A Kac system interacting with two heat reservoirs

Since H(0,{\vec \xi})=0 for every {\vec \xi} we see that \nabla_{{\vec \xi}}H(0,0)=0 so that

and {\mathcal D}(H,0)\leq\infty. Analogously to (?), we can write H(\vec \eta,\xi) = \vec \eta \cdot \nabla_{\vec \eta} H(0,\xi) + \widetilde L(\vec \eta,\xi) so that we get

Thus

Since the supremum over \vec \eta\ne0 is certainly larger than the value at any particular \vec \eta, setting \vec \eta_0 to be the vector parallel to \nabla_{\vec\eta} H(0,\xi) with norm \|\vec \eta_0\| = \frac{\|{\vec \xi}\|\alpha({\vec \xi})}{2 \left\| H \right\| _{3,0}} yields

It follows that

where we used that \|H\|_{3,0}\geq 2{\mathcal D}_1(H,\xi). Together with (Proof), this gives the thesis.

For ease of notation, we will write

First, suppose, for some k \geq 1, \underline{\eta} = (\vec{\eta}_1,...,\vec{\eta}_k,0,...,0) with \|{\vec \eta}_j\| \geq \eta_0 for all j \leq k, and denote \underline{\eta}_{0,k} = (\vec{\eta}_0,...,\vec{\eta}_0, 0,..., 0), for some {\vec \eta}_0 such that \|\vec{\eta}_0\|=\eta_0, and where there are k non-zero components. Using the monotonicity of G and the fact that the function \frac{ka^2 + x}{a^2 + x} is decreasing in x, we get

Hence

More generally, suppose \underline{\eta}= (\vec{\eta}_1,...,\vec{\eta}_N) with \|\vec{\eta}_1\|,...,\|\vec{\eta}_k\| \geq \eta_0 and \|\vec{\eta}_{k +1}\|,...,\|\vec{\eta}_N\| < \eta_0, for some k. Set \underline{\eta}_{*} = (\vec{\eta}_1,...,\vec{\eta}_k,0,...,0), and \underline{\eta}_{**} = (0,...,0,\vec{\eta}_{k + 1},...,\vec{\eta}_N). Then we have

Since \eta_* is of the form we considered in the first case, for the first term we get

where we have used again the monotonicity of G for the first inequality. On the other hand, the second term satisfies

Since \vec\eta_{**} has all component of norm less than \eta_0, combining these two cases yields the claim.

Since the right hand side of (?) depends only on the \|\vec{\eta}_i\|^2 we can set x_i=\|\vec{\eta}_i\|^2. Thus we call B_r := \left\{ \underline{x}: \sum_{i=1}^N x_i = r, 0\leq x_i \leq \eta_0^2 \right\} and observe that for x_i>0 we have

where \|\underline{x}||_1=\sum_{i=1}^N |x_i|. We thus get

Since B_r is a convex set and \sum_i x_i (1+T x_i) is a convex function we get

Observe now that \partial B_r contains only points for which at most one 0<x_i<\eta_0^2. The claim now follows.

We consider the function h:\mathds R^+\mapsto\mathds R defined as

and observe that

Since we can write

calling \bar H the largest modulus of the eigenvalues of Hessian matrix of H at \vec{\eta}=0, we get

while

so that we get

In particular we obtain that {\mathcal D}_1(H,0)\geq \bar H. Moreover from the left hand side of (Proof) we have

Taking r=\frac{{\mathcal D}_1(H,0)}{3\|H\|_3} we get

On the other hand, the right hand side of (Proof) gives

Let r_* be the smallest r such that

From (Proof) we see that either r_*=0 or r_*\geq (\bar H-{\mathcal D}_1(H,0))/\|H\|_3. Observe that, if r_*=0, then {\mathcal D}_1(H,0)=\bar H and (Proof) gives the thesis. Thus we can assume that r_*\geq(\bar H-{\mathcal D}_1(H,0))/\|H\|_3. Observing that r^2/(r^2+\xi^2) is increasing in r, it follows that

Thus we get

Observe finally that if \alpha_1,\alpha_2>0 and \alpha_1+\alpha_2=1 then \max\left\{ a_1, a_2 \right\}\geq \alpha_1 a_1+\alpha_2 a_2. Taking \alpha_1=18/19 and \alpha_2=1/19 in (Proof) gives

Observe that

Similarly we get

where we have used if \sigma\in\mathds S^2 then

We begin by writing

From Lemma A.1, it is easy to see that

so that

Thus

where we have used the convexity of d_2.

For (A.2) we observe that, reasoning like for (Proof) we get

The second inequality now follows as before.

Observe that if T_+>T_-, using that 1-e^{-x}\leq x, we get

while the opposite inequality is evident.

Given i,i'\in \{0,\ldots,M\} and \omega\in \mathds S_2, let r_{i,i'}(\omega) be the linear transformation on \mathds{R} ^{3M} described in (?). A direct computation shows that

The statement follows immediately from the fact that r_{i,j}(\omega) is unitary and self-adjoint.

Let now \tilde r_i(\omega) be the linear transformation on \mathds{R} ^{3M+3} described in (?). Then \tilde r_i(\omega)^{\otimes k} acts on homogeneous the polynomials of degree k in 3M+3 variables. Let \widetilde P be the projector between the space of homogeneous polynomials in 3M+3 variables to the space of homogeneous polynomials in 3M variables. Then we have

and the thesis follows from the fact that \widetilde P\tilde r_{i}(\omega)^{\otimes k}\widetilde P is a principal minor of a self-adjoint unitary matrix. Finally we observe that also L_B^{k,l} is the sum of M terms that can be written in term of suitable (non-orthogonal) projections of \tilde r_{i}(\omega)^{\otimes k}.

For every \mathbf i=((i_1,j_1),\ldots(i_4,j_4))\in I^k, using Hölder inequality with suitable exponents we can write

Since \int_{ \mathds{R} ^{3M}}\tilde f_t({\underline v})d{\underline v}=1 and thus E_4(\tilde f_t)\geq 1, applying Lemma B.2 we get

The thesis follows immediately.

It is enough to observe that

Given \underline{\eta}\in \mathds{R} ^{3N} we write \underline{\eta}^{\leq k}=(\vec \eta_1,\ldots, \vec \eta_k) and \underline{\eta}^{> k}=(\vec \eta_{k+1},\ldots, \vec \eta_N). We have

Observe now that for every i,j we have

so that