Strichartz and local smoothing estimates for the fractional Schrödinger equations over fractal time

The estimate (2.1) implies

Since 2^{(\frac d2 - \frac dr-\frac \gamma q)j} [E]_\alpha^\frac1q \|\tilde P_j f\|_{2} \le C\|f\|_{\dot H^{s_\gamma (q,r)}} for all j\in \mathbb Z, this proves Theorem 1.2 via Proposition 2.1.

Since 2^{(\frac d2 - \frac dr-\frac \gamma q)j} [E]_\alpha^\frac1q \|\tilde P_j f\|_{2} \le C\|f\|_{H^{s_\gamma (q,r)}} for j\ge 1, thanks to Proposition 2.1, we only need to consider U_t^\gamma P_{\le 0} f. Using Berstein’s inequality and Plancherel’s theorem, we have

for r\ge 2. Since E is a bounded set, we have |E(1)|\le (2+\operatorname{diam} E)[E]_\alpha. Thus, it follows that

Let t\in I_\tau. After scaling, we write

Expanding \mathrm{e}^{i2^{\gamma j }(t-\tau)|\xi|^\gamma} \psi(|\xi|) in a Fourier series on [-\pi, \pi)^d, we have

where C_\ell = \int \mathrm{e}^{i(2^{\gamma j }(t-\tau)|\xi|^\gamma - \langle\ell, \xi\rangle)} \psi(|\xi|) \,\mathrm{d}\xi. Since |t-\tau|\le 2^{1-\gamma j}, by routine integration by parts, it is easy to see

with C_N independent of j and t\in I_{\tau}. Thus, for t\in I_{\tau}, we have

Since |I_{\tau}|\sim 2^{-\gamma j}, using (Proof) and Minkowski’s inequality, we obtain

for a constant C.

To prove the reverse inequality, we note that the roles of t and \tau (Proof) can be interchanged. Then, the rest of argument is identical to that for the opposite inequality.

The Plancherel theorem gives

for t,s\in \mathbb R. Note that the kernel K_{t, s} of the operator T_{t, s} is given by

Since the Hessian matrix of |\xi|^\gamma, \gamma\neq 1 has non-vanishing determinant when |\xi|\sim 1, after scaling \xi\to 2^j\xi, using the stationary phase estimate, we have

which gives

Interpolating (Proof) and (Proof) yields (2.4) for 2\le r\le \infty and t,s\in \mathbb R.

We show (B) first. Let us set

Then, by Hölder’s inequality in Lorentz space we have

On the other hand, Minkowski’s inequality gives

Real interpolation between those two estimates for the operator S yields the estimate (2.5) whenever 1/p-1/q=1-1/s and 1< p, q< \infty.

The proof of (A) is similar. Replacing the Lorentz space norms with \ell^p norms, complex interpolation gives (2.5) if 1/p-1/q=1-1/s and 1\le p, q\le \infty.

To prove the first assertion (2.6), by symmetry it suffices to show the first inequality in (2.6). Recalling (?) and (2.4), by (?) it follows that

Note that \| \chi_{k}(\cdot - \tau')\|_{\ell^s(\mathcal E_j)}^s= \# A_k (\tau') where

Since \mathcal E_j is a maximally 2^{-\gamma j} separated subset of E with bounded \alpha-Assouad characteristic, from (?) it follows

Thus, we obtain

The sum is bounded by C[E]_\alpha since d(\frac 1 2 - \frac 1 r)s - \alpha >0. This proves the first inequality in (2.6).

To show (2.6), as before, we need only to show the first inequality, which is equivalent to the estimate

with a constant C independent of \lambda and \tau'. Recall (2.4). Since \mathcal K_r\le 1, it suffices to consider 0<\lambda\le 1. Note that the set \{ \tau\in \mathcal E_j: \mathcal K_r(\tau, \tau')>\lambda \} is contained in an interval of length C 2^{-\gamma j} \lambda^{- 1/d(\frac1 2 - \frac1 r)}. Additionally, \mathcal E_j is a maximally 2^{-\gamma j} separated subset of E with bounded \alpha-Assouad characteristic. Since d(\frac1 2 - \frac1 r)= \frac \alpha s, from (?) the desired inequality follows (cf., (Proof)).

