Dynamical Conservation Laws in Quantum Spin Systems

(i) Since \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi), one has s(\omega)=\omega(E(\Psi))+P(\Psi). By Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 2.2, we further have s(\omega)=s(\omega_t), P_{H(\Psi|\Phi,t)}=P(\Psi) and E_{H(\Psi|\Phi,t)}=\tau^{-t}_\Phi(E(\Psi)). Hence,

and so \omega_t\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(H(\Psi|\Phi,t)).

(ii) Since \Psi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{sd} and \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi), \omega is an (\tau_\Psi,1)-KMS state by [Araki2003, Theorems A and B]. For A,B\in{\mathfrak A}, set A_t=\tau_\Phi^t(A) and B_t=\tau_\Phi^t(B). Proposition 2.2(iii) gives

so \omega_t is an (\alpha_{H(\Psi|\Phi,t)},1)-KMS state.

(iii) Since the surface energies W_\Lambda(\Psi|\Phi,t) are well-defined for every \Lambda (Proposition 4.5), [Bratteli1981, Proposition 6.2.17] implies that the (\alpha_{H(\Psi|\Phi,t)},1)-KMS state \omega_t satisfies the Gibbs condition with respect to H(\Psi|\Phi,t). \Box

Since (\omega,\Psi) is a regular pair, \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi). Under either assumption (i) or (ii), [Jaksic2023a, Theorem 2.11] gives {\mathcal S}_\mathrm{eq}(\Psi)={\mathcal S}_\mathrm{wg}(\Psi), and hence \omega\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{wg}(\Psi). With T as in Theorem 3.6, we have \omega_t\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{wg}(H(\Psi|\Phi,t)) for |t|<T, and one can take T=\infty in case (ii). Since \Phi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{f}, the conservation of specific entropy gives s(\nu_t)=s(\nu), while Proposition 2.2 gives P_{H(\Psi|\Phi,t)}=P(\Psi) and \nu_t(E_{H(\Psi|\Phi,t)})=\nu(E(\Psi)). Since \omega_t\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{wg}(H(\Psi|\Phi,t)), the argument of [Jaksic2023a, Proposition 2.10], applied to the family H(\Psi|\Phi,t), gives

for |t|<T, and for all t\in{\mathbbm R} in case (ii).

Suppose now that \omega is \tau_\Phi-invariant. Fix t\in{\mathbbm R}, choose an integer n\geq1 such that |t|/n<T, and set h=t/n. Since \omega_h=\omega, s(\nu_{(k+1)h}|\omega)=s(\nu_{kh}|\omega) for k=0,\ldots,n-1, and hence

Finally, for any \nu\in{\mathcal S}_\mathrm{I}, regularity of (\omega,\Psi) applied to \nu_{-t}, together with the last identity, the conservation of specific entropy, and Proposition 2.2, gives

Thus (\omega,H(\Psi|\Phi,t)) is regular for every t\in{\mathbbm R}. \Box

We follow [Hiai1993a, Lemma 2.3]. S(\,{\bm\cdot}\,|\,{\bm\cdot}\,) denotes Araki’s relative entropy. By assumption,

for some state \nu on {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda^c}. Monotonicity under restriction and the perturbation bound [Hiai1993a, Eq. (2.3)] give

as claimed. \Box

By Proposition 3.3, \omega_t satisfies the Gibbs condition for H(\Psi|\Phi,t). Since Theorem 3.2 gives \lim_{\{\Lambda\}}|\Lambda|^{-1}\|W_\Lambda(\Psi|\Phi,t)\|=0, Lemma 3.8 yields

Theorem 3.1 and Proposition 2.2 give

as claimed. If (\omega,\Psi) is regular, the right-hand side of (Proof) equals s(\nu|\omega). If s(\nu_t|\omega_t) exists, it equals the limsup on the left. \Box

Regularity of (\omega,\Psi) implies that both relative entropies exist. Applying Proposition 3.9 at time t gives

Applying the same proposition at time -t to \nu\circ\tau_\Phi^t gives the reverse inequality. \Box

