Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Zworski states that if $u$ is a compactly supported distribution, independent of the semiclassical parameter $h$, then the relationship between the $C^\infty$ and semiclassical wavefront sets of $u$ is given by:

$WF_h(u)=(\mathrm{supp}(u)\times\{0\})\cup WF(u)$.

Would someone please explain this relationship? Thanks!

share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer

up vote 1 down vote accepted

Heuristically, this result follows because the semiclassical wavefront set measures oscillations at frequency $\frac{\xi}{h}$. To understand this, observe that since $u$ does not depend on $h$, if $u$ is smooth, it has small high frequency oscillations, and hence, for $\xi\neq 0$, and hence points where $u$ is smooth and $\xi\neq 0$ do not appear in $WF_h(u)$. However, where $u$ is not smooth, $u$ has high frequency oscillations and so these points do appear.

Below you will find a proof of the statement.

To see that $WF_h(u)\cap \mathbb{R}^d\times \{0\}=$ supp $(u)\times\{0\}$ observe that $$\mathcal{F}_h(\chi u)(0)=\langle u, \chi\rangle \neq 0$$ for $\chi$ supported near $x_0\in $ supp $(u)$ and $$\mathcal{F}_h(\chi u)(0)=0 $$ for $\chi$ supported near $x_0\notin $ supp $(u)$.

To see the second part of $WF_h(u)$, simply use the characterization of $WF(u)$ that for $\xi\neq 0$, $(x_0,\xi_0)\notin WF(u)$ if and only if for $\chi$ supported sufficiently close to $x_0$, all $N>0$ and $\xi$ in a conic neighborhood of $\xi_0$, $$|\mathcal{F}(\chi u)(\xi)|\leq C_N\langle \xi \rangle ^{-N}.$$

Thus, $(x_0,\xi_0)\notin WF(u)$ if and only if for all $N>0$ and all $\xi$ in a neighborhood of $\xi_0$, $$|\mathcal{F}_h(\chi u)(\xi)|\leq C_N\langle \xi/h\rangle^{-N}.$$ But, since $\xi_0\neq 0$, this gives $(x_0,\xi_0)\notin WF(u)$ if and only if for all $N>0$ and $\xi$ in a neighborhood of $\xi_0$, $$|\mathcal{F}_h(\chi u)(\xi)|\leq C_Nh^N$$

and hence if and only if $(x_0,\xi_0)\notin WF_h(u)$.

share|improve this answer
    
Thanks...I think you mean "$(x_0,\xi_0)\notin WF(u)$ if and only if", and at the end "$(x_0,\xi_0)\notin WF_h(u)$ –  Kelly Dec 1 '12 at 2:10
    
Thanks, I've fixed it. –  Jeff Dec 3 '12 at 21:35
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.