The estimate (?) for (a,b)=(2,2) and (a,b)=(\infty, \infty) is easy to show. Indeed, from (?) and (2.4), we have

for 2\le r\le \infty, where \mathcal K_{r,k} is given by (?).

Therefore, the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality gives

From (2.4), it follows that \mathcal K_{r,k} \le 2^{-\lambda(r, r) k}\chi_{k}. Since \| \chi_{k}(\cdot - \tau')\|_{\ell^1(\mathcal E_j)}= \# A_k (\tau'), recalling (Proof), we see that

Therefore, applying (A) in Lemma 2.5 with p=q=2, we have (?), in particular, for (a,b)=(2,2) and (a,b)=(\infty, \infty).

Therefore, in perspective of interpolation, it suffices to show

for 2\leq r < r_\ast. By symmetry, we only have to show (?). Indeed, observe that

Thus, (?) follows from (?).

Thanks to the cutoff function \chi_{k}(\tau - \tau'), using a standard argument, we may assume that \operatorname{supp} F(x,\cdot) and \operatorname{supp} G(x,\cdot) are contained in an interval of length 2^k2^{-\gamma j } for all x (see Remark 2.1 below).

We now claim that

holds for 2\leq r < r_\ast and uniformly in \tau. Assuming this for the moment, we prove (?). Observe that

Thus, the Cauchy–Schwarz inequality and (?) give

Note that we are assuming \operatorname{supp} F(x,\cdot) is contained in an interval J of length \sim 2^k2^{-\gamma j }. Since \mathcal E_j is a 2^{-\gamma j}-separated subset of E with bounded \alpha-Assouad characteristic, as before, we have \#\{\tau\in \mathcal E_j: \tau\in J\}\le C 2^{\alpha k} [E]_\alpha. Thus, Hölder’s inequality gives \|F\|_{\ell_\tau^{1}(\mathcal E_j; L_x^2)} \le C2^{ \frac\alpha 2 k }[E]_\alpha^\frac12 \|F\|_{\ell_\tau^{2}(\mathcal E_j; L_x^2)}, and hence (?) follows.

It remains to verify the claim (?). Recalling (?) and (?) and repeating the similar argument as before (cf. (?), we note that (?) follows if we show

for 2\le r\le r_\ast, where

By applying Hölder’s, Minkowski’s and Cauchy–Schwarz’s inequalities successively and following the same argument as in the proof of Proposition 2.3, one sees that the matter is reduced to showing

By (2.4), this in turn follows from

Note that \tilde \chi_k(\tilde \tau, \tau') =0 if |\tilde \tau- \tau'|\ge 2^{k-\gamma j+2}. Using the same decomposition as before, by (2.4) and (Proof), we obtain

Since r<r_\ast, it follows that

By symmetry the same estimate also holds for \sup_{ \tau'\in \mathcal E_j } \| \tilde \chi_k(\cdot, \tau') \mathcal K_r(\cdot, \tau') \|_{\ell_{\tilde \tau}^{1}({\mathcal E}_j )}. Therefore, from (A) in Lemma 2.5 with p=q=2, we obtain the desired inequality.

Since {\rm Id}=P_{\le 0}+ \sum_{j>0} P_j, we have

Since r\ge 2, using Berstein’s inequality and Plancherel’s theorem, we note that \|U_t^\gamma P_{\le 0} f \|_{L_x^r}\le C\|P_{\le 0} f \|_{L_x^2(\mathbb{R}^d)}. Thus, \|U_t^\gamma P_{\le 0} f \|_{L_t^q(\mathrm{d}\mu; L_x^r)}\le C \|\mu\|^{1/q} \|f\|_{H^s(\mathbb{R}^d)}, so we need only to handle the remaining part.

Using the Littlewood–Paley inequality, we have

Since 2\le r, q, Minkowski’s inequality yields

Applying the assumption (2.10) and using \tilde P_j, we have

This completes the proof.

Recalling (2.4) and (?)

Since \operatorname{supp} \chi_k(t, \cdot) is contained in an interval of length 2^{k-\gamma j+1}, using (?) we get

This gives (2.11) if d(\frac1 2 - \frac1 r)> \frac \alpha \sigma. On the other hand, as we have seen in the proof of Lemma 2.6, note that \{ t : \mathcal K_r(t, s)>\lambda \} is contained in an interval of length C 2^{-\gamma j} \lambda^{- 1/d(\frac1 2 - \frac1 r)}. Thus, (?) yields (2.11).

