On a Class of Global Solutions to 3D Free-Boundary Relativistic Euler Equations with a Physical Vacuum Boundary

All estimates except for (2.1) and (2.1) were proved in [hadvzic2019class, Lemma 2.1]. To prove (2.1), we note that

where we used the ODE for \lambda. Then the estimate follows immediately from (2.1).

To prove (2.1), we note from the definition of \tau and (2.1) that

which converges to 0 thanks to the integrable decay bound |\partial_t^2 a^\delta| \le C\delta (1+t)^{-3\kappa-1} when \kappa > 0. Moreover,

which concludes the proof of (2.1).

We first address the first equality. Since \frac{ds}{dt} = \lambda^{-\frac32\kappa - 1} and \frac{dz}{dt} = -\frac{\lambda'}{\lambda}\lambda^{-\frac32\kappa - 1}z, we have

and the first equality follows from the identity above.

To address the second equality, by (?), a straightforward computation gives:

and

where the final equality follows from (?). Then the second equality in (2.3) is proved after we combine (?) and (?).

It suffices to consider the case near the origin, and the desired statement follows straightforwardly from Definition 2.6 (3).

We expand (?) to obtain

From (?), we have

which leads to (4.1), where we also used \partial_\zeta(\frac{1}{\zeta^2} \partial_\zeta(\zeta^3 \theta))=\zeta \partial_\zeta^2\theta +4 \partial_\zeta \theta. Moreover, (4.1) follows from the identity

which follows from a direct computation by setting \xi=1+\theta in (?).

The first equality follows from the product rule for D_{\zeta} (Proof). The second equality follows from

and

Invoking Lemma 4.2, we have

We will show that the term in the last line of (Proof) can be cancelled after expanding (1+\kappa)\mathfrak{R}_4(\Theta). From definition of \mathfrak{R}_4(\Theta) (?), we see that

It can be seen that the first term of the second line of (Proof) cancels with the final term of (Proof).

We recall \mathcal{F} = \left(\frac{\eta}{\zeta}\right)^2 \partial_{\zeta} \eta. Since \eta = \Theta+\zeta,

Here,

and

Throughout the proof, all constants might change from line to line.

1. Invoking the identity (6.1), then

   \begin{aligned} \bar P_i \mathcal{F} &= \bar P_i D_{\zeta} \Theta + \bar P_i D_{\zeta} \left(\frac{\Theta^2}{\zeta}\right) + \frac13\bar P_i D_{\zeta} \left(\frac{\Theta^3}{\zeta^2}\right)\\ &= P_{i+1} \Theta + P_{i+1} \left(\frac{\Theta^2}{\zeta}\right) + \frac13 P_{i+1} \left(\frac{\Theta^3}{\zeta^2}\right), \end{aligned}

   where P_{i+1} := \bar P_i D_{\zeta} \in \mathcal{P}_i. Then the desired identity (?) follows from Lemma A.8.

2. We first prove (?). To begin with, we note the following computations:

   \begin{split} \partial_{\zeta} (U^0)^{-2} &= \partial_{\zeta}\left(1-(\partial_{\tau}\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(\Theta + \zeta))^2\right)\\ &= -2(\partial_{\tau}\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(\Theta + \zeta))(\partial_{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(\partial_{\zeta}\Theta + 1))\\ &= -2(\partial_{\tau}\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}\Theta)(\partial_{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(\partial_{\zeta}\Theta + 1)) - 2\bar{\lambda}_{\tau}\zeta(\partial_{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}\partial_{\zeta}\Theta) - 2\bar{\lambda}_{\tau}^2 \zeta\\ &= -2 (\partial_{\tau}\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}\Theta)\left(D_{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta - \frac{2}{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(D_{\zeta}\Theta - \frac2\zeta \Theta + 1)\right)\\ &\quad -2\bar{\lambda}_{\tau}\zeta\left(D_{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta - \frac{2}{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(D_{\zeta}\Theta - \frac2\zeta \Theta)\right) - 2\bar{\lambda}_{\tau}^2\zeta. \end{split}

   Writing \bar P_i = P_{i-1}\partial_{\zeta}, P_{i-1} \in \mathcal{P}_{i-1}, and applying Lemma A.4, we arrive at

   \begin{aligned} \bar P_i (U^0)^{-2} &= \sum_{\substack{A_{1,2}\in \mathcal{P}_{l_1,l_2},\\l_1+l_2 =i,\\l_1 \le i-1 }} c^{l_1,l_2}_i(A_1\partial_\tau \Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau} A_1\Theta)(A_2\partial_\tau\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau} A_2\Theta)\\ &\quad + \sum_{\substack{B_{1,2}\in \mathcal{P}_{l_1,l_2},\\l_1+l_2 =i,\\l_1 \le i-1 }}\bar c^{l_1,l_2}_i (B_1 \zeta)(B_2\partial_\tau\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau} B_2\Theta) + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}^2 \bar P_{i}\zeta^2\\ &= \sum_{\substack{A_{1,2}\in \mathcal{P}_{l_1,l_2},\\l_1+l_2 =i,\\l_1 \le i-1 }} c^{l_1,l_2}_i(A_1\partial_\tau \Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau} A_1(\Theta+\zeta))(A_2\partial_\tau\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau} A_2\Theta) - \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}^2 \bar P_{i}\zeta^2, \end{aligned}

   which completes the proof of (?) after we expand the expression above.

   To prove (?), we view \bar{\mathcal{D}}_{i+1} = \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\zeta}. According to the second line of (?), most terms can be treated in the same way as the proof of (?) except for the following top order term:

   \begin{aligned} -2\mathcal{D}_{i}&\left[(\partial_{\tau} \Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(\Theta + \zeta))(\partial_{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta)\right] = -2\mathcal{D}_i\left[(\partial_{\tau} \Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(\Theta + \zeta))(D_{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta-\frac{2}{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta)\right]\\ &= -2\mathcal{D}_i\left((\partial_{\tau} \Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(\Theta + \zeta)) D_{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta - 2\frac{(\partial_{\tau}\Theta)^2}{\zeta} - 2\bar{\lambda}_{\tau} \left(1+\frac{\Theta}{\zeta}\right)\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)\\ &=: -2(I_1 + I_2 + I_3). \end{aligned}

   Using Lemma A.5, we can write I_1 as

   \begin{aligned} I_1 &= (\partial_{\tau} \Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(\Theta + \zeta))\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta + \sum_{\substack{A_{l_1,l_2}\in \mathcal{P}_{l_1,l_2},\\l_1 + l_2 = i+1,\\l_1,l_2 \le i}} c_i^{l_1,l_2}(A_1\partial_{\tau}\Theta)(A_2\partial_{\tau}\Theta)\\ &\quad + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}\sum_{\substack{A_{l_1,l_2}\in \mathcal{P}_{l_1,l_2},\\l_1 + l_2 = i+1,\\l_1,l_2 \le i}} c_i^{l_1,l_2} (A_1\Theta)(A_2\partial_{\tau}\Theta) + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}\sum_{\substack{A_{l_1,l_2}\in \mathcal{P}_{l_1,l_2},\\l_1 + l_2 = i+1,\\l_1,l_2 \le i}} c_i^{l_1,l_2} (A_1\zeta)(A_2\partial_{\tau}\Theta) \end{aligned}

   Using product rule A.8, we can write I_2 as

   I_2 = \sum_{\substack{A_{l_1,l_2}\in \mathcal{P}_{l_1,l_2},\\l_1 + l_2 = i+1,\\l_1,l_2 \le i}} c_i^{l_1,l_2}(A_1\partial_{\tau}\Theta)(A_2\partial_{\tau}\Theta).

   Finally using (?), we can write I_3 as

   I_3 = \bar{\lambda}_{\tau} \sum_{\substack{A_{l_1,l_2}\in \mathcal{P}_{l_1,l_2},\\l_1 + l_2 = i+1,\\l_2 \le i}}c_i^{l_1,l_2}(A_1\Theta)(A_2\partial_{\tau}\Theta).

   The identity (?) is thus proved by combining all computations above.

The representation of typical terms (?), (?), and (?) follow from the chain rule (A.9) and then (?). As for expressions concerning (U^0)^\alpha, we note that the chain rule tells us that

Then (?), (?), and (?) follow from (?).

The proposition follows from a straightforward computation using chain rule, product rule (?), and Proposition 6.4.

We start with the proof of identity (6.6). First, we note that

Using this piece of computation, we may write

For the first term in (Proof), we use Lemma A.5 and the product rule (?) to write

For the second term in (Proof), we make the following crucial observation:

Hence, we may use the product rule (?) and subsequently (A.8) to obtain

Then (6.6) follows from (Proof), (Proof), and (Proof). The identities (6.6) and (6.6) follow from very similar arguments. To prove (6.6), (6.6), and (6.6), we use the following identity:

Then a similar argument to that proving (6.6), (6.6), and (6.6) would yield the desired identities. We omit the tedious details here.

We first prove (?). Note that

Then a direct application of product rule (?) and (?) yields the desired identity (?). The identity (?) follows from a similar argument. The proof for (?) and (?) follows from almost identical arguments to those proving (?) and (?). The only modification to be made is to use (A.6) instead of (?) when computing terms involving \partial_{\tau}^2\Theta.

We shall prove (?)–(?) in order.

1. Proof of (?). This follows from (7.6) because, for each fixed \bar\lambda, we have 1 - \bar\lambda^2\zeta^2 \leq 1, and it is also bounded away from 0 since \bar\lambda < 1.

2. Proof of (?). Since 0\leq j\leq 2, from the Hardy-type embedding (?) we conclude that \|P_j \Theta(\tau)\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq C(\mathcal{E}^N(\tau))^{\frac12} for j=0,1,2, where C>0 is a constant independent of M_* and \epsilon'. Now, by choosing \epsilon' so that

   M_*\epsilon \leq 10^{-4}C^{-2},\quad\text{whenever }\epsilon\leq \epsilon',

   we obtain (?) from (7.6).

3. Proof of (?). Similar to the proof of (?), the estimate for \|\partial_{\tau} \Theta(\tau)\|_{L^{\infty}} follows also from (7.6) and (?). To bound \|\partial_{\tau}^2 \Theta(\tau)\|_{L^{\infty}}, our strategy is to express \partial_{\tau}^2 \Theta as a linear combination of terms involving at most one \tau-derivative of \Theta. From (?), we obtain

   \begin{aligned} \begin{aligned} (1+\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}w\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa}\mathcal{G}^{\kappa})\partial_{\tau}^2\Theta =& -(1+\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}w\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa}\mathcal{G}^{\kappa})\bar{\lambda}_{\tau}\partial_{\tau}\Theta-\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\bigg((1+\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}w\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa}\mathcal{G}^{\kappa})\Theta\\ &+(1+\kappa)\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa-2}\left(1+\frac{\Theta}{\zeta}\right)^4L_0\Theta + \sum_{j=1}^3\mathfrak{R}_j(\Theta) + \sum_{j=1}^6E_j\bigg). \end{aligned} \end{aligned}

   Now, by choosing \epsilon' sufficiently small so that \delta=\epsilon^{\frac12}< \frac{1}{100}, we obtain from (7.6) and (7.6) that (1+\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}w\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa}\mathcal{G}^{\kappa})\approx 1. In view of the definitions of \mathfrak{R}_j(\Theta) (?)–(?) and E_j (?), all terms on the RHS have at most one \tau–derivative on \Theta, apart from a term generated by \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}E_4 when \partial_{\tau} lands on \mathcal{G}^{\kappa}. However, this term can be absorbed by the LHS thanks to the smallness of \delta. Additionally, we infer from the first term on the RHS of (?), whose coefficient is of \mathcal{O}(1) size, that both \|\partial_{\tau}^2\Theta\|_{L^{\infty}} and \|\partial_{\tau}\Theta\|_{L^{\infty}} should be of \mathcal{O}(\lambda^{-\frac32\kappa}) size. This confirms the desired bound for \|\partial_{\tau}^2\Theta\|_{L^{\infty}} in (?).