By the discussion above, \Phi\in{\mathcal B}_{F_g} with F_g given by (?). For t\in{\mathbbm R} and \Lambda'\subset\Lambda\subset\widetilde\Lambda\in{\mathcal F}, [Nachtergaele2019, Theorem 3.4(ii)] gives

where I_t(\Phi)\coloneq C_{F_g}{\|\Phi\|}_{F_g}|t|. Using (?), we obtain

This inequality and the bounds C_{F_g}\leq C_F\leq2^\gamma\VERT F\VERT and \|\Phi\|_{F_g}\leq\|\Phi\|_{\mathop{\oslash}\nolimits^\gamma} yield (4.1) with

\Box

Write the cubes of the family as \Lambda=\Lambda_L\coloneq\llbracket-L,L\rrbracket^d where L\to\infty. Choose 0<p<1-d/\delta, set r_L\coloneq\lfloor L^{1-p}\rfloor, and define

(i) Since r_L/L\to0, we have

(ii) Since

we have, for some constant c>0 and all sufficiently large L,

The exponent d-(1-p)\delta is negative, so the right-hand side tends to zero. \Box

Fix \delta\in(d,\gamma-d), choose \{\Lambda'\} satisfying Properties (i)–(ii) of Lemma 4.2, and set \Lambda''=\Lambda\setminus\Lambda'. It suffices to show that for some constants c_1, c_2 and c_3,

Indeed, after division by |\Lambda|, the right-hand side tends to zero by Lemma 4.2, proving the result. We proceed to prove (Proof).

Denote by \omega_{\Lambda,t|\Lambda'} the restriction of \omega_{\Lambda,t} to {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda'}. The Araki–Lieb inequality [Araki1970] gives

It follows that

and similarly

Thus,

where, with c_2=2\log\mathop{\mathrm{dim}}\nolimits\,{\mathcal H},

For these estimates, see also [Wreszinski2019, Proof of Proposition 2.1] and [Wreszinski2022, Eq. (56)].

For the remaining term in (?), we use an argument of Fannes [Fannes1973]. Set M=\mathop{\mathrm{dim}}\nolimits\,{\mathcal H}_{\Lambda'}=\mathrm{e}^{h|\Lambda'|}, where h=\log\mathop{\mathrm{dim}}\nolimits\,{\mathcal H}, and denote by (\alpha_l)_{l\in\llbracket1,M\rrbracket} and (\beta_l)_{l\in\llbracket1,M\rrbracket} the eigenvalues of \omega_{t,\Lambda'} and \omega_{\Lambda,t|\Lambda'}, respectively, counted with multiplicity and arranged in increasing order. Set \epsilon_l=\beta_l-\alpha_l, and note that, by [Kato1966, Theorem 6.11],

where \|\,{\bm\cdot}\,\|_1 denotes the trace norm. Set {\mathfrak s}(x)\coloneq-x\log x for x\in(0,1], with {\mathfrak s}(0)=0. By [Fannes1973, Lemma 2], for x,y\in[0,1] we have

which implies that

If a_{\Lambda,\Lambda'}=0, then the left-hand side of (?) vanishes. Otherwise, invoking the concavity of the logarithm, we get

which, together with (?), yields

By duality, the first inequality in (?) can be written as

and since

for A\in{\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda'}, it follows from Theorem 2.1 that

Combining the last inequality with (?), (?) and (?) proves (Proof) with c_1=hc_t. \Box

Since

it suffices to prove that the second limit is zero.

Suppose first that \gamma>d and \Psi\in\leftindex_1{\mathcal B}. Fix 0<\delta<\gamma-d. Theorem 2.1 gives

For r\in{\mathbbm N}, set

Then

Taking the limit along the cubes and then letting r\to\infty proves the claim in this case.

It remains to consider \gamma>2d and \Psi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{s}. Fix d<\delta<\gamma-d and choose the subcubes \Lambda' provided by Lemma 4.2. We claim that, for some constants c_1,c_2,

The result then follows from Lemma 4.2, as in the proof of Proposition 4.3.