Examining the proof of Lemma 2.7 (see, e.g., (?)) shows that the estimate (?) for (a,b) = (2,2) and (\infty,\infty) can be obtained by the same argument, once we have

which follows easily from (?) and (?). Similarly, for 2 \le r < r_\ast, we obtain (?) for (a,b) = (2,r) and (a,b) = (r,2) using the estimate

(See the argument below (?).) This can be shown in the same manner as in the proof of Lemma 2.7. Interpolating between these estimates yields all the desired bounds.

Note that E(2^{-\gamma j})\cap [2^{-1-\gamma j}, 1-2^{-1-\gamma j}]\neq \emptyset as far as E is not empty. Let t_\circ\in [2^{-1-\gamma j}, 1-2^{-1-\gamma j}]. For j \gg1, we take f given by

Changing variables, we see that

with a positive constant c small enough. Then, the estimate (1.1) implies

Letting j \to \infty, we obtain the condition (1.1).

For \rm (A), we construct a Cantor set following the standard construction in [Mat, p. 60] (see also [LRZZ, Lemma 4.1]). For the base step, say step 0, let I_{0, 1}^\alpha = [0,1].

In step 1, continuously, we take I_{1, 1}^\alpha = [0, 2^{-1/\alpha}] and I_{1, 2}^{\alpha} = [1-2^{-1/\alpha},1], where we exclude the intermediate interval of length 1 - 2^{1 - 1/\alpha}. In step k, we remove the middle intervals of length

from intervals of step (k-1). In step k, therefore, one has I_{k, 1}^\alpha, \dots, I_{k, 2^k}^\alpha of length 2^{-k/\alpha}. As a result, we obtain a set E of right endpoints of these intervals given by

For given l\geq0, we choose \nu = \lfloor \alpha l \rfloor such that 2^{-\nu/\alpha} \sim 2^{-l}. Define E_l be a collection of right endpoints from I_{\nu, 1}^\alpha, \dots, I_{\nu, 2^\nu}^\alpha so that \#(E_l) = 2^\nu. Hence, from the fact that 2^{-\nu/\alpha} \sim 2^{-l} it follows that \#(E_l) \sim 2^{\alpha l}. Let l>k\ge0 and J\subset [0,1] be an interval of length 2^{k-l} centered at x\in E. Then, for m = -\lfloor \alpha(k- l) \rfloor \in \mathbb N, we have 2^{-m/\alpha +1} \ge 2^{k-l} \ge 2^{-m/\alpha}. Moreover, there exist I_{m, i_j}^\alpha, j=1,\dots, 4, such that they are only intervals of step m intersecting J and

or there exist I_{m+1, i_j}^\alpha, j=1,\dots, 4, with the same property. Thus, using \nu \sim \alpha l, one has \#(E_l \cap I_{m, i_j}) \sim 2^{\nu-m}. This yelds from 2^m \sim 2^{-(k-l)\alpha} that

There are only finite j’s, so we have \#(E_l \cap J) \sim 2^{\alpha k}.

For \rm (B), we assign a probability measure P_1 on I_{1,1}^\alpha \cup I_{1,2}^\alpha such that

Consecutively, we define \mu_k a probability measure on step k such that

Then by Prokhorov’s theorem [Pro1956], there exists a subsequence (\mu_{k_n})_n and probability measure \mu such that \mu_{k_n} converges weakly to \mu. Note from the construction of \mu that \mu(I_{m, i}^\alpha) = 2^{-m} for i=1, \dots, 2^m. Therefore, for an interval I of length r centered at x\in E, there is j\in\mathbb N such that

Thus we have

Assuming \gamma j\gg m, we apply \rm (A) in Lemma 2.14 with

for a large positive integer L. Thus, we have a set E of bounded \alpha-characteristic and an interval J as in Lemma 2.14. The interval J is of length C_12^{m-\gamma j} and includes C_2 2^{\alpha m} elements of a C_32^{-\gamma j}-separated subset of E.

