L^4 norm of spectral projectors on polynomially small frequency intervals for S^1-symmetric surfaces

From the a priori estimate on the L^4 norm of \lambda_n^{1/2} J_n(\lambda_n r) given by Lemma 4, and applying Hölder inequality, observe first that

Thanks to the bound (Proof), we may prove the first two estimates of the proposition. Indeed, let us fix more generally M > 0, and let us write

where we apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality with respect to n_1 (resp n_4) to obtain that the sum on n_1 (resp n_4) is bounded by 1 in the last inequality.

Similarly, we may write

where we apply the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality with respect to n_1, for a fixed n_2,t, then with respect to n_1 for a fixed t.

Now, apply this to M = \lambda^{1/3 + \alpha} or M = \lambda^{1/2}\delta^{1/2}.

With regards to the third estimate in the proposition, observe that is it enough to prove that, for any \textbf{n} \in T, and any N \geqslant 1, there holds

Now, observe that, on the support of \eta_{n_4}^{int}, for any N\geqslant 1, Lemma 5 yields that

where the upper bound is independent on n_4 and on r. Moreover, all the other quantities are bounded by a fixed power of \lambda.

For r \in [0,1] and \nu \in [0,r], let

which is a strictly convex function of \nu for a fixed r. Indeed, let us write, to fix ideas,

Then, observe that

and thus, thanks to Lemma 3, we deduce that \partial_r \Phi_{-,-,+} doesn’t vanish on the support of \eta_{n_4}^{ext}(r). In particular, we may integrate by parts K times in r, and write that

where we define the vector field

and where B_K(\boldsymbol{\nu}) is a boundary term which appears since the integrand doesn’t vanish at r = 1, namely

Now, we claim that there holds

Indeed, observe that, when iterating J, each time a derivative falls on a or \eta_{n_4}^{ext}, one loses at most a factor (\partial_r \Phi_{-,-,+}(r,\boldsymbol{\nu}))^{-1} (r-\nu_4)^{-1}. Moreover, each time the derivative falls on terms depending on \Phi_{-,-,+}, the loss can be bounded be the same factor once one observes that

This comes from the observation that

which yields the result from the explicit expression of second order averages, and the fact that, from a direct computation,

In particular, since 1 - \nu_4 \geqslant \varepsilon, we may already bound the boundary term B_K(\boldsymbol{\nu}) by

which, thanks to Lemma 3, can again be bounded by

Now, the quadrilateral Jarnik’s Lemma which we will prove in Proposition 2 ensures that, since s(\textbf{n}) \gtrsim \lambda^{1/2} \delta^{1/2}, and hence s(\textbf{n})b(\textbf{n}) \gtrsim s(\textbf{n})^2 \gtrsim \lambda \delta, then there holds

In particular, we may finally write that

Now, we need to prove the estimate

provided K is large enough. We decompose the integral into different zones.

i. For \lambda^{-2/3 + \kappa} \leqslant r-\nu_4 \leqslant s(\boldsymbol{\nu}), from the explicit expression of M_{g(r)}(\boldsymbol{\nu}) given in Lemma 3, and the computation of \partial_r\partial_\nu^2 f(r,\nu), we may bound

hence there holds

thus this part of the integral is O(\lambda^{-N}) for any N as long as K is large enough.

ii. For s(\boldsymbol{\nu}) \leqslant r - \nu_4 \leqslant \frac{1}{10} b(\boldsymbol{\nu}), we may bound

Indeed, the point is that

as long as \frac{\nu_3 - \nu_2}{r - \nu_2} \geqslant 1 (for example). In particular, we deduce that

hence that part of the integral is a O(\lambda^{-N}) for any N as long as K is large enough.

iii. Finally, if r - \nu_4 \gtrsim \frac{1}{10}b(\boldsymbol{\nu}), we may now write that r-\nu_4 \simeq r- \nu_1, hence

hence that part of the integral is a O\left(\left(\frac{\lambda}{s(\textbf{n}) b(\textbf{n})}\right)\right), thus a O\left(\frac{\lambda}{s(\textbf{n}) b(\textbf{n})}\right) as above.