Set

Invoking Theorem 2.1, we obtain

We also have

and similarly,

Thus (?) holds with c_1=c_{\Phi,\delta,t}\|\Psi\|_\mathrm{s} and c_2=2\|\Psi\|_\mathrm{s}. \Box

Fix d<\delta<\gamma-d, \Lambda\in{\mathcal F}, and let \widetilde\Lambda run through the finite supersets of \Lambda, directed by inclusion. By definition,

Since H_\Lambda(\Psi)\in{\mathfrak A}_\Lambda is fixed, the first term after the last equality sign in (Proof) converges to

which is the first term on the right-hand side of (4.5). To deal with the second term, for X\subset\Lambda^c set

Since H_{\widetilde\Lambda}(\Phi|_{\Lambda^c}) =H_{\widetilde\Lambda\setminus\Lambda}(\Phi), norm convergence of the finite-volume dynamics for \Phi and \Phi|_{\Lambda^c} along the inclusion-directed net gives, for every X\subset\Lambda^c,

By Proposition 4.1, there exists a constant c_{\Phi,\delta,t} such that

The right-hand side is summable over X\subset\Lambda^c by (?). Therefore, by dominated convergence,

Finally we consider \tau^{-t}_{\Phi,\widetilde\Lambda} (W_{\Lambda,\widetilde\Lambda}(\Psi)). Since \Psi\in\leftindex_1{\mathcal B}\subset{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{s}, the series defining W_\Lambda(\Psi) is absolutely convergent, and so

Moreover,

The first term tends to zero by absolute convergence of the series defining W_\Lambda(\Psi). The second tends to zero because \tau^{-t}_{\Phi,\widetilde\Lambda}(W_\Lambda(\Psi)) converges in norm to \tau^{-t}_\Phi(W_\Lambda(\Psi)) as \widetilde\Lambda increases to {\mathbbm Z}^d. Thus,

Taking the limit in (Proof) proves (4.5). \Box

(i) Recall that F(u)=(1+u)^{-\gamma} is an F-function satisfying \|\Phi\|_F\leq\|\Phi\|_{\mathop{\oslash}\nolimits^\gamma}. The infinite-volume Lieb–Robinson bound [Nachtergaele2019, Corollary 3.6(i)] gives a constant L_t<\infty, depending only on \Phi, \gamma and t, such that

for disjoint X,Z\in{\mathcal F}, C\in{\mathfrak A}_X and D\in{\mathfrak A}_Z. Increasing L_t to at least 2 extends this bound to intersecting supports, since F(0)=1 and \|[\tau_\Phi^t(C),D]\|\leq2\|C\|\|D\|. Fix A\in{\mathfrak A}_\Lambda. Since \Psi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{sd}\subset{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{s}, translation invariance gives \sum_{Z\ni z}\|\Psi(Z)\|=\|\Psi\|_{\mathrm s} for every z\in{\mathbbm Z}^d. Summing bound (Proof) with C=A and D=\Psi(Z), we obtain

In particular, setting G=\tau_\Phi^t(A), the series

converges absolutely in norm. We proceed to show that G\in\mathop{\mathrm{Dom}}\nolimits(\delta_\Psi) and that \delta_\Psi(G)=S.

Let \Gamma be a finite cube and S_\Gamma=\mathrm{i}[H_\Gamma(\Psi),G]. Absolute convergence implies that S_\Gamma converges in norm to S as \Gamma exhausts {\mathbbm Z}^d. Write

Obviously,

and since \Psi\in{\mathcal B}_\mathrm{sd}, the right-hand side tends to zero uniformly for u in compact intervals. Passing to the limit in (?) gives

It follows that \lim_{s\to0}s^{-1}(\tau_\Psi^s(G)-G)=S, and so G\in\mathop{\mathrm{Dom}}\nolimits(\delta_\Psi) and \delta_\Psi(G)=S, as claimed. Hence A\in\mathop{\mathrm{Dom}}\nolimits(\delta_t) and \delta_t(A)=\tau_\Phi^{-t}(S). Since \|\delta_t(A)\|=\|S\|\leq \sum_{Z\in{\mathcal F}}\|[\Psi(Z),\tau_\Phi^t(A)]\|, the estimate (Proof) gives (?) with c_t=L_t\VERT F\VERT\|\Psi\|_{\mathrm s}.