4. Proof of (?). Recall that (U^0)^{-2} = 1-(\partial_\tau\Theta+\bar{\lambda}_{\tau} (\Theta+\zeta))^2, we have

   \partial_{\tau} (U^0)^{-2} = -2 (\partial_\tau\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau} (\Theta+\zeta))\left(\partial_\tau^2\Theta + (\partial_{\tau}\bar{\lambda}_{\tau})(\Theta+\zeta) +\bar{\lambda}_{\tau}\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right),

   and

   \begin{aligned} \partial_{\zeta} (U^0)^{-2} = -2(\partial_\tau\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(\Theta+\zeta))\left(D_{\zeta}\partial_{\tau}\Theta+ \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(D_{\zeta}\Theta+3)\right) + 4\zeta^{-1}(\partial_\tau\Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau}(\Theta+\zeta))^2. \end{aligned}

   These imply (?) after invoking (2.1), (2.1), (?), and (?).

5. Proof of (?). Recall that we have shown in Lemma 6.1 that

   \mathcal{F}-1= D_{\zeta}\left(\Theta + \frac{\Theta^2}{\zeta}\right) + \frac13D_{\zeta}\left(\frac{\Theta^3}{\zeta^2}\right).

   In light of Lemma A.8, this contributes to two types of terms:

   \begin{aligned} D_{\zeta} \Theta, \quad \prod_{\substack{A_j\in \mathcal{P}_{l_j},\,l_j\leq 1\\ \sum_{j=1}^{2 \text{ or } 3}l_j=2}}(A_j\Theta). \end{aligned}

   Thus, both estimates in (?) follow from (?) and (?), respectively, since \partial_{\tau}^k\mathcal{F} = \partial_{\tau}^k(\mathcal{F}-1).

6. Proof of (?). Since \kappa \bar{\mathcal{G}} = \mathcal{G}^{-\kappa}, we have

   |\partial_{\zeta} \mathcal{G}(\tau)|\leq \kappa^{-1}|G(\tau)^{\kappa+1}\partial_{\zeta}(\kappa\bar{\mathcal{G}}(\tau))|=\kappa^{-1}|\kappa^{-1}\bar{\mathcal{G}}^{-1}|^{\frac{1+\kappa}{\kappa}}|\partial_{\zeta}(\kappa\bar{\mathcal{G}}(\tau))|.

   Because (7.6) indicates that |\kappa^{-1}\bar{\mathcal{G}}^{-1}|^{\frac{1+\kappa}{\kappa}} \approx 1, hence it suffices to control \|\partial_{\zeta} (\kappa\bar{\mathcal{G}}(\tau))\|_{L^{\infty}}. We infer from Proposition 6.5, (7.6), (?), and (?) that \|\partial_{\zeta} (\kappa\bar{\mathcal{G}}(\tau))\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq 10. Additionally, \|\partial_{\tau} \mathcal{G}(\tau)\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq \frac{1}{10}\kappa^{-1}\lambda^{-\frac{3}{2}\kappa} follows from a similar argument together with (?), (7.6), (?), and (?).

7. Proof of (?). We infer from the Taylor expansion that

   \mathcal{F}^{\kappa}-1 = \kappa(\mathcal{F}-1) + \mathcal{O}(|\mathcal{F}-1|^2).

   Since \|\mathcal{F}(\tau)-1\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq 10^{-2} from (7.6) and \kappa<1, \|\mathcal{F}(\tau)^{\kappa}-1\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq \frac14 follows. Additionally, \|\mathcal{G}(\tau)^{\kappa}-1\|_{L^{\infty}}\leq \frac14 is a direct consequence of (7.6) as \frac{1}{\kappa}\bar{\mathcal{G}}^{-1}=\mathcal{G}^{\kappa}.

In view of (7.1), it suffices to show

and

Indeed, the former follows from (7.6) and (7.6); the latter follows from (?), (7.6), and (7.6).

Fixing i \le N+1, we prove by inducting on J := J_1 + J_2.

1. J = 1. We have either J_1 = 1 or J_2 = 1. In either case, (7.10) is reduced to

   \int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i}\zeta^2 |PH(\Theta)|^2d\zeta,

   where P \in \mathcal{P}_{l}, l \le i, and H(\Theta) = \Theta or \partial_{\tau}\Theta. We first demonstrate the desired estimate for H(\Theta) = \Theta. If l \le 4, we invoke (?) to bound (?) by \|w^{\frac1\kappa + i}\|_{L^\infty} \|P\Theta\|_{L^\infty}^2 \lesssim \mathcal{E}^N. If l \ge 5, we first consider i \le N. In this case, we invoke the L^2 embedding (?) to obtain

   \eqref{nonlinaux1} \le \|w^{\frac{1}{\kappa}+i-(\frac1\kappa + 2l - N)}\|_{L^\infty} \int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + 2l - N}|P\Theta|^2 d\zeta \lesssim \mathcal{E}^N,

   where we used the fact that for l \le i \le N:

   \frac{1}{\kappa}+i-(\frac1\kappa + 2l - N) \ge N- i \ge 0.

   For the reader’s convenience, we verify here the applicability of (?). It requires \frac{N-\alpha}{2} \le k \equiv l \le N, P_k \in \mathcal{P}_k. Since N = \lfloor \frac1\kappa\rfloor + 10, we have l \equiv k \geq \frac{N}{2} - \frac{\alpha}{2} = \frac{1}{2}(N - \frac{1}{\kappa}) = \frac{1}{2}( \lfloor \frac1\kappa\rfloor + 10 - \frac{1}{\kappa} ) \geq \frac{9}{2}.

   If i = N+1, we use (?) instead of (?) to obtain

   \eqref{nonlinaux1} \le \|w^{\frac{1}{\kappa}+i-(\frac1\kappa + 2(l-1)+1 - N)}\|_{L^\infty} \int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + 2(l-1)+1 - N}|P\Theta|^2 d\zeta \lesssim \mathcal{E}^N,

   where we used that

   \frac{1}{\kappa}+i-(\frac1\kappa + 2(l-1)+1 - N) \ge -i+1+N \ge 0.

   The scenario where H(\Theta) = \partial_{\tau}\Theta is similar, where we only need to consider i \le N due to the assumption of the lemma on the maximum number of derivatives falling on \partial_{\tau}\Theta. This ends the proof of the base case.

2. J \ge 2. We proceed by assuming the inductive hypothesis that (7.10) holds up to J-1. Let us also without loss assume that a_1 \le \hdots \le a_{J_1}, b_1 \le \hdots \le b_{J_2}. We discuss the following cases:

   1. \min\{a_1, b_1 + 1\} \le 4: in this case, either A_1 \in \mathcal{P}_l or B_1P_1 \in \mathcal{P}_l, where l \le 4. Without loss of generality, we assume a_1 is the minimum and H_1(\Theta) = \Theta. Then we may apply (?) to A_1H_1(\Theta) to obtain the bound:

      \begin{aligned} \eqref{est:nonlinear} &\lesssim \mathcal{E}^N\cdot\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i}\zeta^2 \prod_{\substack{A_k \in \mathcal{P}_{a_k},\\\sum_{k=2}^{J_1}a_k \le i_1}}(A_kH_k(\Theta))^2\cdot \prod_{\substack{B_k \in \bar{\mathcal{P}}_{b_k},\\\sum_{k=1}^{J_2}b_k \le i_2 -1}}(B_k P_1\Theta)^2 d\zeta\\ &\lesssim (\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa})^K (\mathcal{E}^N)^{J_1 + J_2}, \end{aligned}

      where we used the induction hypothesis in the final inequality above.

   2. \min\{a_1, b_1 + 1\} \ge 5: we consider \max\{a_{J_1}, b_{J_2}\}. Then by definition of a_k, b_k, it is clear that the maximum, and thus all a_k, b_k, are less or equal to N - 4. We first consider the case where b_{J_2} = \max\{a_{J_1}, b_{J_2}\}. Our plan is to bound B_{{b_{J_2}}}P_1\Theta in L^2 using (?) and all other terms using L^\infty embedding (?). Indeed,

      \begin{aligned} \eqref{est:nonlinear}&\lesssim \|w^{\frac1\kappa + i - (\frac1\kappa + 2b_{J_2}+ 2 - N)-2\sum_{k=1}^{J_2 - 1}(b_k - 1) - 2\sum_{l=1}^{J_1}(a_l - 2)}\|_{L^\infty}\\ &\quad \times \prod_{\substack{A_k \in \mathcal{P}_{a_k},\\\sum_{k=1}^{J_1}a_k \le i_1}}\|w^{a_k - 2}A_kH_k(\Theta)\|_{L^\infty}^2 \cdot \prod_{\substack{B_k \in \bar{\mathcal{P}}_{b_k},\\\sum_{k=1}^{J_2-1}b_k \le i_2 -1}}\|w^{b_k - 1} B_kP_1\Theta\|_{L^\infty}^2\\ &\quad \times \int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + 2b_{J_2}+ 2 - N}\zeta^2 |B_{b_{J_2}}P_1\Theta|^2 d\zeta\\ &\lesssim (\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa})^K (\mathcal{E}^N)^{J_1 + J_2}, \end{aligned}

      where we used that

      \begin{aligned} \frac1\kappa + &i - (\frac1\kappa + 2b_{J_2}+ 2 - N)-2\sum_{k=1}^{J_2 - 1}(b_k - 1) - 2\sum_{l=1}^{J_1}(a_l - 2)\\ &= i - 2(\sum_{k=1}^{J_1}a_k + \sum_{l=1}^{J_2}b_l) -2+N + 2(J_2 - 1) + 4J_1\\ &\ge -i + N + 2(J_1 + J_2) -2+2J_1 \ge 1+2J_1 > 0. \end{aligned}

      Here, we used that \sum a_k + \sum b_l \le i - 1, J_1 + J_2 \ge 2, and i \le N+1. If a_{J_1} = \max\{a_{J_1}, b_{J_2}\}, we instead will bound A_{{a_{J_1}}}H_{J_1}(\Theta) in L^2 using (?) (or (?) when i = N+1) and all other terms using L^\infty embedding (?). The argument follows similarly to the previous case and we omit the details here.

The proof of this lemma follows an almost identical argument to that of Lemma 7.10, except that we invoke suitable Hardy inequalities (?), (?), and (?) and use the definition of \mathcal{S}^N whenever we treat terms involving \partial_{\tau}^2\Theta.

The identity (8.4) comes from (?) and (?). Additionally, from Proposition 8.1, Proposition 8.2, and the estimate (8.3) in Proposition 9.1, we obtain

where the second inequality comes from the \mathcal{E}^N \lesssim 1 in the bootstrap regime.

The proposition holds after combining Lemma 10.2 and Lemma 10.3.

The proposition holds after combining Lemma 10.6, Lemma 10.9, Lemma 10.7, and Lemma 10.8.

