=R(\Omega) that extends smoothly to the boundary. Also, f=g on \partial\Omega. Therefore, f extends meromorphically to the double \Hat{\Omega}, and hence the zeroes of S_{\varphi}(\cdot,a) on \partial\Omega must be isolated and of finite order.

It can be checked that for z\in\partial\Omega,

Also, the function

is meromorphic on \Tilde{\Omega}=R(\Omega). Since the zeroes of functions of z of the form S_{\varphi}(z,a) on \partial\Omega are isolated and of finite order, the function S_{\varphi}(z,A_0)/S_{\varphi}(z,A_1) extends to the boundary with at most finitely many pole like singularities. Thus, S_{\varphi}(z,A_0)/S_{\varphi}(z,A_1) extends meromorphically to the double of \Omega.

It is enough to show the convergence near points on \partial\Omega other than w_0. Let f:\Omega\rightarrow\mathbb{D} be a proper holomorphic map with simple zeroes. By Theorem 4.2 and Corollary \ref{ram2_cor},

locally uniformly on (\overline{\Omega}\times\overline{\Omega})- \mathcal{L} where \mathcal{L}=\{(z,w)\in\partial\Omega\times\partial\Omega : f(z) \overline{f(w)}=1\}. Let b\in\Omega be fixed. Since S(z,b) does not vanish for z\in\partial\Omega, there exists a k_1 \ge 1 such that S_{\varphi_k}(z,b) does not vanish for z\in\partial\Omega and k\geq k_1.

Let \{a_1,a_2,\ldots,a_N\} be the zero set of f. Then

where the coefficients c_{ijk} are determined by the condition [c_{ijk}]=[S_{\varphi_k}(a_i,a_j)]^{-1}, and

where [c_{ij}]=[S(a_i,a_j)]^{-1}. Since f extends meromorphically to the double, it follows from Corollary 5.3 that the functions in (?) and (?) extend meromorphically to the double \Hat{\Omega}. Write

where \mathcal{F} denotes the meromorphic extension of 1/(1-f(z)\overline{f(w_0)}) to \Hat{\Omega}. The values of \mathcal{S}_k and \mathcal{S} on \Omega \sqcup \partial\Omega can be read from (?) and (?). From the proof of Corollary 5.3,

for z\in\Tilde{\Omega} = R(\Omega).

Let z_0\in\partial\Omega be such that z_0\neq w_0. It can be read from the left side in (?) and (?) that \mathcal{F}(z)\mathcal{S}_k(z) and \mathcal{F}(z)\mathcal{S}(z) cannot have a pole at z=z_0 for all k\geq k_1. By the same reasoning, \mathcal{S}_k(z) and \mathcal{S}(z) cannot have pole at z=z_0 for all k\geq k_1. Let \psi: U\rightarrow V\subset\mathbb{C} be a chart near z_0 with \psi(z_0)=0 and w_0\notin U. Therefore, if \mathcal{F}(z) has a pole at z=z_0 then there exists an integer r \ge 1 such that for k\geq k_1,

where \mathcal{G}, \mathcal{T}_k and \mathcal{T} are holomorphic functions in a neighborhood of 0. Without loss of generality, assume it to hold on V.

From Theorems 4.2 and 4.5, the functions \mathcal{S}_k converge to \mathcal{S} uniformly on some neighborhood of z_0 in \Hat{\Omega}. Without loss of generality, let the convergence be on U. So, \mathcal{S}_k\circ \psi^{-1}\rightarrow\mathcal{S}\circ\psi^{-1} uniformly on V. Let C\subset V be a circle centered at 0 enclosing the disc D. By the maximum modulus principle,

where M_1, M_2 are positive constants. By Montel’s theorem, every subsequence of \{\mathcal{T}_k\vert_D\} has a convergent subsequence. But the only possible limit point is \mathcal{T}\vert_D. Therefore, \mathcal{T}_k\rightarrow\mathcal{T} uniformly on D. This implies that \mathcal{F}\mathcal{S}_k\rightarrow\mathcal{F}\mathcal{S} uniformly on \psi^{-1}(D). In particular,

uniformly for z\in \overline{\Omega}\cap \psi^{-1}(D). Note that the constants S_{\varphi_k}(b,w_0), S(b,w_0) and the functions S_{\varphi_k}(z,b), S(z,b) do not vanish on some neighborhood of z_0 in \overline{\Omega}. Shrinking U if necessary, assume that they do not vanish for z\in \overline{\Omega}\cap \psi^{-1}(D) and k\geq k_1. We therefore conclude using Theorem 4.2 that

uniformly for z\in\overline{\Omega}\cap \psi^{-1}(D). Hence, we have proved the theorem.