(ii) Assume now that \Psi\in\leftindex_1{\mathcal B} and write H_\Lambda(t)=H_\Lambda(\Psi|\Phi,t), W_\Lambda(t)=W_\Lambda(\Psi|\Phi,t) and W_{\Lambda,\Lambda'}(t)=W_{\Lambda,\Lambda'}(\Psi|\Phi,t). For \Lambda'\supset\Lambda, the definition of the surface energy gives

H_{\Lambda'\setminus\Lambda}(t) commutes with A\in{\mathfrak A}_\Lambda and Proposition 4.5 gives norm convergence of W_{\Lambda,\Lambda'}(t) to W_\Lambda(t). Hence

Writing \alpha_{\Lambda'}^s=\tau_{\Phi,\Lambda'}^{-t}\circ \tau_{\Psi,\Lambda'}^s\circ\tau_{\Phi,\Lambda'}^t, we have

Passing to the limit,

Differentiating at s=0 gives \delta_t(A)=D and completes the proof of the lemma. \Box

By Proposition 3.3(ii), \omega_t is an (\alpha,1)-KMS state. Applying [Jaksic2023a, Theorem 3.1] gives, for A\in{\mathfrak A}_\Lambda, A>0,

The assumptions and Theorem 3.2 imply (?), proving the result. \Box

We consider s\geq0; the case s<0 is analogous. Let (\tau_\iota)_{\iota\in I} be a net of C^\ast-dynamics on {\mathfrak A} converging to a C^\ast-dynamics \tau in norm on each observable, uniformly for s in compact subsets of {\mathbbm R}. If (V_\iota)_{\iota\in I} is a norm-convergent net in {\mathfrak A}_\mathrm{sa} with limit V, then

where \tau_V and (\tau_\iota)_{V_\iota} denote the corresponding local perturbations. This follows from the Dyson expansion

see, e.g., [Bratteli1981, Proposition 5.4.1]. On each compact time interval, the corresponding integrands for (\tau_\iota)_{V_\iota} converge uniformly to those above. The n-th integrated term is bounded by \|A\|(2M|s|)^n/n!, where M bounds \|V_\iota\| on a tail of the net. Uniform summability therefore proves the assertion. Moreover, if

then

We fix \Lambda\in{\mathcal F} and t\in{\mathbbm R}. By definition (?), for any A in {\mathfrak A} we have

The convergence is uniform for s in compact subsets of {\mathbbm R}, by the finite-volume representation of \alpha and the corresponding convergence for \tau_\Phi and \tau_\Psi. Thus, the previous argument yields

where R_{\Lambda'}=W_{\Lambda,\Lambda'}(t)-W_\Lambda(t) converges to zero in norm by Proposition 4.5. It follows that

\Box

For A\in{{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{loc}}} and z\in S, set

Since

and {\mathfrak A}_{\Lambda\cup\mathop{\mathrm{supp}}\nolimits A} is finite-dimensional, an expansion of \alpha^z_\Lambda(A) in a fixed basis of this algebra shows that the map S\ni z\mapsto\beta^z(A) is analytic. By Lemma 4.8,

for s\in{\mathbbm R}. Thus, \beta^z(A) is the analytic extension of \alpha^s_{-W_\Lambda(t)}(A) to S, and

Moreover,

Applying inequality (4.9) first with K=\Lambda^c and then with K=\Lambda, we obtain

as claimed. \Box

The proof combines formula (4.5) for W_\Lambda(t) and the expansion (?). The first term on the right-hand side of (4.5) gives, using (?),

For the second term, the same argument gives

For the third term, we use (?) to obtain

These three formulas add to

We claim that this can be rewritten as (4.10). Indeed, let X\notin{\mathcal F}_\Lambda^\partial and \boldsymbol{Y}=(Y_1,\ldots,Y_n)\in{\mathcal C}_n(X,\partial\Lambda). If D_\Phi(\boldsymbol{Y})\Psi(X)\neq0, then \mathop{\oslash}\nolimits(Y_i)\le R for every i\in\llbracket1,n\rrbracket; the chain property gives \mathop{\mathrm{dist}}\nolimits(X,\partial\Lambda)\le nR, and hence X\cap{\mathcal T}^\Lambda_n\neq\emptyset. \Box

We may assume that \Lambda is centered at the origin. If 2nR<|\Lambda|^{1/d}, the set {\mathcal T}_n^\Lambda lies in a boundary layer of thickness nR on either side of \Lambda. Hence, for some constant c_1>0,