For fixed i\in \{0,\cdots, N-1\}, we obtain the following identity by testing (?) with \delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta with respect to the inner product (\cdot,\cdot)_i:

We then estimate (Proof) on a term-by-term basis:

1. First term on the LHS of (Proof). By bootstrap assumptions on \mathcal{F}, \bar{\mathcal{G}}, and the fact that |\bar{\lambda}_{\tau}-\bar\lambda| \lesssim \delta in view of the estimate (2.1), we immediately have |\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}w\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa}\mathcal{G}^\kappa|_{L^\infty} \le \frac12 after choosing \delta \le \epsilon^{\frac12} \ll 1. We then obtain the following coercivity estimate:

   \int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i}\zeta^2 \left(1+\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}w\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa}\mathcal{G}^\kappa\right)|\partial_\tau^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta|^2 d\zeta \ge \frac12 \|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i \Theta\|_i^2.

2. Second and third terms on the LHS of (Proof). Once again, by using the bounds |\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}w\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa}\mathcal{G}^\kappa|_{L^\infty} \le \frac12 and |\bar{\lambda}_{\tau}| \lesssim 1, a straightforward application of Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yields that

   \begin{split} &\left|\bar{\lambda}_{\tau}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i}\zeta^2 \left(1+\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}w\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa}\mathcal{G}^\kappa\right) (\partial_\tau \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)(\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i \Theta) d\zeta\right|\\ &\quad + \left|\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i}\zeta^2\left(1+\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}w\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa}\mathcal{G}^\kappa\right) (\mathcal{D}_i\Theta)(\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)d\zeta\right|\\ &\lesssim \|\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_i \Theta\|_i \|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i \Theta\|_i + \delta \lambda^{-3\kappa} \|\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i \|\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i\\ &\lesssim \mathring{\epsilon}\|\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\mathcal{E}^N(\tau), \end{split}

   where \mathring{\epsilon} > 0 is a small constant to be determined. We also used \delta \lambda^{-3\kappa} \ll 1 in the final inequality above.

3. Fourth term on the LHS of (Proof). Let us denote

   g(\tau,\zeta) := \mathcal{F}^{-\kappa-2}(U^0)^{-4}\left(1+\frac{\Theta}{\zeta}\right)^4 .

   By definition of \mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{D}_i, we integrate by parts and obtain the following:

   \begin{split} &(1+\kappa)\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i}\zeta^2\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa-2}(U^0)^{-4}\left(1+\frac{\Theta}{\zeta}\right)^4 (\mathcal{L}_{i}\mathcal{D}_i\Theta)(\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i \Theta)d\zeta\\ &\quad = (1+\kappa)\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 g \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\\ &\quad\quad +(1+\kappa)\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 \partial_{\zeta} g \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta d\zeta\\ &\quad = (1+\kappa)\frac{d}{d\tau}\left[\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 g \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta \partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\right]\\ &\quad\quad +3\kappa(1+\kappa)\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\bar{\lambda}_{\tau} \int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 g \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta \partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\\ &\quad\quad -(1+\kappa)\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 (\partial_{\tau} g) \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta \partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\\ &\quad\quad -(1+\kappa)\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 g |\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta|^2 d\zeta\\ &\quad\quad +(1+\kappa)\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 \partial_{\zeta} g \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta d\zeta. \end{split}

   By bootstrap assumptions, it is clear that

   \|g\|_{L^\infty} + \|\partial_{\tau} g\|_{L^\infty} + \|\partial_{\zeta} g\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim 1.

   Since i \le N-1, we have the following bounds:

   \begin{split} \left|3\kappa(1+\kappa)\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\bar{\lambda}_{\tau} \int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 g \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta \partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\right| &\lesssim (\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^{\frac32} \mathcal{E}^N(\tau),\\ \left|(1+\kappa)\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 (\partial_{\tau} g) \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta \partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\right| &\lesssim (\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^{\frac32} \mathcal{E}^N(\tau),\\ \left|(1+\kappa)\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 g |\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta|^2 d\zeta\right| &\lesssim (\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^2 \mathcal{E}^N(\tau),\\ \left|(1+\kappa)\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 \partial_{\zeta} g \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta d\zeta\right| &\lesssim \mathring{\epsilon} \|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})(\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa})^2\mathcal{E}^N(\tau), \end{split}

   where \mathring{\epsilon} > 0 is a small constant to be determined later.

4. Fifth term on the LHS of (Proof). Invoking Theorem 8.4 as well as the estimate (9.1), a direct application of Cauchy-Schwarz inequality gives:

   \begin{split} &\left|\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\bigg[\sum_{j=1}^3 (\mathfrak{C}_i,\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i \Theta)_i+\mathcal{D}_i\sum_{j=1}^2(\mathfrak{R}_j(\Theta),\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i \Theta)_i+ (\bar{\mathcal{D}}_{i-1}\mathfrak{M}(\Theta),\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i \Theta)_i\bigg]\right|\\ &\quad \le \delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\left(\sum_{j=1}^3 \|\mathfrak{C}_j\|_i + \sum_{j=1}^2 \|\mathcal{D}_i \mathfrak{R}_j(\Theta)\|_i + \|\bar{\mathcal{D}}_{i-1}\mathfrak{M}(\Theta)\|_i\right)\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i\\ &\quad \lesssim \delta \lambda^{-3\kappa} (\mathcal{E}^N(\tau)^\frac12 + \mathcal{S}^N(\tau)^\frac12)\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i\\ &\quad \lesssim \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa} S^N(\tau)^\frac12\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i + \mathring{\epsilon}\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})(\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^2 \mathcal{E}^N(\tau). \end{split}

5. Sixth term on the LHS of (Proof). When j = 2,5,6, we invoke Proposition 10.10, Proposition 10.11 and directly apply Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to obtain:

   \begin{split} |\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{D}_i E_j , \partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i| &\le \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(1+(\mathcal{E}^N(\tau))^{\frac12})\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i\\ &\le \mathring{\epsilon}\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})(\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^2, \end{split}

   where \mathring{\epsilon} > 0 is a small constant to be determined later. We also used that \mathcal{E}^N(\tau) < 1 in the bootstrap regime.

   When j = 1, we invoke Proposition 10.4 to have

   \begin{aligned} \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{D}_i E_1,\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i &= \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\left(\left((1+\kappa)\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa-2}(U^0)^{-4}\left(1+\frac{\Theta}{\zeta}\right)^4\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\right)(\mathcal{G}^{\kappa}-1), \partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\right)_i\\ &\quad +\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(R_1^i, \partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i \end{aligned}

   The second term above can be estimated straightforwardly using (10.4):

   |\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(R_1^i, \partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i| \lesssim \mathring{\epsilon}\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})(\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^2 (1+\mathcal{E}^N(0))\mathcal{E}^N(\tau).

   The first term above can be treated in an identical way to how we deal with the fourth line of (Proof), now with

   g(\tau,\zeta) = \mathcal{F}^{-\kappa-2}(U^0)^{-4}\left(1+\frac{\Theta}{\zeta}\right)^4(\mathcal{G}^{\kappa}-1).

   By bootstrap assumptions and Lemma 7.8, we also have

   \|g\|_{L^\infty} + \|\partial_{\tau} g\|_{L^\infty} + \|\partial_{\zeta} g\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim 1.

   Then by an argument which is similar to how we treat the fourth line of (Proof), we may write

   \begin{split} &\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\left(\left((1+\kappa)\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa-2}(U^0)^{-4}\left(1+\frac{\Theta}{\zeta}\right)^4\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\right)(\mathcal{G}^{\kappa}-1), \partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\right)_i\\ &\quad = (1+\kappa)\frac{d}{d\tau}\left[\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2\left(\mathcal{F}^{-\kappa-2}(U^0)^{-4}\left(1+\frac{\Theta}{\zeta}\right)^4(\mathcal{G}^{\kappa}-1)\right)\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta \partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\right]\\ &\quad\quad + I_{E_1}, \end{split}

   where |I_{E_1}| \lesssim \mathring{\epsilon} \|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})(\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa})^2\mathcal{E}^N(\tau) + (\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa})^\frac32\mathcal{E}^N(\tau) for \mathring{\epsilon} > 0 a small constant.

   When j = 3, we invoke Proposition 10.5 to write

   \begin{aligned} \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{D}_i E_3, \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i &= \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}^{E_3}_1w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta, \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i + \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_2^{E_3}\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{D}_i\Theta, \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i\\ &\quad + \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}^{E_3}_3w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta(0), \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i + \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{D}_i\Theta(0), \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i\\ &\quad + \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(R_{3}^i, \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i, \end{aligned}

   where we recall that the coefficients \mathcal{C}_k^{E_3}, k = 1,2,3,4 are given in (10.5).

   1. Bound for \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}^{E_3}_1w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta, \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i. By bootstrap assumptions and Lemma 7.8, one observes that \|\mathcal{C}_1^{E_3}\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim 1. Since i \le N-1, we have

      \begin{split} |\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}^{E_3}_1w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta, \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i| &\le \delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^3 |\mathcal{C}_1^{E_3}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta| d\zeta\\ &\lesssim (\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^\frac32\mathcal{E}^N(\tau)^\frac12\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i\\ &\lesssim \mathring{\epsilon}\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})(\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^3\mathcal{E}^N(\tau). \end{split}

   2. Bound for \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_2^{E_3}\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{D}_i\Theta, \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i. This term can be treated in an almost identical way to that treating the fourth line of (Proof). Note that by bootstrap assumptions and Lemma 7.8, we have \|\mathcal{C}_2^{E_2}\|_{L^\infty} + \|\partial_{\zeta} \mathcal{C}_2^{E_2}\|_{L^\infty} +\|\partial_{\tau} \mathcal{C}_2^{E_2}\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}. Then we can write

      \begin{split} \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_2^{E_3}\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{D}_i\Theta, \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i = \frac{d}{d\tau}\left[\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 \mathcal{C}_2^{E_3} \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta \partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\right]+ I_{E_3}^1, \end{split}

      where I_{E_3}^1 obeys the bound

      |I_{E_3}^1| \lesssim \mathring{\epsilon} \|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})(\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa})^4\mathcal{E}^N(\tau) + (\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa})^\frac52\mathcal{E}^N(\tau)

      for \mathring{\epsilon} > 0 a small constant.

   3. Bound for \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}^{E_3}_3w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta(0), \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i. This term can be estimated in an identical way to item (a) above. Due to \|\mathcal{C}_3^{E_3}\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim 1 by bootstrap assumptions and Lemma 7.8, we can bound:

      |\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}^{E_3}_3w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta(0), \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i| \lesssim \mathring{\epsilon}\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})\delta^3\lambda^{-6\kappa}\mathcal{E}^N(0),

      for \mathring{\epsilon} > 0 a small constant.

   4. Bound for \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{D}_i\Theta(0), \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i. Emulating the computation (?), we realize that

      \begin{aligned} &\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}\mathcal{L}_i\mathcal{D}_i\Theta(0), \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i = \frac{d}{d\tau}\left[\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 \mathcal{C}_4^{E_3} \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta(0)\partial_{\tau} \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\right]\\ &\quad + 3\kappa \delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\bar{\lambda}_{\tau} \int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 \mathcal{C}_4^{E_3} \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta(0)\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\\ &\quad - \delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 (\partial_{\tau} \mathcal{C}_4^{E_3})\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta(0)\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\\ &\quad + \delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 (\partial_{\zeta} \mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}) \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta(0)\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_{i}\Theta d\zeta\\ &=: \frac{d}{d\tau}\left[\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 \mathcal{C}_4^{E_3} \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta(0)\partial_{\tau} \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\right] + I_{E_3}^2. \end{aligned}

      By bootstrap assumptions and Lemma 7.8, it is straightforward to see that

      \|\mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}\|_{L^\infty} + \|\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}\|_{L^\infty} + \|\partial_{\zeta}\mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim \delta.