First, assume that we can prove that, for i=1,2,3,4, there exists an integer m_i \in \mathbb{Z} such that

Then, fix

which is a strictly convex function on [\varepsilon,1 - \varepsilon] (it is a primitive of -\arccos(\nu)). We may thus write

Now, if we assume that s(\textbf{n}) b(\textbf{n}) \geqslant C\lambda \delta for C> 0 a large enough constant which doesn’t depend on \textbf{n} or \lambda,\delta, the left-hand side is strictly larger than the remainder in the right-hand side of the equation. In particular, m_2 + m_3 - m_1 - m_4 cannot vanish. Since it is an integer, it is thus larger than 1, and we may finally write

which is equivalent to the result.

We now turn to the proof of (Proof). Let us fix, more generally, any n \in Z. Applying Lemma 1 for N = 1 and r = 1, we find that, since J_n(\lambda_n) = 0 by definition,

which we may rewrite, since 1 - \mu_n \geqslant \varepsilon, as

In particular, this ensures that there exists m \in \mathbb{Z} such that

Now, letting \nu = n/\lambda, we may rewrite that

and thus, dividing the equality by \lambda,

Let us first write

Now, let us first compute the sum when n_2,n_3 \in Z are fixed. In particular, the top of any zero sum set with second and third coordinates n_2, n_3 is fixed and equals t := n_3 - n_2. Moreover, each such zero sum set is determined entirely by its side s\gtrsim \lambda^{1/2} \delta^{1/2}, and its base is 2s + t. Hence, we need to compute

The interest is that we may now use the improved spacing for zero sum sets given in Proposition 2. Indeed, let us enumerate those zero sum sets \textbf{n} \in T with fixed second and third coordinates n_2,n_3 by increasing side, say s(\textbf{n}^{(1)}) < s(\textbf{n}^{(2)}) <.... Applying Proposition 2, observe that, if

then there holds

Thanks to this spacing fact, we may inductively partitionate the \textbf{n}^{(i)} into clusters, in the following sense : find a sequence 1 = i_1 < i_2 < ..., and denote I_l := \{i_l \leqslant i < i_{l+1}\}. Then, we may impose

i. Inside a cluster i\in I_l, there holds

In particular, the size of the cluster I_l is bounded by \max\left(\frac{\lambda \delta}{b(\textbf{n}^{(i_l)})}, 1\right).

ii. Moreover, between two clusters,

We claim that, as a consequence, for l \geqslant 1, and for any i\in I_l, there holds

Indeed, let us prove this fact inductively. For l = 1, since we assume that s(\textbf{n}^{(1)}) \gtrsim \lambda^{1/2} \delta^{1/2}, then there holds

Thus, Proposition 2 yields that s(\textbf{n}^{(1)}) b(\textbf{n}^{(1)} ) \gtrsim \lambda.

Now, if this is true for some l\geqslant 1, write

As a conclusion, and, since for any l there holds b(\textbf{n}^{(i_l)}) \geqslant t, we may write

Overall, summing finally on n_2 and t yields

since the cardinal of Z is bounded by O(\lambda \delta) thanks to the spectral estimate (?). This concludes the proof.

The second inequality is straightforward. Regarding the first, observe that

i. In the case (+,+,+), \partial_r \Phi_{+,+,+} \Phi is the sum of four terms of the same sign, so its absolute value is larger than the absolute value of any of them, for example |\partial_r f(r,\nu_4)|, itself larger than (r-\nu_4)^{1/2}.

ii. In the case (-,+,+) (resp (+,-,+)), \partial_r f(r,\nu_1) - \partial_r f(r,\nu_2) < 0 (resp \partial_r f(r,\nu_1) - \partial_r f(r,\nu_3) since \nu \mapsto \partial_r f(r,\nu) is increasing. Hence, since it is moreover negative, we find a lower bound by |\partial_r f(r,\nu_4)|.

iii. In the case (+,+,-), the same reasoning leads (for example) to a lower bound |\partial_r f(r,\nu_2)|, which is itself larger than |\partial_r f(r,\nu_4)|.

iv. Finally, in the case (-,-,-), one should write

where we use the positivity of the second order average, see Lemma 3, hence we again find the same lower bound.