If 2nR\geq|\Lambda|^{1/d}, then {\mathcal T}^\Lambda_n is contained in a cube centered at the origin of side at most |\Lambda|^{1/d}+2nR\leq4nR, and hence

Combining the two bounds yields the result.\Box

Set X=\mathop{\mathrm{supp}}\nolimits A. By (?),

To bound the last sum, we follow [Ruelle1969, Eq. (6.6)]. Let \boldsymbol{Y}=(Y_1,\ldots,Y_n)\in{\mathcal C}_n^K(X), set Q_1\coloneq X\cap K and, for i\in\llbracket2,n\rrbracket, Q_i\coloneq(X\cap K)\cup\bigcup_{\ell=1}^{i-1}Y_\ell. Since |Q_i|\leq|X\cap K|+\sum_{\ell=1}^{i-1}(|Y_\ell|-1), we have

Hence,

The inequality

gives

This proves the first bound. The second follows from (Proof). \Box

Set C_{\Psi,\theta}=(1-\theta/\Theta_\Psi)^{-1}. Let A\in{{\mathfrak{A}}_{\mathrm{loc}}} and set X=\mathop{\mathrm{supp}}\nolimits A. For real z, Eq. (?) gives

For complex z with |\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits z|<\theta, we estimate the series on the right-hand side. The bounds below will establish its locally uniform convergence and justify the notation \tau^z_{\Psi|_K}\circ\tau^t_{\Phi|_K}(A). After applying the isometry \tau^{-t}_{\Phi|_K}, we obtain

Proposition 4.13 gives

and

for every Y\in{\mathcal F}. Moreover, Lemma 4.12, applied to \Phi with the parameter \eta, gives

for every n\ge1. Substituting these bounds into Eq. (Proof), we obtain

These bounds establish locally uniform convergence of the series on |\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits z|<\theta. Its sum agrees with \tau^z_{\Psi|_K}\circ\tau^t_{\Phi|_K}(A) for real z. Applying \tau^{-t}_{\Phi|_K} therefore gives the required analytic extension of \alpha_K^s(A), with the stated bound. \Box

Fix 0<\theta<\Theta_\Psi and 0<\overline t<T_\theta. Suppose that |\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits z|<\theta and |t|<\overline t. We first apply \alpha^z termwise to the expansion in Lemma 4.10, expanding W_\Lambda(\Psi) into its interaction terms. The estimates below establish locally uniform convergence and justify denoting the resulting sum by \alpha^z(W_\Lambda(t)). We obtain

For X,Y\in{\mathcal F}, Proposition 4.14, applied with K={\mathbbm Z}^d, gives

where \tilde C\coloneq(1-\theta/\Theta_\Psi)^{-1}(1-\overline t/T_\theta)^{-1}. Since \rho+\eta<r, (Proof) gives

along centered cubes. The series over n\geq1 in (Proof) is bounded by

Applying Lemma 4.12 to \Phi with the parameter \eta, we get

for every X\in{\mathcal F} and n\in{\mathbbm N}. Lemma 4.11 further gives

Set

Since r_0<r,

along centered cubes. Consequently,

along centered cubes, provided that

which ensures convergence of the series.

For \alpha_{-W_\Lambda(t)}, the same argument gives

where

By Proposition 4.14 and Lemma 4.9, the estimates (Proof) are replaced by

Proceeding as above, the first term on the right-hand side of (?) is o(|\Lambda|) along the centered cubes. For the second term, we get the estimate

along the centered cubes, provided that the series converges. Since \overline t<T_\theta/2 implies

it is enough to require

The estimates also establish locally uniform convergence on |\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits z|<\theta of both series obtained by termwise analytic continuation. For real z, their sums agree with the corresponding real-time evolutions of W_\Lambda(t), and hence provide the required analytic extensions. Thus, the assertions hold with \overline T_\theta\coloneq\min\{T_1,T_2\}. \Box

The first assertion follows from

Since every non-empty X with \mathop{\oslash}\nolimits(X)\leq L is contained in exactly N_L(X) intervals of the form {\mathbbm I}_L^x, we further have

which proves (4.16). \Box

(i) This follows from [Araki1969, Lemma 4.1 and the proof of Theorem 4.2].