Then, it is clear that

With a proper choice of t_\circ, we may assume J\subset (t_\circ, t_\circ+ c2^{m-\gamma j})\subset [0,1]. Let \xi_0\in \mathbb R^d be such that |\xi_0|=1. Consider f that is given by

After translation scaling \xi\to 2^j\xi and \xi\to \xi+\xi_0, we have

where \phi(\xi)=|\xi|^\gamma. Setting R(\xi)=\phi(\xi+\xi_0)-\phi(\xi_0)-\nabla\phi(\xi_0)\cdot \xi and

we have

Since \xi=O(2^{-m/2}) and R(\xi)=O(2^{-m}) in the integral, we consequently have

if |t-t_\circ|\le c2^{m-\gamma j} and |x- 2^{(\gamma-1) j}(t-t_\circ) \nabla\phi(\xi_0)\big)| \le c2^{m/2-j} for a sufficiently small c>0. Thus, \| U^\gamma_t P_j f\|_{L_x^r}\gtrsim C2^{dj}2^{-\frac d2 m} 2^{\frac d{2r} m-\frac dr j} for t\in J. Combining this with (?) yields

Since \|f\|_{H^s}\sim 2^{(s+\frac d2)j-\frac d4 m}, from the estimate (1.1) it follows that

Using (1.1) with equality, we obtain 2^{(\frac d{2r}+\frac\alpha q-\frac d4) m} \le C. Taking m\to \infty, we conclude that (1.1) holds.

We again use Lemma 2.14. There are a set E and a measure \mu with \operatorname{supp} \mu=E satisfying (2.14) and, consequently, (?). As in the proof of Proposition 2.15, taking l=\lfloor \gamma j \rfloor and k=m-L for a large positive integer L and assuming \gamma j\gg m, we apply \rm (A) in Lemma 2.14. Then, there is an interval J of length C_12^{m-\gamma j}, which includes C_2 2^{\alpha m} elements of a C_32^{-\gamma j}-separated subset \tilde E of E.

This means that J contains disjoint intervals J_1, \dots, J_n of length C_32^{-\gamma j-1} with n\sim 2^{\alpha m}, and each of the intervals J_1, \dots, J_n contains exactly one element of \tilde E. Thus, by (2.14), we have \mu(J_k)\sim 2^{-\alpha\gamma j} for k=1, \dots, n. Therefore,

Combining this with (?), we see that the estimate (1.4) implies

Consequently, using (1.3) with equality and letting j\to \infty yield the condition (1.1).

To prove the first statement, by Lemma 4.1, it suffices to consider the estimate over intervals J of length c2^{(1-\gamma)j} with c determined later, while the Fourier support of the input function f is contained in a ball of radius 2^{j/2} lying in the annulus \{ \xi: 2^{j-1}\le |\xi|\le 2^{j+1}\}. We consider

Then, by the argument in the proof of Proposition 2.15 (taking m=j), we have

if |t-t_\circ|\le c2^{(1-\gamma) j} and |x- 2^{(\gamma-1) j}(t-t_\circ) \nabla\phi(\xi_0)\big)| \le c2^{-j/2} for a sufficiently small c>0.

We make use of Lemma 2.14, so there are a set E and a measure \mu with \operatorname{supp} \mu=E satisfying (2.14). Clearly, E has bounded \alpha-Assouad characteristic. Taking l=\lfloor \gamma j \rfloor and k=j, we apply \rm (A) in Lemma 2.14. Then, similarly as in the proof of Proposition 2.16, there are disjoint intervals J_1, \dots, J_n\subset J of length C2^{-\gamma j} with n\sim 2^{\alpha j}, and each of the intervals J_1, \dots, J_n contains at least one element of E. Thus, using (2.14), we obtain

Since \|f\|_{H^s}\le C 2^{(s + \frac d4)j}, by combining this and (Proof) with t_\circ\in J, the estimate (?) implies

Taking j\to \infty, we conclude that s\ge \alpha(1-\gamma)/2.

We now show the second statement. Since \operatorname{supp} f\subset \{ \xi: 2^{j-1}\le |\xi|\le 2^{j+1}\}, with suitable choices of \psi, one can easily see that

if |t-t_\circ|\le c2^{(1-\gamma) j} and |x- 2^{(\gamma-1) j}(t-t_\circ) \nabla\phi(\xi_0)\big)| \le c2^{-j/2} for a sufficiently small c>0. We use the intervals J_1, \dots, J_n\subset J from the above, which contain at least one element of E. Thus, |E(2^{-\gamma j})\cap J|\gtrsim 2^{(\alpha-\gamma) j}. Consequently, the estimate (?) implies

Taking j\to \infty yields s\ge (\alpha-\gamma)/2.