      We may then bound I_{E_3}^2 by

      \begin{split} |I_{E_3}^2| &\lesssim \delta^2\lambda^{-3\kappa}\left(\delta^\frac12 \lambda^{-\frac32\kappa} \mathcal{E}^N(0)^\frac12 \mathcal{E}^N(\tau)^\frac12 + \mathcal{E}^N(0)^\frac12 \|\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i\right)\\ &\le \delta^2\lambda^{-3\kappa} \mathcal{E}^N(\tau) + \mathring{\epsilon}\|\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})(\delta^2\lambda^{-3\kappa})^2\mathcal{E}^N(0). \end{split}

   5. Bound for \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(R_{3}^i, \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i. Invoking (10.5) and directly using Cauchy-Schwarz inequality, we have

      |\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(R_{3}^i, \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i| \lesssim \mathring{\epsilon}\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})(\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^2(1+\mathcal{E}^N(\tau) + \mathcal{E}^N(0)),

      for \mathring{\epsilon} > 0 a small constant.

   Finally, when j = 4, we invoke Proposition 10.1 to write

   \begin{aligned} \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}(\mathcal{D}_i E_4, \partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta)_i &= \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\left((\mathcal{C}^{E_4}_1+\mathcal{C}^{E_4}_2)w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta,\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\right)_i\\ &\quad +\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\left(\mathcal{C}^{E_4}_3w\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}^2\Theta,\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\right)_i\\ &\quad + \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\left(R_{4}^i,\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\right)_i, \end{aligned}

   where we recall that the coefficients \mathcal{C}_k^{E_4} are given in (10.1). By bootstrap assumptions and Lemma 7.8, we see that \|\mathcal{C}_k^{E_4}\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim 1 in the bootstrap regime. Then we immediately have

   \left|\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\left((\mathcal{C}^{E_4}_1+\mathcal{C}^{E_4}_2)w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta,\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\right)_i\right| \lesssim \mathring{\epsilon}\|\partial_{\tau}^2 \mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})(\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^3\mathcal{E}^N(\tau),

   for \mathring{\epsilon} > 0 sufficiently small, and

   \left| \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\left(\mathcal{C}^{E_4}_3w\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}^2\Theta,\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\right)_i\right| \lesssim \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa} \|\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2.

   Finally using (10.1), we have

   \begin{aligned} \left|\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\left(R_{4}^i,\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\right)_i\right| &\lesssim \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\left(\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa} + (\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^\frac12 \mathcal{E}^N(\tau)^\frac12 + \mathcal{S}^N(\tau)^\frac12\right)\|\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i\\ &\lesssim \mathring{\epsilon}\|\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i^2 + C(\mathring{\epsilon})\left[(\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^4 + (\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^3\mathcal{E}^N(\tau)\right] + \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\mathcal{S}^N(\tau)^\frac12\|\partial_{\tau}^2\mathcal{D}_i\Theta\|_i. \end{aligned}

Now, we take (Proof), sum over i = 0,\hdots, N-1, and integrate over the time interval [\tau_1,\tau_2]. By combining all estimates above, we arrive at, for \mathring{\epsilon} > 0 and a constant C depending on N:

First by (2.1), \lambda^{-6\kappa} is integrable on [0,\infty). Then we have

where C > 0 is independent of \tau_1,\tau_2. Next, since

uniformly for all \tau \in [0,\tau_*] by the bootstrap assumptions and and Lemma 7.8, we may apply Cauchy-Schwarz inequality to bound terms on the temporal boundary \tau = \tau_{1,2} by

Finally, by choosing \mathring{\epsilon}, \delta sufficiently small such that C(\mathring{\epsilon} +\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}) \le \frac14, we conclude, after plugging in all estimates above to (?) and rearranging, that

which is the desired inequality.

We start by recalling the energy balance (?): for 0 \le i \le N,

Using Proposition 8.1, Proposition 8.2, Proposition 8.3, and Proposition 9.1, we have the following bound after a use of Cauchy-Schwarz inequality:

where we used that \delta \lambda^{-3\kappa} + \delta \lesssim 1. Using Proposition 10.4, Proposition 10.10, Proposition 10.5, Proposition 10.1, and Proposition 10.11, we write

where the coefficients \mathcal{C}_k^{E_j} are defined in (10.1) and (10.5), and the function g is given by

Moreover, \mathfrak{R}_E obeys the following bound for all \tau \in [0,\tau_*]:

Then we are left to study the leading order terms appearing in (Proof).

1. \left((\mathcal{C}_1^{E_4} + \mathcal{C}_2^{E_4} +\mathcal{C}_1^{E_3})w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta, \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i. It suffices to consider the case where i is even, as the i odd case is strictly easier. Writing \mathcal{D}_{i+1} = D_{\zeta} \mathcal{D}_i = \partial_{\zeta}\mathcal{D}_i + \frac{2}{\zeta}\mathcal{D}_i, we have

   \begin{aligned} &-\left((\mathcal{C}_1^{E_4} + \mathcal{C}_2^{E_4} +\mathcal{C}_1^{E_3})w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta, \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i = -\frac12\int_0^1 (\mathcal{C}_1^{E_4} + \mathcal{C}_2^{E_4} +\mathcal{C}_1^{E_3}) w^{\frac1\kappa + i+1}\zeta^3 \partial_{\zeta}\left(\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)^2d\zeta\\ &\quad - 2\int_0^1 (\mathcal{C}_1^{E_4} + \mathcal{C}_2^{E_4} +\mathcal{C}_1^{E_3}) w^{\frac1\kappa + i+1} \zeta^2 \left(\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)^2d\zeta\\ &=\frac12 \int_0^1 \partial_{\zeta}\left(\mathcal{C}_1^{E_4} + \mathcal{C}_2^{E_4} +\mathcal{C}_1^{E_3}\right)w^{\frac1\kappa + i+1}\zeta^3 \left(\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)^2d\zeta\\ &\quad +\frac{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}{2} \int_0^1 \left(\mathcal{C}_1^{E_4} + \mathcal{C}_2^{E_4} +\mathcal{C}_1^{E_3}\right)w'w^{\frac1\kappa + i}\zeta^3 \left(\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)^2d\zeta\\ &\quad -\frac{1}{2}\int_0^1 \left(\mathcal{C}_1^{E_4} + \mathcal{C}_2^{E_4} +\mathcal{C}_1^{E_3}\right)w^{\frac1\kappa + i+1}\zeta^2 \left(\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)^2d\zeta. \end{aligned}

   Since \|\mathcal{C}_1^{E_4}\|_{W^{1,\infty}} + \|\mathcal{C}_2^{E_4}\|_{W^{1,\infty}} + \|\mathcal{C}_1^{E_3}\|_{W^{1,\infty}} \lesssim 1 by bootstrap assumptions and Lemma 7.8, we immediately have

   \left|\left((\mathcal{C}_1^{E_4} + \mathcal{C}_2^{E_4} +\mathcal{C}_1^{E_3})w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta, \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i\right| \lesssim \|\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\|_i^2 \le \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\mathcal{E}^N(\tau).

2. -\left(\mathcal{C}_3^{E_4}\mathcal{D}_{i}\partial_{\tau}^2\Theta, \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i. We observe that

   \begin{split} -\left(\mathcal{C}_3^{E_4}\mathcal{D}_{i}\partial_{\tau}^2\Theta, \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i &= -\frac12\partial_{\tau}\left(\mathcal{C}_3^{E_4}\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta,\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i + \frac12 \left(\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{C}_3^{E_4} \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta,\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)\\ &=: -\frac12\partial_{\tau}\left(\mathcal{C}_3^{E_4}\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta,\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i + \mathfrak{I}_{leading}^1. \end{split}

   By definition of \mathcal{C}_3^{E_4}, bootstrap assumptions, and Lemma 7.8, we have \|\partial_{\tau} \mathcal{C}_3^{E_4}\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim 1. Then the following bound holds:

   |\mathfrak{I}_{leading}^1| \lesssim \delta\lambda^{-3\kappa}\mathcal{E}^N(\tau).

3. - \left(g\mathcal{L}_{i}\mathcal{D}_i\Theta, \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i. Following (?), we have

   \begin{split} -\left(g\mathcal{L}_{i}\mathcal{D}_i\Theta, \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i &=-\frac{1}{2}\frac{d}{d\tau}\int_0^1w^{1+\frac1\kappa+i}\zeta^2g|\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta|^2 + \frac{1}{2}\int_0^1w^{1+\frac1\kappa+i}\zeta^2(\partial_{\tau}g)|\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta|^2\\ &-\int_0^1w^{1+\frac1\kappa+i}\zeta^2(\partial_{\zeta} g)(\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{D}_i\Theta)(\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta)\\ &=: -\frac{1}{2}\partial_{\tau} (g\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta, \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta)_{i+1} + \mathfrak{I}_{leading}^2. \end{split}

   By bootstrap assumptions, Lemma 7.8, and the definition of g, it is not difficult to see the following estimate:

   \|\partial_{\zeta} g\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim 1,\quad \|\partial_{\tau} g\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim \lambda^{-\frac32}.

   Then an application of Cauchy-Schwarz inequality yields:

   |\mathfrak{I}_{leading}^2| \lesssim (\delta\lambda^{-3\kappa})^\frac12 \mathcal{E}^N(\tau).

4. - \left(\mathcal{C}_3^{E_3}w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta(0), \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i. It suffices to consider i to be even. We observe that

   \begin{aligned} &- \left(\mathcal{C}_3^{E_3}w\zeta\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta(0), \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i = \int_0^1 \mathcal{C}_3^{E_3} w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^3\mathcal{D}_i \partial_{\tau}\Theta(0)\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\partial_{\tau}\Theta d\zeta\\ &\quad + \int_0^1 \partial_{\zeta}\left(\mathcal{C}_3^{E_3} w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^3\right) \mathcal{D}_i \partial_{\tau}\Theta(0) \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta d\zeta-2\int_0^1 \mathcal{C}_3^{E_3} w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2\mathcal{D}_i \partial_{\tau}\Theta(0)\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta d\zeta\\ &= \frac{d}{d\tau} \int_0^1 \mathcal{C}_3^{E_3} w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^3\mathcal{D}_i \partial_{\tau}\Theta(0)\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta- \int_0^1 (\partial_{\tau}\mathcal{C}_3^{E_3}) w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^3\mathcal{D}_i \partial_{\tau}\Theta(0)\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\\ &\quad + \int_0^1 \partial_{\zeta}\left(\mathcal{C}_3^{E_3} w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^3\right) \mathcal{D}_i \partial_{\tau}\Theta(0) \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta d\zeta-2\int_0^1 \mathcal{C}_3^{E_3} w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2\mathcal{D}_i \partial_{\tau}\Theta(0)\mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta d\zeta\\ &=: \frac{d}{d\tau} \int_0^1 \mathcal{C}_3^{E_3} w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^3\mathcal{D}_i \partial_{\tau}\Theta(0)\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta + \mathfrak{I}_{leading}^3. \end{aligned}

   By definition of \mathcal{C}_3^{E_3}, the bootstrap assumptions, and Lemma 7.8, we have the following bounds:

   \|\mathcal{C}_3^{E_3}\|_{W^{1,\infty}} \lesssim 1,\quad \|\partial_{\tau} \mathcal{C}_3^{E_3}\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim \lambda^{-\frac32\kappa},

   from which we deduce that

   |\mathfrak{I}_{leading}^3| \lesssim (\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa})^\frac12 (\mathcal{E}^N(0))^\frac12(\mathcal{E}^N(\tau))^\frac12 \lesssim (\delta \lambda^{-3\kappa})^\frac12(\mathcal{E}^N(0) + \mathcal{E}^N(\tau)).