We can write

Moreover,

locally uniformly on \Omega\times\Omega. The convergence of weighted Szegő kernels follows from Theorem 4.1. Based on the ideas from [ra1, ra2], we will give a quick proof for the convergence of weighted Bergman kernels.

Since \varphi_k\rightarrow \mathbf{1} uniformly on \overline D as k\rightarrow\infty, there exists a constant c>0 such that \varphi_k(z)\geq c for all z\in \overline{D}. Let K_c denote the Bergman kernel of D with respect to the constant weight c. The monotonicity property of the Bergman kernel gives that K_{\varphi_k}(z,z)\leq K_{c}(z,z) for all z\in D. Let W\subset D be compact. Using Schwarz inequality, we have for all z,w\in W

Thus, \{K_{\varphi_k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty} is a Montel family on D\times D. It suffices to show that each convergent subsequence converges to K. Without loss of generality, let us assume that the entire sequence \{K_{\varphi_k}\}_{k=1}^{\infty} converges to a function k_0. The limit k_0 is holomorphic in the first variable and antiholomorphic in the second variable. Furthermore, for each w\in D

Therefore, k_0(\cdot,w)\in L^2(D)\cap \mathcal{O}(D). A final application of DCT gives the reproducing property

for all f\in L^2(D)\cap \mathcal{O}(D). By the uniqueness of the Bergman kernel, we have k_0 = K.

Assume that the zero set of S(\cdot, a) is \{a_1,\ldots,a_{r}\} such that S(z,a_i) vanishes at z=a_i with multiplicity m_i. Here, we must have m_1 + m_2 + \ldots + m_r = n-1. Choose \epsilon>0 small enough that \overline{B(a_i,\epsilon)}\subset\Omega for all i and \overline{B(a_j,\epsilon)}\cap\overline{B(a_i,\epsilon)}=\emptyset for all j\neq i.

Since S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a)\rightarrow S(\cdot,a) uniformly on C(a_j,\epsilon) = \partial B(a_j, \epsilon) and S(\cdot,a) does not vanish on C(a_j,\epsilon), there exists k_1\in \mathbb{Z}^+ such that S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) does not vanish on C(a_j,\epsilon) for all 1\leq j\leq r and k\geq k_1. Fix i\in \{1,\ldots,r\}. Then,

which equals the number of zeroes of S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) in B(a_i,\epsilon) counting multiplicities, converges to

that gives the number of zeroes of S(\cdot,a) in B(a_i,\epsilon) counting multiplicities, which is m_i. Therefore, N(k) is an eventually constant sequence, equal to m_i. Therefore, S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) has m_i zeroes counting multiplicities in B(a_i,\epsilon) for large enough k.

Thus, there exists k_2\geq k_1 such that S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) has m_j zeroes counting multiplicities in B(a_j,\epsilon) for all k\geq k_2 and 1\leq j\leq r. That is, S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) has at least n-1 zeroes counting multiplicities in \Omega for all k\geq k_2.

Since S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a)\rightarrow S(\cdot,a) uniformly on \partial\Omega and S(\cdot,a) does not vanish on \partial\Omega, there exists k_3\geq k_2 such that S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) does not vanish on \partial\Omega for all k\geq k_3. Since

the Garabedian kernels L_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) also do not vanish on \partial\Omega for all k\geq k_3. Therefore, from (?) we get that

for all z\in \partial\Omega and k\geq k_3. Thus, \Delta \arg (S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a)\,L_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a)) + \Delta \arg T =0. By the argument principle, this means that

where the zeroes and poles are counted with multiplicities. The Szegő kernel S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) is holomorphic on \Omega and the Garabedian kernel is holomorphic on \Omega\setminus\{a\} with a simple pole at z=a. Therefore, the combined number of zeroes of S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) and L_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) in \Omega counting multiplicities is 1-(1-(n-1))=n-1 for all k\geq k_3.

We have shown the existence of at least n-1 zeroes of S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a) counting multiplicities for all k\geq k_3. Therefore, the above statement implies that these are the only zeroes of S_{\varphi_k}(\cdot,a), and L_{\varphi_k}(\cdot, a) does not vanish in \Omega for all k\geq k_3.

