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

Let $M$ be a complete Riemannian manifold with Ricci curvature bounded below and let $k(t, x, y)$ be the heat kernel of the Laplace-Beltrami operator.

It seems to be standard that for any compact set $K \subset M \times M$ contained in a small enough neighborhood of the diagonal and any $t_0, \varepsilon>0$, one has the bound $$ k(t, x, y) \leq C(t_0, \varepsilon, K) \, t^{-n/2} \exp\Bigl( -\frac{1}{(4+\varepsilon)t}d(x, y)^2 \Bigr),$$ uniformly for $(x, y) \in K$ and $0<t\leq t_0$. Here $n = \dim(M)$

In the paper [1] below, the author (Thomas H. Parker) claims to proof the same result above for $\varepsilon = 0$ (Theorem B), which would be certainly great to have. He also says that the result has been established before by methods of stochastic analysis and gives a reference to the paper [2], but I couldn't find that result there$\,^*$.

The problem with paper [1] is, plainly, that the proof is quite long and technical and therefore hard to verify; furthermore there are many things that are somewhat wrong or unaccurate already in the theorem (Thm. A and B are both not exactly true as stated), which does not increase trust in the results.

So my question is if this is a known result. Or probably even known to be wrong? It seems that if it was true, it would be in one of the many papers and surves of Grigor'yan, I would thing... Are there other references then the two given by me?


$\,^*$ The problem with paper [2] is that the author (Molchanov) only uses the sign $\sim$ to notify asymptotics, which can mean different things, and never says what he really means by that sign

[1] http://www.math.msu.edu/~parker/Geodesics&HK.pdf

[2] http://iopscience.iop.org/0036-0279/30/1/R01/pdf/0036-0279_30_1_R01.pdf

––––––

\Edit: I found this result for $\varepsilon = 0$ for compact $M$ in Hsu (Stochastic analysis on manifolds), but with the "wrong" exponent of $t$ in front, namely with $-n + 1/2$ instead of $-n/2$.

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

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

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.