5. - \left(\mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}\mathcal{L}_{i}\mathcal{D}_i\Theta(0), \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i. Following (?), we note that

   \begin{aligned} &- \left(\mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}\mathcal{L}_{i}\mathcal{D}_i\Theta(0), \mathcal{D}_i\partial_{\tau}\Theta\right)_i = -\frac{d}{d\tau}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 \mathcal{C}_4^{E_3} \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta(0)\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta\\ &\quad + \int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2(\partial_{\tau} \mathcal{C}_4^{E_3})\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta(0)\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta- \int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2(\partial_{\zeta} \mathcal{C}_4^{E_3})\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta(0)\mathcal{D}_{i}\partial_{\tau}\Theta d\zeta\\ &=: -\frac{d}{d\tau}\int_0^1 w^{\frac1\kappa + i + 1}\zeta^2 \mathcal{C}_4^{E_3} \mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta(0)\mathcal{D}_{i+1}\Theta d\zeta + \mathfrak{I}_{leading}^4. \end{aligned}

   Again by the definition of \mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}, the bootstrap assumptions and Lemma 7.8, we have the bounds

   \|\mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}\|_{W^{1,\infty}} \lesssim \delta,\quad \|\partial_{\tau} \mathcal{C}_4^{E_3}\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim \delta \lambda^{-\frac32\kappa}.

   Then we have

   |\mathfrak{I}_{leading}^4| \lesssim \delta \lambda^{-\frac32\kappa}(\mathcal{E}^N(0) + \mathcal{E}^N(\tau)).

Now, we integrate (Proof) in time on [\tau_0,\tau], rearranging, and applying (Proof)–(?), we obtain

where C,\bar C > 0 are positive constants which are independent of M_*,\epsilon,\delta. We remark that we have used bootstrap assumptions, Lemma 7.8, the equivalence (2.1), and the integrability of \lambda^{-\frac32\kappa} on [0,\infty] in the second inequality above; we also used Proposition 11.1 in the final inequality.

In view of the LHS of (?), we immediately infer from Lemma 7.8 that

where \mathring{\epsilon} > 0 is a small parameter to be determined. Using the above bounds, we then bound the LHS of (?) from below as follows:

where c_0 > 0 is a constant independent of M_*, \epsilon,\delta. Note that we have used the definition of g (Proof) in the equality above. In the final inequality above, we used the bootstrap assumption that \mathcal{F}, U^0,\mathcal{G} \approx 1, the bound \|\mathcal{C}_2^{E_3}\|_{L^\infty} \lesssim \delta \ll1, and the energy-norm equivalence (i.e., Corollary 7.9). Now, let us choose \mathring{\epsilon} + \delta < \frac{c_0}{2}. Combining (?) and (?), rearranging, and summing over i = 0,\hdots, N, we arrive at

Choosing \delta even smaller such that \bar{C}N\delta^\frac32 \le \min\{\frac{c_0}{4},\frac12\}, we deduce from the above inequality that

Then the main result (12.1) follows after we fix C_0 = \frac{4\bar C N}{c_0} and C_1 = \frac{4CN}{c_0}.

The proof follows from carefully translating the result in [disconzi2022relativistic] to the variables used in our setting. Thus, here, we only highlight the main points. Interested readers can check Appendix ?, where a more detailed proof is given.

Statement 1) follows from following the calculations of Section ? at the level of the data, whereas local existence and uniqueness of a classical solution to (?) follows again by the procedure of Section ? applied to the Eulerian solution launched by the data (\mathring{\rho},\mathring{u}^i). We note that our regularity assumptions are more than enough to justify the steps in Section ?.

By (13.2) and (?), we have \Theta(\tau,\cdot) \in C^{N+2}([0,1]). From this and the fact that such solutions satisfy the correct center-regularity conditions at \zeta=0 coming from spherical symmetry we obtain that their \mathcal{X}^N norm is finite and thus their energy view of Remark 13.1. This gives statement 2).

Statement 3) follows from another judicious inspection of the procedure relating (\mathring{\rho},\mathring{u}^i) to (\Theta_0,U_0), but rephrased in terms of (\mathring{\mathsf{r}},\mathring{\mathsf{v}}^i), showing that this defines a map (\mathring{\mathsf{r}},\mathring{\mathsf{v}}^i) \mapsto(\Theta_0,U_0) that is continuous relative to the \mathcal{H}^{2k}_\text{ref} and \mathcal{X}^N topologies. We note that the restriction to states of same mass singles out the correct set of perturbations in that spherically symmetric solutions to the relativistic Euler equations conserve mass.

Finally, for statement 4), one verifies that under the corresponding bootstrap assumptions, we can invert back from the (\Theta,\partial_\tau\Theta) variables to (\rho,u^i) and then (\mathsf{r},\mathsf{v}^i), with uniform control over the change of variables. The bound (?) then translate to uniform C^2 control of (\mathsf{r},\mathsf{v}^i) over [0,T^*), where \tau^* and T^* are related by \tau^* = \int_0^{T^*} \frac{1}{\lambda(t)} dt. Such control is enough to apply the continuation criterion of [disconzi2022relativistic] and thus continue the solution (\mathsf{r},\mathsf{v}^i) past T^*. Applying the procedure of Section ? to this continued-beyond-T^* solution then gives a solution that continues (\Theta,\partial_\tau\Theta) beyond \tau^*.

The proof is given in several steps.

Step 1 (Radially symmetric data launches radially symmetric solutions). Since the variables in (?) assume a spherically symmetric solution to (?), we first need to verify that such solutions are spherically symmetric if the initial data is. The argument is standard (see [MR1724661]), but since it has not been explicitly written in a physical vacuum boundary context, we provide it here.

By [disconzi2022relativistic], there exists a classical solution (\rho,u^i) to equations (?) defined on

for some T^*>0, where \Omega_t is given by (?) and taking the given data (\mathring{\rho},\mathring{u}^i) at t=0, provided that

Condition (?) is satisfied in view of (13.2) and (13.2). Moreover, such solution satisfies the physical vacuum boundary condition.

Let \mathsf{R} \in SO(3) and define

which are defined in the rotated domain

The time component of the four velocity transforms as

so that (?) is preserved in view of the invariance of the Minkowski metric under rotations. Since SO(3) \subset \text{Lorentz group} and the Lorentz group maps solutions to relativistic Euler equations into solutions, we have that (\rho_\mathsf{R},u^i_\mathsf{R}) also solves (?).

Next, we verify that (\rho_\mathsf{R},u^i_\mathsf{R}) satisfies the physical vacuum boundary condition in the rotated domain. First, observe that if x \in \partial \Omega_t^\mathsf{R}, then \mathsf{R}^{-1}x \in \partial \Omega_t and therefore \rho_\mathsf{R}(t,x) = \rho(t,\mathsf{R}^{-1}x) =0, so that \rho_\mathsf{R} vanishes on the boundary of the rotated domain; we also see that \rho_\mathsf{R} remains positive away from the boundary. The sound speed squared in the rotated domain is given by c_{s,\mathsf{R}}^2 = (1+\kappa) \rho_\mathsf{R}^\kappa. Because \mathsf{R} is an isometry of \mathbb{R}^3, we have that \text{dist(}x,\partial\Omega_t^\mathsf{R})=\text{dist}(\mathsf{R}^{-1}x,\partial\Omega_t). Therefore

i.e., c_{s,\mathsf{R}}^2 is comparable to the distance to the boundary in the rotated domain. Finally, to verify the kinematic boundary condition that the four-velocity is tangent to the free-boundary in spacetime for the rotated quantities (or equivalently, that the rotated domain is advected by the rotated velocity), we observe that if (t,\gamma(t)) \subset \cup_{0\leq t < T^*} \{t\} \times \partial\Omega_t is a fluid-particle trajectory, so that

then the rotated trajectory (t,\gamma_\mathsf{R}(t)) = (t, \mathsf{R} \gamma(t)) is such that (t,\gamma_\mathsf{R}(t)) \subset \cup_{0\leq t < T^*} \{t\} \times \partial\Omega^\mathsf{R}_t and

as needed.

At t=0 we have

where the last equality on each line follows from the assumption that the data is spherically symmetric. Thus, (\rho_\mathsf{R},u^i_\mathsf{R}) and (\rho,u^i) are two solutions to (?) satisfying the physical vacuum boundary condition and taking the same data at time zero. By uniqueness (also established in [disconzi2022relativistic]), they must agree, so that for all 0 \leq t < T^*, \Omega_t = \Omega_t^\mathsf{R}, \rho_\mathsf{R}(t,x) =\rho(t,x), u_\mathsf{R}^i(t,x)=u^i(t,x), thus in particular

i.e., (\rho,u^i) is spherically symmetric. (In particular, each \Omega_t must be a ball.)

Step 2 (Definiteness of the change of variables at the level of data). Here, we follow the arguments of Section ? and check that the procedure is well defined at the level of the data. Throughout, we will refer to expressions from Section ? that involve \rho, u^i, and u^0, but it should be understood that they are to be taken with \mathring{\rho}, \mathring{u}^i, and \mathring{u}^0 instead. We will refer to expressions as being well defined to mean that they are determined uniquely in terms of the data (\mathring{\rho},\mathring{u}^i) and the fixed parameters in the statement of the Theorem. We will not track the regularity of the change of variables in this step because this will be done further below for spacetime quantities, from which in particular we can verify the regularity of the data (\Theta_0,U_0) constructed out of (\mathring{\rho},\mathring{u}^i).

In view of our assumption on the data, (?) and (?) are well defined. The ODE defining \lambda in (?) depends only on \delta, \kappa, and the initial conditions (?) involve only the parameters \lambda_0 and \lambda_1. Thus, the change of variables (?) is well-defined, as are the modified velocity V in (?) and the expression for the time component of \mathring{u}^0 in (?). It follows that \partial_s\eta in (?) is well defined at s=0 in terms of the data and \eta_0. It follows that f, U, and U^0 in (?) are also well defined at s=0, as is \mathcal{F} in (?). By (?) and \partial_\tau = \lambda^{-\frac{3}{2}\kappa}\partial_s, all these quantities are also well defined at \tau=0, thus in terms of the data and \eta_0.

To fix \eta_0, we invoke (?), but also note that (?) imposes a constraint. Integrating (?) and recalling that w_\delta = \delta w,

The LHS is \frac{1}{4\pi}M_\text{ref} by (13.2) and (13.2), whereas the RHS is \frac{1}{4\pi}M in view of (?), (?), (?), a change of variables, and (13.2). The constraint M=M_\text{ref} is satisfied by (13.2).

It now follows from the above that \Theta(0,\cdot) given by (?) and \partial_\tau \Theta(0,\cdot) obtained from (?), and (?), (?), are uniquely determined in terms of the data (and the gauge choice (?)).

