MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I am new to the theory of pseudo-differential operators on compact manifolds, but I need to use a result related to this theory in a proof I'm working on. The problem is as follows: Let $(M,g)$ be a closed, compact Riemannian manifold. It is clear that $L_g:=(\Delta_g + 1)^k$, where $\Delta_g$ is the Laplace-Beltrami operator for the metric $g$, is an elliptic pseudo-differential operator for all positive real numbers $k$. Does it follow that $L_g$ is elliptic on $(M,h)$, where $h$ is a metric conformal to $g$?

This result is easy to prove (in the affirmative) for integral values of $k$, but I am uncomfortable with the sketch of a proof I have for non-integral $k$. Any thoughts on the matter would be appreciated. The main idea that I have to work with is my unproven notion that a symbol for a pseudo-differential operator is independent of the metric, but I having problems proving this idea in the manifold setting.

share|cite|improve this question
up vote 3 down vote accepted

Ellipticity of a given pseudo-differential operator is a metric independent condition. By a pseudodifferential operator I mean an operator $P: C^\infty(M)\to C^\infty(M)$ satisfying H\"{o}rmander's asymptotic conditions described in Definition 2.1 of

L. Hormander: Pseudodifferential operators, Comm. Pure Appl. Math., XVIII(1965), 501-517.

The attribute given signifies that we know $Pu$ for any $u\in C^\infty(M)$.

I think the confusion is about how you define the operator $L_s:=(\Delta_g+1)^s$. More importantly, the confusion can be traced to the fact that on a manifold the identification of a smooth function with a distribution is metric dependent.

More precisely, on a manifold there are two different types of objects: generalized functions (belong to the dual of the space of smooth densities) and distributions or generalized densities (belong to the dual of the space of smooth functions).

If we fix a volume form on the manifold then we can identify a distribution with a generalized function, but this identification depends on the choice of volume form. In the Euclidean case we do not pay much attention to this, because we have a God-given volume form. On manifolds one must be more careful. The kernel of an operator acting on functions is a distribution. (An elegant way out of this is to work with $1/2$-densities.)

Returning to the concrete case at hand, for $s<0 $ the integral kernel of this $(1+\Delta_g)^s$ is the function

$$K_s(x,y)=\sum_k (\lambda_k+1)^s \Psi_k(x)\Psi_k(y),$$

where $(\Psi_k)$ is a unitary basis of $L^2(M,g)$ consisting of eigenfunction,

$$ \Delta_g \Psi_k=\lambda_k\Psi_k.$$

If we want to reconstruct the action of $L_s$ on functions we need to think of $K_s$ as a distribution

$$L_su(x) = \int_M K_s(x,y) u(y) d V_g(y) $$

For $s>0$ you set $L_s=(L_{-s})^{-1}$. You see that the definition of $L_s$ depends on $g$. With this definition you do get a pseudo-differential operator which is elliptic.

share|cite|improve this answer

Your Answer


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.