(ii) Iterating (4.16) gives

If a term in this sum does not vanish, then the support of \widehat{\Theta}_{K,y_1} intersects K\cap\mathop{\mathrm{supp}}\nolimits A\subset J and, successively, the support of \widehat{\Theta}_{K,y_j} intersects

Since \mathop{\mathrm{supp}}\nolimits\widehat{\Theta}_{K,y_k}\subset{\mathbbm I}_L^{y_k}, it follows that \boldsymbol{y}\in{\mathcal C}'_{L,m}(J), which proves (?). \Box

Let J be an interval of length n+1 containing K\cap\mathop{\mathrm{supp}}\nolimits A. By Lemma 4.17,

where |{\mathcal C}'_{L,m}(J)|=|{\mathcal C}'_{L,m}(n)| by translation. Hence, the Taylor series

converges in norm for every z\in{\mathbbm C}, and defines the entire analytic extension of \tau_{\Theta|_K}^s(A). For z\in\mathrm{i}{\mathbbm R}, Lemma 4.17(i) gives

The bound (4.18) follows from the group property and the isometry of the real-time dynamics. \Box

Choose an interval J of length n+1 containing K\cap\mathop{\mathrm{supp}}\nolimits A. By Lemma 4.17,

For real s, we apply \tau_{\Psi|_K}^s termwise and then \tau_{\Phi|_K}^{-t}. The estimates below show that the resulting series, with s replaced by z, converges locally uniformly on {\mathbbm C} and defines the entire extension \alpha_K^z(A).

Set

Proposition 4.18 gives

These bounds yield

Since \tau_{\Phi|_K}^{-t} is isometric, it follows that

as claimed. \Box

Set n_0\coloneq\max\{R,R'\}. For X\in{\mathcal F}, K\subset{\mathbbm Z}, and m\geq0, define

If \Psi(X)\neq0, choose an interval J_X of length n_0+1 containing X. Lemma 4.17 gives

For an interval \Lambda\subset{\mathbbm Z}, set

By (?),

For |t|<\Theta_\Phi, Lemma 4.10 and (Proof) give

We proceed to show that the series on the right-hand side converges locally uniformly in t\in{\mathbbm C} and hence defines an entire {\mathfrak A}-valued function.

If B_\Lambda^{(m)}(X)\neq0 and \Psi(X)\neq0, then

There exists a constant c>0, independent of \Lambda and m, such that

Moreover, Lemma 4.16 and (Proof) give

and hence

It follows that

where the last assertion follows from Lemma 4.17(i). The same estimates apply to the Taylor series of W_{\Lambda,\widetilde\Lambda}(t), uniformly in \widetilde\Lambda\supset\Lambda. Since the interactions have finite range, each coefficient agrees with the corresponding coefficient in (Proof) once \widetilde\Lambda is sufficiently large. The bound (?) gives locally uniform convergence on {\mathbbm C} to the right-hand side of (Proof). For real t, Proposition 4.5 identifies this limit with W_\Lambda(t). Thus (Proof) holds for every t\in{\mathbbm R} and defines an entire {\mathfrak A}-valued extension of t\mapsto W_\Lambda(t).

Fix a_0>0 and set g\coloneq G(t,a_0,n_0). For |\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits z|<a_0, Proposition 4.19 and (Proof) give

uniformly in K\subset{\mathbbm Z}. Combining (Proof), (Proof), (?), and (?), we obtain

The bound is finite and uniform in \Lambda and |\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits z|<a_0. Since a_0>0 is arbitrary, the series

converges locally uniformly on {\mathbbm C} and provides the required entire extension.

For a non-empty finite set Y\subset{\mathbbm Z}, set

By the preceding remark, \chi_{a_0} is non-decreasing. Proposition 4.19 therefore verifies the assumptions of Lemma 4.9 on the strip |\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits z|<a_0. In particular,

Using again (Proof), we obtain

uniformly in K and \Lambda. Consequently,

The estimate shows that applying \alpha_{-W_\Lambda(t)}^z termwise to (Proof) gives an operator series converging uniformly for |\mathop{\mathrm{Im}}\nolimits z|<a_0, with its sum bounded independently of \Lambda. For real z=s, this sum equals \alpha_{-W_\Lambda(t)}^s(W_\Lambda(t)). Since a_0>0 is arbitrary, the series provides the required entire extension. \Box