To show that (\Theta_0,U_0)=(0,0) if \mathring{\rho}=\mathring{\rho}_{\text{ref}} and \mathring{u}^i=\mathring{u}^i_{\text{ref}}, it suffices to verify that for such data we have V(0,\cdot)=0 and that (?) is satisfied by taking \eta_0(\zeta)=\zeta. Both statements are a direct consequence of following the above steps in the construction of (\Theta_0,U_0) using (\mathring{\rho},\mathring{u}^i)=(\mathring{\rho}_{\text{ref}},\mathring{u}^i_{\text{ref}}).

This establishes item 1) of the Theorem.

Step 3 (Spherically symmetric solutions to (?) give rise to solutions to (?)). By Step 1 and [disconzi2022relativistic], there exists a unique spherically symmetric classical solution (\rho,u^i) to (?) defined on (?) for some T>0, and taking the given data at t=0. In view of (?), if we set

then the procedure in Section ? immediately produces a solution (\Theta,\partial_\tau\Theta) defined for 0\leq \tau < \tau^* and taking the data (\Theta_0,U_0) produced in Step 2, provided all steps in Section ? are justified. This, in turn, is a matter of verifying that there is enough regularity to carry out all steps. The regularity of (\Theta,\partial_\tau\Theta) is investigated in the next step, which shows in particular that (\Theta,\partial_\tau\Theta) is at least (in fact, much better) C^2([0,\tau^*)\times[0,1])\times C^1([0,\tau^*)\times[0,1]), hence a classical solution.

Uniqueness of (?) for the class of data (\Theta_0,U_0) constructed out of (\mathring{\rho},\mathring{u}^i) in Step 2 follows from uniqueness of (?) (established in [disconzi2022relativistic]).

This establishes the existence and uniqueness part in item 2) of the Theorem.

Step 4 (Spacetime and radial regularity). The solution (\mathsf{r},\mathsf{v}^i) given by [disconzi2022relativistic] has regularity

from which follows, in light of (13.2) and (?), that

From the equations of motion we then obtain standard regularity for time derivatives, where each \partial_t corresponds to one lower spatial regularity. From (?) and the physical vacuum boundary condition it follows that

again with higher time derivatives having regularity determined by the equations of motion as above. Crucially, these all refer to the regularity relative to rectangular coordinates in \mathbb{R}^3, which therefore implies the usual compatibility conditions at the origin for spherically symmetric solutions, so that the variables (?) satisfy

The variables \tilde{\rho} and \tilde{v} in (?) inherit the regularity of \rho and u^i and thus also satisfy the same compatibility conditions in r at the origin. Thus we can summarize the regularity of the relevant variables as

and, again, each further time derivative costs another spatial derivative.

Step 5 (Regularity of \eta_0). Define

We have that m \colon [0,1] \rightarrow [0,m(1)] and m_\text{ref} \colon [0,1] \rightarrow [0,m_\text{ref}(1)] are continuous and strictly increasing maps, thus invertible. By (13.2), (13.2), and (13.2), m(1)=M=M_\text{ref}=m_\text{ref}(1), and therefore we have a well-defined orientation preserving homeomorphism

The expressions defining m and m_\text{ref} show that these quantities are differentiable. We further show below that \eta_0 is in fact a C^{N+2} diffeomorphism, which then justifies the following step: differentiating the identity

gives

which is (?) (recall (?)).

An orientation preserving diffeomorphism \hat{\eta} on [0,1] must be increasing. If it satisfies (?) (with \hat{\eta} in place of \eta_0), then upon integration it must satisfy m(\hat{\eta}(\zeta))=m_\text{ref}(\zeta), hence \hat{\eta} = \eta_0. This shows that in our setting the diffeomorphism given by Dacorogna–Moser [dacorogna1990partial] in (?) agrees with the one we just constructed.

By (?) and Definition 2.6, we obtain that m,m_\text{ref} \in C^{N+3}([\epsilon, 1-\epsilon]) for any \epsilon > 0, and since \partial_\zeta m(\zeta) > 0, we have m^{-1} \in C^{N+3}([\epsilon,1-\epsilon]) by the inverse function theorem. Thus, \eta_0 \in C^{N+3}([\epsilon,1-\epsilon]) for any \epsilon>0, i.e., \eta_0 \in C^{N+3}_{loc}((0,1)).

Let us next investigate regularity at \zeta=0. By (?) and (?) we have

so that

for some function \mathsf{f}_m that is C^{N+2} in a neighborhood of \zeta=0 and satisfies \mathsf{f}_m(0)=\frac{1}{3}\tilde{\rho}(0)>0. Similarly, in view of the properties of w stated in Definition 2.6, we have

for some function \mathsf{f}_{m_\text{ref}} that is C^{N+2} in a neighborhood of \zeta=0 and satisfies \mathsf{f}_{m_\text{ref}}(0)>0.

The maps (m(\zeta))^\frac{1}{3}=\zeta (\mathsf{f}_m(\zeta^2))^\frac{1}{3} and (m_\text{ref})^\frac{1}{3} = \zeta (\mathsf{f}_{m_\text{ref}}(\zeta^2))^\frac{1}{3} are C^{N+2} in a neighborhood of \zeta=0 because \mathsf{f}_m(0)>0 and \mathsf{f}_{m_\text{ref}}(0)>0. Since

by the inverse function theorem, m^\frac{1}{3} is a C^{N+2} diffeomorphism in a neighborhood of \zeta=0. But near zero we have that (m(\eta_0(\zeta)))^\frac{1}{3} := (m_\text{ref}(\zeta))^\frac{1}{3} if and only if m(\eta_0(\zeta)) := m_\text{ref}(\zeta), and we conclude that

thus \eta_0 is C^{N+2} at \zeta=0.

We finally move to establish regularity at \zeta=1. Since w(1)=0, we can write, for 0<\zeta< 1,

where we changed variables z \mapsto 1-\zeta z in the last step. Thus we can write

where

is smooth in a neighborhood of \zeta=0. Since \partial_\zeta w(1) < 0, we also have that W_\delta is positive in a neighborhood of \zeta=0. Similarly, by the physical vacuum boundary condition and (?), we can write

where R is C^{N+2} and positive in a neighborhood of zero. Thus, there exists an \epsilon>0 such that W_\delta,R \in C^{N+2}([0,\epsilon]) and W_\delta, R > 0 on [0,\epsilon]. In what follows, we may need to shrink \epsilon as we will be making several statements valid in a neighborhood of \zeta=0.

Introduce

Then

where we used (?), changed variables z\mapsto 1-z in the second step, and defined

By the above construction of R in (?), we have that \tilde{R}\in C^{N+2}([0,\epsilon]) and \tilde{R}>0 on [0,\epsilon ]. Changing variables once more, z \mapsto \zeta z,

where

belongs to C^{N+2}([0,\epsilon]) and is positive on [0,\epsilon]. Similarly, we can write

where \hat{W}_\delta \in C^{N+2}([0,\epsilon]) and is positive on [0,\epsilon].

Define

so that

Because \hat{R} \in C^{N+2}([0,\epsilon]) and \hat{R}(0) > 0, we have that \left. \partial_\zeta \mathsf{m}^-(1-\zeta)\right|_{\zeta=0} >0. By the inverse function theorem, \mathsf{m}^-(1-\zeta) is a C^{N+2} diffeomorphism in a neighborhood of \zeta=0, or equivalently \mathsf{m}^- is a C^{N+2} diffeomorphism in a neighborhood of \zeta=1. Similarly, \mathsf{m}^-_\text{ref} is a C^{N+2} diffeomorphism in a neighborhood of \zeta=1.

In view of the definitions (13.2), (?), and (?), we can write

Identities (?) and (?) imply that M-m^-(\eta_0(\zeta)) = M_\text{ref} - m^-_\text{ref}(\zeta), and thus

in view of assumption (13.2). Reciprocally, if (?) holds so does (?) using again (?) and (13.2). In other words, (?) and (?) are equivalent, and since the latter holds by our construction of \eta_0 so does the former. Raising (?) to the power \frac{\kappa}{1+\kappa} and invoking (?) gives

By the foregoing, \mathsf{m}^- and \mathsf{m}_\text{ref}^- are C^{N+2} diffeomorphisms in a neighborhood of \zeta=1, and thus is \eta_0 = (\mathsf{m}^{-})^{-1} \circ \mathsf{m}^-_\text{ref}. In particular \eta_0 \in C^{N+2}([1-\epsilon,1]).

Considering the three regions investigated above, namely, a neighborhood of \zeta=0, a neighborhood of \zeta=1, and (0,1), we conclude that \eta_0 \in C^{N+2}([0,1]) and \eta_0^{-1} \in C^{N+2}([0,1]).

Step 6 (Regularity of (\Theta,\partial_\tau\Theta)). By (?) and (?), we have V(\tau,\cdot) \in C^{N+2}([0,1]) and \partial_\tau V(\tau,\cdot) \in C^{N+1}([0,1]). We showed above that \eta_0 \in C^{N+2}([0,1]). Therefore, by (?), we conclude that \eta(\tau,\cdot) and \partial_\tau\eta(\tau,\cdot) are in C^{N+2}([0,1]), and thus the same holds for \Theta(\tau,\cdot) and \partial_\tau\Theta(\tau,\cdot) in view of (?), where we recall that the change of variables from s to \tau does not lose derivatives.

Step 7 (Center regularity of (\Theta,\partial_\tau\Theta) and boundedness of E^N). We now show that \Theta and \partial_\tau \Theta are genuinely spherically symmetric functions. For this, we need to verify that they satisfy

We will refer to functions whose even derivatives vanish at \zeta=0 as odd, and those whose odd derivatives vanish at \zeta=0 as even. This is a slight abuse of notation in that our maps are not defined for \zeta < 0, but the important point is that the standard parity algebra (\text{odd}) \cdot (\text{odd})= (\text{even}), (\text{odd}) \cdot (\text{even})= (\text{odd}), etc., continues to hold. Here we are interested in parity in \zeta for functions of \tau and \zeta, while we will appeal to expressions of s and \zeta where s is as in (?). The change from s to \tau, however, does not affect the parity in \zeta.

Let us show that V(\tau,\zeta) is an odd function of \zeta. Consider (?). The term \frac{\lambda^\prime}{\lambda}\zeta is odd, as is \tilde{v} by (?). u^0 is even by (?). Thus, V is odd.

From (?), (?), and (?), we have that near \zeta=0 we can write

with \mathbf{F}(0) \neq 0, where we used an invertible map of the form, \mathbf{F}(\zeta^2), \mathbf{F}(0) \neq 0, also has the form \zeta \mathbf{F}(\zeta^2), \mathbf{F}(0) \neq 0 by Lemma A.14. Thus, \eta_0 is odd.

V being odd in \zeta, i.e., having all even derivatives vanishing at \zeta=0, implies that V can be extended from [0,1] to an odd function on [-1,1] which is of the same regularity, C^{N+2}. Similarly for \eta_0. By (?), \eta is the flow of an odd vector field with odd initial condition. A standard parity-preserving argument based on uniqueness shows that \eta(\tau,\zeta) is then odd in \zeta. Upon restricting to \zeta \in [0,1], we have \partial_\zeta^{2\ell}\eta(\tau,0)=0, 2\ell \leq N+2. Thus the same holds for \Theta(\tau,\zeta) by (?).

For \partial_\tau \Theta, we use (?) and (?) to get

which is odd in \zeta.