Let \mathcal{L}_{\varphi}=\text{span}_{\mathbb{C}}\{L_{\varphi}(\cdot,b_j)S_{\varphi}(\cdot,a) : j=1,\ldots,n-1\}. We first show that \mathcal{Q}\subset \mathcal{L}_{\varphi}T. Let f\in\mathcal{Q}, i.e., f is orthogonal to both H^2(\partial\Omega) and \overline{H^2(\partial\Omega)}. Therefore, there exists h,\,H\in H^2(\partial\Omega) such that

Recall the identity

Therefore,

which can be rewritten as

The function on the right hand side of the above equation is orthogonal to H^2_{1/\varphi}(\partial\Omega). Therefore, taking the orthogonal weighted Szegő projection P^{\perp}_{1/\varphi} with respect to the weight 1/\varphi on both sides of (Proof) gives

We can also write

where G\in H^2(\partial\Omega) and c_j=i h(b_j)/ {S_{\varphi}}'(b_j,a) is the residue of the simple pole of the meromorphic function i h(z)/S_{\varphi}(z,a) at z=b_j. Thus,

It is immediate from (Proof) that L_{\varphi}(\cdot,a) is orthogonal to H^2_{1/\varphi}(\partial\Omega). For every w\in\Omega, there exists a function H_w\in H^2(\partial\Omega) such that

Therefore, for w\in\Omega

Hence,

On comparing (Proof) and (?), we obtain

Therefore, \mathcal{Q}\subset \mathcal{L}_{\varphi}T. The complex vector space \mathcal{L}_{\varphi}T has dimension less than or equal to (n-1) and the vector space \mathcal{Q} has dimension (n-1) (see [Be0]). Hence, \mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{L}_{\varphi}T. Since \mathcal{Q}=\mathcal{F}'T and

we finally conclude that

Let K_{\Omega} denote the Bergman kernel of \Omega. It is known that (see [Bergman]), there exist constants c_{ij}, 1\leq i,j\leq n-1 such that for z,w\in\Omega

It follows from [Be1] that for every 1\leq j\leq n-1

where R_j, 1\leq j\leq n-1 are complex rational functions of two complex variables and R is a complex rational function of four complex variables. Therefore, there exists a complex rational function \mathcal{R} of four complex variables such that

for z, w \in \Omega.

It is known (see [Be2]) that there exist points A_1, A_2 and A_3 in \Omega such that

extend to the double of \Omega and form a primitive pair. Choosing S_{\Omega}(z,A_i)S_{\Omega}(z,A_j)\in\mathcal{A} for i,j\in\{1,2,3\} in Theorem 7.2 gives the result.

Choose A_1, A_2 and A_3 in \Omega such that

extend to the double of \Omega and form a primitive pair. Therefore, it follows that the Szegő kernel S_{\Omega}(z,w) is a rational combination of S_{\Omega}(z,A_1),S_{\Omega}(z,A_2) and S_{\Omega}(z,A_3), and the conjuagates of S_{\Omega}(w,A_1),S_{\Omega}(w,A_2) and S_{\Omega}(w,A_3). Furthermore, the functions F_j'(z) are rational combinations of S_{\Omega}(z,A_1),S_{\Omega}(z,A_2) and S_{\Omega}(z,A_3).

Choose a\in\Omega close enough to the boundary such that S_{\Omega}(\cdot,a) has simple zeroes a_1,\ldots,a_{n-1} and let f_a denote the Ahlfors map associated with a\in\Omega. Then

where c_0 = 1/S(a,a) and [c_{ij}]=[S(a_i,a_j)]^{-1} (see [Be4]). The Ahlfors map f_a is a proper holomorphic map on \Omega and thus extends meromorphically to the double of \Omega, and hence can be written as a rational combination of the primitive pair. For m\in\mathbb{Z}^+, we therefore see that \frac{\partial^m}{\partial \overline{w}^m}S_{\Omega}(z,w) is rational combination of S_{\Omega}(z,A_1),S_{\Omega}(z,A_2) and S_{\Omega}(z,A_3) for a fixed point w\in\Omega. Recall that the Bergman kernel and the Szegő kernel are related by

for some constants A_{ij}. Hence, we conclude that K_{\Omega,n}(z,w)=\frac{\partial^m}{\partial \overline{w}^n}K_{\Omega}(z,w) is a rational combination of S_{\Omega}(z,A_1),S_{\Omega}(z,A_2) and S_{\Omega}(z,A_3) for all n\geq 1 and every fixed point w\in\Omega.

Now, from the relation

it follows that \frac{\partial^m}{\partial \overline{w}^m}\tilde{K}_{\Omega}(z,w) is also a rational combination of S_{\Omega}(z,A_1),S_{\Omega}(z,A_2) and S_{\Omega}(z,A_3) for all m\geq 1 and every fixed point w\in\Omega. Finally, we conclude from the determinant formula (7.1) that \tilde{K}_{\Omega,n}(z,w) is a rational combination of S_{\Omega}(z,A_1),S_{\Omega}(z,A_2) and S_{\Omega}(z,A_3) for all n> 1 and every fixed point w\in\Omega.