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

I am consulting some papers (references below) about the Carleson's problem for the pointwise convergence of the Schrödinger group \begin{equation} S_t=e^{i t \Delta}. \end{equation} In this context it is important to obtain $L^p$-estimates for the maximal function \begin{equation} S^\star f(x)=\sup_{t\in(0,1)}\lvert \left(S_tf\right)(x)\rvert, \end{equation} where $f\in H^s(\mathbb{R})$. Precisely, we want to find conditions on $s\ge 0$ such that the following inequality holds for some $p\in [1, \infty)$ and all $f\in H^s(\mathbb{R})$: \begin{equation}\tag{1} \lVert S^\star f\rVert_{L^p(\left[-1, 1\right])}\le C \lVert f\rVert_{H^s(\mathbb{R})}. \end{equation}

Question. Both referenced papers claim without further explanation that (1) follows from \begin{equation}\tag{2} \left\lVert \left(S_{t(x)}f\right)(x)\right\rVert_{L^p([-1,1], dx)}\le C \lVert f\rVert_{H^s(\mathbb{R})}, \qquad \forall t\colon \mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}\ \text{measurable}.\end{equation} Can you prove the implication $(2)\Rightarrow (1)$ in full detail?

I guess that we should begin by assuming that $f$ is Schwartz, so that $S_tf(x)$ is a continuous function of $(x, t)$. In this case we can use selection theorems (cfr. this answer by Ilya on MathSE) to write $$S^\star f(x)=\left\lvert S_{t(x)}f(x)\right \rvert,$$ for a Borel-measurable function $t=t(x)$, and so obtain (1) from (2). This answers the question when $f$ is Schwartz.

I am not sure on how to eliminate this restriction. Can you help me?


References:

  • B. Dahlberg, C. Kenig, "A note on the almost everywhere behaviour of solutions to the Schrödinger equation", Harmonic Analysis (Minneapolis, Minn. 1981), Lecture Notes in Math., vol. 908, Springer, Berlin, 1982, pp.205-209;
  • K. Rogers, A. Vargas, L. Vega, "Pointwise convergence of solutions to the nonelliptic Schrödinger equation", Indiana University Mathematics Journal, Vol. 55 No. 6 (2006) pp. 1893-1906.
share|improve this question
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

I have had the opportunity to have a chat with some of the authors, so that I am now able to answer this question myself.

For the sake of clarity let us formulate the answer as a theorem.

Theorem Notation for $S_t$ and $S^\star$ being as above, and $\mathscr{S}$ denoting the Schwartz class, the following propositions are equivalent:

  1. There exists an absolute constant $C>0$ such that $$\lVert S^\star f\rVert_{L^p([-1, 1])}\le C \lVert f\rVert_{H^s},\qquad \forall f\in H^s(\mathbb{R}).$$
  2. The following inequality holds true (where $C>0$ is the same constant as in 1.): $$\lVert S^\star f \rVert_{L^p([-1,1])}\le C \lVert f \rVert_{H^s},\qquad \forall f \in \mathscr{S}(\mathbb{R}).$$
  3. The following inequality holds true (where $C>0$ is the same constant as in 1 and 2): $$\left\lVert \left(S_{t(x)} f\right)(x) \right\rVert_{L^p([-1,1], dx)}\le C \lVert f \rVert_{H^s},\qquad \forall f \in \mathscr{S}(\mathbb{R}),\ \forall t\colon \mathbb{R}\to (0,1)\ \text{Borel-meas.}$$

Proof (sketch) We need to prove the implications $3.\Rightarrow 2. \Rightarrow 1.$

$3.\Rightarrow 2.$ This is a consequence of the existence of Borel-measurable selectors (cfr. this aforementioned link). Actually, it is enough to prove the existence of approximate selectors. That is, for fixed $f\in \mathscr{S}(\mathbb{R})$ we can prove that for every $\varepsilon>0$ there exists a Borel measurable function $t_\varepsilon\colon \mathbb{R}\to (0,1)$ such that $$\left\lVert \left(S_{t(x)}f\right)- S^\star f\right\rVert_{L^p([-1, 1], dx)}\le \varepsilon.$$

$2.\Rightarrow 1.$ Let $f_j\to f $ in $H^s$ and all $f_j$ are Schwartz. Since \begin{equation} \left\lvert S^\star f_j -S^\star f_l \right\rvert \le S^\star(f_j-f_l), \end{equation} the sequence $S^\star f_j$ is $L^p$-Cauchy and so, exchanging $f_j$ for a subsequence if necessary, \begin{equation} \lim_{j\to \infty} S^\star f_j(x)\ \text{exists a.e.} \end{equation} Now fix $t\in (0,1)$. Since $S_t$ is $L^2$-continuous, there exists a subsequence $f_{j_k}$ (with $j_k$ depending on $t$) such that \begin{equation} S_tf(x)=\lim_{k \to \infty} S_t f_{j_k}(x),\qquad x\text{-a.e.} \end{equation} So \begin{equation} \begin{split} \left \lvert S_tf (x)\right\rvert &= \lim_{k\to\infty} \left\lvert S_t f_{j_k}(x)\right\rvert \\ &\le \limsup_{k\to\infty} S^\star f_{j_k}(x) \\ &= \lim_{j\to \infty} S^\star f_j(x). \end{split} \end{equation} Taking the $\sup$ for $t\in (0,1)$ we get
$$S^\star f(x)\le \lim_{j\to \infty} S^\star f_j(x)$$ and applying Fatou's lemma \begin{equation} \left\lVert S^\star f\right\rVert_{L^p([-1, 1])}\le \lim_{j \to \infty} \left\lVert S^\star f_j\right\rVert_{L^p([-1, 1])}\le C\lVert f \rVert_{H^s}. \end{equation}

share|improve this answer
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.