For any odd function \mathsf{f} \in C^{N+2}([0,1]), Lemma A.15 gives that

and also a bound on the respective norms, where we recall that \mathcal{D}_\ell is given by (?).

With (?) at hand and the regularity of \Theta and \partial_\tau \Theta established in Step 6, we then immediately obtain (?); (?) then follows from (?) and Remark 13.1.

This completes the proof of item 2) of the Theorem.

Step 8 (Perturbations of reference data give rise to small E^N data). This is essentially the statement that our association (\mathring{\mathsf{r}},\mathring{\mathsf{v}}^i)\mapsto (\Theta_0,U_0) is continuous at (\mathsf{r}_\text{ref},\mathsf{v}_\text{ref}^i). We have already seen that this association is well defined, but now we need to be more quantitative about it.

Define the set

and endow \mathcal{U} with the topology inherited from \mathcal{H}^{2k}_\text{ref}. In practice, recall that the ingredients needed for (\Theta_0,U_0) to be well defined are the physical vacuum boundary condition, the gauge fixing of \eta_0, subluminality, enough regularity for the variables, and the center-regularity conditions. These conditions are stable under convergence in \mathcal{H}^{2k}_\text{ref} and thus \mathcal{U} is open. By construction, on \mathcal{U} we have a well-defined Euler-to-Lagrangian data map \mathbb{D} \colon (\mathring{\mathsf{r}},\mathring{\mathsf{v}}) \mapsto (\Theta_0,U_0) and we need to ascertain the continuity of this map, where the topology on the image is given by the \mathcal{X}^N topology.

Let \{ (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}_n,\mathring{\mathsf{v}}^i_n)\}_{n=0}^\infty \subset \mathcal{U} converge to (\mathring{\mathsf{r}},\mathring{\mathsf{v}}^i). By definition of convergence in \mathcal{H}^{2k}_0, we have that \Omega_{\mathring{\mathsf{r}}_n} converges to \Omega_{\mathring{\mathsf{r}}}. Since \Omega_{\mathring{\mathsf{r}}_n}=B_{\lambda_{0,n}}(0) and \Omega_{\mathring{\mathsf{r}}}=B_{\lambda_0}(0) by spherical symmetry, we have \lambda_{0,n} \rightarrow \lambda_0.

Set

\zeta \in [0,1]. By definition of convergence in \mathcal{H}^{2k}_0, given \epsilon we have a smooth (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}_\text{smooth}, \mathring{\mathsf{v}}_\text{smooth}^i), which we can assume to be spherically symmetric (this is because the relevant domains and norms are invariant under SO(3); if (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}_\text{smooth}, \mathring{\mathsf{v}}_\text{smooth}^i) were not spherically symmetric, we could replace it by its SO(3) average without worsening the approximation), defined in a neighborhood B_{\lambda_\text{smooth}}(0) of \Omega_{\mathring{\mathsf{r}}} such that \| (\mathring{\mathsf{r}},\mathring{\mathsf{v}}^i) - (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}_\text{smooth}, \mathring{\mathsf{v}}_\text{smooth}^i) \|_{\mathcal{H}^{2k}_{\mathring{\mathsf{r}}}(\Omega_{\mathring{\mathsf{r}}})} \leq \epsilon and \limsup_{n\rightarrow\infty}\| (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}_n,\mathring{\mathsf{v}}^i_n) - (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}_\text{smooth}, \mathring{\mathsf{v}}_\text{smooth}^i) \|_{\mathcal{H}^{2k}_{\mathring{\mathsf{r}}_n}(\Omega_{\mathring{\mathsf{r}}_n})} \leq \epsilon. From this and the non-degeneracy of \mathring{\mathsf{r}}_n it follows that

and

where \mathring{\mathsf{r}}^L_\text{smooth}(\zeta):=\mathring{\mathsf{r}}_\text{smooth}(\lambda_\text{smooth}\zeta) and (\mathring{\mathsf{v}}^L)^i_\text{smooth}(\zeta) := \mathring{\mathsf{v}}_\text{smooth}^i(\lambda_\text{smooth}\zeta). This implies that (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}^L_n,(\mathring{\mathsf{v}}^L_n)^i) \rightarrow (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}^L,(\mathring{\mathsf{v}}^L)^i) in \mathcal{H}^{2k}_w([0,1]).

From (?) we can write u^i = (1+\frac{\kappa}{1+\kappa}r)^{-(1+\frac{1}{\kappa})} \mathsf{v}^i, so that u^i is related to \mathsf{v}^i by a smooth function of \mathsf{r} that is uniformly bounded away from zero. Thus, for the Eulerian velocities \mathring{u}^i and \mathring{u}^i_n corresponding to \mathring{\mathsf{v}}^i and \mathring{\mathsf{v}}^i_n, respectively, if we set (\mathring{u}^L)^i(\zeta) := \mathring{u}^i(\lambda_{0}\zeta) and (\mathring{u}^L_n)^i(\zeta) := \mathring{u}_n^i(\lambda_{0}\zeta), then we also have (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}^L_n,(\mathring{u}^L_n)^i) \rightarrow (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}^L,(\mathring{u}^L)^i) in \mathcal{H}^{2k}_w([0,1]). By (13.2) and (?) we then obtain (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}^L_n,(\mathring{u}^L_n)^i) \rightarrow (\mathring{\mathsf{r}}^L,(\mathring{u}^L)^i) in C^{N+2}([0,1]).

Next, by (?) we have \| \mathring{\rho}_n - \mathring{\rho} \|_{L^\infty(\mathbb{R})} \rightarrow 0 (with \mathring{\rho}_n,\mathring{\rho} extended to zero outside the domains). This combined with (?) and the dominated convergence theorem gives that m_n converges uniformly to m, where m_n is (?) constructed out of \mathring{\rho}_n and m out of \mathring{\rho}. Each m_n is strictly increasing and uniformly non-degenerate away from the end points, and therefore m_n^{-1} also converges uniformly to m^{-1}. Thus, \eta_{0,n} = m_n^{-1} \circ m_\text{ref} converges uniformly to \eta_0 = m^{-1} \circ m_\text{ref}. Analyzing the regularity and invertibility of \eta_{0,n} near the endpoints and away from the endpoints as in Step 5, and recalling (13.2), we can show that in fact \eta_{0,n} \rightarrow \eta_0 in C^{N+1}([0,1]). From this, we then obtain C^{N+1}([0,1]) convergence of \Theta_n := \eta_{0,n} - \zeta to \Theta = \eta_0 -\zeta.

From the convergences already established, we can obtain C^{N+1}([0,1]) convergence of U_{0,n}(\zeta) := V_n(0,\eta_{0,n}(\zeta)) to U_0(\zeta) := V(0,\eta_0(\zeta)), where V_n and V are given in terms of \mathring{u}_n^i and \mathring{u}^i, respectively, and (?) in view of (?).

Finally, as in Step 8, the center-regularity conditions ensure that the above C^{N+1}([0,1]) convergence implies \mathcal{X}^N convergence and thus E^N(0) convergence by Remark 13.1. Recalling that (\Theta_0,U_0)=(0,0) for the reference state, we obtain item 3) of the Theorem.

Step 9 (Continuation criterion). The solutions (\Theta,\partial_\tau\Theta) to (?) that we have constructed are obtained out of solutions (\rho,u^i) to (?), which in turn are obtained from the solutions (\mathsf{r},\mathsf{v}) obtained in [disconzi2022relativistic]. The passage from (\mathsf{r},\mathsf{v}) to (\rho,u^i) is given by (?), whereas the passage from (\rho,u^i) to (\Theta,\partial_\tau\Theta) is given by the procedure of Section ?, which we justified through Steps 1–3 above. From this procedure we have that if (\mathsf{r},\mathsf{v}) is defined on the time interval [0,T^*) then (\Theta,\partial_\tau\Theta) is defined on the time interval [0,\tau^*), where \tau^* is given by (?). Thus, if (\mathsf{r},\mathsf{v}) is defined instead on the time interval [0,T^*+ \epsilon), \epsilon > 0, then (\Theta,\partial_\tau\Theta) is defined on the time interval [0,\tau^*+\epsilon^\prime), where \epsilon^\prime is given by

By the continuation criterion established in [disconzi2022relativistic], a subluminal solution (\mathsf{r},\mathsf{v}) defined on [0,T^*) and uniformly satisfying the physical vacuum boundary condition can be continued past T^* if

(The continuation criterion in [disconzi2022relativistic] requires in fact control of a norm weaker than C^2, but C^2 suffices for our purposes.) Therefore, in order to show item 4) of the Theorem, it suffices to show that under the bootstrap assumptions (7.6) and (7.6), (?) implies (?).

Recalling (?), we have the subluminality condition

The bootstrap assumption (7.6) is stronger than subluminality, giving a uniform positive lower bound for U^0 on [0,\tau^*), i.e., there exists a C_0 >0 such that

Recalling the computations surrounding (?), we have

We showed in Step 7 that \eta is odd in \zeta, thus \eta(\tau,\zeta) = \zeta + O(\zeta^3) near \zeta=0 for \tau \in [0,\tau^*). Therefore, the bootstrap assumption (7.6) on \mathcal{F} gives that \partial_\zeta \eta(\tau,\cdot) remains uniformly bounded away from zero and thus \eta = \Theta + \zeta remains uniformly non-degenerate on [0,\tau^*), i.e., there exists a C_1>0 such that

This, combined with (?), (?), and the bootstrap assumption (7.6) on \bar{\mathcal{G}}, gives that there is no interior vacuum formation in the corresponding Eulerian variables solutions, i.e., if we define

then for each x \in \Omega_{T^*}, it holds that

Furthermore, (?) and (7.6) also give that f^\kappa(\tau,\zeta) \approx w_\delta(\zeta) \approx 1-\zeta uniformly over [0,\tau^*), from which we conclude that the physical vacuum boundary condition is satisfied uniformly on the Eulerian variables over [0,T^*), i.e., there exists C_2>1 such that for all (t,x) \in \cup_{0 \leq t < T^*} \{ t \} \times \Omega_t

With the above ingredients, we can now verify that (?) holds if (?) does so. We note that \eta = \zeta + \Theta is C^3 if \Theta is C^3; \mathcal{F} = (\frac{\eta}{\zeta})^2 \partial_\zeta \eta = (1+\frac{\Theta}{\zeta})^2 (1+\partial_\zeta \Theta) is C^2 if \Theta is C^3; U=\lambda^{\frac{3}{2 }\kappa}\partial_\tau \Theta is C^2 if \partial_\tau \Theta is C^2; U^0 = 1 - (\partial_\tau \Theta + \bar{\lambda}_{\tau} (\Theta + \zeta))^2 is C^2 if \Theta is C^2 and \partial_\tau \Theta is C^2. These observations combined with the fact that \eta(\tau,\cdot) = \eta(\tau(t),\cdot) \colon [0,1] \rightarrow \Omega_t, \tau \in [0,\tau^*), is a diffeomorphism, imply the claim. This establishes item 4) of the Theorem.

We begin by converting (?) into

where

Integrating (Proof) and using \left. \bar{\mathcal{G}} \right|_{\tau=0}=\frac{1}{\kappa}, we thus find

First, we estimate T_1. Recall (U^0)^{-2} = 1-(\partial_\tau\Theta+\bar{\lambda}_{\tau} (\Theta+\zeta))^2. Then,

This implies, together with (14.4), that

Since |\bar{\lambda}_{\tau}| \approx \bar\lambda, we obtain from the Hardy’s the embedding (?) and (2.1) to obtain that T_{11} \lesssim \delta. Also, by applying (?) to \partial_{\tau}\Theta and because \lambda^{-\frac32\kappa} is integrable, we have

where we used (14.4) in the last inequality. To bound T_{12}, we integrate \partial_{\tau} by parts to obtain that

where we used (?) and (2.1) in the third inequality, as well as (14.4) in the final inequality. Summarizing all the estimates above, we have

Lastly, we control T_2. By decomposing

we see that |T_{21}| \lesssim \delta from (2.1), (14.4), and the bound |\mathcal{F}-1|\leq \frac{1}{200}. Additionally, we recall that

Then an application of Hardy’s inequality (?), (14.4), the bound |\mathcal{F}-1|\leq \frac{1}{200}, and (2.1) yields the bound |T_{22}| \lesssim M_*^{\frac12}\epsilon^{\frac12}\delta. In summation, we have

By combining this with (?), we conclude that

where we used \delta\le \epsilon in the final inequality.

Invoking the definition of D_{\zeta} = \partial_{\zeta} + \frac{2}{\zeta}, the identity (Proof) follows from the usual product rule. The identities (?) and (?) follow from [guo2021continued, Lemma A.4]. Then it suffices for us to prove (?). Given \bar P \in \bar{\mathcal{P}}_i, we can write \bar P = P\partial_{\zeta}, where P \in \mathcal{P}_{i-1}. We thus have

where we used (?) in the final equality above.

We prove by induction. If i = 1, we see that

and we are done.

To complete the inductive step, we assume i is even. Then \mathcal{D}_{i+1} = D_{\zeta} \mathcal{D}_{i}, and we have

Since i+1 is odd, then k and i-k+1 have different parity. We may without loss assume that k is even and hence i-k+1 is odd. Then

where \mathcal{A}\in \mathcal{P}_{k+1}, \mathcal{B} \in \mathcal{P}_{i-k+2}. Thus we conclude the proof for i even case. The case where i is odd is similar.

We prove by induction. It is clear that (A.6) is true for i=1 since \mathcal{D}_1 = D_{\zeta}. Suppose that (A.6) holds for all i\leq \ell. We will show that it is true for i=\ell+1.

When \ell is even, then \mathcal{D}_{\ell+1} = D_{\zeta} \mathcal{D}_{\ell} or \frac{1}{\zeta}\mathcal{D}_{\ell}. From the inductive hypothesis, it suffices to show that D_{\zeta}((\mathcal{D}_\ell f) g), \frac{1}{\zeta}(\mathcal{D}_\ell f) g, as well as D_{\zeta}((Af)(Bg)), \frac{1}{\zeta}(Af)(Bg), with A\in \mathcal{P}_k and B\in \bar\mathcal{P}_{\ell-k}, are of the correct form. The first two are easy to handle:

and

Additionally, if k is even, then \ell-k is even. Thus, we can write

and

We note that both D_{\zeta} A and \frac{1}{\zeta} A\in \mathcal{P}_{k+1} with k+1\leq \ell. If k is odd, then \ell-k is odd. Thus, we can write

and

Here, \partial_{\zeta} A\in \mathcal{P}_{k+1} with k+1\leq \ell. This completes the induction when \ell is even.

Let us assume \ell is odd now. In this case, \mathcal{D}_{\ell+1} = \partial_{\zeta} \mathcal{D}_{\ell}. Hence, we need to show that \partial_{\zeta}((\mathcal{D}_\ell f) g) as well as \partial_{\zeta}((Af)(Bg)) with A\in \mathcal{P}_k and B\in \bar\mathcal{P}_{\ell-k}, are of the correct form. Note that

where \partial_{\zeta} \mathcal{D}_\ell = \mathcal{D}_{\ell+1}. As before, we consider k is even and odd separately to justify if \partial_{\zeta}((Af)(Bg)) is of the correct form. If k is even, then \ell-k is odd. We write

where D_{\zeta} A\in\mathcal{P}_{k+1} with k+1\leq\ell. If k is odd, then \ell-k is even. We write

This completes the proof since \partial_{\zeta} A\in \mathcal{P}_{k+1}.

Using \zeta\partial_{\zeta}\left(\frac{\Theta}{\zeta}\right) = D_{\zeta}\Theta-3\frac{\Theta}{\zeta}, we see that

We are now ready to show (A.7) by induction. When P_1=D_{\zeta}, and since D_{\zeta}\frac{1}{\zeta} = \frac{1}{\zeta^2}, we have

Additionally, when P_1=\frac{1}{\zeta},

These verify (A.7) when i=1. Suppose now that (A.7) holds for \ell=1,\cdots,i-1. If i is odd, P_iZ = D_{\zeta} P_{i-1}Z or \frac{1}{\zeta}P_{i-1}Z. In the former case,

In the latter case,

On the other hand, if i is even, then

This completes the induction.

We prove (A.8) by induction, and the proof of (A.8) will be similar. If i = 1, we either have P_1 = D_{\zeta} or P_1 = \zeta^{-1}. If the former case hold, then we have

which verifies (A.8) when i = 1. If the case P_1 = \zeta^{-1} holds, then easily P_1(f^2/\zeta) = (f/\zeta)^2, which also verfies the base case.

To complete the inductive step, we assume that i \ge 1 is even. Then P_{i+1} = VP_{i}, where V = D_{\zeta} or \zeta^{-1}. Then

Since i is even and l_1 + l_2 = i+1, we may without loss assume that l_1 is even and l_2 is odd, which implies that l_1 \le i and l_2 \le i-1. If V = D_{\zeta}, then

which completes the inductive step since D_{\zeta} A_1 \in \mathcal{P}_{l_1 + 1}, \partial_{\zeta} A_2 \in \mathcal{P}_{l_2 + 1}. If V = \zeta^{-1}, then

which also verfies the inductive step since \zeta^{-1} A_1 \in \mathcal{P}_{l_1 + 1}. The case where i is odd is similar.

The proof of the first two items is in a similar spirit to that of Lemma C.3 in [guo2021continued]. The only key difference is that the differential operators appeared in (?) and (?) are general \mathcal{P}_k vector fields instead of \mathcal{D}_k, which is allowed in view of the coercivity estimate (A.1). The proof of (?) follows similarly. Note that k cannot exceed N-1 due to the definition of S^N.

The proof follows similarly to that of Lemma C.4 in [guo2021continued], so we are content with sketching the modified proof here. Invoking (A.10) with u = P_k \Theta and m = \lfloor \alpha \rfloor + k + 1, we arrive at

Selecting B_i = \mathcal{D}_i if k is even and B_i = \bar{\mathcal{D}}_i if k is odd, we have B_iP_k \in \mathcal{P}_{k+i}. Since i + k \le 2 + \frac{N-\lfloor\alpha\rfloor - 2}{2} \le N and w \gtrsim 1 in [0,\frac34], the first sum is bounded by \mathcal{E}^N after invoking the coercivity estimate (A.1). On the other hand, since w \lesssim 1, then w^{\alpha - \lfloor\alpha\rfloor + 2(\lfloor \alpha \rfloor + k + 1)} \lesssim w^{\alpha + i + k} for i \le \lfloor \alpha \rfloor + k + 2. Then the second sum is also bounded by \mathcal{E}^N after invoking coercivity (A.1) again. Other estimates follow similarly.

We prove this lemma here since the proof proceeds slightly differently from that of Lemma C.5 of [guo2021continued]. We first prove (?). Fix k \le N-4 and P_{k+2} \in \mathcal{P}_{k+2}. Invoking (A.10) with u = w^k P_{k+2}\Theta and m = 3 + \lfloor\alpha\rfloor - k, we have

We also let B_i = \mathcal{D}_i for k even or B_i = \bar{\mathcal{D}}_i for k odd. To treat the first sum, we invoke the product rule (?) (or (?)) to deduce that

By the chain rule (A.9) as well as Lemma 3.4, we know that A_1(w^k) is a smooth function near \zeta = 0, and thus |A_1(w^k)| \lesssim 1. Since k+2 + i \le k+4 \le N, we conclude that the first sum is controlled by \mathcal{E}^N after using (A.1).

As for the second sum, a similar reasoning to above would yield

where we used the chain rule and Lemma 3.4 in the second to the last inequality. Now, note that w^{\alpha + \lfloor\alpha\rfloor + 6-2j} \lesssim w^{\alpha + k + 2 + i-j} since j \le i \le 4 + \lfloor\alpha\rfloor - k. Moreover, the term which contains the most derivatives have k + 2 + i \le 6 + \lfloor\alpha\rfloor \le N derivatives. We thus conclude that the second sum is also bounded by \mathcal{E}^N after using (A.1). The bound for \delta^{-1}\lambda^{-3\kappa}\|w^kP_{k+2}\partial_{\tau}\Theta \|_{L^\infty}^2 is similar.

The proof for other inequalities follow from similar arguments, where the proof for (?) and (?) utilizes (A.10) in place of (A.10).

Set s=\zeta^2 and \Psi(s) = s (\mathbf{F}(s))^2. Then \Psi^\prime(0) >0 and \Psi is a C^1 diffeomorphism in a neighborhood of the origin. Let \alpha=\psi(\zeta)=\zeta \mathbf{F}(\zeta^2), so \alpha^2=\zeta^2 (\mathbf{F}(\zeta^2))^2=\Psi(\zeta^2), thus \Psi^{-1}(\alpha^2) = \zeta^2 for small \zeta. Therefore

where \mathbf{G}(s) = \frac{1}{\mathbf{F}(\Psi^{-1}(s))} satisfies \mathbf{G}(0) \neq 0.

For notational convenience, let us write \mathsf{L} := \partial_\zeta D_{\zeta}, where we recall from (?) that D_{\zeta} = \frac{1}{\zeta^2}\partial_{\zeta} (\zeta^2\cdot) = \partial_{\zeta} + \frac{2}{\zeta}. Then \mathcal{D}_{2\ell} = \mathsf{L}^\ell and \mathcal{D}_{2\ell+1}= D_{\zeta} \mathsf{L}^\ell.

Near the origin, we can write

for some C^k function \mathbf{F}. With s=\zeta^2, we have \zeta^2 \mathsf{f}(\zeta) = \zeta^3 \mathbf{F}(s) and then

so that dividing by \zeta^2 the operator on LHS becomes D_{\zeta} and we get

which is a function only of s=\zeta^2, i.e., even in \zeta, thus it extends continuously to \zeta=0. Hence D_{\zeta} \mathsf{f}(0)= 3\mathbf{F}(0). Applying \partial_\zeta to (?) we then obtain

The RHS of (?) is of the form \zeta times a function of s=\zeta^2, thus it extends continuously to \zeta=0 so that \mathsf{L}\mathsf{f}(0) = 0.

Define recursively

with \mathbf{F}_0 := \mathbf{F}. Then (?) says that

Applying to \mathsf{L} \mathsf{f} the same reasoning that led to (?) and proceeding inductively gives

and \mathsf{L}^\ell\mathsf{f}(0)=0. Also, applying D_{\zeta} to \mathsf{L}^\ell\mathsf{f} gives, as in (?),

and thus D_{\zeta} (\mathsf{L}^\ell\mathsf{f})(0) is a well-defined finite value. The norm statement follows from the RHS of the above expressions for \mathsf{L}^\ell and D_{\zeta} (\mathsf{L}^\ell).